Wednesday, June 26, 2024

 Wednesday, June 26, 2024

    I slept right through from 10 to 4 am.  Wow!  I am racking up some good sleep- and that's with frequent naps yesterday.

   I shared my CO2 theory with Shelly.  She found it interesting and saw connections to what she learned in other contexts. I  also discussed my discomfort with people who need hierarchical relationships. Some people are comfortable as the caregiver or the one cared for; they can't be both simultaneously. I know someone very caring when in the position of the superior caregiver, but she has to make all the decisions. They love that position because of the person they can be their best selves, tolerant, loving, and caring.

Elsa and I went up to visit Paulette. She is a fantastic gardener. She cares for the property around the upper house and deals with mechanical breakdowns. I don't know what they would do without her.

I had a session with Mama K's crew. They had a problem with the iPad, so we had to do the session on the phone. Whenever anyone called, we lost visual contact.  

I covered the phonics rule on when a c= /s/ versus when c=/k/ with Twin A.  For those of you who don't know the rules: 

c=/s/ when the c is followed by an e, i, or y, as in reception, city, or bicycle. 

c=/k/ when followed by an a, o, u, or any consonant. When c appears at the end of a word, it is pronounced as a /k/ too, as in picnic.

A similar rule applies to g: g=/g/ versus g=/j./  

g=/j/ when followed by an e, i, or y, as in gesture, giraffe, or gyroscope. Exceptions: get, girl.

g- /g/ when followed by an a, o, u, or any consonant, as in gather, go, gut

 

With Twin E. I had her say each letter in the word before she said the word. As we moved along, I allowed her to say the word as long as her reading reflected her attention to the letters. We returned to saying all the letters if she stopped doing that.  

   Adolescent  D said he would have to cancel for today.  When I wished him a good time, he explained he had to go to work earlier than he had in the past. He could do an earlier session. 

Let's talk a bit about this job. D got a job as a cashier's assistant at Costco, placing items back into the carts after they've been checked. I asked his mom if she had pushed the idea. No. Both she and D knew that a kid from his class at school had gotten that job. D had thought about getting it for himself at the same time his mom did.  While he had interviewed for the job with his hair flowing down his back, he got it cut to shoulder length before his first day on the job. Also, he stopped wearing a hat wherever he went. His mom told me he hated the way his hair looked.  These are all fantastic changes in this boy. 

   I am no longer worried D will be living at home at 28 without a job or a life. That has been a worry. He had the same concern for himself. He still has the video turned off during our Zoom sessions. I have only seen his face three times. Once when he was backlit a few years ago and twice recently. Once just before he got his hair cut and once just after. Neither one was long enough for me to recognize him confidently if I saw a picture of him, no less if I saw him in person. Would he recognize me if he saw me in person?

   I came across a categorical imperative statement again. Boy, those words mean different things to different people. In one place, I read it had to do with contrasting the person who has no inclination to generosity, who is so because it is moral, versus the man who does so because it is a pleasure to be generous.  An act of generosity makes the heart swell with joy. That's how I prefer to give, and I'm horrified by those who give to me as an act of sacrifice, especially when I don't think it's called for.  I guess they embraced the idea of self-sacrifice because it makes them feel virtuous instead of getting heartfelt pleasure.    I'm burnt out on that motif because I hear people using it to say, "See what I did for you? You have to be grateful. You owe me. "Yuck!."

I just checked the definition of categorical imperative and found a very different one. It is more in line with "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."  Of course, that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny either. I may want one kind of treatment, and another person may feel being treated that way is terrible. 

Wiki's definition offered me the other definition. Check if your moral standards apply equally to everyone.   Something is rotten if you have one standard for yourself and a different one for others. Of course, these are broad definitions of moral behavior and do not apply to intimate circumstances in the same way.