Skip to main content

Life lessons from my Kenmore. Part 1.

This morning I was emptying the dishwasher, and I started, as I always do, with the dinner plates. That is my ritual: dinner plates, smaller plates, cereal bowls, silverware (I hate that facet of the job for some reason; I'd love to subcontract out the silverware component, certainly the part where you're putting all the like items in their respective places in that plastic tray), miscellaneous geegaws (strainers, salad mixers and such), and then I finish up with glasses. When I reached the glasses today I realized I'd missed a dinner plate. It was standing right there in the front of the bin and I hadn't noticed it. If you'd asked me up to that moment whether there could be a dinner plate left in that dishwasher, I would've sworn that there wasn't; couldn't be. Yet there it was, in all its dinner-platey glory. This is a surprisingly common foible in the close personal relationship between me and my dishwasher: I'll think I've put away one entire category of items, then later, usually only towards the very end, do I realize that I missed one. Sometimes two. How does this happen? Especially when you're making a conscious effort to locate and organize items by category and you're working in a confined space like a dishwasher bin, how do you miss things that would seem...unmissable? (It ain't exactly like an Easter egg hunt out on the White House lawn, yanno?) There are, of course, more mystical/metaphysical interpretations having to do with trees and forests. How do I really know that the dinner plate was there before I saw it? Maybe it had just...appeared? We'll leave such alternate explanations in abeyance for now, or maybe entrust them to the Rhonda Byrnes of the world. You wonder, or at least I do, how many other areas of life there are where this same phenomenon applies. You think you've got a situation peggedyou'd swear you'd taken into account every variable, weighed all the facts there are to be weighedbut in truth you've missed something, perhaps even something big and relatively important: the macro version of a dinner plate in a dishwasher. (Remember those tedious analogies from the SATs? "A dinner plate is to service for eight like _____ is to life.") And here's the thing: In the case of a dishwasher, the error is going to be discovered in time, likely quite soon. The appliance isn't going anywhere. You'd assume that at worst, when it got to the point where the plate was the very last thing in the machine, I'd notice it then. And even if I didn't, maybe Kathy would open the dishwasher to put in some dishes from breakfast and say, "There's a dinner plate in here. Is it clean or dirty?" But what about situations that are transient, evolutionary, mercurial, mobile? Situations that come and go? If some deeply thinking repairman-philosopher intent on making a grand cosmic point had snuck into my kitchen this morning and removed that dishwasher before I made my discovery, then bet me $10,000 about the possible existence of a renegade plate, I would've made the bet. And if that repairman smiled and told me I was wrong, I'd insist he or she was lying. I simply would not believe it. There were no more dinner plates in that damned dishwasher! Uh-huh. ...To be continued...

Popular posts from this blog

Placebo: how a sugar pill became a poison pill. Part 9 of a contintuing saga...

Read Part 8 . In 1921, amid the early tumult of prohibition, a remarkable study took shape in Palo Alto, California. Stanford psychologist Lewis Madison Terman—as serious-looking a man as one is apt to find, with hi s specs, upright bearing and unsmiling mien—would one day be remembered most ly for designing and publishing the final accepted version of the Stanford-Binet IQ test. In '21, however, Terman began work on another project that may have more lasting import for humankind, despite being known today to just a small circle of “longevity wonks.” Terman proposed to track th e lives of 1528 American children from that point on. His subjects, encountered in the course of his study of intelligence, were all 10 years old. Terman himself was 44; he would follow them and their families for the rest of his life, and he obtained from his younger associates a pledge to do the same after he was gone. The goal was to note what kind of longevity the 10-year-olds achieved, and try to deduc

Adrift in the parkways of our minds?

Not far from where I write this is a very nice park, a true urban oasis: one of those elongated greenbelts that, together with the sweeping peripheral roads on either side, particularly lends itself to the description "parkway." For the past quarter-century, the park has been inhabited by a gentleman named Earl. It follows th at this gentleman, now nearing 70, bears the whimsical/romantic labe l "Ea r l of the P a rkway." Earl's exploits have been much-chronicled , such that he is today something of a f olk hero, albeit a melancholic one, among those who live in areas adjacent to the park. Strictly speaking, Earl doesn't have to live in the park. He has options. Many would thus say he chooses to live there. (Or, if we prefer not to use terminology that evokes issues of free will vs. determinism, we could posit simply and neutrally that Earl continues to live there, regardl ess of whether alternatives objectively exist.) You might say that based on that de

Maybe they figured they'd keep the profits a 'Secret' too?

So now comes word that Drew Heriot, the director behind The Secret DVD, has filed suit against Rhonda Byrne et al, alleging that he was denied his fair share of profits from the project's otherwordly success. It's too soon to know what's really going on here—and it might be a mistake to assume automatically that Heriot's legal claims represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This wouldn't be the first time someone signed on to a project for a negotiated fee, saw the project take off beyond his wildest dreams, then decided he'd sold his soul too cheaply. I knew a struggling writer some years back who agreed to accept a $25,000 flat fee to ghost a book for a Certain Middling Celebrity. After the book became a New York Times bestseller, the ghostwriter filed suit claiming that he'd had a "gentleman's agreement" with the Certain Middling Celebrity that there'd be more money coming—a whole lot more—if the book took off.