A couple of days ago, my dad, brother, and I went to see Valkyrie (good movie, by the way). When we got to the movie house, it was too early, and we 'accidentally walked into' (because I would never movie hop) the theater that was playing Seven Pounds (another good movie). I had seen the movie before with friends so I was able to recognize which part the movie was at and the context it was in. However, my dad and brother did not. By the time, we left the theater to go to our movie, my brother made a comment, saying that he thought the movie wasn't great at all from the part that he saw.
So of course, being the nerd I am, thought about our English class. I know Hayakawa said that it was necessary to have context, but just how much context is enough? I know that someone can't know the 'entire' situation, but how much is adequate to make someone understand what you want them to?
Mary Quien
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Stubborn Perceptions
I am currently celebrating the holiday season along with seventeen family members in the warm state of Florida. This Christmas not only served as a heart-warming holiday, but also as a long-awaited family reunion! So, I'm sure that you guys know the drill. Whenever some new relative arrives, there are greetings to be delivered. And with these three kisses on the cheek come exclamations of astonishment.
Oh my, how you've grown!
Goodness, you used to be so shy!
When did you get so loud?
You used to be wise like your father...what happened?
Alright, I'm kidding about the last one, but you guys know what I mean. Some of these relatives I have not had the chance to see for some time now. Their perceptions of me are ones representative of the past. They remember a younger Sam, one that was quite different than the one that exists now. So my question is: How readily are perceptions changed? Are they engraved in stone or malleable clay? Does it depend on the person? Also, what sorts of perceptions are more difficult to erase and renew? Which are the easiest?
I feel that newer, younger generations are more able to change their perceptions/views about people, places, and things. Can this generalization be made, or is it too far of a stretch? Just wondering.
(Samantha Maliha)
Oh my, how you've grown!
Goodness, you used to be so shy!
When did you get so loud?
You used to be wise like your father...what happened?
Alright, I'm kidding about the last one, but you guys know what I mean. Some of these relatives I have not had the chance to see for some time now. Their perceptions of me are ones representative of the past. They remember a younger Sam, one that was quite different than the one that exists now. So my question is: How readily are perceptions changed? Are they engraved in stone or malleable clay? Does it depend on the person? Also, what sorts of perceptions are more difficult to erase and renew? Which are the easiest?
I feel that newer, younger generations are more able to change their perceptions/views about people, places, and things. Can this generalization be made, or is it too far of a stretch? Just wondering.
(Samantha Maliha)
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
American Dream Essay Discussion
We were debating the merits of our positions on the discussion topic posed by the American Dream Unit Essay we wrote earlier this week.
Steve on the one hand theorized that the "American Dream" is to a degree an exercise in hypocrisy, depending on the degree of imbalance of self-interest and materialism evident in the contemporary experience. Arvind postulated that education and technology maintained the American Dream's legitimacy by supplying many citizens with the tools to become successful.
What are your responses on the merits of our positions?
(Arvind and Steve)
Steve on the one hand theorized that the "American Dream" is to a degree an exercise in hypocrisy, depending on the degree of imbalance of self-interest and materialism evident in the contemporary experience. Arvind postulated that education and technology maintained the American Dream's legitimacy by supplying many citizens with the tools to become successful.
What are your responses on the merits of our positions?
(Arvind and Steve)
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Buster the Dog
So I was at this concert this past week. It was a charity event where the money from the tickets and collections would be given to this learn to read program in Philadelphia.
I bring this up because during the intermission of the concert, the priest (the concert was held in a church) stood up and gave a speech about the organization. The thing is, he wasn't alone. He brought up a Buster with him, a dog. Of course, this caught everyone's attention. What's the dog for? Well, before talking about the organization, the priest said, "This is Buster. He's here to make you feel sorry for us and donate money." Even at the end of his speech, the priest said, "And if you still have any doubts about donating, just look at Buster." Both times, the audience just laughed at the comments, but it got me thinking. Was that an effective way to get people to donate? It is really more effective to say that you're trying to trick people?
Mary Quien
I bring this up because during the intermission of the concert, the priest (the concert was held in a church) stood up and gave a speech about the organization. The thing is, he wasn't alone. He brought up a Buster with him, a dog. Of course, this caught everyone's attention. What's the dog for? Well, before talking about the organization, the priest said, "This is Buster. He's here to make you feel sorry for us and donate money." Even at the end of his speech, the priest said, "And if you still have any doubts about donating, just look at Buster." Both times, the audience just laughed at the comments, but it got me thinking. Was that an effective way to get people to donate? It is really more effective to say that you're trying to trick people?
Mary Quien
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Are Dreams Really Worth It?
Those of us taking Spanish 5 are reading a play in Spanish class right now about a man and a woman who pretend to be the son and daughter-in-law of an older woman whose grandson ran away twenty years ago. She was so distraught that her husband began sending fake letters to her from her grandson, first apologizing, then, over the course of twenty years, telling the occurrences of his life, etc. Then twenty years after he ran away, the real grandson sent a cable informing his grandparents he was coming home... but the boat he was traveling in sank, and all the passengers died. So, basically, the grandmother knew none of this, only that her grandson was coming to see her. So the grandfather went to an organization asking a young man to pose as his grandson. He does, and asks another girl to play the role of his wife. This young man memorizes all of the notes the grandfather had sent to the grandmother, knowing exactly what his fake life is like. When he gets to the grandmother's house, she questions him endlessly, making sure he's the real grandson. She says she spent the past twenty years following his travels and adventures, studying architecture as he prepared for his exams, etc. All goes well until the real grandson appears, claiming to have come on another boat, so as to avoid being followed by the police. He is a theif-- the exact opposite of what the grandmother had spent twenty years imagining. The grandmother is heartbroken.
Now that you have the basis of the story, I'd like to relate it to what we've been discussing in class concerning Willy's and Gatsby's dreams. Willy wanted to be a great salesman, got to the end of his life and realized that he had spent his whole life working at a job he wasn't suited for. Gatsby spent five years of his life idolizing Daisy and trying to find a way to get her back. Similarly, the grandmother in this story spend twenty years of her life imagining her grandson, and the man he had become. How devastating it was for her to find out that the grandson she had spent twenty years of time and energy getting to know was not even real! Gatsby finally reunited with Daisy after five years only to find that she was not the person he had imagined her to be and idolized her as.
So, one of the ideas we've been discussing in class is the question of whether or not this "merciful lie" was worth it in the end. Was twenty years of stalling the truth ultimately worth it? Similarly, were those five years that Gatsby spent idolizing and adoring Daisy ultimately worth the end result? Is the dream worth the price we pay when we finally realize that it's just that, a dream?
Emily T.
Now that you have the basis of the story, I'd like to relate it to what we've been discussing in class concerning Willy's and Gatsby's dreams. Willy wanted to be a great salesman, got to the end of his life and realized that he had spent his whole life working at a job he wasn't suited for. Gatsby spent five years of his life idolizing Daisy and trying to find a way to get her back. Similarly, the grandmother in this story spend twenty years of her life imagining her grandson, and the man he had become. How devastating it was for her to find out that the grandson she had spent twenty years of time and energy getting to know was not even real! Gatsby finally reunited with Daisy after five years only to find that she was not the person he had imagined her to be and idolized her as.
So, one of the ideas we've been discussing in class is the question of whether or not this "merciful lie" was worth it in the end. Was twenty years of stalling the truth ultimately worth it? Similarly, were those five years that Gatsby spent idolizing and adoring Daisy ultimately worth the end result? Is the dream worth the price we pay when we finally realize that it's just that, a dream?
Emily T.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Living in the Past
Well, I know that this post is a bit late (too busy doing vocab and such), but I was wondering about what was said in class about living in a certain time. I think it was Grace that was talking about choosing to live in the present, but is that even possible?
Every action we make is somehow connected to the past, right? 'Well what about a reflex?' you might ask. Well, even though you aren't thinking about what you're doing, isn't your body doing something that it remembers from the past? And even though you may not be thinking of it consciously, you do and say things that you is related to the past. For example, you are playing basketball in gym. Someone just passed you the ball and you go to pass it to someone else. Now, once you have the ball in your hands, for a split second, aren't you thinking about who to pass it to, thinking about what has happened when you passed it to a certain person before?
Basically, this is my point: we're always living in the past. I think that we can think about the future and the present, but for the most part, our minds exist in the past.
Mary Quien
Every action we make is somehow connected to the past, right? 'Well what about a reflex?' you might ask. Well, even though you aren't thinking about what you're doing, isn't your body doing something that it remembers from the past? And even though you may not be thinking of it consciously, you do and say things that you is related to the past. For example, you are playing basketball in gym. Someone just passed you the ball and you go to pass it to someone else. Now, once you have the ball in your hands, for a split second, aren't you thinking about who to pass it to, thinking about what has happened when you passed it to a certain person before?
Basically, this is my point: we're always living in the past. I think that we can think about the future and the present, but for the most part, our minds exist in the past.
Mary Quien
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Charlie Brown and Christmas
Its Connor, in class some of people talked about disconnection and disillusionment from the holiday season. Someone mentioned that for them Christmas was nice, but it only really lasts 5 minutes on Christmas morning when they tear the wrapping paper off. I started watching a Charlie Brown Christmas tonight and it got me thinking about the increasing commercialization of the entire holiday season. It is regrettable if the holiday is over for you as soon as the presents have been opened. For me personally, the holiday lasts through the entire break and includes traveling up and down the East coast visiting relatives. Spending the time to take a break with friends and family is part of what makes it great. Spending time together with giving gifts as the backdrop is a wonderful thing. However, it is becoming less about giving and more about getting. I worked hard this year to get everyone in my family a present that they did no necessarily need nor expect. Less predictability during the holiday season makes it more fun. Focus on receiving gifts caused by increased commercialization seems to be detracting from the true value of the holiday season. For many its becoming less about family and time together, and more about that package weakly hidden in the back of the closet.
Control
So, Mr. Lazarow and I shared somewhat of a brainwave today. (Maybe I am doing something right afterall..) Anyway..I wanted to expound on the topic during class, but we ran out of time.
Basically, we love power. We crave it. We do subtle things to increase our store of it. But still, we remain human. The only power we have (most of us, at least) is control over our own lives. Thus, we seize this opportunity and try to make the best of it. We define our past experiences in such a way that we claim to "learn from our mistakes," which in my own personal world seems like empty talk. Few are those who actually learn from the past. This is just a quick example: After we lost our two fellow high schoolers last winter, I sensed a change was coming about. Maybe friends and loved ones would learn the consequences of their harmful actions. Wishful thinking. On the contrary, young men and women returned to their unhealthy ways a mere few months after the tragedies occurred.
Anyway, back to the original point. We have learned that our control is exercised through the future and how it is affected by the past. Thus, we define them by our own terms. We plan and we look forward to things of our own doing, of our own will. We look back on memories that we have made. It's quite psychological. This is how we control our very own American Dream...we plan it all, we build up to it, until POOF, we reach the long-desired light at the end of the tunnel (similar to Gatsby's case) and find out that, well, we never really wanted it. Then, and only then, do we blame others. It was "so and so's" fault that I took this route!
Wrong. It was your fault. Humans need to learn how to deal with their own downfalls...me, included.
(Sam Maliha)
Basically, we love power. We crave it. We do subtle things to increase our store of it. But still, we remain human. The only power we have (most of us, at least) is control over our own lives. Thus, we seize this opportunity and try to make the best of it. We define our past experiences in such a way that we claim to "learn from our mistakes," which in my own personal world seems like empty talk. Few are those who actually learn from the past. This is just a quick example: After we lost our two fellow high schoolers last winter, I sensed a change was coming about. Maybe friends and loved ones would learn the consequences of their harmful actions. Wishful thinking. On the contrary, young men and women returned to their unhealthy ways a mere few months after the tragedies occurred.
Anyway, back to the original point. We have learned that our control is exercised through the future and how it is affected by the past. Thus, we define them by our own terms. We plan and we look forward to things of our own doing, of our own will. We look back on memories that we have made. It's quite psychological. This is how we control our very own American Dream...we plan it all, we build up to it, until POOF, we reach the long-desired light at the end of the tunnel (similar to Gatsby's case) and find out that, well, we never really wanted it. Then, and only then, do we blame others. It was "so and so's" fault that I took this route!
Wrong. It was your fault. Humans need to learn how to deal with their own downfalls...me, included.
(Sam Maliha)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Competition, is it that bad?
Hey it's Jenn
Today in class we discussed about the diverse interpretations of the American Dream. Although the definition of the phrase may vary to everyone, in the end all the arrows are directed toward the question 'who made it and who didn't?' There are numerous ways to acheive what one would call a 'success', but everyone agrees that competition follows every success.
The word competition often has a negative connotation. We, as a society, denounces those who reach the top after defeating all the competitors. Yes, sometimes people who are above the rest use brutal methods to crush the rivals, but we all have self-interest. Jealousy and fear are just embedded in human nature. Honestly, if those people who haven't yet achieved their goals were granted the opportunity, they would compete as brutally and have no problem when they later become successful. However, we still call others 'overachievers' or 'ruthless barons'.
Even in the U.S. Constitution, equality is strongly emphasized. If equal opportunity is that important, then why are we still pursuing capitalism? The Constitution obviously implies that getting ahead for you own benefit is bad since you are almost discriminating those who are below you. Isn't the Consititution contradicting itself and also being hypocritical?
Why is the society believing that competition is bad(and why does it impose its view on us...i.e.Constitution)? After all, without competition, there will be hardly any progress. Is fighting for what you want really that bad?
Good night!
(Jennifer Park)
Today in class we discussed about the diverse interpretations of the American Dream. Although the definition of the phrase may vary to everyone, in the end all the arrows are directed toward the question 'who made it and who didn't?' There are numerous ways to acheive what one would call a 'success', but everyone agrees that competition follows every success.
The word competition often has a negative connotation. We, as a society, denounces those who reach the top after defeating all the competitors. Yes, sometimes people who are above the rest use brutal methods to crush the rivals, but we all have self-interest. Jealousy and fear are just embedded in human nature. Honestly, if those people who haven't yet achieved their goals were granted the opportunity, they would compete as brutally and have no problem when they later become successful. However, we still call others 'overachievers' or 'ruthless barons'.
Even in the U.S. Constitution, equality is strongly emphasized. If equal opportunity is that important, then why are we still pursuing capitalism? The Constitution obviously implies that getting ahead for you own benefit is bad since you are almost discriminating those who are below you. Isn't the Consititution contradicting itself and also being hypocritical?
Why is the society believing that competition is bad(and why does it impose its view on us...i.e.Constitution)? After all, without competition, there will be hardly any progress. Is fighting for what you want really that bad?
Good night!
(Jennifer Park)
The American Dream
Hey guys, Connor again, I thought some more about what was said in class today and now that I think about, the concept of the American Dream as a whole took a pretty good bashing. People seemed to say that it was regionalized, out of date, and misleading. The American Dream itself, is not only different in meaning to each person, but the general sense of the word is also constantly evolving and adapting as time passes. In general terms, it refers to the achievement of an individual's goals in life through hard work and perseverance. Originally this goal was definitely regionalized and associated solely with the US. We especially think of early immigrants coming here, it is true that many of them did face crowding, discrimination, and hardship here, but that is equally comparable to what many of them left. Look at the greatest waves of immigration in our history. Was it better back in Ireland during the great potato famine when people were dying b the thousand? Was it better for a second son in England who could not inherit property and was more or less on his own in an area more overcrowded and with little to no unowned land? No, despite hardships we have learned about faced by these immigrants, in many cases it was still preferable to what they were leaving. And that's why they kept coming.
Today, I think that it has taken on a more universal meaning. I was watching a news report the other day. They were interviewing a young French man. In France there is a government mandated 40 hour maximum work week for most citizens. The boy was complaining, he said that it limited his own opportunity to advance himself and that he wanted the opportunity to pursue his own version of the American Dream. The concept in itself is one of the things America has come to stand for. I think that it is something that should be valued.
Today, I think that it has taken on a more universal meaning. I was watching a news report the other day. They were interviewing a young French man. In France there is a government mandated 40 hour maximum work week for most citizens. The boy was complaining, he said that it limited his own opportunity to advance himself and that he wanted the opportunity to pursue his own version of the American Dream. The concept in itself is one of the things America has come to stand for. I think that it is something that should be valued.
Success
Hey guys, its Connor, some of the things Mr. Lazarow said in class today caught my attention. When discussing the American Dream, the topic of society, parents especially, imposing a view of success on children. He said something about parents and society in general imposing a view of success on kids, and parents saying that they must pass the bar set by their parents. To me it sounded as if he viewed this with an extremely negative connotation. My question is, is it really bad for a parent to want their kids to have a better life than they did? Is a parent's intent good and genuine or is it another competition in the eyes of the parent? I personally do not see how something like that is rooted in fear or jealousy. I think that these standards and the motivation they provide is not done out of competition. Is it a bad thing for a parent to want success for their child? Is it bad that our parents want us to have better lives and pushing us to achieve that? There are definitely cases in which this pressure has had negative effects on kids and they were pushed to the edge. Maybe the intentions of most parents are good, but the practices of some are wrong. I think that I am beginning to lose what I am trying to say as I write more and more. My root question is, is it bad that our parents impose their own definition of success on us? What do you think?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The Crucible
So as I watched the Crucible last night I noticed something. In the last scene John Proctor refused to sign the confession and give it back to the deputy governor. He said something along the lines of 'I've given you my soul but I refuse that you take my name," (sorry if that was a bad attempt at paraphrasing), and it made me think immediately of Hayakawa. Hayakawa writes continuously of the perceived importance of names, though they are truly only symbols. People seem to be incapable of differentiating the name from the thing. Proctor's refusal to sign his name seemed evidence of this. Admittedly, he already felt shame for confessing, but it seems odd that he would go against his principles but protest only to giving his name. This led me to wonder why his name was so important to him. It almost seemed as if he felt that signing his name and then giving them his confession would give them ownership of him. Proctor kept saying that he would not allow for them to use him. But wouldn't confessing alone allow him to be used as an example? They didn't really need the signed paper to say "Look, we're merciful. Proctor confessed and we spared his life. We're not the enemy," which seemed to be the purpose of their attempts to get him to confess. So I suppose my main question about it is, how is it that the signature would so drastically change the situation? Proctor would already be giving them what they wanted by confessing. Was it just the straw that broke the camel's back. Was it that he could only allow himself to give up some much of his self-respect and the act of signing would be too much? Or was it his attachment to the name itself? Did he feel that by giving them his name he would be left with nothing (well, nothing except his life).
And just one other thought. John's belief of his name's importance was shown earlier in the play as well. When he confessed to adultery he told the deputy he could believe it was the truth because he wouldn't "give up his good name" for a lie. I know we don't typically talk about the thematic elements of literary works but I was just wondering if anyone thought this was foreshadowing? I may well have just created that idea in my head because both parts made me think of Language in Thought and Action but I was curious.
Sorry if this post is not very clearly written. I was having difficulty remembering the exact lines that I noticed.
(Molly Dunbar)
And just one other thought. John's belief of his name's importance was shown earlier in the play as well. When he confessed to adultery he told the deputy he could believe it was the truth because he wouldn't "give up his good name" for a lie. I know we don't typically talk about the thematic elements of literary works but I was just wondering if anyone thought this was foreshadowing? I may well have just created that idea in my head because both parts made me think of Language in Thought and Action but I was curious.
Sorry if this post is not very clearly written. I was having difficulty remembering the exact lines that I noticed.
(Molly Dunbar)
The Crucible: Intensionally Framing Us?
Last night, many of us attended the Cherry Hill East production of The Crucible. It was well acted and skillfully done, but as I was watching the play, I began to wonder...Does watching Cherry Hill East's interpretation of The Crucible limit our future intensional perception of it, when we read the play?
Essentially, are our intensional maps of The Crucible locked in or constrained because we watched another group's interpretation of it first? For example, whenever John Proctor's name comes up in my future reading of The Crucible, I will instinctively picture the actor who played him, and his onstage personality. Won't my intensional perspective of the character John Proctor be strongly influenced by the actor who played John Proctor? Of course, we can still use our imaginations while reading the actual play, but doesn't seeing someone else's extensional interpretation of a work already frame what we can see intensionally?
That's one reason why I much prefer reading books to seeing movies. When you watch a movie, someone else's perspective is already framing how you see the events depicted in the movie. Within that frame, we can offer interpretations of the movie, but aren't we already limited? But when you read a book, you are much freer to come up with your own intensional perception and interpretation of the events, without outside influence. If you watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the movie), you weren't really seeing Harry Potter up there on the big screen. You were watching Daniel Radcliffe's interpretation of Harry Potter, as directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Of course, in reading the book version, we still are somewhat framed in our view of Harry by Rowling's descriptions of him, but much less so than a movie would.
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Essentially, are our intensional maps of The Crucible locked in or constrained because we watched another group's interpretation of it first? For example, whenever John Proctor's name comes up in my future reading of The Crucible, I will instinctively picture the actor who played him, and his onstage personality. Won't my intensional perspective of the character John Proctor be strongly influenced by the actor who played John Proctor? Of course, we can still use our imaginations while reading the actual play, but doesn't seeing someone else's extensional interpretation of a work already frame what we can see intensionally?
That's one reason why I much prefer reading books to seeing movies. When you watch a movie, someone else's perspective is already framing how you see the events depicted in the movie. Within that frame, we can offer interpretations of the movie, but aren't we already limited? But when you read a book, you are much freer to come up with your own intensional perception and interpretation of the events, without outside influence. If you watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the movie), you weren't really seeing Harry Potter up there on the big screen. You were watching Daniel Radcliffe's interpretation of Harry Potter, as directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Of course, in reading the book version, we still are somewhat framed in our view of Harry by Rowling's descriptions of him, but much less so than a movie would.
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
History...repeats itself?
One of the major movements of the Enlightenment was the study of history. The philosophes found themselves questioning veritability and the difference between good and evil. Prominent was the question, "How did we get here?"
Dr. Bjornstad made mention that current day politicians touch up on their history in hopes of applying processes from the past to current day situations. Apparantly Barack Obama is "touching up on his Lincoln". So, what if he does? What if he becomes an expert on Abraham Lincoln's presidential term? How will that help us today?
I pose this question merely because of our study in S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. According to the author, no two contexts are ever identical. How, then, can an event that occured during Lincoln's term in the nineteenth century possibly assist the president in his current duty in the twenty-first century? Due to my background in semantics, I would feel uncomfortable to say that history "repeats" itself. I understand that aspects may correlate, but I don't believe that they could ever be identical. This is an obvious point, it seems. Why haven't the politicians caught on? I'm just curious.
(Sam Maliha)
Dr. Bjornstad made mention that current day politicians touch up on their history in hopes of applying processes from the past to current day situations. Apparantly Barack Obama is "touching up on his Lincoln". So, what if he does? What if he becomes an expert on Abraham Lincoln's presidential term? How will that help us today?
I pose this question merely because of our study in S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. According to the author, no two contexts are ever identical. How, then, can an event that occured during Lincoln's term in the nineteenth century possibly assist the president in his current duty in the twenty-first century? Due to my background in semantics, I would feel uncomfortable to say that history "repeats" itself. I understand that aspects may correlate, but I don't believe that they could ever be identical. This is an obvious point, it seems. Why haven't the politicians caught on? I'm just curious.
(Sam Maliha)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Destiny etc.
I don't want to offend anyone since it seemed like many of you believed in destiny (at least to an extent) from today's discussion in class but I have some thoughts.
Couldn't destiny be seen as a sort of self protection mechanism? It seems to me that many believe that all things happen for a reason because they can't deal with the possibility that it's all random. Humans are all faced with many horrific facts throughout their lifetimes. If one believes that every one of these atrocities happens for a reason, it would be much easier to process. For example, earlier, a few weeks ago I read an article about a twelve year old girl from Malawi who's parents had both died. She struggled to work and feed herself and her siblings. If this was not upsetting enough, her younger brother (who was only 5) had recently contracted malaria and was in dire condition. Trying to process that things like this happen is very difficult for some. It seems to me that simply saying it was destiny, or that it happened for a reason, is a sort of emotional cop-out. People choose to believe that this and everything is fated because if there is no reasoning behind it, it simply cannot be comprehended.
I'm not trying to insult those who believe in destiny, I just can't believe that everyone has a single fate that they must reach. We talked about this idea in Art after leaving English today and I've come to the conclusion that we do the best with what we're given genetically and through our life experience. And our choices, not our fate guide the course of our lives. There is no eventual fate for each person, in all likelihood there are a number of different careers, a number of different lifestyles that could make each person happy. I'm sure some people are more innately talented at certain skills than others, but I still don't believe that theirs only one destiny for each person.
Of course, all of this is simply my opinion and I probably need about 1000 more qualifiers but... thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
Couldn't destiny be seen as a sort of self protection mechanism? It seems to me that many believe that all things happen for a reason because they can't deal with the possibility that it's all random. Humans are all faced with many horrific facts throughout their lifetimes. If one believes that every one of these atrocities happens for a reason, it would be much easier to process. For example, earlier, a few weeks ago I read an article about a twelve year old girl from Malawi who's parents had both died. She struggled to work and feed herself and her siblings. If this was not upsetting enough, her younger brother (who was only 5) had recently contracted malaria and was in dire condition. Trying to process that things like this happen is very difficult for some. It seems to me that simply saying it was destiny, or that it happened for a reason, is a sort of emotional cop-out. People choose to believe that this and everything is fated because if there is no reasoning behind it, it simply cannot be comprehended.
I'm not trying to insult those who believe in destiny, I just can't believe that everyone has a single fate that they must reach. We talked about this idea in Art after leaving English today and I've come to the conclusion that we do the best with what we're given genetically and through our life experience. And our choices, not our fate guide the course of our lives. There is no eventual fate for each person, in all likelihood there are a number of different careers, a number of different lifestyles that could make each person happy. I'm sure some people are more innately talented at certain skills than others, but I still don't believe that theirs only one destiny for each person.
Of course, all of this is simply my opinion and I probably need about 1000 more qualifiers but... thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
Alternative Universe
So Mr. Lazarow started talking about the alternative universe theory and I thought I'd bring it up on the blog. (yes, fun... I know)
Basically, there are two similar universes that this theory creates. And whenever you make a decision in this universe, the opposite of that decision was made in the other universe. Now, I have a few questions that go along with this: How do I know that the other 'me' in the other universe isn't the one making the decision first? In this sense, is the other 'me' the one who is deciding our destiny?
Also, the discussion about destiny reminded me of the adventure books we would read as kids. You would read a prompt and then have to decide between two choices and continue along with the story you 'chose' until you came to a conclusion. This reminded once more of the alternative universe theory. Every time we make a choice aren't we faced with different circumstances than those of the other choice? If I chose to steal a candy bar, the circumstances would be different than if I hadn't. Therefore, how is the other 'me' able to pick the exact opposite choice every time? Is someone else created every time I make a choice? Or is there just some random person in the alternative universe that makes the opposite choice?
Mary Quien
Basically, there are two similar universes that this theory creates. And whenever you make a decision in this universe, the opposite of that decision was made in the other universe. Now, I have a few questions that go along with this: How do I know that the other 'me' in the other universe isn't the one making the decision first? In this sense, is the other 'me' the one who is deciding our destiny?
Also, the discussion about destiny reminded me of the adventure books we would read as kids. You would read a prompt and then have to decide between two choices and continue along with the story you 'chose' until you came to a conclusion. This reminded once more of the alternative universe theory. Every time we make a choice aren't we faced with different circumstances than those of the other choice? If I chose to steal a candy bar, the circumstances would be different than if I hadn't. Therefore, how is the other 'me' able to pick the exact opposite choice every time? Is someone else created every time I make a choice? Or is there just some random person in the alternative universe that makes the opposite choice?
Mary Quien
Persistence vs. Ablity
Some of us who took the SAT this weekend had an essay on whether persistence is more important to success than ability. I started thinking about this in class today when we were talking about destiny. One side of the arguement is that some people are born to do something and they figure out what that is and they are good at it. That their interests coincide with their skills. The other side is that people are born with free will and can decide to do whatever they want.
I think one thing that often happens is people like what they are already good at because, who doesn't like feeling like they are good at something? While its true some people really like something that they have to work really hard for, I think is is common for people to develop a desire to pursue a job that they are already naturally good at. Example: I don't understand chemistry because I have to deal with things that are not physical objects but more molecules. So I'm not good at chemistry so I wouldn't pursue a job in that area because I don't like the feeling of being the one who doesn't get it. However Physics deals with things I can see so I'm good at it. I naturally understand it and "get it" better than other people around me. So I would be more inclined to take a job in Physics.
This weekend I argued that with persistence you can achieve almost anything and you will feel more successful in the end because you had to work harder for what you want than the person who is naturally skilled. I talked about field hockey. Freshmen year there were 50 girls in our grade who played. This year there were only 18. Personally, I liked it better this way because only the girls who really wanted to be there were left. We were the girls who, even if we didn't have the best innate skills, could perservere and come out better players in the end. I'm not a naturally good runner but I worked really hard this season the come in faster every time we ran a perimeter. And I think I get a lot more pleasure out of improving my time then a certain someone who is always first because she has zero body fat and a natural born runner. As I mentioned earlier though, I wouldn't want to try to become a proffessional runner or field hockey player because I don't like not being the best at something. I would rather pursue something where I have particularly exceptional skill.
The age-old question of nature vs. nuture again. Do we start with a blank slate and then are influenced by our environment? Or are we born to be something? Is there such a thing as Destiny? Can we ever know the answer to these questions? Well, we can at least have fun trying.
(Kelley Volosin)
I think one thing that often happens is people like what they are already good at because, who doesn't like feeling like they are good at something? While its true some people really like something that they have to work really hard for, I think is is common for people to develop a desire to pursue a job that they are already naturally good at. Example: I don't understand chemistry because I have to deal with things that are not physical objects but more molecules. So I'm not good at chemistry so I wouldn't pursue a job in that area because I don't like the feeling of being the one who doesn't get it. However Physics deals with things I can see so I'm good at it. I naturally understand it and "get it" better than other people around me. So I would be more inclined to take a job in Physics.
This weekend I argued that with persistence you can achieve almost anything and you will feel more successful in the end because you had to work harder for what you want than the person who is naturally skilled. I talked about field hockey. Freshmen year there were 50 girls in our grade who played. This year there were only 18. Personally, I liked it better this way because only the girls who really wanted to be there were left. We were the girls who, even if we didn't have the best innate skills, could perservere and come out better players in the end. I'm not a naturally good runner but I worked really hard this season the come in faster every time we ran a perimeter. And I think I get a lot more pleasure out of improving my time then a certain someone who is always first because she has zero body fat and a natural born runner. As I mentioned earlier though, I wouldn't want to try to become a proffessional runner or field hockey player because I don't like not being the best at something. I would rather pursue something where I have particularly exceptional skill.
The age-old question of nature vs. nuture again. Do we start with a blank slate and then are influenced by our environment? Or are we born to be something? Is there such a thing as Destiny? Can we ever know the answer to these questions? Well, we can at least have fun trying.
(Kelley Volosin)
Sunday, December 7, 2008
"American Dream" vs "American Reality"?
Seeing as how a large number of us recently spent our last 4 days at YMC, I find it pertinent to relate our "American Dream" unit and semantics to our experiences there. We debated and discussed our views on how American was intended to operate and currently operates, problems with the current system, and ways to fix this. I think everyone who went has a great opportunity to relate how semantics affected their experience at Yale.
In my personal expereince I encountered semantics everywhere I turned in commitee and full, from the wording of the legislation to how people chose to express themselves when they spoke to the delegates. As was discussed in the semantics unit, politics involves the highest levels of abstraction. I found that even I, who was conciously aware of this fact, did this during discussions. In order to get our points across and have them accepted by everyone else, the flaws in the arguement were avoided by shifting to high abstraction to avert confrontation.
At the moment I am too exhausted from MC to think of specific examples, but I wanted to post this idea as soon as I had it so others could benefit from the discussion. When I regain control of my mind I'm sure I'll have more to say.
(Steve Szumski)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
"Work" and "The American Dream"
In our class discussion of Piercy's "To Be of Use" this morning, we began to wonder what exactly is meant by WORK. I just want to add a couple of my thoughts here.
A number of you mentioned that there is always an ultimate goal or purpose involved in "working". I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. However, I am not sure if there is a single goal/purpose that can encompass all manner of work. I am not convinced that we can state such a "universal" goal/purpose of work, because "work" is merely what one defines it to be, and while one person may consider a certain activity as "work," another person may disagree. In essence, there is always the issue of conflicting definitions due to variances in peoples' extensional and/or intentional worlds.
Yet at the same time, I feel as if there should be some way to describe a universal goal/purpose of work. If I think about why people generally "work," I can note certain commonalities between these motives or reasons (wealth, satisfaction, prestige, etc.). This then makes me realize that we should in fact be able to state a universal goal/purpose of work. Moreover, I think that this universal goal/purpose of work (whether or not it actually exists) would be related to "The American Dream." But indeed, the two terms "work" and "The American Dream" are at the top of the abstraction ladder, so perhaps I am not really drawing much of a conclusion.
What are your thoughts about a "universal" goal/purpose of work, and if it exists, its possible relation to "The American Dream"?
(Janet Lee)
A number of you mentioned that there is always an ultimate goal or purpose involved in "working". I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. However, I am not sure if there is a single goal/purpose that can encompass all manner of work. I am not convinced that we can state such a "universal" goal/purpose of work, because "work" is merely what one defines it to be, and while one person may consider a certain activity as "work," another person may disagree. In essence, there is always the issue of conflicting definitions due to variances in peoples' extensional and/or intentional worlds.
Yet at the same time, I feel as if there should be some way to describe a universal goal/purpose of work. If I think about why people generally "work," I can note certain commonalities between these motives or reasons (wealth, satisfaction, prestige, etc.). This then makes me realize that we should in fact be able to state a universal goal/purpose of work. Moreover, I think that this universal goal/purpose of work (whether or not it actually exists) would be related to "The American Dream." But indeed, the two terms "work" and "The American Dream" are at the top of the abstraction ladder, so perhaps I am not really drawing much of a conclusion.
What are your thoughts about a "universal" goal/purpose of work, and if it exists, its possible relation to "The American Dream"?
(Janet Lee)
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tabula Rasa
While listening to Dr. Bjornstad's lecture today, a light bulb went off in my mind. The Scientific Revolution was the gateway to the Englihtenment which gave way to...Language in Thought and Action? It's an odd connection, I know, but let me explain.
The glue that holds these events together is none other than John Locke. Lockian movements emphasize the ideal behavior of humans in general: equal rights to mankind, human nature is contrary to war-like states, etc.. These are not the ideas which I am looking to connect to Hayakawa.
Locke presented the idea of the blank slate, or tabula rasa. It expressed the notion that humans are not born with innate behavioral standards. Original sin did not exist. He believed one's character, one's blank slate, to be shaped by external environments to which one has been subjected. Like Hayakawa, Locke believed that each person's internal map varied by means of their extensional and intensional experiences.
I just found this observation to be interesting. Yes, it's simple..but I believe it to be noteworthy.
P.S. Whenever I think of "tabula rasa," all I can picture is the 12 Days of the Enlightenment video that Dr. Bjornstad showed to the class.
(Samantha Maliha)
The glue that holds these events together is none other than John Locke. Lockian movements emphasize the ideal behavior of humans in general: equal rights to mankind, human nature is contrary to war-like states, etc.. These are not the ideas which I am looking to connect to Hayakawa.
Locke presented the idea of the blank slate, or tabula rasa. It expressed the notion that humans are not born with innate behavioral standards. Original sin did not exist. He believed one's character, one's blank slate, to be shaped by external environments to which one has been subjected. Like Hayakawa, Locke believed that each person's internal map varied by means of their extensional and intensional experiences.
I just found this observation to be interesting. Yes, it's simple..but I believe it to be noteworthy.
P.S. Whenever I think of "tabula rasa," all I can picture is the 12 Days of the Enlightenment video that Dr. Bjornstad showed to the class.
(Samantha Maliha)
Our current economic condition?
I was reading a Newsweek article yesterday that reminded me multiple times of things that we have discussed in class. The title of the article is "Don't Get Depressed, It's Not 1929", by Daniel Gross, I thought it would be interesting to bring up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/170340. The point of this article was to assure people that the recession we are in right now is not a replay of the Great Depression, and most likely won't end up being as bad.
One of the first things I noted as I read the article was this quote: "Financial executives invoke distant history in part to make up for their own recent shortcomings." Great move on the part of the politicians! The easiest way to remove blame is to direct attention as far away as possible. The way politicians have done this recently is to distract the American public and have them dwell on thoughts about the Great Depression, which was how many years ago? How many of us were around when it happened? There are very few people who would remember the Great Depression, therefore making us dependent on what politicians and the media tell us/want us to believe. "The farther away we are, the greater (and less accurate) the generalizations we make." Abstractions-- another tactic that politicians use-- they can be very effective.
Another quote that caught my attention was "Analogies help us place things in context." Accounting for this, it makes sense that politicians would want to compare our current recession with something, so that we understand it better. But, by trying to express the gravity of the situation to us by comparing it to the Great Depression, is the impression that we are getting incorrect? Another thing that Daniel Gross mentions is that "The specter of the 1930s has also been deployed by political leaders to create a sense of urgency." But have they gone too far?
Two other things that caught my attention, that I mention just as side notes-- one was the reference to Studs Terkel, "the great chronicler of the voices of the Depression." The other was a reference to Russia in terms of the economic crisis. It is mentioned briefly that Russia is not really working with the U.S. to cope with the economic situation... this reminded me of the article Jenn brought up.
It's amazing how the media (in this case, Newsweek) works against itself in some ways, as in, Daniel Gross pointing out some of the tactics that politicians use to get us to believe what they want us to believe. In some ways, the media sort of cancels itself out-- I guess that's why it's important to get information from multiple sources...
Emily T.
One of the first things I noted as I read the article was this quote: "Financial executives invoke distant history in part to make up for their own recent shortcomings." Great move on the part of the politicians! The easiest way to remove blame is to direct attention as far away as possible. The way politicians have done this recently is to distract the American public and have them dwell on thoughts about the Great Depression, which was how many years ago? How many of us were around when it happened? There are very few people who would remember the Great Depression, therefore making us dependent on what politicians and the media tell us/want us to believe. "The farther away we are, the greater (and less accurate) the generalizations we make." Abstractions-- another tactic that politicians use-- they can be very effective.
Another quote that caught my attention was "Analogies help us place things in context." Accounting for this, it makes sense that politicians would want to compare our current recession with something, so that we understand it better. But, by trying to express the gravity of the situation to us by comparing it to the Great Depression, is the impression that we are getting incorrect? Another thing that Daniel Gross mentions is that "The specter of the 1930s has also been deployed by political leaders to create a sense of urgency." But have they gone too far?
Two other things that caught my attention, that I mention just as side notes-- one was the reference to Studs Terkel, "the great chronicler of the voices of the Depression." The other was a reference to Russia in terms of the economic crisis. It is mentioned briefly that Russia is not really working with the U.S. to cope with the economic situation... this reminded me of the article Jenn brought up.
It's amazing how the media (in this case, Newsweek) works against itself in some ways, as in, Daniel Gross pointing out some of the tactics that politicians use to get us to believe what they want us to believe. In some ways, the media sort of cancels itself out-- I guess that's why it's important to get information from multiple sources...
Emily T.
Monday, December 1, 2008
When I first read "What's That Smell in the Kitchen" I got the impression that this was not a poem meant to incite women to action as much as it was meant to warn men. I did not view the burnt dinners as something preconceived meant to be cooked in rebellion, but, rather, an accident that could potentially result in conflict. I originally saw this poem as a threat of war.
My thought was not that women burned dinners in order to anger the men/husbands and prove a point, but, rather, that the burnt dinners were honest mistakes. The women would serve a burnt dinner and the men would be ungrateful for the hard work and labor that the women had put into cooking the dinner. This could certainly result in a conflict-- if you were to spend time cooking dinner for a family only to have an ungrateful husband turn it down, wouldn't you be angry?
I feel that this poem is insight into the mind of a woman on a small scale. A woman (as all people) likes to be appreciated and likes to have her work appreciated. It's almost as though this poem is what is racing through a woman's mind as she waits to hear how her husband responds to the fact that his dinner is burned. I think what this poem is saying from a woman's perspective to a man is this: "If you take me for granted one more time, it's war!" I see this as a threat of war, though, not the war itself. I see this poem as a warning to men and husbands that they should be grateful and not take for granted all of the things their wives do for them because most likely their wives will not be able to repress their hard feelings forever.
Now, having already discussed this in class, my original thoughts were kind of shattered by something that seemed to make more sense, especially taking into consideration the fact that the author worked on behalf of women, most likely not just to threaten husbands, but to incite women to action, as well.
Emily T.
My thought was not that women burned dinners in order to anger the men/husbands and prove a point, but, rather, that the burnt dinners were honest mistakes. The women would serve a burnt dinner and the men would be ungrateful for the hard work and labor that the women had put into cooking the dinner. This could certainly result in a conflict-- if you were to spend time cooking dinner for a family only to have an ungrateful husband turn it down, wouldn't you be angry?
I feel that this poem is insight into the mind of a woman on a small scale. A woman (as all people) likes to be appreciated and likes to have her work appreciated. It's almost as though this poem is what is racing through a woman's mind as she waits to hear how her husband responds to the fact that his dinner is burned. I think what this poem is saying from a woman's perspective to a man is this: "If you take me for granted one more time, it's war!" I see this as a threat of war, though, not the war itself. I see this poem as a warning to men and husbands that they should be grateful and not take for granted all of the things their wives do for them because most likely their wives will not be able to repress their hard feelings forever.
Now, having already discussed this in class, my original thoughts were kind of shattered by something that seemed to make more sense, especially taking into consideration the fact that the author worked on behalf of women, most likely not just to threaten husbands, but to incite women to action, as well.
Emily T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)