So I was taking a break from studying (because my mind can't take it anymore) and was flipping through random channels. One of the channels I stopped on was the food network (specifically, Iron Chief). Basically, two chiefs face off in a cooking challenge. They have to create a five course meal that incorporates the a certain ingredient, which is presented at the beginning of the challenge. After one hour, three judges score the meals on the basis of originality/use of the certain ingredient, presentation, and taste. The chief that receives the most point is the winner.
The other show I stopped on was this international dancing contest. Different groups would represent their country and have a dance off (couples vs couples, big groups vs big groups, etc). There was one judge present from each country. At the end of each category, the judges would give them a score on the scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest).
Now, the problem I have with these 'contests' is that there seems to be a lot of luck involved. With the cooking contest, doesn't a lot of the results depend on the judges you get? Perhaps the judge doesn't happen to like a certain type of food (not to mention that many of the judges on the show are just famous actors). This could be completely bias toward a certain chief, especially if that type of food is prevalent in his or her culture. Also, there is no score for the techniques that the chiefs use. The same applies with the dancing show, especially in terms of culture. These dancers come from all over the world, using all types of choreography. Of course there is technical merit, but this isn't specified in the scoring of the judges. Also, a judge from a certain culture just may not be impressed by another type of dance from a different culture and give the dance a low score. It seems to me that these contests depend on luck more than anything else.
This also got me to think about debate and model congress. Certainly, we debaters always talk the luck that is involved in winning at a model congress. We have all experienced what it's like to have 'bad' or 'good' committees and chairs (the person(s) who controls the progress of a debate in a committee). Of course, there is skill and a lot of enthusiasm/participation needed to win a award. However, there also seems to be a lot of luck involved: the number of times you get chosen to speak, how your chair views you as a person, the number of other people that are also striving to get an award, etc.
I know that is impossible to take all luck out of these situations. However, is there some way to reduce luck to a minimum and base these competitions more on a merit basis?
Mary Quien
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Evolution of Language possibly?
Hey everyone! So I was recently thinking about the huge debate we had earlier in the year about whether or not English should be the official language of the USA. And it got me thinking, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected due to advances in technology, communication, etc; will globilization lead to the unification of language? Will we one day all speak the same language? As Hayakawa said, the point of language is to form cohesion in our society and further advance it. If this is indeed the purpose of language, then is it not innevitable that one day in a global community we will all speak one language in which we can all communicate and learn from one another? Or, do you think that customs and cultures will prevent us from ever having one universal language? Your thoughts?
(Kevin Trainer)
(Kevin Trainer)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Racter!
"Blue potatoes are ungainly things
As are red and purple lamb chops
Yet when we eat and creep and fall
We never ask a silent question."
Those are just a few words that Racter, an artifical intelligence computer program has composed. As a matter of fact, Racter (derived from raconteur) has actually "written" an entire book, called The Policeman's Beard Is Half-Constructed (read it here: http://ubu.artmob.ca/text/racter/racter_policemansbeard.pdf).
But is the program actually "writing"? Is it actually using language to communicate to us, or are Racter's writings just a random string of words and phrases that are grammatically correct but carry no real meaning? Some of Racter's written observations seem quite astute, as it concludes at one point that "more than iron, more than lead, I (Racter) need electricity...I need it for my dreams."
As Hayakawa taught us, language is used for cooperation, to add to the great pool of knowledge. Are Racter's ramblings truly "language" then? Racter may not be self-aware, but that doesn't necessarily make impossible its ability to communicate coherently to human beings (Google the "chinese room parable" for a good explanation of this.)
Is true language and literature solely the domain of the human mind, or will machines one day be able to match us?
(Eric Wei, who is suffering from a fever and is dreading midterms. PS: Did Mr. Lazarow say how many questions would be on the midterm or the content? I'd assume semantics, the American Dream, and the Puritan material would be on there...)
As are red and purple lamb chops
Yet when we eat and creep and fall
We never ask a silent question."
Those are just a few words that Racter, an artifical intelligence computer program has composed. As a matter of fact, Racter (derived from raconteur) has actually "written" an entire book, called The Policeman's Beard Is Half-Constructed (read it here: http://ubu.artmob.ca/text/racter/racter_policemansbeard.pdf).
But is the program actually "writing"? Is it actually using language to communicate to us, or are Racter's writings just a random string of words and phrases that are grammatically correct but carry no real meaning? Some of Racter's written observations seem quite astute, as it concludes at one point that "more than iron, more than lead, I (Racter) need electricity...I need it for my dreams."
As Hayakawa taught us, language is used for cooperation, to add to the great pool of knowledge. Are Racter's ramblings truly "language" then? Racter may not be self-aware, but that doesn't necessarily make impossible its ability to communicate coherently to human beings (Google the "chinese room parable" for a good explanation of this.)
Is true language and literature solely the domain of the human mind, or will machines one day be able to match us?
(Eric Wei, who is suffering from a fever and is dreading midterms. PS: Did Mr. Lazarow say how many questions would be on the midterm or the content? I'd assume semantics, the American Dream, and the Puritan material would be on there...)
Friday, January 23, 2009
Am I Overthinking This?
Although some of you may feel that we have exhausted the topic, here goes...
The other day I was thinking about how semantics may easily be taken to a totally different level. We have concluded that everything is based on perception and personal interpretations. What if the things we learned in Hayakawa's LITAA start playing tricks on us? I understand that the dynamics of language allow us some liberty when analyzing speech or writing, but how much is too much?
Considering the extensional/intensional maps of the speaker/writer is a valuable tool, but I feel that this may be where semantics may get to be overkill. Let's say someone were to say, "Yes, it's good." Provided that you would generally have more context to work with, what is "good"? At one point this year, I would have said that good is what you want it to be, but I'm not so sure anymore. What is the speaker's definition of good? Once again, I would have said that this definition relies upon the experiences that speaker has encountered in his/her life. Once again, I'm not so sure. Language is tricky in that we can manipulate it. We don't have to mean what we say, and we don't have to say what we mean. So when do we reach full and complete understanding? The answer seems like it would be never...but "never" is an absolute, and according to E-Prime and our other studies, that is a big linguistic no-no!
I mean, look what happened to Chief Justice John Roberts. The poor guy switched around a few words and he has reports written about him the next day (by a psychology professor at Harvard, might I add!). One of the first things Mr. Lazarow told us is that language is effective as long as the audience is able to understand the speaker's point. We all understood the essential meaning of the oath, what harm will it do that the word "faithfully" was incorrectly placed? Besides ritualistic practices, there has to be some kind of stubborn outlook on the matter..or at least I think so. I doubt everything I hear these days. Even "reliable" sources don't seen to be doing their job with my over-analysis of everything!
A few days ago, I actually thought of a good example where I could clearly demonstrate my point. I seem to have forgotten it now, however, so I will let you all know if it comes back to mind.
(Sam Maliha)
The other day I was thinking about how semantics may easily be taken to a totally different level. We have concluded that everything is based on perception and personal interpretations. What if the things we learned in Hayakawa's LITAA start playing tricks on us? I understand that the dynamics of language allow us some liberty when analyzing speech or writing, but how much is too much?
Considering the extensional/intensional maps of the speaker/writer is a valuable tool, but I feel that this may be where semantics may get to be overkill. Let's say someone were to say, "Yes, it's good." Provided that you would generally have more context to work with, what is "good"? At one point this year, I would have said that good is what you want it to be, but I'm not so sure anymore. What is the speaker's definition of good? Once again, I would have said that this definition relies upon the experiences that speaker has encountered in his/her life. Once again, I'm not so sure. Language is tricky in that we can manipulate it. We don't have to mean what we say, and we don't have to say what we mean. So when do we reach full and complete understanding? The answer seems like it would be never...but "never" is an absolute, and according to E-Prime and our other studies, that is a big linguistic no-no!
I mean, look what happened to Chief Justice John Roberts. The poor guy switched around a few words and he has reports written about him the next day (by a psychology professor at Harvard, might I add!). One of the first things Mr. Lazarow told us is that language is effective as long as the audience is able to understand the speaker's point. We all understood the essential meaning of the oath, what harm will it do that the word "faithfully" was incorrectly placed? Besides ritualistic practices, there has to be some kind of stubborn outlook on the matter..or at least I think so. I doubt everything I hear these days. Even "reliable" sources don't seen to be doing their job with my over-analysis of everything!
A few days ago, I actually thought of a good example where I could clearly demonstrate my point. I seem to have forgotten it now, however, so I will let you all know if it comes back to mind.
(Sam Maliha)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Caveat Emptor
I was going through my daily routine of checking the finincial markets (/nerd) when I noticed this article about the Madoff situation.
The article is about the havoc he has wreaked in the investment markets with his Ponzi scheme, and how the current regulative policies failed. The last line caught my eye "You can’t run a society, or economy, solely on the basis of caveat emptor." Obviously this was on one of our recent vocab quizes so I thought it appropriate to discuss the article here. I realize a number of you wont have much idea of what the article is talking about, but for those of you that do, I'd like to hear thoughts on our current legislative and regulatory systems and how well they work in our current economy. This has been a big political issue as well, influencing the federal governments policies and several of Obama's appointments to economic advisory positions.
(Steve Szumski)
Oaf of Office
We received the copy of the article Oaf of Office by Steven Pinker in class today. It was really interesting to read about the flubber made on Tuesday by Chief Justice John Roberts. I recollect that when we were watching the inauguaration we just thought it was pretty funny how they messed up the presidential oath. Pinker explains Roberts' mistake and also discusses the issue of some easily made grammatical errors later in his article. He specifies that split infinitives and the misplacement of adverbs and modifiers to be common errors prevailing in most people's writings.
Are these seemingly minor errors significant enough that we have to correct them every time we encounter them? Wouldn't it be easier if we accept these as correct forms for practicality reasons? Most people still understand what the sentence means even with some minor grammatical errors. Isn't language supposed to be practical by its definition?
Lastly, I thought it was pretty interesting that President Obama had to repeat the oath again on Wednesday although technically he became President on Tuesday even before he had to make the oath officially. I related this incident to the topic discussed in Hayakawa's book related to the importance of rituals and ceremonies. Was it really necessary for Obama to swear solmenly that he will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States again?
Jennifer Park
Are these seemingly minor errors significant enough that we have to correct them every time we encounter them? Wouldn't it be easier if we accept these as correct forms for practicality reasons? Most people still understand what the sentence means even with some minor grammatical errors. Isn't language supposed to be practical by its definition?
Lastly, I thought it was pretty interesting that President Obama had to repeat the oath again on Wednesday although technically he became President on Tuesday even before he had to make the oath officially. I related this incident to the topic discussed in Hayakawa's book related to the importance of rituals and ceremonies. Was it really necessary for Obama to swear solmenly that he will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States again?
Jennifer Park
A Retrospective of 2009
This is a really interesting and well written article about what this man thinks 2009 will be like. He writes the article as if 2009 has already ended.
http://economistonline.blogspot.com/2008/12/imaginary-retrospective-of-2009.html
It takes a fun viewpoint, but it is pretty long...
(Arvind Kalidindi)
http://economistonline.blogspot.com/2008/12/imaginary-retrospective-of-2009.html
It takes a fun viewpoint, but it is pretty long...
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Metafiction
Ok so I know this post is really random but I’ve wanted to post it for a week or so but my internet hasn’t been working. Meta-fiction is a literary device that is self-consciously aware that it is fiction. Like presentational plays where it doesn’t let the audience forget they are seeing a play, metafiction doesn’t let its readers forget it is reading a book.
A novel where the narrator intentionally or accidentally exposes him or herself as an author creating the story being read, a novel wherein the author (not merely the narrator) is a character (like Life of Pi), and a story that anticipates the reader's reaction to the story are general examples of metafiction.
Some literary examples of this are Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. Billy Pilgrim, the novel's protagonist, travels between periods of his life, unable to control which period he lands in. As a result, the narrative is not chronological or linear. Instead, it jumps back and forth in time and place. Another example is Series of Unfortunate Events in which the author is aware that he is writing a story/biography and he ends up being a character in the books. The Great Gatsby is similar in that he tells the story of life, going back to other stories in order to explain the next event. A recent movie on metafiction is Stranger Than Fiction in which the character is aware that he is fiction.
My favorite example is Jazz by Toni Morrison. During the book readers assume that the narrator is a third party who is not part of the story. Then at the end you realize that the narrator is actually the book itself. The book knows it’s a book!
I really want to know your thoughts on this subject
(Kelley Volosin)
A novel where the narrator intentionally or accidentally exposes him or herself as an author creating the story being read, a novel wherein the author (not merely the narrator) is a character (like Life of Pi), and a story that anticipates the reader's reaction to the story are general examples of metafiction.
Some literary examples of this are Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. Billy Pilgrim, the novel's protagonist, travels between periods of his life, unable to control which period he lands in. As a result, the narrative is not chronological or linear. Instead, it jumps back and forth in time and place. Another example is Series of Unfortunate Events in which the author is aware that he is writing a story/biography and he ends up being a character in the books. The Great Gatsby is similar in that he tells the story of life, going back to other stories in order to explain the next event. A recent movie on metafiction is Stranger Than Fiction in which the character is aware that he is fiction.
My favorite example is Jazz by Toni Morrison. During the book readers assume that the narrator is a third party who is not part of the story. Then at the end you realize that the narrator is actually the book itself. The book knows it’s a book!
I really want to know your thoughts on this subject
(Kelley Volosin)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Witch Hunts...
I was reading an article in Newsweek this week entitled "Spooked by the New Guy" (by Mark Hosenball), when a phrase caught my attention: "witch hunt." Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Liberal activists are frothing for investigations into officials who carried out warrantless-wiretapping policies and employed "enhanced" interrogation techniques on captured terror suspects. They hope to have an ally in Panetta, who wrote an article in 2008 strongly condemning the use of "torture" in the name of "national security." Some anxious spies fear the new CIA chief could launch a witch hunt—one that would destroy morale and make the agency more risk-averse."
I realize this article is out of context and might be difficult to understand without having read the rest of the article, so... http://www.newsweek.com/id/178865.
I really don't know too much about the CIA, but I know that there was/is much criticism of the Bush administration's torture tactics and a lot of talk about how the new president will deal with making changes. So, what might be the results of a "witch hunt", in this context? How might they be compared those of the Salem witch hunt?
Emily T.
"Liberal activists are frothing for investigations into officials who carried out warrantless-wiretapping policies and employed "enhanced" interrogation techniques on captured terror suspects. They hope to have an ally in Panetta, who wrote an article in 2008 strongly condemning the use of "torture" in the name of "national security." Some anxious spies fear the new CIA chief could launch a witch hunt—one that would destroy morale and make the agency more risk-averse."
I realize this article is out of context and might be difficult to understand without having read the rest of the article, so... http://www.newsweek.com/id/178865.
I really don't know too much about the CIA, but I know that there was/is much criticism of the Bush administration's torture tactics and a lot of talk about how the new president will deal with making changes. So, what might be the results of a "witch hunt", in this context? How might they be compared those of the Salem witch hunt?
Emily T.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Doubt
Over the weekend, my family and I watched the movie Doubt starring Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius Beauvier. Sister Aloysius is a strict nun, adhering to all principles related to the Church. She strongly disapproves of hair barettes, flirty girls, troubled boys, and the naivety and innocence of Sister James. She cares greatly for the reputation of her parish and school and insists that they remain in static condition by following customs that they have acknowledged for years. A new priest, Father Brendan Flynn is welcomed to the congregation and becomes Sister Aloysius' superior. His sermons contain strikingly secular material. He speaks of doubting faith in times of trouble, of gossip, and of intoleration of others. This irks Sister Aloysius, and she decides to keep an eye out for the new priest and his "strange" methods.
One day, Sister James notices that Donald Miller, the only African American student at the school, is acting peculiarly after a one-on-one meeting with Father Flynn. She smells alcohol on his breath and immediately recounts her findings to Sister Aloysius. The rigid nun becomes convinced that the priest has made sexual advances on the helpless child and sets out to make it known. She has no evidence, and at one point even lies to draw information from the stubborn Father Flynn. Sister James, kind-hearted as she is, is appalled that Aloysius would do such a thing! Sister Aloysius justifies her wrongdoing by saying that one must take one step away from God in order to quell evils.
Weren't the Puritans, in a way, doing this same exact thing? They were distancing themselves from God by hanging their friends and family in the name of God. Is this not a contradiction? I find it to be one, especially for the Boston, Massachusetts community of John Winthrop which idolized the New Testament merciful God. Murder is a sin against the The Commandments, found in the Old Testament. Why, then, other than "purification", did the Puritans allow there to be blood on their hands?
Sister Aloysius also felt herself to be infallible. When questioned by Father Flynn about her evidence against him, she claimed to have just that: her certainty. But is there such a thing as certainty? Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action does not relay this. The irony, however, is that Aloysius succeeds in relocating the priest..yet she has a sudden epiphany at the end of the movie when she realizes that she, too, might finally be experiencing doubt. She was able to recognize herself as a human being, equal to all.
(Sam Maliha)
One day, Sister James notices that Donald Miller, the only African American student at the school, is acting peculiarly after a one-on-one meeting with Father Flynn. She smells alcohol on his breath and immediately recounts her findings to Sister Aloysius. The rigid nun becomes convinced that the priest has made sexual advances on the helpless child and sets out to make it known. She has no evidence, and at one point even lies to draw information from the stubborn Father Flynn. Sister James, kind-hearted as she is, is appalled that Aloysius would do such a thing! Sister Aloysius justifies her wrongdoing by saying that one must take one step away from God in order to quell evils.
Weren't the Puritans, in a way, doing this same exact thing? They were distancing themselves from God by hanging their friends and family in the name of God. Is this not a contradiction? I find it to be one, especially for the Boston, Massachusetts community of John Winthrop which idolized the New Testament merciful God. Murder is a sin against the The Commandments, found in the Old Testament. Why, then, other than "purification", did the Puritans allow there to be blood on their hands?
Sister Aloysius also felt herself to be infallible. When questioned by Father Flynn about her evidence against him, she claimed to have just that: her certainty. But is there such a thing as certainty? Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action does not relay this. The irony, however, is that Aloysius succeeds in relocating the priest..yet she has a sudden epiphany at the end of the movie when she realizes that she, too, might finally be experiencing doubt. She was able to recognize herself as a human being, equal to all.
(Sam Maliha)
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Mr. Obama and Spiderman
Well, I thought these images were interesting, to say the least. It seems as though our friendly neighborhood Spiderman has met up with a real-life figure: Barack Obama. Art imitating life?
Anyway, I remember that a few days ago in class we were discussing comics, a medium that is often overlooked in favor of books and TV. Yet comics, in the past and the present, seem to have been good reflections of society and culture. Comic book writers are often able to depict situations and explore problems that they could not have in the real world by using metaphors. For example, the persecuted X-Men have been used at various times to represent minorities in race and religion. Cloak and Dagger are two heroes who fight in the "war on drugs", and the Spiderman comic was one of the first to explore the negative effects of drug use. In addition, don't the comics of a certain period reveal its essential characteristics and outlook? During WWII, Superman became immensely popular, while today's uncertain times have resulted in Batman's resurgence.
Although some people tend to look down on comics, isn't it clear that they have a significant impact on society? They explore situations and ideas that are central to human nature. I'm sure that we're all aware of the Justice League, but some might not know that an alternate, "evil" version of the League exists (the Crime Syndicate of America). This alternate version occurred when the League's heroes took their vision of justice too far and started to use some more "questionable" methods, eventually becoming oppressive and dictatorial. Perhaps that sounds a little familiar, justifying the means with the ends?
Aren't the comics a medium where we can explore ideas in a different world, play with those thoughts and see where we end up?
Thoughts?
(PS: I hope you guys are going to the Interact Poetry Slam! It's at 6:30 to 8:30 on Monday night, and email me at ericwei@comcast.net the title and author of your poem.)
(Eric Wei)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Town Called Hypocrisy
In class today, we were discussing how even though Winthrop was saying how Puritans should treat everyone like brethren, slaves were not treated equally. The same goes for the Declaration of Independence. This came to mind while I was at pit rehearsal today. In Beauty and the Beast, the village people look down on Belle because 'odd' and spends all her time reading. At the same time, though, Belle is looking down at 'such a small, provincial town,' especially 'that boorish' Gaston. This started to irritate me a bit. Is there no end to people's pride and arrogance? Is there a reason why there always has to be someone that is looked down upon by someone else? It is impossible to truly know a person. Therefore, how can someone just assume that they're 'better'? (and I'm being completely hypocritical here)
We talk about the hypocrisies present in Puritanism all the time, and yet here is one hypocrisy that seems to be part of human nature. We seem to be looking down at Puritanism and using hypocrisy as a derogatory term. Should we? We are taught that it's okay to make mistakes. Isn't hypocrisy just another error? Also, is it possible that we are rejecting that the presence of hypocrisies present in Puritanism are present in our society because we look down on them? Is it possible that our pride is blinding us to our own flaws to the point that we won't even recognize them?
Mary Quien
We talk about the hypocrisies present in Puritanism all the time, and yet here is one hypocrisy that seems to be part of human nature. We seem to be looking down at Puritanism and using hypocrisy as a derogatory term. Should we? We are taught that it's okay to make mistakes. Isn't hypocrisy just another error? Also, is it possible that we are rejecting that the presence of hypocrisies present in Puritanism are present in our society because we look down on them? Is it possible that our pride is blinding us to our own flaws to the point that we won't even recognize them?
Mary Quien
Teen stuff
Mr.Lazarow announced today in class that he's going to start readingTwilight so he can learn what sorts of things are in his students' minds. It was interesting that he said this today because a few days ago I was actually thinking about the impacts of popular culture on people, or specifically young people. What are your thoughts about the influence of the popular culture, especially fantasy books or one of those superhero movies/comics?
In addition, I know some fans like to dress like Harry Potter or want to (may be) date a vampire and have other vague fantasies about these 'stuff'. However, I came to a thought that these stories do not represent the readers' characters or reflect the audience's thoughts. I agree that we can learn about an individual by observing his/her interest but how does one's preference of books demonstrate something about one's character?
Lastly, in the book Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwall explains the principle of the stickiness flavor-more simply, how does something become widely popular. What made Twilight or Harry Potter 'stick' in our culture? I'm really interested in hearing your opinions about this.
Jennifer Park
In addition, I know some fans like to dress like Harry Potter or want to (may be) date a vampire and have other vague fantasies about these 'stuff'. However, I came to a thought that these stories do not represent the readers' characters or reflect the audience's thoughts. I agree that we can learn about an individual by observing his/her interest but how does one's preference of books demonstrate something about one's character?
Lastly, in the book Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwall explains the principle of the stickiness flavor-more simply, how does something become widely popular. What made Twilight or Harry Potter 'stick' in our culture? I'm really interested in hearing your opinions about this.
Jennifer Park
Oh, Blagojevich!
I'm sure almost all of you know by now that Illonois Governor Rob Blagojevich was defamed for corruption recently. Well, I don't know if any of you saw Blagojevich's speech responding to his impeachment but it was a semantic gem and I just had to share it . (if you want to watch the speech here is the link http://www.zimbio.com/Rod+Blagojevich/articles/564/Governor+Rod+Blagojevich+Post+Impeachment its on the bottom of the page.)
Does he think that everyone is just not going to forget the corruption charges when he stands in front of a group of sympathetic people? The man showed his belief in his constiuenciy's stupidity when he labored under the impression that he wouldn't get caught selling the senate seat but really this is taking it to another level. He must believe that everyone watching the speech is somehow mentally incapable of logical thought. By quoting talking about all the good things he's done and quoting Tennyson does he belief people will simply ignore the fact that he sold a senate seat?
This speech, though fairly entertaining, also made me ill at ease. As we spoke about early in the year politicians seem to stray away from real information, sticking to high levels of abstraction when speaking. This is understandale when campaigning but it seems like at some point they should begin addressing the issues. I was wondering also, if anyone knows if it has always been this way or if it has gotton worse in the past few decades? I fear that politicans will continue to get higher and higher on the abstraction ladder until they simply spout a few useless but morally sounding ideas. It seems that if the masses wanted their politicans to give more specific speeches they could make it happen, considering their ultimate goal is typically gaining the people's support and keeping it.
Molly Dunbar
Does he think that everyone is just not going to forget the corruption charges when he stands in front of a group of sympathetic people? The man showed his belief in his constiuenciy's stupidity when he labored under the impression that he wouldn't get caught selling the senate seat but really this is taking it to another level. He must believe that everyone watching the speech is somehow mentally incapable of logical thought. By quoting talking about all the good things he's done and quoting Tennyson does he belief people will simply ignore the fact that he sold a senate seat?
This speech, though fairly entertaining, also made me ill at ease. As we spoke about early in the year politicians seem to stray away from real information, sticking to high levels of abstraction when speaking. This is understandale when campaigning but it seems like at some point they should begin addressing the issues. I was wondering also, if anyone knows if it has always been this way or if it has gotton worse in the past few decades? I fear that politicans will continue to get higher and higher on the abstraction ladder until they simply spout a few useless but morally sounding ideas. It seems that if the masses wanted their politicans to give more specific speeches they could make it happen, considering their ultimate goal is typically gaining the people's support and keeping it.
Molly Dunbar
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
It's the Song That Never Ends
So it's been brought up in a previous post about how eventually all religions come to an end (or something along that line). When we discussed this in class, the English language was brought up. It doesn't really have to come to an end because we can't really point out it's 'existence.' We are unable to define it. Now, even though this came up in class a day ago, it's still bugging me. Are there other things that really don't have an ending, or is the English language a special case? How can something begin, but not 'exist'?
This then led me to think about religion in general (since we are dealing with Puritanism here). We can't really prove the existence of God. Therefore, it shouldn't be able to end, and yet we have already discussed how Puritanism came to an end...
I'm just confusing myself more.
Mary Quien
This then led me to think about religion in general (since we are dealing with Puritanism here). We can't really prove the existence of God. Therefore, it shouldn't be able to end, and yet we have already discussed how Puritanism came to an end...
I'm just confusing myself more.
Mary Quien
Old to New
Hey it's Jenn
Currently in class we are discussing various texts from different Puritan writers, and a few days ago, we talked about how Puritans, as a religion, disappeared(although its impacts and influences are still significant to this day) after about a century. The breakup of Puritan society was largely due to the fading of faith, its exclusionary principles, and internal conflicts. If I remember correctly, we also talked about (mainly on blog) how the newer generation seems to grow more and more rebellious against the tradition.
We all tend to agree on the point that younger people are more rebellious to the established structure, whether it be culture or religion, than the older generations. The more orthodox the religion, it's easier to break away from it. What are the factors that make us, young people, more likely to disagree with the current system? Why are our parents more "stubborn"? Also, how come our trends change so rapidly? Lastly, what causes America to grow more liberal+less traditional as it gets older comparing to the Puritan societies that first settled here a few centuries ago?
(Jennifer Park)
Currently in class we are discussing various texts from different Puritan writers, and a few days ago, we talked about how Puritans, as a religion, disappeared(although its impacts and influences are still significant to this day) after about a century. The breakup of Puritan society was largely due to the fading of faith, its exclusionary principles, and internal conflicts. If I remember correctly, we also talked about (mainly on blog) how the newer generation seems to grow more and more rebellious against the tradition.
We all tend to agree on the point that younger people are more rebellious to the established structure, whether it be culture or religion, than the older generations. The more orthodox the religion, it's easier to break away from it. What are the factors that make us, young people, more likely to disagree with the current system? Why are our parents more "stubborn"? Also, how come our trends change so rapidly? Lastly, what causes America to grow more liberal+less traditional as it gets older comparing to the Puritan societies that first settled here a few centuries ago?
(Jennifer Park)
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Past, Present, and Future
A while ago in class, we were discussing the past and its effects upon the future, and today we discussed whether a religion can maintain its identity as it undergoes numerous changes over time.
Well, what about us?
Do we maintain our identity as time passes? Is the "Eric" of a year ago, ten years ago, have the same identity as the "Eric" of today? I mean this intensionally, as extensionally, clearly my DNA hasn't shifted. But isn't there almost like three "Erics"? The "Eric" of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The three "Erics" could have completely different intensional maps, depending upon how much time has past, so does their "identity" truly remain constant?
If you've ever procrastinated, you've practiced this sort of thinking. After all, when the Eric of today procrastinates, isn't he merely pushing off his work to the Eric of tomorrow to do? Right now, the Eric of today almost views the Eric of tomorrow as a different person: Oh, he thinks, I'll just let him do it tomorrow, so that I don't have to do it today. (Of course, as the Eric of tomorrow becomes the Eric of today, he becomes very annoyed at the lazy Eric of yesterday that left him this work to do...)
In a sense, we have multiple selves, different versions. After all, the you of fifty years from now could seem like a completely different person than the you of today. That could be one reason why people have trouble saving for retirement: it's almost as if they're passing off their money to an older retiree years into the future, a retiree that is a different person from who they are today.
Thoughts?
(The Eric Wei at 7:53 PM Tuesday, who also apologizes for the constant use of the third person.)
Order to Disorder to... Realignment?
We've touched in class upon the idea that there is a general trend from order to disorder. We've used this idea to discuss religion and its tendency toward less structure and rigidness. This past weekend I saw a movie called Luther which was about Martin Luther and the actions taken to break away from the rigidness of the Roman Catholic church. I'd like to use this as an example to ask this question: is the general trend regarding religion (more specifically Christianity) "order to disorder", or merely realignment over time?
Martin Luther's original complaint against the Roman Catholic church was not its beliefs as a whole, but its specific practice of collecting indulgences, which Luther believed were not Biblically based. Eventually Luther went to trial for having written the grievances of the Roman Catholic church in his 95 Theses. While on trial for questioning the authority of the Pope, Luther said that he would recant any of his writings if he were given proof from the Bible that he used incorrect reasoning. There were many occurrences following this trial, but one result was the very beginning of Protestant beliefs. Moving ahead a few hundred years and looking back, does it appear that this was an example of order to disorder, or did Luther merely incite a realignment of beliefs. Can the trend be interpreted, then, as "temporary order, to disorder, to realignment, to temporary order, to disorder, to realignment...", etc.?
As the Roman Catholic Church got more exclusive (at one point in the movie Luther asks "what about Greek Christians", and the response is, basically, that they do not exist-- there is only the Roman Catholic church), even Luther, from within the church, began to question. The exclusivity was another factor that led to the break from the Roman Catholic church. This is similar to Puritanism, in which exclusivity led people like Anne Hutchinson to break from the Puritan faith.
I'd just like to note, in addition, how, over time, so many denominations have formed. There used to be one Roman Catholic church. Then there was Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and now there are more denominations that I can't even count. This seems to follow the constant realignment-of-beliefs trend. Like Puritanism, the circles get smaller and smaller, but it seems that the difference is that more circles are created, as opposed to one overriding circle that seems to simply disappear.
Emily T.
Martin Luther's original complaint against the Roman Catholic church was not its beliefs as a whole, but its specific practice of collecting indulgences, which Luther believed were not Biblically based. Eventually Luther went to trial for having written the grievances of the Roman Catholic church in his 95 Theses. While on trial for questioning the authority of the Pope, Luther said that he would recant any of his writings if he were given proof from the Bible that he used incorrect reasoning. There were many occurrences following this trial, but one result was the very beginning of Protestant beliefs. Moving ahead a few hundred years and looking back, does it appear that this was an example of order to disorder, or did Luther merely incite a realignment of beliefs. Can the trend be interpreted, then, as "temporary order, to disorder, to realignment, to temporary order, to disorder, to realignment...", etc.?
As the Roman Catholic Church got more exclusive (at one point in the movie Luther asks "what about Greek Christians", and the response is, basically, that they do not exist-- there is only the Roman Catholic church), even Luther, from within the church, began to question. The exclusivity was another factor that led to the break from the Roman Catholic church. This is similar to Puritanism, in which exclusivity led people like Anne Hutchinson to break from the Puritan faith.
I'd just like to note, in addition, how, over time, so many denominations have formed. There used to be one Roman Catholic church. Then there was Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and now there are more denominations that I can't even count. This seems to follow the constant realignment-of-beliefs trend. Like Puritanism, the circles get smaller and smaller, but it seems that the difference is that more circles are created, as opposed to one overriding circle that seems to simply disappear.
Emily T.
Paradoxes
When I mentioned in class that every religion has its paradoxes, I noticed that some people (hi mary!) seemed to disagree. In an institution that is so heavily reliant on faith, isn't the reality of practical everyday matters eventually going to conflict with religious ideals? Whether you believe that religion itself is a human creation or religion as an institution is a human creation, both are prone to error. We as humans often contradict ourselves and it follows that the aforementioned contradictions manifest themselves in our creations.
On to my question. In order for a religion to survive, it needs to adapt to the changing world. Usually, the more something deviates from the original, the more contradictions and paradoxes are likely to crop up. So, do all religions have an expiration date?
-Grace Yuan
On to my question. In order for a religion to survive, it needs to adapt to the changing world. Usually, the more something deviates from the original, the more contradictions and paradoxes are likely to crop up. So, do all religions have an expiration date?
-Grace Yuan
How much is too much?
The summary before Winthrop's sermon allows us some additional insight into his personality. One thing I found quite interesting as his interpretations of seemingly typical occurances as acts of God. For example, he believed it to be god's hand when a neighbor saw a house on fire and "saved all." His interpretation of these "godly acts" seem to get progressivly more ridiculous. When a common prayer book was eaten by mice he believed that to be a sign from god that he did not promote this type of worship. I understand that Winthrop was an extremley religious man but this seems boarderline ludacris to me.
I've seen similar occurances in many other situations, not just religiously. Take someone reading a poem for example. "The word shining may represent the importance of the sun and therefore nature in the author's life... The poet was raised in the countryside and this may be a reference to the sunrises during his childhood..." OR it may just mean that the object was shining. I think most would agree that anything overanalyzed, be it a tone of voice or a line in a novel. My question then is, how much interpretation is to much? It would obviously be dependant on the situation, as is just about anything, but is there a way to know when you are truly reading to far into things? Also, I've been wondering if this overanalysis that virtually everyone has at one time succumb to can be dangerous. It seems to me like it's this kind of thinking that could lead to someone being condemend as a witch for say, being able to swim, or reading too much. If overanalyzing is dangerous, is there a solution? I know this is many questions in a row and probably has no succinct answer but I'm still interested to hear your thoughts.
Molly Dunbar
I've seen similar occurances in many other situations, not just religiously. Take someone reading a poem for example. "The word shining may represent the importance of the sun and therefore nature in the author's life... The poet was raised in the countryside and this may be a reference to the sunrises during his childhood..." OR it may just mean that the object was shining. I think most would agree that anything overanalyzed, be it a tone of voice or a line in a novel. My question then is, how much interpretation is to much? It would obviously be dependant on the situation, as is just about anything, but is there a way to know when you are truly reading to far into things? Also, I've been wondering if this overanalysis that virtually everyone has at one time succumb to can be dangerous. It seems to me like it's this kind of thinking that could lead to someone being condemend as a witch for say, being able to swim, or reading too much. If overanalyzing is dangerous, is there a solution? I know this is many questions in a row and probably has no succinct answer but I'm still interested to hear your thoughts.
Molly Dunbar
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Down on Religion?
I have been talking with many of you about our Puritan readings, and it has become increasingly apparent throughout our discussions that many people are adverse to the portrayal of god in a historical text. I was thinking about this, and I thought about how much God has fallen to the background in society. Not only that, but in many ways it seems that religion is in many ways unwelcome in public society. Whenever someone uses the words “God”, or “Jesus”, or especially “according to the Bible” it seems to immediately draw a plethora of scowls. Some things as simple as the substitution of “Merry Christmas” for “Happy Holidays” go to further support my point that religion is now looked down upon in many ways. People get especially upset when we start talking about religion in school. “Separation of church and state!” I hear that nearly every time religious values are put forth in a public setting, and the statement is usually uttered to dismiss whatever was previously stated.
So this is my question to all of you. How/why did this happen? How have we become so secular to the point where religion is in many cases scoffed at? Is it at all hypocritical for a society that professes to be so “understanding” to be so anti-religion? Why does religion bother people when talked about in a public setting? How has our evolution as a society lead us to the point where it is no longer politically correct to mention religious values in public? I know the argument is often that when one speaks about such matters in public he/she is forcing his beliefs upon others, but is the mention of God really that bad? Why do we detest the way in which William Bradford writes? I’d like to know people’s opinions.
Oh and….
E A G L E S EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 MORE TO GO!
(Kevin Trainer)
So this is my question to all of you. How/why did this happen? How have we become so secular to the point where religion is in many cases scoffed at? Is it at all hypocritical for a society that professes to be so “understanding” to be so anti-religion? Why does religion bother people when talked about in a public setting? How has our evolution as a society lead us to the point where it is no longer politically correct to mention religious values in public? I know the argument is often that when one speaks about such matters in public he/she is forcing his beliefs upon others, but is the mention of God really that bad? Why do we detest the way in which William Bradford writes? I’d like to know people’s opinions.
Oh and….
E A G L E S EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 MORE TO GO!
(Kevin Trainer)
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Poetry
A few days ago in class, we discussed the importance of poetry in Puritan culture, and how poetry was considered an "essential" art. Even ordinary men and women daily engaged in it, recording their personal meditative thoughts. More recently, poets such as Tennyson were famous and revered. And yet today, where is poetry?
I'm guessing that you don't read too much poetry. Could we name any of the latest bestselling books of verse? If in the Puritan times, poetry was essential and prose nonexistent, today we read much more prose than poetry. So what happened? Poetry still is a beautiful art form, but why aren't more people reading it? When did it cross the line from from vital to sidelined? If poetry died, can we bring it back to life?
I once read that poetry has declined because as a society, we've become faster-moving and impatient, and that we want instant gratification, whether from a narrative or a Twitter post. Is that why?
Interestingly enough, Elizabeth Alexander of Yale University will unveil her presidential inauguration poem soon. It will be only the fourth in history, but it is a reminder that poetry hasn't disappeared yet. But why exactly did prose overtake it in the first place?
(Eric Wei, whose favorite poem is "The Raven" by Poe.)
I'm guessing that you don't read too much poetry. Could we name any of the latest bestselling books of verse? If in the Puritan times, poetry was essential and prose nonexistent, today we read much more prose than poetry. So what happened? Poetry still is a beautiful art form, but why aren't more people reading it? When did it cross the line from from vital to sidelined? If poetry died, can we bring it back to life?
I once read that poetry has declined because as a society, we've become faster-moving and impatient, and that we want instant gratification, whether from a narrative or a Twitter post. Is that why?
Interestingly enough, Elizabeth Alexander of Yale University will unveil her presidential inauguration poem soon. It will be only the fourth in history, but it is a reminder that poetry hasn't disappeared yet. But why exactly did prose overtake it in the first place?
(Eric Wei, whose favorite poem is "The Raven" by Poe.)
The Dark Knight
I just watched The Dark Knight, and although I found myself asking many questions of those seated around me, one scene seemed to make perfect sense because of AP English.
Harvey Dent [who later becomes "Two-Face"] says:
Two-Face: You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time. But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. [holds up his coin]
Two-Face: Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair.
Is this true? Can chance truly be the one thing that is unbiased, unprejudiced, and fair? Since a human can't technically alter fate or chance, is it free of partiality? The ironic part is that Two-Face uses a coin with heads on both sides. He therefore played with the chance of his victims. A contradiction? I think so.
(Sam Maliha)
Harvey Dent [who later becomes "Two-Face"] says:
Two-Face: You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time. But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. [holds up his coin]
Two-Face: Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair.
Is this true? Can chance truly be the one thing that is unbiased, unprejudiced, and fair? Since a human can't technically alter fate or chance, is it free of partiality? The ironic part is that Two-Face uses a coin with heads on both sides. He therefore played with the chance of his victims. A contradiction? I think so.
(Sam Maliha)
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Bradford's Bias (Alliteration?)
I believe I mentioned this in class, but I find it to be rather signifigant, so I'm going to stress it again.
Puritanism was all William Bradford knew. He and his fellow Puritans were willing to abandon their established lives in England in order to pursue a fresh, pious life elsewhere. This group of people was set on its own system of thinking. If Bradford felt so powerfully about this lifestyle, his writing is inevitably bound to include mounds of bias. This is an excerpt from the introduction:
"While not historical compositions as such, their books are [referring to Bradford and Winthrop], in vivid and sustained human interest, as well as in the power of depicting the conditions of the first settlements, a most adequate and successful kind of history." (The Historians, 1607-1783)
In general, wouldn't anything written for "human interest" be completely soaked in bias from the outset?
"They [Bradford and Winthrop] seem to have considered it a document to be kept for the use of future historians." (The Historians, 1607-1783)
He meant for this to be read, to influence its audience. It is a possibility that this document was written to inspire others to become neophytes. Maybe History of Plymouth Plantation was written in order to keep the faith alive, and this is why it has aspects of a narrative.
Writers of textbooks are well-rounded in the area of history (for the most part). Yes, they too cannot completely avoid bias, yet they have an almost complete picture of how things fit together. They observe the past and present, and find a meaningful way to relate the two. The separatist movement exhibited by the Puritans was rather new during its time and thus seems to have been attempted almost recklessly. Correct me if I'm wrong. The bottom line is that the Puritans knew little about how their actions would fit into the scope of history, or how it would affect the world, and so they continued on somewhat blindly. Their own history, therefore, seemed to take presidence over all other forms. This could be the reason that Bradford felt he had the right to convey his story in the way that he did.
I hope this post isn't too jumbled.. These are just ideas I didn't get to fully explain in class.
(Samantha Maliha)
Puritanism was all William Bradford knew. He and his fellow Puritans were willing to abandon their established lives in England in order to pursue a fresh, pious life elsewhere. This group of people was set on its own system of thinking. If Bradford felt so powerfully about this lifestyle, his writing is inevitably bound to include mounds of bias. This is an excerpt from the introduction:
"While not historical compositions as such, their books are [referring to Bradford and Winthrop], in vivid and sustained human interest, as well as in the power of depicting the conditions of the first settlements, a most adequate and successful kind of history." (The Historians, 1607-1783)
In general, wouldn't anything written for "human interest" be completely soaked in bias from the outset?
"They [Bradford and Winthrop] seem to have considered it a document to be kept for the use of future historians." (The Historians, 1607-1783)
He meant for this to be read, to influence its audience. It is a possibility that this document was written to inspire others to become neophytes. Maybe History of Plymouth Plantation was written in order to keep the faith alive, and this is why it has aspects of a narrative.
Writers of textbooks are well-rounded in the area of history (for the most part). Yes, they too cannot completely avoid bias, yet they have an almost complete picture of how things fit together. They observe the past and present, and find a meaningful way to relate the two. The separatist movement exhibited by the Puritans was rather new during its time and thus seems to have been attempted almost recklessly. Correct me if I'm wrong. The bottom line is that the Puritans knew little about how their actions would fit into the scope of history, or how it would affect the world, and so they continued on somewhat blindly. Their own history, therefore, seemed to take presidence over all other forms. This could be the reason that Bradford felt he had the right to convey his story in the way that he did.
I hope this post isn't too jumbled.. These are just ideas I didn't get to fully explain in class.
(Samantha Maliha)
Favorite Words
We discussed in class today how many of us tend to have favorite words that we unconsciously use over and over. As we know, Mr. Bradford's favorite word happened to be "sundry." However, I wonder, do the words we use reflect who we are? Some of us might tend to use "bigger" words than others, but aren't there some words out there that just "feel" right to you? When you're searching for the perfect word, all of your intensional, personal perceptions of the word and its connotations are taken into account, and perhaps the words you choose are symbols of your mental mindset and intensional map. After all, what leads one person to describe a problem as a "challenge" and another as an "opportunity"? Even in describing everyday events, what leads a person to choose, say, "gloomy" over "depressing"? Of course contexts play an important role, but perhaps we express a little of ourselves depending upon which words we choose.
According to the Oxford English Corpus (www.doiop.com/oxford), "work" is one of the top ninety words we use, but "play" and "rest" aren't even in the top 100. "War" is more commonly used than "peace," and the most commonly used noun is "time." Are those just coincidences, or do the words we use reveal anything about society? Can we learn anything by looking at a list of the words we use most? (Another interesting website is www.doiop.com/vocab.)
Thoughts?
PS: I notice that I tend to use the words "perhaps" and "regarding" a lot in my writing...What are your pet words?
(Eric Wei)
According to the Oxford English Corpus (www.doiop.com/oxford), "work" is one of the top ninety words we use, but "play" and "rest" aren't even in the top 100. "War" is more commonly used than "peace," and the most commonly used noun is "time." Are those just coincidences, or do the words we use reveal anything about society? Can we learn anything by looking at a list of the words we use most? (Another interesting website is www.doiop.com/vocab.)
Thoughts?
PS: I notice that I tend to use the words "perhaps" and "regarding" a lot in my writing...What are your pet words?
(Eric Wei)
Bias Messes Everything Up
In class, we left off on the subject of bias and how even though nothing is completely objective, there are different degrees of how bias something is. This got me thinking of bias in general. Essentially, there are two major types of bias that I came up with: using loaded words and leaving out pieces of information.
So my first question: which one is worse? Obviously, we would want both to be minimized, but if forced to choose, is it better to leave out pieces of information or leave out as many loaded words as possible?
This also reminded me of a book I read last year- Daughter of Time. In this book, the main character was on a search to discover the true history of Richard III by reading different historical documents. However, in almost all of the books, he found pieces of the story missing. Some of the books contradicted each other. Some contained information that he was unable to find in any other document.
My next question: How do you know which piece of information to trust? At first, I thought that it would be the belief most commonly shared, but then I remembered what happened in Euro. We all had the common belief that Columbus had discovered that the world was round. However, we then learned that everyone had already known that the world was round because it was written in the bible. Therefore, how can we confirm which side of the story truly did happen if we can't find experience it for ourselves?
Mary Quien
So my first question: which one is worse? Obviously, we would want both to be minimized, but if forced to choose, is it better to leave out pieces of information or leave out as many loaded words as possible?
This also reminded me of a book I read last year- Daughter of Time. In this book, the main character was on a search to discover the true history of Richard III by reading different historical documents. However, in almost all of the books, he found pieces of the story missing. Some of the books contradicted each other. Some contained information that he was unable to find in any other document.
My next question: How do you know which piece of information to trust? At first, I thought that it would be the belief most commonly shared, but then I remembered what happened in Euro. We all had the common belief that Columbus had discovered that the world was round. However, we then learned that everyone had already known that the world was round because it was written in the bible. Therefore, how can we confirm which side of the story truly did happen if we can't find experience it for ourselves?
Mary Quien
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
What's True for You?
While reading the beginning of Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation I noticed something. Bradford says that he will "endeavour to manifest in a plain style, with singular re guard unto the simple truth in all things," in the introduction before chapter 1. I was thus left under the impression that the piece would be objective and historical. My perception changed drastically when I began to read the first chapter which was more religiously based than anything. Honestly I should have accepted no less from a Separatist leader but still I wass still dumbfounded that this could be viewd so unabashedly as fact. But then I realized that it was the absolute truth, for William Bradford at least. I was reminded of a quote from The Grapes of Wrath.
Tom "Do you think he's tellin' the truth?"
Casey "He's telling the truth, the truth for him. He wasn't makin' it up."
Tom "Is it the truth for us?"
Casey " I just don't know."
I think we may have discussed this earlier in the year because it goes along with many elements of Hayakawa. Each person has their own "map" and it is created by one's perception of the extensional world and personal experiences. I was curious as to everyone's thoughts on this. We all seem to have agreed that everyone has a different perception of the world but does this automatically equate to individual truths? Is there any universal truth or is it just a myth? It makes sense that some things such as the existance of a higher being, or the "meaning of life" would be an indivual truth but I just wonder if there is anything that isn't. If I was totally convinced that the ocean was orange or that there was no gravity, does that make it true? At least for me? If this is how it is I just wonder if the only way to determine the validity of something is by how many people believe it. Otherwise there seems to be no 'standard' of truth. If there is only what is true for you then what makes Holocaust deniers less truthful then scientists.
Logically my mind rebels against these ideas because it's so drastically different from what I have always believed. This would mean that no one was wrong in their assumptions or beliefs. Sorry if I'm getting a little abstract but I'm very interested to see how you feel about this.
(Molly Dunbar)
Tom "Do you think he's tellin' the truth?"
Casey "He's telling the truth, the truth for him. He wasn't makin' it up."
Tom "Is it the truth for us?"
Casey " I just don't know."
I think we may have discussed this earlier in the year because it goes along with many elements of Hayakawa. Each person has their own "map" and it is created by one's perception of the extensional world and personal experiences. I was curious as to everyone's thoughts on this. We all seem to have agreed that everyone has a different perception of the world but does this automatically equate to individual truths? Is there any universal truth or is it just a myth? It makes sense that some things such as the existance of a higher being, or the "meaning of life" would be an indivual truth but I just wonder if there is anything that isn't. If I was totally convinced that the ocean was orange or that there was no gravity, does that make it true? At least for me? If this is how it is I just wonder if the only way to determine the validity of something is by how many people believe it. Otherwise there seems to be no 'standard' of truth. If there is only what is true for you then what makes Holocaust deniers less truthful then scientists.
Logically my mind rebels against these ideas because it's so drastically different from what I have always believed. This would mean that no one was wrong in their assumptions or beliefs. Sorry if I'm getting a little abstract but I'm very interested to see how you feel about this.
(Molly Dunbar)
I'm Officially an American Citizen Today!
As many of you probably know, I became an American citizen today. (Hooray!)
What interested me was the oath I had to say during my citizenship ceremony. Here it is:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
The part that especially interested me was the first few lines, where one must renounce allegiance and fidelity to any other countries. But if we do that, are we cutting off ties to our previous nationality? And even if we say it (we repeated the oath after the coordinator), does it make it true?
I recognize that much of the ceremony has a presymbolic meaning: we are officially uniting ourselves with the community. But does that mean we must "renounce" any past ties we had to other communities, in order to officially become part of this one?
More confusingly, I believe that the US allows dual citizenship (I'm not sure.) I also hold Canadian citizenship, so in the process of becoming an American one, did I just disconnect myself from Canada?
Finally, one of my friends texted me this note after my ceremony: "Congrats on becoming an American." But wasn't I already an American? At least when we discussed it in class earlier, isn't an American anyone who thinks that he's American? Did becoming a citizen make me "more" American than I was before?
Those were just a few puzzling thoughts I had. Nevertheless, of course I'm proud to be an official American citizen now. Thoughts?
(Eric)
What interested me was the oath I had to say during my citizenship ceremony. Here it is:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
The part that especially interested me was the first few lines, where one must renounce allegiance and fidelity to any other countries. But if we do that, are we cutting off ties to our previous nationality? And even if we say it (we repeated the oath after the coordinator), does it make it true?
I recognize that much of the ceremony has a presymbolic meaning: we are officially uniting ourselves with the community. But does that mean we must "renounce" any past ties we had to other communities, in order to officially become part of this one?
More confusingly, I believe that the US allows dual citizenship (I'm not sure.) I also hold Canadian citizenship, so in the process of becoming an American one, did I just disconnect myself from Canada?
Finally, one of my friends texted me this note after my ceremony: "Congrats on becoming an American." But wasn't I already an American? At least when we discussed it in class earlier, isn't an American anyone who thinks that he's American? Did becoming a citizen make me "more" American than I was before?
Those were just a few puzzling thoughts I had. Nevertheless, of course I'm proud to be an official American citizen now. Thoughts?
(Eric)
Monday, January 5, 2009
Generation upon Generation
As we discussed earlier in class, one reason Puritanism began to fall apart was that the younger generation came along and began to question some of the key tenets of its faith. Actually, it seems as though many ideologies and belief systems in history have failed when youngsters came along and ask "why?".
Is it a rule that each new generation becomes more and more open-minded and tolerant? As time progresses and youngsters continually question assumptions of the past, does society always become more progressive? After all, we look back at institutions of the past (ex: slavery, imperialism...) today and wonder how those ideas could ever have been seen as appropriate. Will that continue onwards today? Will our kids and grandkids look back a century from now and wonder how we still have sexism, racism, and prejudice? Perhaps we are slowly advancing toward utopia.
But if each new generation breaks new ground, what exactly happens when they turn older? Why do they lose the open-mindedness that they once held? It's curious how each new generation eventually becomes "old", and then new youngsters come along and try to stir things up again.
On the other hand, some ideas have persisted through the ages and through several generations. America's constitution has survived a couple of centuries by now, and although we've made amendments, we still follow it and rarely question the document's legitimacy. As Dr. B said, if in other countries they debate to constantly create and destroy constitutions, in our country we debate to interpret the one we already have (and have kept for hundreds of years). So if some ideals persist through the ages, does it make them "better"?
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Is it a rule that each new generation becomes more and more open-minded and tolerant? As time progresses and youngsters continually question assumptions of the past, does society always become more progressive? After all, we look back at institutions of the past (ex: slavery, imperialism...) today and wonder how those ideas could ever have been seen as appropriate. Will that continue onwards today? Will our kids and grandkids look back a century from now and wonder how we still have sexism, racism, and prejudice? Perhaps we are slowly advancing toward utopia.
But if each new generation breaks new ground, what exactly happens when they turn older? Why do they lose the open-mindedness that they once held? It's curious how each new generation eventually becomes "old", and then new youngsters come along and try to stir things up again.
On the other hand, some ideas have persisted through the ages and through several generations. America's constitution has survived a couple of centuries by now, and although we've made amendments, we still follow it and rarely question the document's legitimacy. As Dr. B said, if in other countries they debate to constantly create and destroy constitutions, in our country we debate to interpret the one we already have (and have kept for hundreds of years). So if some ideals persist through the ages, does it make them "better"?
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Written Constitutions
Upon noticing the Mayflower Compact in the Puritan readings packet, I began thinking about the importance of a written constitution. Obviously, the constitution is a major part of many modern governments. However, only a few centuries ago, constitutions, and even written laws were uncommon. There was no way for the people's rights to be defined and enumerated. Therefore, it would seem to be quite difficult to prove a violation of rights. In fact, I fail to comprehend how civil liberties could exist at all. Did they simply not? Maybe my mind cannot grasp that there was no civil rights without constant revolution because as Dr. Bjornstad always reminds us, we are all in the mindset of the Lockean liberal.
Our discussion of Puritanism has made me think about the importance of literacy. Written laws and constitutions have no importance if they can only be interpreted by the upper echelon of society. As Francis Bacon put it, "Knowledge is power". More specifically, I believe, literacy is power. Without it, standing up to oppression seems impossible.
Some of this may seem obvious, but it led to ponder a hypothetical question; Is is possible to have a successful, progressive society without literacy? I know this would be much more difficult in today's world but I'm including the retrospective. Without widespread literacy can a country develop at any sort of a pace or would the gap between those with knowledge and those without it be too great?
(Molly Dunbar)
Our discussion of Puritanism has made me think about the importance of literacy. Written laws and constitutions have no importance if they can only be interpreted by the upper echelon of society. As Francis Bacon put it, "Knowledge is power". More specifically, I believe, literacy is power. Without it, standing up to oppression seems impossible.
Some of this may seem obvious, but it led to ponder a hypothetical question; Is is possible to have a successful, progressive society without literacy? I know this would be much more difficult in today's world but I'm including the retrospective. Without widespread literacy can a country develop at any sort of a pace or would the gap between those with knowledge and those without it be too great?
(Molly Dunbar)
If I were to meet a Puritan...
The Puritan religion faded out of existence about 250 years ago, so I guess I'm just a little bit late talk to a Puritan, ask him/her questions, challenge him/her, and then hear what s/he would have to say about society today (probably not too many good things, but...). I've got some things in mind that I would love to discuss with a Puritan, and I'm curious to know what kinds of things you all would ask a Puritan, given the opportunity. Here are some of my questions and thoughts:
Based on the Puritan faith...
- Why is life on earth considered a punishment? And, why do humans' actions here on earth have so little significance, if any at all? In the Old Testament there certainly seem to be correlations between the suffering that Israel experiences and their actions.
- Why is there so little focus on the New Testament? After all, the Old Testament and Judaism are very much based around hope for the coming Messiah that will redeem and save Israel. If the Messiah has already come, wouldn't it seem that a Christian faith would want the Messiah to be the ultimate focus?
These are a couple of examples. I'm curious what questions and thoughts you all would add if we were to ever meet a Puritan...
Emily T.
Based on the Puritan faith...
- Why is life on earth considered a punishment? And, why do humans' actions here on earth have so little significance, if any at all? In the Old Testament there certainly seem to be correlations between the suffering that Israel experiences and their actions.
- Why is there so little focus on the New Testament? After all, the Old Testament and Judaism are very much based around hope for the coming Messiah that will redeem and save Israel. If the Messiah has already come, wouldn't it seem that a Christian faith would want the Messiah to be the ultimate focus?
These are a couple of examples. I'm curious what questions and thoughts you all would add if we were to ever meet a Puritan...
Emily T.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Our Generation
Hey guys, one last thought about the American Dream. One thing I mentioned in our essay is the the American Dream is the opportunity for Americans to pursue and possibly achieve that which matters most to them through hard work and perseverance. But our generation is less focused on the hard work, and more focused on the achievement. We want to get what we want (almost invariably fame or money) now. Kids don't recognize that if they want something they have to put the time and effort in to earn it.
My uncle was telling me about a new guy he hired a few months ago. This kid just got out of college and has talent, but completely lacks experience. Despite this, he feels strongly that he deserves a promotion, a raise, that corner office. This kid has been sending his bosses emails trying to supervise them and make sure their doing their jobs. He hasn't been there 3 months and he thinks he should be running things. If he doesn't change course he will not be there for another month. I would never say that this is inherent in all of us, and this guy may be on the extreme end, but it is a trend which is gaining strength every ear.
For many decades parents have wanted their children to achieve a better lifestyle than they did. Our generation may be the first in a long time not to do that because we don't want to work for it. This sense of entitlement is becoming more and more evident in our generation and warping our perception of the American Dream. Do you agree? If so, what do you think is causing this?
(Connor Tweardy)
My uncle was telling me about a new guy he hired a few months ago. This kid just got out of college and has talent, but completely lacks experience. Despite this, he feels strongly that he deserves a promotion, a raise, that corner office. This kid has been sending his bosses emails trying to supervise them and make sure their doing their jobs. He hasn't been there 3 months and he thinks he should be running things. If he doesn't change course he will not be there for another month. I would never say that this is inherent in all of us, and this guy may be on the extreme end, but it is a trend which is gaining strength every ear.
For many decades parents have wanted their children to achieve a better lifestyle than they did. Our generation may be the first in a long time not to do that because we don't want to work for it. This sense of entitlement is becoming more and more evident in our generation and warping our perception of the American Dream. Do you agree? If so, what do you think is causing this?
(Connor Tweardy)
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Dissecting Nature
I found an excerpt related to our English class. (Now every time I read something I automatically link it to English)
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The sensory categories that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds-and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement that is codified in the patterns of our language."
What's your thoughts?
What struck me most is the last sentence. Why do we give meanings to each object in nature? Is this our attempt to understand nature better and possibly to make it our own?
Happy New Year! (Jennifer Park)
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The sensory categories that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds-and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement that is codified in the patterns of our language."
What's your thoughts?
What struck me most is the last sentence. Why do we give meanings to each object in nature? Is this our attempt to understand nature better and possibly to make it our own?
Happy New Year! (Jennifer Park)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)