How are Twelfth Night and "just add water" the same?
Both employ the same comic curve. The characters and communities in Twelfth Night and "just add water" all experiencing a bottoming out before things get better. In Twelfth Night, this bottoming out occurred when the love triangle becomes most intricate and confusing. In "just add water," the bottoming out happened right before Ray decided to make a change; after his wife left him and his son joined Dirk's crew. The communities in both texts have to become active and observant in order to make things better or restore order. Also, new relationships are fully formed by the end of each story. These potential relationships were somewhat present throughout the play, but by the end they are complete.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Focused Freewrite: Write here, write now.
What emblem/symbol/image best exemplifies the message/argument/point of the film "just add water"? What's its small object?
I really have no idea...maybe I'm just having a creative block. Who knows. Maybe water would best exemplify the message...but that's kind of boringly obvious, since the title has the word "water" in it. Although, water, especially in the form of rain, really does exemplify the meaning of the film. After all, the town WAS revitalized once it finally rained there again. Before the rain, Trona was a dry, barren, poisonous, infertile desert. No plant life could grow there, and the only people who lived there had a pretty pathetic existence. Dirk ran the town and polluted it even more than it already was, both literally with physical pollution and figuratively with his bad attitude. The rain gave Trona a new start. Dirk and his gang were arrested, and the town attracted visitors again with a new restaurant that Ray opened. Trona was becoming fertile again with the help of the new lake that formed, which probably also helped bring in tourists. The rain really did give everything a fresh start, so I guess that, all in all, it is a decent image that exemplifies the message of "just add water."
I really have no idea...maybe I'm just having a creative block. Who knows. Maybe water would best exemplify the message...but that's kind of boringly obvious, since the title has the word "water" in it. Although, water, especially in the form of rain, really does exemplify the meaning of the film. After all, the town WAS revitalized once it finally rained there again. Before the rain, Trona was a dry, barren, poisonous, infertile desert. No plant life could grow there, and the only people who lived there had a pretty pathetic existence. Dirk ran the town and polluted it even more than it already was, both literally with physical pollution and figuratively with his bad attitude. The rain gave Trona a new start. Dirk and his gang were arrested, and the town attracted visitors again with a new restaurant that Ray opened. Trona was becoming fertile again with the help of the new lake that formed, which probably also helped bring in tourists. The rain really did give everything a fresh start, so I guess that, all in all, it is a decent image that exemplifies the message of "just add water."
Sunday, April 25, 2010
An Invisible World
Mark A. Smith really likes to observe those little animalcules! He devotes his entire article "Animalcules and Other Little Subjects" to describing his observations and what they mean to him. He explains that these "little subjects" (268), although tiny and seemingly insignificant, are full of life and are constantly in motion. Just because these forms of life are microscopic and invisible to the human eye doesn't mean they're non-existent. Smith explains that one of the main reasons that he likes to observe these animalcules is because they are, to him, representative of human life and, in some ways, necessary to human life. Some of these animalcules are present in our bodies at this very moment. Without them, our bodies wouldn't be able to function as smoothly as they generally do.
To be honest, I was bored while I was reading the majority of this article. Most of it was devoted to describing his observations detail by detail. Microbiology has never particularly interested me, and Smith's describing the particular families and species that each microorganism belonged to failed to hold my attention. However, my interest WAS sparked towards the end of Smith's article. He began talking about how the life at the bottom of the pond is in many ways representative of human life. He explained that although we sometimes cannot see it, "life fills and overfills the world from puddle to ocean, from dirt clod to mountaintop" (272). As simple as most of these creatures are, they live in our bodies, the ground we walk on, and more or less everything else on Earth as well. Smith continues and explains why exactly he finds these observations so necessary. "You should know, then, that what works inside this jar works just as well inside of you" (270). Human beings are houses for these micro-animals, which do serve an important purpose inside our bodies. He also explains that our bodies' make-up isn't really that different from that of these animalcules. Some have exhibited evidence of consciousness and decision-making ability, making them seem more similar to human beings that we may have previously thought.
Although I don't particularly have an interest in the topic he was speaking about, Smith's use of language makes it apparent that he has an extreme love for these animalcules and even for the instruments that enable him to observe these creatures. He describes a simple microscope as if it were the most magnificent object that he has ever owned in his life. These descriptions help drive home his love for the animalcules and indirectly helps explain why he believes these observations are so necessary.
To be honest, I was bored while I was reading the majority of this article. Most of it was devoted to describing his observations detail by detail. Microbiology has never particularly interested me, and Smith's describing the particular families and species that each microorganism belonged to failed to hold my attention. However, my interest WAS sparked towards the end of Smith's article. He began talking about how the life at the bottom of the pond is in many ways representative of human life. He explained that although we sometimes cannot see it, "life fills and overfills the world from puddle to ocean, from dirt clod to mountaintop" (272). As simple as most of these creatures are, they live in our bodies, the ground we walk on, and more or less everything else on Earth as well. Smith continues and explains why exactly he finds these observations so necessary. "You should know, then, that what works inside this jar works just as well inside of you" (270). Human beings are houses for these micro-animals, which do serve an important purpose inside our bodies. He also explains that our bodies' make-up isn't really that different from that of these animalcules. Some have exhibited evidence of consciousness and decision-making ability, making them seem more similar to human beings that we may have previously thought.
Although I don't particularly have an interest in the topic he was speaking about, Smith's use of language makes it apparent that he has an extreme love for these animalcules and even for the instruments that enable him to observe these creatures. He describes a simple microscope as if it were the most magnificent object that he has ever owned in his life. These descriptions help drive home his love for the animalcules and indirectly helps explain why he believes these observations are so necessary.
Friday, April 23, 2010
...So We Kill Ourselves?
Benjamin Phelan's article "How We Evolve" can basically be summed up by the information given on the last page. Much of the article explains how humans have evolved throughout the centuries, how DNA changes and mutations can be linked back to particular cultures, and how our advanced human intelligence has led to the development of many devices and actions that are harming our entire world. This last bit of information is the bit that Phelan hones in on as he concludes his article. He expresses his fears that because of our advanced intelligence, humans are potentially bringing about "a self-inflicted extinction" (202). Even though our DNA can evolve quickly in order to help us adapt to our natural surroundings and circumstances, at the rate we're working at now, our so-called progressions might result in the extinction of the human race as we know it.
What Phelan talks about almost seems like an unintentional suicide by the human race. We are so focused on making new and advanced technologies that we don't realize the dangerous repercussions that come hand in hand with these technologies. Phelan explains that "the global climate is changing too violently for DNA to respond by fiddling around with heat regulation and hair thickness; forests everywhere are being clear-cut too quickly for their inhabitants to adjust, so food chains are coming undone; the collapse of global fisheries has been identified as an imminent calamity; and a nuclear disaster would constitute a catastrophe many orders of magnitude larger than what nature could readily absorb" (202). Because we are aware that our species will, inevitably, one day become extinct, we should use this knowledge to try and put off this extinction as long as possible. Sure, we can't change what is going to happen naturally, but we don't have to cause it to come about quicker than it would on its own. Phelan puts it perfectly when he says "we continue to evolve in the face of hunger, disease, and a changing ecosystem; but our virtual habitat of culture could enable us to become both subjects of evolution and conscious codirectors of it" (202).
It's a scary thought, that we might have a hand in our own evolution due to the evolution of our species up to this point. Common sense would say that we should be conscious of the decisions we are making and the effects of these decisions, especially if they are directly impacting our evolution. What's scary about this thought is that most of the time, we're not conscious about these decisions...or rather, we're not conscious of the repercussions of our decisions. We don't like to believe that our developments and the way we live our daily lives is harming our environment, and subsequently our evolution. Phelan sums it up the best in the last two sentences of his article: "the culture that we've created is, strangely, evolution's most powerful tool and its potential nemesis, the womb of human nature and perhaps its grave. By our own hand: this is how we evolve" (202).
What Phelan talks about almost seems like an unintentional suicide by the human race. We are so focused on making new and advanced technologies that we don't realize the dangerous repercussions that come hand in hand with these technologies. Phelan explains that "the global climate is changing too violently for DNA to respond by fiddling around with heat regulation and hair thickness; forests everywhere are being clear-cut too quickly for their inhabitants to adjust, so food chains are coming undone; the collapse of global fisheries has been identified as an imminent calamity; and a nuclear disaster would constitute a catastrophe many orders of magnitude larger than what nature could readily absorb" (202). Because we are aware that our species will, inevitably, one day become extinct, we should use this knowledge to try and put off this extinction as long as possible. Sure, we can't change what is going to happen naturally, but we don't have to cause it to come about quicker than it would on its own. Phelan puts it perfectly when he says "we continue to evolve in the face of hunger, disease, and a changing ecosystem; but our virtual habitat of culture could enable us to become both subjects of evolution and conscious codirectors of it" (202).
It's a scary thought, that we might have a hand in our own evolution due to the evolution of our species up to this point. Common sense would say that we should be conscious of the decisions we are making and the effects of these decisions, especially if they are directly impacting our evolution. What's scary about this thought is that most of the time, we're not conscious about these decisions...or rather, we're not conscious of the repercussions of our decisions. We don't like to believe that our developments and the way we live our daily lives is harming our environment, and subsequently our evolution. Phelan sums it up the best in the last two sentences of his article: "the culture that we've created is, strangely, evolution's most powerful tool and its potential nemesis, the womb of human nature and perhaps its grave. By our own hand: this is how we evolve" (202).
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
An Ethical Look at Climate Change
In his article "The Effects of Climate Change," John Broome claims that he "doubts" that "the money market reveal[s] people's ethical judgements about the value of future well-being" (Broome, 17). He says that if their behaviors in the money market did reflect their ethical judgments, economists couldn't "justify proclaiming an ethically neutral stance and taking the discount rate from the market." Although people might argue that they can do so "on democratic grounds," Broome explains that this is not possible, because this would require "leaving ethical judgments to the public rather than making them for themselves" (17). Since democracy and the democratic process requires debate and discussion, economists should want to share their thoughts with the public instead of keep them to themselves and let the citizens form their opinions on their own.
I'm going to be honest, I was a little bit confused about the specifics of this article. I had to re-read the section regarding the money market a few times before I understood what Broome was trying to say. It isn't that Broom is unclear, just that the topic is a tricky one, and I think that's why it's creating such a problem. It was interesting to hear about climate change from an ethical perspective. Normally it is only investigated on a scientific level. It is true, though, that humans have a tendency to "give less weight to their own future well-being than to their present well-being" (17). We want to make sure that we're comfortable now without worrying about the consequences that might follow later. This is why the climate is changing so drastically. We have no problem creating wonderfully convenient lives for ourselves now, even if the long-term effects directly damage our future well-being. This, I think, is Broome's main point. This is the habit we have to break if we want to slow the drastic climate change.
I'm going to be honest, I was a little bit confused about the specifics of this article. I had to re-read the section regarding the money market a few times before I understood what Broome was trying to say. It isn't that Broom is unclear, just that the topic is a tricky one, and I think that's why it's creating such a problem. It was interesting to hear about climate change from an ethical perspective. Normally it is only investigated on a scientific level. It is true, though, that humans have a tendency to "give less weight to their own future well-being than to their present well-being" (17). We want to make sure that we're comfortable now without worrying about the consequences that might follow later. This is why the climate is changing so drastically. We have no problem creating wonderfully convenient lives for ourselves now, even if the long-term effects directly damage our future well-being. This, I think, is Broome's main point. This is the habit we have to break if we want to slow the drastic climate change.
Monday, April 19, 2010
To Blog or Not To Blog?
I sort of have mixed opinions when it comes to blogging. I think it's great for class assignments, like we use it for. It allows other students in the class to read and share their opinions on their classmates' writing. This allows other students to use, in their own papers, some good writing methods used by their classmates. Starting a conversation about writing is also easier this way. Some people might feel more comfortable posting a comment on another person's blog than sharing their opinions verbally in class.
To be honest, if it weren't for this class I definitely wouldn't have a blog. I wouldn't have any reason for one, really. I do like to write things down in a journal from time to time, but I don't really want that journal posted on the internet for the world to see.
So I guess what it comes down to is that I don't mind blogging for class, but I would not start a blog on my own.
To be honest, if it weren't for this class I definitely wouldn't have a blog. I wouldn't have any reason for one, really. I do like to write things down in a journal from time to time, but I don't really want that journal posted on the internet for the world to see.
So I guess what it comes down to is that I don't mind blogging for class, but I would not start a blog on my own.
Friday, April 16, 2010
"Just Add Water" Observations/Inferences/Recalls
Observations
- Opens with a black screen and the repeated phrase "Thanks for coming, would you like a receipt with that? Don't forget to take a mint!"
- Voice over mentions routine life as houses that are almost identical are shown.
- Desert area of California, but flashbacks show that it used to be thriving.
- Ray picks up trash and tells Nora to keep the change.
- The grocery store is called "Right-Valu."
- The house is really dark and Ray's wife seems very withdrawn and off.
- Talk about the son's violence and anger and his dad's failed promises.
- A phone call comes in that Ray's mother is in a coma. The son is very nonchalant about this information.
Inferences
- Ray's life if very repetitious, but he doesn't seem to be getting bored with it. Is he going to shake things up a little bit as the movie progresses?
- The whole town seems to be stuck in this routine, just like Ray.
- It used to be better there. (Remember the billboard that shows a fishing resort.)
- Ray is very generous and always optimistic.
- "Right-Valu" might be the place where Ray meets respectable people, unlike those who live in the rest of the town.
- Is she mentally not all there, or is she hiding something? It seems as though she never leaves the house.
- There's a strange relationship between Ray and his son, and maybe they don't always see eye to eye or have the same values.
- Ray seems worried about his mom's coma, but his son doesn't. Maybe there's some tension in the family regarding people not getting along?
Recalls
- The type of town (with the neighbors who know each other, off-beat families with issues they don't necessarily want to make public, the relationship between the main character and the cashier at the local grocery store) kind of reminds me a little bit of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape."
- Opens with a black screen and the repeated phrase "Thanks for coming, would you like a receipt with that? Don't forget to take a mint!"
- Voice over mentions routine life as houses that are almost identical are shown.
- Desert area of California, but flashbacks show that it used to be thriving.
- Ray picks up trash and tells Nora to keep the change.
- The grocery store is called "Right-Valu."
- The house is really dark and Ray's wife seems very withdrawn and off.
- Talk about the son's violence and anger and his dad's failed promises.
- A phone call comes in that Ray's mother is in a coma. The son is very nonchalant about this information.
Inferences
- Ray's life if very repetitious, but he doesn't seem to be getting bored with it. Is he going to shake things up a little bit as the movie progresses?
- The whole town seems to be stuck in this routine, just like Ray.
- It used to be better there. (Remember the billboard that shows a fishing resort.)
- Ray is very generous and always optimistic.
- "Right-Valu" might be the place where Ray meets respectable people, unlike those who live in the rest of the town.
- Is she mentally not all there, or is she hiding something? It seems as though she never leaves the house.
- There's a strange relationship between Ray and his son, and maybe they don't always see eye to eye or have the same values.
- Ray seems worried about his mom's coma, but his son doesn't. Maybe there's some tension in the family regarding people not getting along?
Recalls
- The type of town (with the neighbors who know each other, off-beat families with issues they don't necessarily want to make public, the relationship between the main character and the cashier at the local grocery store) kind of reminds me a little bit of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape."
Questions About "Just Add Water"
I just want to say that I really want to see how this movie ends, especially after watching the part we watched last class!
1) What's up with the wife? Why is she so withdrawn? Is there something mentally wrong with her or is she like this because she's doing something behind his back?
(I asked this before we watched the second segment. She's having an affair, and that's at least partly why she had always been withdrawn.)
2) I don't know if this is significant at all, but what's in the tin that Ray has in the car?
3) How does Dike manage to run the town? Are their any law enforcement people around who would be able to stop him from cheating people out of money like he does?
(This question was also answered in the second part. The town was declared a toxic waste site, and instead of moving out, Dike bought all of the property from the government for a very cheap price. Since he now technically owns the town, he decided to charge anyone who wanted to continue living in the town.)
4) Toward the end of the last scene we watched, Danny DeVito's character urged Ray to go for his dream of re-establishing the town. Is this something Ray is going to attempt to do throughout the rest of the movie? Is that where the significance of the title comes into play? Will that be Ray's solution for the town?
5) Are Ray and Nora ever going to get together?!
6) Why is the town in shambles? What happened to it that made it so desolate?
(Again...this was also answered. The state diverted the water and it then became a chemical run-off area. The state declared it a toxic waste site and strongly suggested that everyone leave.)
1) What's up with the wife? Why is she so withdrawn? Is there something mentally wrong with her or is she like this because she's doing something behind his back?
(I asked this before we watched the second segment. She's having an affair, and that's at least partly why she had always been withdrawn.)
2) I don't know if this is significant at all, but what's in the tin that Ray has in the car?
3) How does Dike manage to run the town? Are their any law enforcement people around who would be able to stop him from cheating people out of money like he does?
(This question was also answered in the second part. The town was declared a toxic waste site, and instead of moving out, Dike bought all of the property from the government for a very cheap price. Since he now technically owns the town, he decided to charge anyone who wanted to continue living in the town.)
4) Toward the end of the last scene we watched, Danny DeVito's character urged Ray to go for his dream of re-establishing the town. Is this something Ray is going to attempt to do throughout the rest of the movie? Is that where the significance of the title comes into play? Will that be Ray's solution for the town?
5) Are Ray and Nora ever going to get together?!
6) Why is the town in shambles? What happened to it that made it so desolate?
(Again...this was also answered. The state diverted the water and it then became a chemical run-off area. The state declared it a toxic waste site and strongly suggested that everyone leave.)
Focused Freewrite : What is a Writer?
A writer is any person who chooses to express himself through the written word. Anyone can be a writer. In writing, or at least in creative writing, there is no good or bad; as the saying goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Some people might argue that only those who have studied the technical aspects of written language and structure or those who have been published are writers. I disagree. In my mind, anyone who has ever written anything as a means of conveying a certain point, thought, emotion, or story is a writer. That person might not be professional per se, but he is still a writer.
Focused Freewrite : "Just Add Water"
Whenever I hear this phrase I think of those instant cookie or cake bake mixes. The front of the box always seems to say "Just add water!" to make it seem as if that is literally all you have to do in order to make a cake. I feel like a lot of companies use this phrase to entice people to buy their product. Everybody seems to be short on time and in a hurry, so why not make baking even easier? At the same time, it DOES spark a kind of excitement or anticipation, at least in me, because it usually means something tasty is being made and will be ready to eat pretty soon!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Everyone Has A Carbon Footprint.
I thought Michael Specter's article "Big Foot" was very interesting. He took a very popular and frequently discussed topic - environmental protection and global warming - and examined it from a different angle. I never thought about all the miles that went into transporting food from where it is grown to the grocery store. Most of the time, whenever I hear references to global warming, I automatically think of huge, gas-guzzling cars and trucks and people turning on their air conditioners in the springtime before they really need them.
Including Elkington's claim into his article was an interesting move for Specter. By doing so, he is agreeing that "we are in an era of creative destruction." This phrase helps highlight Specter's claim that countries today - particularly developed countries - are damaging the world in new ways that were never previously imaginable. We are using new technologies more frequently and these products are damaging the world's atmosphere. Instead of developing products that benefit humans AND the environment, we have been selfishly ignoring the harmful results of these items. We are becoming, in a sense, more "creative" in our destruction; instead of just driving environmentally unfriendly cars, we are rapidly destroying forests and popularizing damaging methods of transportation of food items. What was a little bit frightening was that a solution for these problems is difficult to achieve. We still have a long way to go before we can fully understand how to universally solve these risks.
Everyone is responsible at least somewhat for global warming. We all use cars or take buses that use gas, we all use electricity, we all buy goods that had to be manufactured and shipped. These are things that are necessary for daily life. We are all guilty of occasionally over-using these commodities, and that is what we have to change. Instead of turning on the air conditioner when it's only mildly hot out, open up a window and let the breeze in. Walk to the store if it's close enough. In my mind, the most important thing we can do to work on slowing down global warming is to recognize the fact that like it or not, we all contribute to it.
Including Elkington's claim into his article was an interesting move for Specter. By doing so, he is agreeing that "we are in an era of creative destruction." This phrase helps highlight Specter's claim that countries today - particularly developed countries - are damaging the world in new ways that were never previously imaginable. We are using new technologies more frequently and these products are damaging the world's atmosphere. Instead of developing products that benefit humans AND the environment, we have been selfishly ignoring the harmful results of these items. We are becoming, in a sense, more "creative" in our destruction; instead of just driving environmentally unfriendly cars, we are rapidly destroying forests and popularizing damaging methods of transportation of food items. What was a little bit frightening was that a solution for these problems is difficult to achieve. We still have a long way to go before we can fully understand how to universally solve these risks.
Everyone is responsible at least somewhat for global warming. We all use cars or take buses that use gas, we all use electricity, we all buy goods that had to be manufactured and shipped. These are things that are necessary for daily life. We are all guilty of occasionally over-using these commodities, and that is what we have to change. Instead of turning on the air conditioner when it's only mildly hot out, open up a window and let the breeze in. Walk to the store if it's close enough. In my mind, the most important thing we can do to work on slowing down global warming is to recognize the fact that like it or not, we all contribute to it.
At the Writing Center
My writing center experience was neither great nor horrible. I found it somewhat useful, although I do think that I could have come to the same conclusions without the help of the writing center. When I went to my appointment, I wasn't exactly sure what thesis regarding disguise I was going to focus on. I had many different ideas and I explained my plan for each to the person helping me. We had a discussion about each, and I ended up combining two different ideas and molding them into one, focused thesis statement. Some of the comments I was given about the organization of my paper were not all that useful. The way the person I met with suggested I write it seemed a little bit boring, so after considering that organization as an option (he suggested I explore the sonnet and Twelfth Night in separate paragraphs and then tie them together), I decided to set it up differently (I explained both throughout the paper in the same paragraphs). After the conference, I fixed my thesis and made it more clear and precise. Instead of focusing on three of the characters in the play who were impacted by disguise, I focused only on Orsino. This allowed me to explore his character more thoroughly which made for a better paper.
Overall, I think I would have benefited more from this experience if I had more of the paper written instead of just the thesis statement and an outline of supporting paragraphs. I thought that would be enough material because I wasn't as concerned with organization as I was with the clarity of my thesis, but now I know to write more before I go next time.
Overall, I think I would have benefited more from this experience if I had more of the paper written instead of just the thesis statement and an outline of supporting paragraphs. I thought that would be enough material because I wasn't as concerned with organization as I was with the clarity of my thesis, but now I know to write more before I go next time.
This is Just as Confusing as "Lost."
Joshua Roebke poses an excellent question in his article "The Reality Tests" - Do we create what we observe through our observations?
I never thought anything could make my brain hurt more than trying to figure out what exactly time travel has to do with anything on LOST...but this article comes very close. I'm not entirely sure which side I agree with, the quantum mechanics side or the realist side, mostly because I'm not sure which side believes what, even after reading the article twice. Here's what I think: there is a certain universal truth and reality to things, but our understanding of these things can change depending how and when we make our observations and what we make them with. For whatever reason, I can't imagine things existing only when we observe them. That doesn't seem to make sense for me. Like Einstein asked, "Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it?" On the other hand, I do understand how our observations can change the things we see. Not physically change things, really, but our perception of things can be wrong or varied or off. In a way, we do create what we observe through our observations, since our interpretations of these observations (which is essentially what theories and conclusions are based off of) can be very subjective and can vary from person to person.
Roebke's article and the thesis he poses in it are both very complex. They make you think. In my mind, the intrigue this article sparks is both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength because it DOES push readers to think about what exactly he is trying to say in his article instead of just allowing readers to finish reading the article without really learning anything. However, the weakness lies in the fact that it is confusing. Maybe Roebke could have tried to make his point more clearly. Unless this article is the result of many simplifications and the topic is just a confusing one by nature which cannot be perfectly understood by anyone other than quantum physicists, which is entirely possible...
I think I'm going to give my brain a break for a little while now.
I never thought anything could make my brain hurt more than trying to figure out what exactly time travel has to do with anything on LOST...but this article comes very close. I'm not entirely sure which side I agree with, the quantum mechanics side or the realist side, mostly because I'm not sure which side believes what, even after reading the article twice. Here's what I think: there is a certain universal truth and reality to things, but our understanding of these things can change depending how and when we make our observations and what we make them with. For whatever reason, I can't imagine things existing only when we observe them. That doesn't seem to make sense for me. Like Einstein asked, "Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it?" On the other hand, I do understand how our observations can change the things we see. Not physically change things, really, but our perception of things can be wrong or varied or off. In a way, we do create what we observe through our observations, since our interpretations of these observations (which is essentially what theories and conclusions are based off of) can be very subjective and can vary from person to person.
Roebke's article and the thesis he poses in it are both very complex. They make you think. In my mind, the intrigue this article sparks is both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength because it DOES push readers to think about what exactly he is trying to say in his article instead of just allowing readers to finish reading the article without really learning anything. However, the weakness lies in the fact that it is confusing. Maybe Roebke could have tried to make his point more clearly. Unless this article is the result of many simplifications and the topic is just a confusing one by nature which cannot be perfectly understood by anyone other than quantum physicists, which is entirely possible...
I think I'm going to give my brain a break for a little while now.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Greed
A greedy person is someone who wants everything that they can get their hands on. They live a life of excess and generally don't care about the legitimate needs of others. Picture, for example, two young children. One of those children has a few pieces of candy in his pocket. That child, instead of sharing, eats all of the pieces of candy while the other child sits there, candy-less. Although that child might not know any better, he is still a legitimate portrayal of greed and selfishness. He keeps everything for himself. Greedy people also tend to surround themselves with material things and often expect more luxuries to continue coming their way without having to give anything back in return. They want it all and they expect to benefit from it, even if others are harmed in the process, like the hungry, candy-less child was.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Waste Not, Want Not
In his article "Faustian Economics," Wendell Berry directly addresses the problems of "prodigal extravagance" and "assumed limitlessness" inherent within the modern American society. These desires for limitlessness extend into the realms of our environment, politics, education, science, and technology. As a result of this desire for more, Berry explains that we have adopted a "moral minimalism," or a need to do things simply, quickly, and efficiently, with minimal effort from ourselves. Berry cites Christopher Marlowe's Tragical History of Doctor Faustus and John Milton's Paradise Lost to make clear that the dangers of limitless knowledge have been known for years, and that it is seemingly part of the human condition to want to break these bounds.
Berry believes that what we need most now is "sciences and technologies of limits, of domesticity" that would work "within self-imposed limits," which is how "the best humans always have worked." Again pointing out American greed, Berry states that "our human and earthly limits, properly understood, are not confinements," as some may argue, "but rather inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship of meaning." Finally, Berry recalls his initial argument about the environment, explaining that we cannot exhaust our natural fuels and resources because we do not get a second chance with these. Instead, it is "once-for-all."
Berry makes a very strong argument in favor of conserving our natural resources. Instead of simply focusing on ecological and environmental facts like many nature advocates do, Berry cites examples from science, politics, literature, and art to convey his message. This keeps the reader interested in what he has to say and helps to drive his point home in general. By exposing American tendencies toward greed and waste, Berry might cause some people to re-think their every-day decisions, thus helping the environment, even if only in a minor way. Overall, Berry's article poses a successful, convincing, and creative argument.
Berry believes that what we need most now is "sciences and technologies of limits, of domesticity" that would work "within self-imposed limits," which is how "the best humans always have worked." Again pointing out American greed, Berry states that "our human and earthly limits, properly understood, are not confinements," as some may argue, "but rather inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship of meaning." Finally, Berry recalls his initial argument about the environment, explaining that we cannot exhaust our natural fuels and resources because we do not get a second chance with these. Instead, it is "once-for-all."
Berry makes a very strong argument in favor of conserving our natural resources. Instead of simply focusing on ecological and environmental facts like many nature advocates do, Berry cites examples from science, politics, literature, and art to convey his message. This keeps the reader interested in what he has to say and helps to drive his point home in general. By exposing American tendencies toward greed and waste, Berry might cause some people to re-think their every-day decisions, thus helping the environment, even if only in a minor way. Overall, Berry's article poses a successful, convincing, and creative argument.
Derrida and his Fear of Writing
It's comforting to know that even professional writers experience a certain fear of writing. To me, Derrida seems extremely confident and self-aware. He knows the true power of language and writing and knows that what he says and writes will be taken very seriously. With that power, as with all power, comes a responsibility. This responsibility is what motivates this fear, or tentativeness, to begin writing, at least for me. I am responsible for creating a work that is respected by others, one that others can use for their own benefit.
I think that Derrida's fear is rooted in a similar circumstance. It seems to me that because he realizes this great responsibility, he is scared that he might write something, especially a particularly strong and opinionated piece, that will cause harm to a reader. He does not want to do this; he just wants to make his point. Because this harm or insult is always a possible outcome, however, Derrida always has a certain trepidation when it comes to his writing. I admire Derrida though because he overcomes these potential setbacks. He realizes that what he thinks is valuable and that it must be said. It was interesting to hear that when he was not writing he also had a certain hesitation, this time stemming from being overwhelmed with thoughts that he feels he must somehow express.
As for me, I notice that I am often not confident in what I write, and this goes back to my fear of that responsibility. I do not want to be wrong in my thoughts or opinions. If I am wrong, my credibility as a writer will be destroyed and I will no longer be entrusted with this responsibility. Even in this blog entry I notice that many sentences begin with, or at least contain somewhere, the phrases "I think" or "in my opinion." I need to destroy this fear of being wrong and take on my responsibility wholeheartedly.
I think that Derrida's fear is rooted in a similar circumstance. It seems to me that because he realizes this great responsibility, he is scared that he might write something, especially a particularly strong and opinionated piece, that will cause harm to a reader. He does not want to do this; he just wants to make his point. Because this harm or insult is always a possible outcome, however, Derrida always has a certain trepidation when it comes to his writing. I admire Derrida though because he overcomes these potential setbacks. He realizes that what he thinks is valuable and that it must be said. It was interesting to hear that when he was not writing he also had a certain hesitation, this time stemming from being overwhelmed with thoughts that he feels he must somehow express.
As for me, I notice that I am often not confident in what I write, and this goes back to my fear of that responsibility. I do not want to be wrong in my thoughts or opinions. If I am wrong, my credibility as a writer will be destroyed and I will no longer be entrusted with this responsibility. Even in this blog entry I notice that many sentences begin with, or at least contain somewhere, the phrases "I think" or "in my opinion." I need to destroy this fear of being wrong and take on my responsibility wholeheartedly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
