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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.