During this week’s reading of Jane Eyre, Mr. Brocklehurst criticized Ms. Temple for allowing curls in the girls’ hair. He responded to Ms. Temple saying, “Naturally! Yes, but we are not to conform to nature: I wish these girls to be the Children of Grace: and why that abundance?”
Just as Mr. Brocklehurst does, society similar puts religion and nature in mutually exclusive categories. Religion is divine and nature is earthly. It would be a disgrace for such divinity to lower itself down to man’s level. Furthermore, nature’s actions would conflict with that of religion. This can be seen through the theories of creation. The Big Bang Theory, the theory of Evolution, and the Bible’s account of God creating the world all clash with each other.
Does it have to be this way? What makes religion divine is the way that it acts through nature. The New Testament’s account of Jesus’ miracles was exemplified because it denied nature. Nature gives us a solid foundation of knowledge. Religion sometimes stretches and goes beyond this solid foundation. In this way, nature strengthens the role of religion.
Furthermore, these theories of creation don’t necessarily disprove each other. Evolution doesn’t disprove the Christian belief that God created the world and life in it. It only describes how life came to be where it is now, not why. Evolution doesn’t remark on why common descent chose the paths that it did. God could have been the driving force behind evolution. Similarly, the Big Bang leaves scientists uncomfortable because they don’t have a complete explanation for it. It seems to come out of nowhere, and the Bible teaches creation “out of nothing” (with no pre-existing material). This is what the Big Bang looks to be. The universe did not come to be on its own. Scientists say that possibly an extremely, unimaginably high energy source could have caused the Big Bang and created “something out of nothing”. This can go hand in hand with the Christian belief in that God could have been that energy source and thus was the cause of creation.
Nature and religion don’t have to be separate concepts. They can be an explanation for each other, one can be the root cause of the other, one can fuel the other, and they both can balance each other. Maybe, religion and nature can coexist just as ying and yang do. Maybe, it’s not a coincidence that ying-yang is a symbol for the religion of Taoism. Taoism emphasizes living in accord with nature. Religion and nature in peaceful coexistence.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Blogging Around
I chose to first comment on Sam's blog which connected Heart of Darkness to the way we should view issues. She talked about how the multiple points of view and levels of storytelling made the novel so great. We should analyze other issues and make decisions in a similar way. I responded with the following:
"Sam,
Wow, I like the connection here and I fully agree with you. I'm influenced by what I read or learn. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing for me personally. Whatever I read, I usually end up supporting that view if the claims are logical. However, when I read an opposing claim that's justified with good explanations, I also want to believe that as well. Then, it becomes an internal struggle for what I should believe. In some ways, it's almost like whatever comes to me first influences me best. Take religion for example. I was introduced to it as a child, without knowing anything else, and it has stuck with me ever since. I wonder sometimes if, for example, I grew up being influenced that religion is false. Would I stick with that view, or would I eventually convert to religious faith once I learned of it later on in my life. Is our belief predetermined by fate or is it something that is a result of what we're influenced by first?
Seeing the other side is very important. I try to think about this as much as possible, especially when reading about current news. When I'm perusing a newspaper, I am struck with surprising facts. However, I wonder "What's the other side that I'm not getting.?" I see this most relevant in news about wars or conflicts in other countries. You only get the side of the country reporting to you or from the side of the reporter who's telling you the news. Often information is lopsided in a view. This is why I value information (newspapers, books, articles, etc.) that encompass multiple points of view.
Nice job in relating this to Heart of Darkness and globally. I support that we should take in all aspects when analyzing issues that come before us because so much of the world's problems is just a lack of understanding of the opposite view. I also support, that taking in all the views is important in reading literature because it helps you to understand characters deeply and the overall plot like in Heart of Darkness."
Next, I responded to Bill's post on how the media likes bad stories. He describes how negative stories and "trash" fuel the media because it gives the people what they want and thus makes the media more successful. I commented with the following:
"Bill,
This post is interesting and I often think the same. I agree that the media loves "bad" stories, but I also believe that there are exceptions where the media has a keen interest in "good" stories. I think the media loves good stories and thrives on them when they're "historic." For example, similarly in the Olympics, the media thrived on Michael Phelp's quest for a record breaking number of 8 gold medals. I would argue that this "good" story "outweighed" a "bad" story of the Olympics or even of Phelps himself. Even after Phelps's marijuana controversy, people are still going to remember him most by his positives in his success at the Summer Olympics. This is what will be historic. This is why the media focused and broadcasted this longer than his controversy with drugs.
Somewhere in the middle of the media "loving stories" are runs in sports. In the 2007, NFL season, the New England Patriots finished the regular season 16-0 but lost to the New York Giants in the Superbowl. On one side, the media emphasized throughout the entire run the "good" news on how they can go for the perfect season and that would arguably classify them as maybe THE best team in history. However, once they lost, the media again exploded on the "bad" news on their defeat, or maybe it's "good" news in favor of the underdogs. Same goes with the University of Connecticut's woman's basketball team. As of now, they're on a 72 game win streak. There's controversy in the media on whether this is good or bad for womens' basketball. Does a dominant team make things boring for the media or does it make things more exciting to follow their run?
Like I said, I still agree with you. Some sort of "bad" struggle makes things more exciting for the media. Whether it's Michael Jordan's "flu game" in the 1997 playoffs, gossip about a celebrity's personal life, or other things that provide obstacles in someone's life, it makes the media's narrative more interesting. They don't want to present information describing the perfect life. Globally, the media presents "bad things" because that's the only way to get attention. They show tons of images of disasters and conflict in other regions because that's the only way to bring aid.
I think I'm walking both paths here. Although I agree with you, I think the media just likes "bigger" things. If that ends up being "bad", then so be it, but it isn't always."
"Sam,
Wow, I like the connection here and I fully agree with you. I'm influenced by what I read or learn. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing for me personally. Whatever I read, I usually end up supporting that view if the claims are logical. However, when I read an opposing claim that's justified with good explanations, I also want to believe that as well. Then, it becomes an internal struggle for what I should believe. In some ways, it's almost like whatever comes to me first influences me best. Take religion for example. I was introduced to it as a child, without knowing anything else, and it has stuck with me ever since. I wonder sometimes if, for example, I grew up being influenced that religion is false. Would I stick with that view, or would I eventually convert to religious faith once I learned of it later on in my life. Is our belief predetermined by fate or is it something that is a result of what we're influenced by first?
Seeing the other side is very important. I try to think about this as much as possible, especially when reading about current news. When I'm perusing a newspaper, I am struck with surprising facts. However, I wonder "What's the other side that I'm not getting.?" I see this most relevant in news about wars or conflicts in other countries. You only get the side of the country reporting to you or from the side of the reporter who's telling you the news. Often information is lopsided in a view. This is why I value information (newspapers, books, articles, etc.) that encompass multiple points of view.
Nice job in relating this to Heart of Darkness and globally. I support that we should take in all aspects when analyzing issues that come before us because so much of the world's problems is just a lack of understanding of the opposite view. I also support, that taking in all the views is important in reading literature because it helps you to understand characters deeply and the overall plot like in Heart of Darkness."
Next, I responded to Bill's post on how the media likes bad stories. He describes how negative stories and "trash" fuel the media because it gives the people what they want and thus makes the media more successful. I commented with the following:
"Bill,
This post is interesting and I often think the same. I agree that the media loves "bad" stories, but I also believe that there are exceptions where the media has a keen interest in "good" stories. I think the media loves good stories and thrives on them when they're "historic." For example, similarly in the Olympics, the media thrived on Michael Phelp's quest for a record breaking number of 8 gold medals. I would argue that this "good" story "outweighed" a "bad" story of the Olympics or even of Phelps himself. Even after Phelps's marijuana controversy, people are still going to remember him most by his positives in his success at the Summer Olympics. This is what will be historic. This is why the media focused and broadcasted this longer than his controversy with drugs.
Somewhere in the middle of the media "loving stories" are runs in sports. In the 2007, NFL season, the New England Patriots finished the regular season 16-0 but lost to the New York Giants in the Superbowl. On one side, the media emphasized throughout the entire run the "good" news on how they can go for the perfect season and that would arguably classify them as maybe THE best team in history. However, once they lost, the media again exploded on the "bad" news on their defeat, or maybe it's "good" news in favor of the underdogs. Same goes with the University of Connecticut's woman's basketball team. As of now, they're on a 72 game win streak. There's controversy in the media on whether this is good or bad for womens' basketball. Does a dominant team make things boring for the media or does it make things more exciting to follow their run?
Like I said, I still agree with you. Some sort of "bad" struggle makes things more exciting for the media. Whether it's Michael Jordan's "flu game" in the 1997 playoffs, gossip about a celebrity's personal life, or other things that provide obstacles in someone's life, it makes the media's narrative more interesting. They don't want to present information describing the perfect life. Globally, the media presents "bad things" because that's the only way to get attention. They show tons of images of disasters and conflict in other regions because that's the only way to bring aid.
I think I'm walking both paths here. Although I agree with you, I think the media just likes "bigger" things. If that ends up being "bad", then so be it, but it isn't always."
Monday, March 1, 2010
Best of Week: The Matrix
The best idea(s) from class this week for me were the ones after viewing clips from The Matrix. We made many connections to postmodernism and modernism that I never would have seen independently. The system within the Matrix is one you can’t escape and must strategize within to find meaning. The world within the Matrix is corporate and questions your fundamental beliefs. It asks questions like: Can you escape the system? Do you want to escape it? One of the scenes we viewed included a rotary dial phone that defined what Pastiche is. It took an element from a different time and added it as an artistic complement to the film. It wasn’t performed in a taunting manner; what it emphasized was the blurriness of distinguishing between the past and present in the background setting. Furthermore, when Neo glanced into the mirror, he saw himself through multiplicity and fragmentation. These are just a few of the connections we made in the hundreds possible.
This makes me think about the complexity of meaning within a movie and within anything now that I ponder it. I’ve seen The Matrix before, but not one of the ideas we discussed in class raced through my mind as I viewed it previously. I was clueless to what “the system” was. I didn’t pay attention to the details either; all I really focused on was the action and overall seeing it with a one-dimensional view. Even after seeing the small amount of clips in class, it made me realize how much of the overall meaning I missed in my first viewing. Without having knowledge of modernism/postmodernism or the even an idea of the depth of the thoughts that occurred in the movie, it really restricted my overall experience. Only when you understand some of the meaning behind works of art will you appreciate its value.
This connects to my own knowledge and beliefs because I believe you shouldn’t impose a view without looking at it from various angles first. Without this 360-degre thinking, ignorance will always undermine one’s view. Similar this applies to my viewing of The Matrix. Previously, I wasn’t looking at this film from all angles. Therefore, ignorance in this case stole meaning from its plot.
I see myself using this when being a critic of various items- movies, art, songs, etc. On one note, I was surprised seeing the application of modernism and postmodernism within a familiar film. For this reason, I’m going to be on the lookout for other films/media incorporating these elements. On another note, I’ll be careful not to have a final verdict on items without attempting to find the full meaning by analyzing it from different perspectives. Even then that verdict isn’t final because I’ll probably still be missing a view.
This makes me think about the complexity of meaning within a movie and within anything now that I ponder it. I’ve seen The Matrix before, but not one of the ideas we discussed in class raced through my mind as I viewed it previously. I was clueless to what “the system” was. I didn’t pay attention to the details either; all I really focused on was the action and overall seeing it with a one-dimensional view. Even after seeing the small amount of clips in class, it made me realize how much of the overall meaning I missed in my first viewing. Without having knowledge of modernism/postmodernism or the even an idea of the depth of the thoughts that occurred in the movie, it really restricted my overall experience. Only when you understand some of the meaning behind works of art will you appreciate its value.
This connects to my own knowledge and beliefs because I believe you shouldn’t impose a view without looking at it from various angles first. Without this 360-degre thinking, ignorance will always undermine one’s view. Similar this applies to my viewing of The Matrix. Previously, I wasn’t looking at this film from all angles. Therefore, ignorance in this case stole meaning from its plot.
I see myself using this when being a critic of various items- movies, art, songs, etc. On one note, I was surprised seeing the application of modernism and postmodernism within a familiar film. For this reason, I’m going to be on the lookout for other films/media incorporating these elements. On another note, I’ll be careful not to have a final verdict on items without attempting to find the full meaning by analyzing it from different perspectives. Even then that verdict isn’t final because I’ll probably still be missing a view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
