I found this project itself difficult to create mainly because of the process. I wasn’t sure how my group was going to collaborate and work together to create this. Luckily, I had an amazing group with Lindsay and Taylor. I was confused on how to go about creating this discussion between Charlotte Brontë, an Academy student, and the editor of a major publishing company. At first, we each decided to be one character. But then, I didn’t know how the characters were going to respond to each other with flow. I was thinking that maybe we would all be online at the same time and literally have a normal discussion as our characters as you would with online chat on Facebook. I realized this wasn’t the most effective manner to approach this project because there were too many obstacles. We each had different and busy schedules and weren’t online at identical times. It was also difficult to have an on-the-spot discussion regarding the topic. Instead, we took an unorthodox approach. We took advantage of the class time given and formed ideas there. We outlined the first half of our discussion in class, describing the specific ideas or claims each character would say. Then, when we took it to the online document, we transformed our ideas into sentences from each character. The peculiar thing is that we didn’t necessarily wait for each other to fully say what their character needed to state. I created the multiple responses for my character for the first half of the discussion without having the fully formed responses of the character speaking before me. I merely responded to the character based on the idea outline we formed in class. Then, at a later time we edited everything to make sure there was a flow to the discussion. I found making the outline extremely helpful because it quickened the process of creating the discussion and offered flexibility! We didn’t have to be online at the same time, nor did we have to meet in person outside of class.
The most difficult part in our discussion was by far the ending primarily because this was the section we had least thought out. We had not thought this far ahead with the given class time, and we didn’t know where our discussion was going to lead us. We had started working on this project on a reasonable date. Initially, we had wanted the project to be done over the weekend, so we could enjoy our Wednesday off from school. However, this was not the case. We did manage to finish about half the project Monday night, yet there was still a good amount of work left for Wednesday. Also on Wednesday, with 2 out of the 3 partners having an event to attend from 4-6 P.M. and a deadline of 7 P.M., the ending was a rush to finish in that last hour. In the beginning, we had no idea what to use as an ending, then eventually we had multiple starting points for an ending. Finally we decided on a somewhat fully thought out ending by telephone and the rest was formed online. Oddly enough, the ending was created in almost the opposite manner of the beginning. We didn’t have the ideas of each character outlined, so what we resorted to was an actual live discussion. One person would type something. I would read it, think, and quickly respond. This back and forth typing eventually resulted in an ending that made all three group members happy.
I learned that my thinking works best when I know beforehand what I am going to discuss. I felt more comfortable with the process of the beginning of our project. Ideas were outlined and I could easily elaborate on it. The ending was more difficult for me because I didn’t know what to expect. Since I didn’t know what ideas I was aiming for, my thought process was disorganized. Changes I may make in the future is thinking about the ending for a story at an earlier point, or maybe just trying to adjust better to on-the-spot thinking.
What surprised me about my thinking was that it was effective despite having face to face interaction with my group members outside of the class time. Everything else was done online. I see the other side of the argument that the importance of working with people in physical presence is utterly important, but I think our group overcame this obstacle. It may just be that I had an awesome group that I knew how to work well with, especially online. Lindsay, Taylor, and I are accustomed to working together through Google Docs quite often and this was no problem. We’ve learned tips along the way to making online collaboration work and our overall teamwork is what allowed us to complete this project without seeing each other.
I enjoy that my thinking is clearly developed and analyzed thoroughly. This is because I do a lot of mental organization to understand what and how to express my ideas. However, I would like to work on making my ideas more concise. As a result of thinking a lot beforehand, my ideas when written out tend to go on and on and on. I need to learn how to express them with enough details, but no more than needed.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Metacognition: Reading Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre- sometimes a difficult person to deal with being as stubborn as she is; Jane Eyre- often a difficult novel for me to read. I don’t know exactly what it was, but keeping up with the daily readings was a struggle for me. We discussed the importance of this 19th century novel written by Brontë and the unique style of writing utilized. To maximize the “effectiveness” and enjoyment of this novel, it required immersion, a slower pace, and the ability to listen attentively to conversation. This isn’t the type of novel made to be sped through. This is where I think it posed a problem for me. In our culture, speed has a higher market value. It’s hard to mesh this story with today’s culture in that regard. However, being imprisoned within a busy schedule, activities, and homework in all other classes, there’s no other way for me to read this novel other than in a restricted, limited time. I felt this sometimes led to me not enjoying the story as much as I could have.
As I was reading Jane Eyre, I noticed that it took me quite a while to read and digest everything. Part of that was me stopping and taking in major events and the other part was me just dozing off. Sometimes I would realize that I was staring at the same page for about 3 minutes, and had to bring myself back to experiencing Jane’s world. I have a feeling that this was because I tried too hard to speed through it. Mentally thinking about speeding through the novel actually made me read the story slower. It was difficult for me to focus when I tried to speed through it. Also, when I sped through I noticed quickly that I didn’t understand it as well and was forced to reread it again. A change I would make in the future is to adjust my reading style according to the novel. Next time when reading a novel similar to Jane Eyre, which requires a slower pace, I’m going to try and enjoy reading it slow, instead of try to blaze through it. I feel this way I will get more out of the story and I will understand it better.
What surprises me about my thinking is how easily distracted it can get. What I did like about my thinking as I read this novel (which didn’t develop until later) is how fluid it is. I wrote page summaries at the top of each page, but it was hard for me to stop at the end of each page and take a pause from reading. This was the time I was easily most distracted. Instead of disrupting the flow of the story, I waited until I finished the chapter, and then I went back and wrote page summaries. This also helped because I only noted the big observations that were still fresh in my mind. I would like to improve on my skills at reading dense material while using a slower pace to my advantage.
As I was reading Jane Eyre, I noticed that it took me quite a while to read and digest everything. Part of that was me stopping and taking in major events and the other part was me just dozing off. Sometimes I would realize that I was staring at the same page for about 3 minutes, and had to bring myself back to experiencing Jane’s world. I have a feeling that this was because I tried too hard to speed through it. Mentally thinking about speeding through the novel actually made me read the story slower. It was difficult for me to focus when I tried to speed through it. Also, when I sped through I noticed quickly that I didn’t understand it as well and was forced to reread it again. A change I would make in the future is to adjust my reading style according to the novel. Next time when reading a novel similar to Jane Eyre, which requires a slower pace, I’m going to try and enjoy reading it slow, instead of try to blaze through it. I feel this way I will get more out of the story and I will understand it better.
What surprises me about my thinking is how easily distracted it can get. What I did like about my thinking as I read this novel (which didn’t develop until later) is how fluid it is. I wrote page summaries at the top of each page, but it was hard for me to stop at the end of each page and take a pause from reading. This was the time I was easily most distracted. Instead of disrupting the flow of the story, I waited until I finished the chapter, and then I went back and wrote page summaries. This also helped because I only noted the big observations that were still fresh in my mind. I would like to improve on my skills at reading dense material while using a slower pace to my advantage.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
360 Degrees: Justice
After reading Sophie’s World and learning about numerous philosophies that influence the workings of society, I truly find it interesting to find current philosophers discuss and explain their ideas. John Rawls, a James Bryant Conant University Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University from 1962-2002, did just that in his unique claims concerning justice. His most famous work is probably A Theory of Justice (and mainly what this blog will talk about) from 1971. I’ve done a little bit of reading on some of his work, and I find it confusing yet interesting as I’ve tried to digest it.
In the U.S., “justice” is a term thrown around without much thought given to its actual meaning. Schoolchildren across America say the Pledge of Allegiance concluding with the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” Justice is a concept that has been argued about by philosophers since the beginning of history. It’s often closely tied with the idea of fairness and has been connected with the idea of rationality. For example, the Supreme Court today is expected to rationally debate long and hard about the fairest course of action. The opposite of a just society is a tyrannical one. Justice and personal virtue (morality) are related, but unique ideas. I guess justice would be the morality that we agree upon as a society and make into laws.
Rawls has two main ideas that work hand in hand with each other: the original position and the veil of ignorance. Basically the “original position” is when representatives of people with limited information about the interests that they represent try to agree as to how society should be ordered. Rawls calls it the place in which everybody decides principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance.” All this is a hypothetical “thought experiment” designed to reflect what principles of justice would be present in a society based on free and fair cooperation between citizens.
The “veil of ignorance” that Rawls references on numerous accounts in his works basically blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed. This means from behind this veil, that person does not know the background or situation of his “client”. He negotiates blind. Rawls provides an example and says it’s method of determining the morality of a certain issue based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely redistributed (yes, high class to poverty, working class to billionaires, poor to working class) and from behind this “veil” you do not know what role you’ll be assigned. Decisions made from behind this veil would be more equal than decisions about society made from a starting point where we know our positions and our self interest.
Putting aside the complex “thought experiments” and the vocabulary, if you think about the theory, it makes sense, right? Many “just” things we do are performed based on ignorance. We individually pick lottery numbers to see what order we get to choose items, or what groups are formed. Any decision that is made visually and allows us to logically and rationally calculate automatically is influence by a notion of bias and favoritism.
So Rawls tries to achieve justice or a just society using this method, but does this realistically work? How does either justice or Rawls’ method take into account the basic flaws within human nature? Even if people are behind this “veil of ignorance”, I don’ think fairness can be attained because people will still make calculations about ANY principle based upon how THEY end up under it. Even if the method and “place” have changed, the person making the decision has not.
Furthermore, Rawls considers justice as THE most important thing in society calling it the “first virtue. Should justice be considered before all things? What about survival? Like discussed before, what constitutes justice is open to interpretation. This means that the term is vague. Is justice fairness? Fair according to whom? There will never be a unanimous answer as to what justice is, so can it be achieved. Should something unexplainably come before solid, visible facts? Let’s say there’s a violent student attending an elementary school and one day he brings a gun to school. The administration expels him from the school and denies education to him anywhere within the district. What is more important- the injustice of the student not being able to receive an education like every other child in America or the safety of the other children? When the federal government is implementing a government-run health care program, what’s more important- the advantage of helping economic recovery or being just by giving everyone access to health care? Justice is about equality. However, what if fair or equal distribution is impossible?
I am curious about how groups like the Supreme Court or others in the judicial field would respond to philosophies concerning justice. I’d like to think that justice can always be attained, and personally I try to be fair in all my actions, but is this a realistic way to carry out one’s life? What I see most important from this is the fact that this is something that require ALL of society to contemplate. It’s open to many different views, and justice itself should be formed by society as a whole. Philosophy is also important. It’s the main reason why I would even choose to willingly explore something like this I normally wouldn’t. It’s important in thinking about today’s world from a new angle.
In the U.S., “justice” is a term thrown around without much thought given to its actual meaning. Schoolchildren across America say the Pledge of Allegiance concluding with the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” Justice is a concept that has been argued about by philosophers since the beginning of history. It’s often closely tied with the idea of fairness and has been connected with the idea of rationality. For example, the Supreme Court today is expected to rationally debate long and hard about the fairest course of action. The opposite of a just society is a tyrannical one. Justice and personal virtue (morality) are related, but unique ideas. I guess justice would be the morality that we agree upon as a society and make into laws.
Rawls has two main ideas that work hand in hand with each other: the original position and the veil of ignorance. Basically the “original position” is when representatives of people with limited information about the interests that they represent try to agree as to how society should be ordered. Rawls calls it the place in which everybody decides principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance.” All this is a hypothetical “thought experiment” designed to reflect what principles of justice would be present in a society based on free and fair cooperation between citizens.
The “veil of ignorance” that Rawls references on numerous accounts in his works basically blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed. This means from behind this veil, that person does not know the background or situation of his “client”. He negotiates blind. Rawls provides an example and says it’s method of determining the morality of a certain issue based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely redistributed (yes, high class to poverty, working class to billionaires, poor to working class) and from behind this “veil” you do not know what role you’ll be assigned. Decisions made from behind this veil would be more equal than decisions about society made from a starting point where we know our positions and our self interest.
Putting aside the complex “thought experiments” and the vocabulary, if you think about the theory, it makes sense, right? Many “just” things we do are performed based on ignorance. We individually pick lottery numbers to see what order we get to choose items, or what groups are formed. Any decision that is made visually and allows us to logically and rationally calculate automatically is influence by a notion of bias and favoritism.
So Rawls tries to achieve justice or a just society using this method, but does this realistically work? How does either justice or Rawls’ method take into account the basic flaws within human nature? Even if people are behind this “veil of ignorance”, I don’ think fairness can be attained because people will still make calculations about ANY principle based upon how THEY end up under it. Even if the method and “place” have changed, the person making the decision has not.
Furthermore, Rawls considers justice as THE most important thing in society calling it the “first virtue. Should justice be considered before all things? What about survival? Like discussed before, what constitutes justice is open to interpretation. This means that the term is vague. Is justice fairness? Fair according to whom? There will never be a unanimous answer as to what justice is, so can it be achieved. Should something unexplainably come before solid, visible facts? Let’s say there’s a violent student attending an elementary school and one day he brings a gun to school. The administration expels him from the school and denies education to him anywhere within the district. What is more important- the injustice of the student not being able to receive an education like every other child in America or the safety of the other children? When the federal government is implementing a government-run health care program, what’s more important- the advantage of helping economic recovery or being just by giving everyone access to health care? Justice is about equality. However, what if fair or equal distribution is impossible?
I am curious about how groups like the Supreme Court or others in the judicial field would respond to philosophies concerning justice. I’d like to think that justice can always be attained, and personally I try to be fair in all my actions, but is this a realistic way to carry out one’s life? What I see most important from this is the fact that this is something that require ALL of society to contemplate. It’s open to many different views, and justice itself should be formed by society as a whole. Philosophy is also important. It’s the main reason why I would even choose to willingly explore something like this I normally wouldn’t. It’s important in thinking about today’s world from a new angle.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
An Inconvenient Truth: Fate Does Not Exist
Some see events in their life pre-determined and already laid out for them without their knowledge. They believe in going to fortune tellers and such and believe in hearing their future because if events are already set in stone beforehand then it’s possible to foresee them. Others completely reject this idea of fate. Life is a random series of events put together. What I choose to do here wasn’t predicted beforehand; I could have chosen something else. Actions are “in-the-moment” events and can never be foreseen. The idea that challenges my understanding is the claim that fate doesn’t exist at all. The point that I want to make is not that fate determines everything, but more so that it is present in life. Maybe not in every aspect of life, but it exists. It bothers me a little when fate is completely denied from existing in life’s framework. Things that can’t be fully explained-the situation you were born into, the talents given to you- should be credited to fate. These strokes of luck, chance, or whatever other name it can be labeled fit better in fate’s framework. Everything happens for a reason.
In my opinion, fate is the part of life you can’t control. Fate is nature: it is what determines your physical makeup, your parents, your home, your chemical composition. It’s also the random things surrounding you that you have no say in, like weather, and other people’s actions. I’d probably agree with the statement that our lives are directed by a mix of free will and fate, but fate certainly exists. The core themes in our lives are given to us by fate: personality, health, and our situation. Free will guides the decisions we make. Relationships between people- probably a mix between the two. On one hand, relationships involve your free will, the other person’s free will, and the interaction between those free wills. However, the actual mesh of the interaction- the way people’s personalities and actions blend, and all the chemical twists and turns that determine the ultimate state of the relationship- are in fate’s hands.
I think the way fate and free will coexist is that fate gives us starting points throughout our life. From there, free will takes us wherever we please and that part yields many different paths in your life. Those who wait for fate to deliver everything to them will achieve far less than they desire. Relying on fate alone would work against the extraordinary happenings in life. If fate is our starting point, then we’d keep the friends we met in elementary school and make few new ones along the way. We’d enter careers that fit our earliest interests without thinking much of what else we’d like to explore. We’d grow up in the house we were born in, and then move to the next logical place based on outside influences. Few extraordinary events would happen.
It’s those extraordinary things- acts of free will that upset the normal, passive flow of life- that makes our lives exciting and worth living. Big or small, these acts change our lives- forcing yourself to go to a social outing that you feel uncomfortable about or challenging a deep fear. If you think about all the places you could have been raised in, all the people you could have met, and all the career paths you could possibly be driven towards, a balance of fate and free will are at work.
To be able to come to terms with this idea, the best way is to give everyone the freedom of their own belief. All I can do is lead my own life thinking that every gift I have and will receive has its own reason, and I should act thinking about its purpose in mind. Maybe others will experience an event in life down the road that will convince them in the direction of fate.
Fate exists but so does the “randomness.” We are dealt fate, but from that there are many different lives we can live- many choices and many outcomes.
In my opinion, fate is the part of life you can’t control. Fate is nature: it is what determines your physical makeup, your parents, your home, your chemical composition. It’s also the random things surrounding you that you have no say in, like weather, and other people’s actions. I’d probably agree with the statement that our lives are directed by a mix of free will and fate, but fate certainly exists. The core themes in our lives are given to us by fate: personality, health, and our situation. Free will guides the decisions we make. Relationships between people- probably a mix between the two. On one hand, relationships involve your free will, the other person’s free will, and the interaction between those free wills. However, the actual mesh of the interaction- the way people’s personalities and actions blend, and all the chemical twists and turns that determine the ultimate state of the relationship- are in fate’s hands.
I think the way fate and free will coexist is that fate gives us starting points throughout our life. From there, free will takes us wherever we please and that part yields many different paths in your life. Those who wait for fate to deliver everything to them will achieve far less than they desire. Relying on fate alone would work against the extraordinary happenings in life. If fate is our starting point, then we’d keep the friends we met in elementary school and make few new ones along the way. We’d enter careers that fit our earliest interests without thinking much of what else we’d like to explore. We’d grow up in the house we were born in, and then move to the next logical place based on outside influences. Few extraordinary events would happen.
It’s those extraordinary things- acts of free will that upset the normal, passive flow of life- that makes our lives exciting and worth living. Big or small, these acts change our lives- forcing yourself to go to a social outing that you feel uncomfortable about or challenging a deep fear. If you think about all the places you could have been raised in, all the people you could have met, and all the career paths you could possibly be driven towards, a balance of fate and free will are at work.
To be able to come to terms with this idea, the best way is to give everyone the freedom of their own belief. All I can do is lead my own life thinking that every gift I have and will receive has its own reason, and I should act thinking about its purpose in mind. Maybe others will experience an event in life down the road that will convince them in the direction of fate.
Fate exists but so does the “randomness.” We are dealt fate, but from that there are many different lives we can live- many choices and many outcomes.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Dialectics: Nature and Religion
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.
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 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)
