1. Please describe the background of the dispute between Dr. Samuel Huntington and Dr. Serge Lang.
Dr. Samuel Huntington was nominated to join the NAS,a nd was unlikely to be unchallenged in joining the society. Dr. Serge Lang had only joined NAS the year before, but had assumed ''the role of a sheriff of scholarship"
2.How did Lang respond to Huntington’s “pseudo mathematics?”
Lang was " Disturbed by what he saw as the use of 'pseudo mathematics' by Huntington," and sent subsequent letters and information attacking Huntington.
3. What aspects of the dispute between Lang and Huntington are “political?” How does the author, Jared Diamond, feel about “Academic Freedom?”
Some of Huntington's research was done for the State Department in 1967 and was said to be an early supporter of the "Vietnam War." Diamond feels that academic freedom should be that anyone can raise the issue of a scholar's politics, not just scholars. He implies this with a sarcastic tone, in his statement, "evidently,academic freedom means that outsiders can't raise the issue of a scholar's politics but other scholars can."
4. Why does the NAS exist? Why does this make that attacks against Huntington seem peculiar?
NAS exists to advise the Congress on questions of science and technology. This makes the attacks on Huntington seem peculiar because he was willing to advise Congress, yet he was condemned for it by some NAS members.
5. Why does Diamond find fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences?
Diamond finds fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences because there are some "phenomena that are intellectually challenging and important to understand, but that can't be measured to several decimal places in labs."
6. Why are soft sciences difficult to study?
The soft sciences are difficult to study because"You can't start it and stop it whenever you choose. You can't control all the variables; perhaps you can't control any variable. You may even find it hard to decide what a variable is. You can still use empirical tests to gain knowledge, but the types of tests used in the hard sciences must be modified."
7. How did the NAS need to change in the early 1970s?
NAS was "confronted with the need to offer the government competent advice about social problems, [to] began to admit social scientists at all."
8. What are the problems in “operationalizing” a concept?
Problems in "operationalizing" a concept are that, "to compare evidence with theory requires that you measure the ingredients of your theory," so "you would have to design a series of actual operations that yield a suitable measurement."
9. Briefly describe how Diamond illustrates operationalizing in:
· Mathematics-it is necessary to quantify a general term, such as "many," otherwise the concepts such as "more" or "less" would be irrelevant.
· Chemistry-speculation about ingrediants, then one "proceeds by identifying some property of a substance of interest, or of a related substance into which the first can be converted."
· Ecology-comparative "differences among habitats, which at first seemed to resist having a number put on them, proved to explain a big part of the habitats' differences."
· Psychology-using a questionnaire, defined people into general clusters based on their answers, "the responses were then employed to define attitude scales, which were further validated in other ways."
10. What were Huntington’s operationalized concepts that provoked the wrath of Lang?
"economic well-being, political instability, and social and economic modernization."
11. Why is the task of operationalizing more difficult and less exact in the soft sciences? Why does it lead to the ridicule of the soft sciences?
Operationalizations are more difficult in the soft sciences because of the large amount of uncontrolled variables. It leads to the ridicule of the soft sciences because they deal with familiar concepts, which "all of us fancy we're experts on."
12.Why does Diamond believe that Lang might be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington?
Diamond believes that Lang must be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington becausehe does not know anything about the social sciences.
13.Does Diamond believe the labels associated with the sciences be replaced? Explain.
Diamond does believe that the labels should be replaced because "hard" and "soft" denote that all the "soft sciences" are easy, while, in realitythey are "much more difficult and, to some of us, intellectually more challenging than mathematics and chemistry."
14. Does Diamond believe the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences? Do you agree? Explain.
Diamond believes the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences because "our survival depends on whether we progress with understanding how people behave." I disagree, in that i think that all of the sciences, hard and soft are valuable because the soft sciences allow us to understand people's behavior, and predict patterns and such, while the hard sciences allow us to understand the world those people are behaving in. Both elements are essential to beginning to understand the complexities of human life.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
BNW Chapter 9
1. What did Lenina do when she got back to the rest-house?
When Lenina gets back to the rest-house she took six half-grammes of soma tablets, lay down on her bed and hallucinates for 18 hours.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
Bernard asks his Forship, Mustapha Mond, for a special permit to take Linda and John off the Reservation and into London.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
John recites lines from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. This is significant because the relationship from Romeo & Juliet is foreshadowing for what John and Lenina's relationship in the future.
When Lenina gets back to the rest-house she took six half-grammes of soma tablets, lay down on her bed and hallucinates for 18 hours.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
Bernard asks his Forship, Mustapha Mond, for a special permit to take Linda and John off the Reservation and into London.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
John recites lines from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. This is significant because the relationship from Romeo & Juliet is foreshadowing for what John and Lenina's relationship in the future.
BNW Chapter 8
1. How would you describe John's upbringing? Why do you think he says that he is "Alone, always alone." (p. 137). How does Bernard feel about John?
John had a horrible upbringing. He was neglected and lonely. This was because Linda slept with many men on the reservation, because that was what she was conditioned to do. Popé also brought her mescal which is like soma but it "made you feel ill afterwards" (like alcohol), and because many of the women were angry with Linda, John wasn't accepted by the Indians, so he was left alone a lot. He was abused by Linda, who didn't want him because he was the result of he failed contraceptive, and he's the reason she can't leave the reservation. She often forgot to feed him or wash him. I think he says that he is "Alone, always alone," because he is rejected by everyone around him except for the old Indian Mitsima. Bernard feels a kinship John, because he always feels alone as well. He is "rather different from most people," just like John.
2. Why does John say at the end of the chapter, "O brave new world!" (p. 139)?
John say, "O brave new world!" because he is going to get to experience life off the reservation, a world he has never known, and a world where things like monogamy and mending are horrifying concepts, which excites John greatly.
John had a horrible upbringing. He was neglected and lonely. This was because Linda slept with many men on the reservation, because that was what she was conditioned to do. Popé also brought her mescal which is like soma but it "made you feel ill afterwards" (like alcohol), and because many of the women were angry with Linda, John wasn't accepted by the Indians, so he was left alone a lot. He was abused by Linda, who didn't want him because he was the result of he failed contraceptive, and he's the reason she can't leave the reservation. She often forgot to feed him or wash him. I think he says that he is "Alone, always alone," because he is rejected by everyone around him except for the old Indian Mitsima. Bernard feels a kinship John, because he always feels alone as well. He is "rather different from most people," just like John.
2. Why does John say at the end of the chapter, "O brave new world!" (p. 139)?
John say, "O brave new world!" because he is going to get to experience life off the reservation, a world he has never known, and a world where things like monogamy and mending are horrifying concepts, which excites John greatly.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Abel Questions Chapter 10: Scientific Explanations
1. How does Science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on. p. 91 and 92.
Science explains a fact by putting it in a general law from which, along with the particular conditions involved, the fact to be explained may be logically deduced. Therefore:
-the pond froze because the water temperature dropped below 32˚F, and water freezes at 32˚F or less.
-The pipe rusted because it was made of iron, which chemically combines with the oxygen in the air.
-The water pipes burst last winter because water expands when it freezes.
-Bert caught malaria because he was bitten by an anopheles mosquito which is a carrier for malaria.
-There was an eclipse of the sun because of the laws of gravitation and the orbits of the planets.
In each if the above listed, the fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law. The scientist explains what happens by devising concepts to describe a particular experience, and supplying a framework of covering laws from which, in conjunction with the specific conditions involved, we may make inferences about what it is that we want explained.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
The common misconceptions about scientific explanations Abel gives, and refutes are:
- "science describes rather than explains." Abel says that there is no fine line between description or explanation, but he asks that if the scientific explanation is only really a description, then what is an explanation?
-"science explains the strange by the familiar." Abel says that actually the reverse is true. Familiar phenomena like rust and family resemblance are caused by unfamiliar concepts like oxidation or genes.
-"scientific explanation is not the same as 'understanding.'" Abel says that the understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance or like knowing how, rather than science.
-"a scientific explanation need not be a casual law." Abel says that is may be a law of simultaneous existence, rather succession.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
What Abel means is that the more general the law, the more specific laws it can encompass, so there is a more depth to the explanation that is being provided.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
What Abel means is that the information in the explanation is relative to the situation, because you can't possibly give all the information in that explanation, and not all of the information is necessary. For example, if you were in New York City, and you asked someone where the Empire State Building, they're not going to tell you it's in NYC, because it's not relevant in the situation.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
They are "economical ways of describing phenomena," because they are not actually reducing processes, but combining some processes with others in order to have a more succinct term for the compunds, and save time on explanations.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Scientific explanation requires the concept of system because a concept may be describe in terms of another concept, but those concepts do not always add up to the overall ideal. In order to understand the overall ideal, one must sometimes understand the other concepts which make up the system of the overall ideal.
Science explains a fact by putting it in a general law from which, along with the particular conditions involved, the fact to be explained may be logically deduced. Therefore:
-the pond froze because the water temperature dropped below 32˚F, and water freezes at 32˚F or less.
-The pipe rusted because it was made of iron, which chemically combines with the oxygen in the air.
-The water pipes burst last winter because water expands when it freezes.
-Bert caught malaria because he was bitten by an anopheles mosquito which is a carrier for malaria.
-There was an eclipse of the sun because of the laws of gravitation and the orbits of the planets.
In each if the above listed, the fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law. The scientist explains what happens by devising concepts to describe a particular experience, and supplying a framework of covering laws from which, in conjunction with the specific conditions involved, we may make inferences about what it is that we want explained.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
The common misconceptions about scientific explanations Abel gives, and refutes are:
- "science describes rather than explains." Abel says that there is no fine line between description or explanation, but he asks that if the scientific explanation is only really a description, then what is an explanation?
-"science explains the strange by the familiar." Abel says that actually the reverse is true. Familiar phenomena like rust and family resemblance are caused by unfamiliar concepts like oxidation or genes.
-"scientific explanation is not the same as 'understanding.'" Abel says that the understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance or like knowing how, rather than science.
-"a scientific explanation need not be a casual law." Abel says that is may be a law of simultaneous existence, rather succession.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
What Abel means is that the more general the law, the more specific laws it can encompass, so there is a more depth to the explanation that is being provided.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
What Abel means is that the information in the explanation is relative to the situation, because you can't possibly give all the information in that explanation, and not all of the information is necessary. For example, if you were in New York City, and you asked someone where the Empire State Building, they're not going to tell you it's in NYC, because it's not relevant in the situation.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
They are "economical ways of describing phenomena," because they are not actually reducing processes, but combining some processes with others in order to have a more succinct term for the compunds, and save time on explanations.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Scientific explanation requires the concept of system because a concept may be describe in terms of another concept, but those concepts do not always add up to the overall ideal. In order to understand the overall ideal, one must sometimes understand the other concepts which make up the system of the overall ideal.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Order Through Chaos
The claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” is strongly represented in the Natural Sciences and Religion. In each of the areas of knowledge, but particularly these two, there is a strong base for this idea, especially when one considers the perceptions and emotions, and occasional reason that play into why people “need to believe” that order is found in chaos.
People who “need to believe” that order can be seen amidst chaos may use knowledge of the Natural Sciences, here, more specifically: Biology, to cite examples for their claim. Using Reason, one might suggest that in examining any animal’s body and/or its function, amongst all the working parts of the body all, only one organ runs the entire body, and so this must be some sort of order. I do not think that this claim applies a to a great extent in Biology simply because there is no real chaos in the body, unless the body is malfunctioning. While some might argue that there are so many different working parts of the body with different functions that inside our skin, that it is all chaos, yet there is order because one single part controls the function of every other body part. However, I would disagree with this argument, because I know, through both authority and empirical evidence, that the body is split up into different systems, all of which, while being overall controlled by the brain, work together in each system to perform different jobs. To me, this is not chaos, simply a well-organized sort of machine. In ninth grade we had to study the different systems of the bodies. One group of between 2-4 people would each do a presentation on a different system from the human body. My group’s system was the Respiratory system, and while reading my textbook for information I gained knowledge by authority that allowed me to better understand the how the Respiratory system worked. I decided to trust this authority because it those involved in publishing would have researched their topic well, so as not to misinform thousands of students. I also have empirical knowledge of how a Respiratory system works, in two ways. One is my own Respiratory system, I understand the basics, in that when I breathe in, my lungs inflate with oxygen, and that when I breathe out, carbon dioxide leaves my lungs, and this is how I stay alive. I have also seen the same process with a pig’s lungs, when I was showed the difference between the lung of a “smoker” and that of “non-smoker,” because pigs’ lungs are extremely similar to human lungs. I understand that each system works together to keep the human, or animal body going, and is controlled overall by the brain. This to me does not seem to be order in chaos, in the way that our bodies work. However, when one considers that the body is doing all of this internally, while doing many other things externally, such as driving, reading, speaking, etc., that would seem to me to fit the claim of “glimpsing order in the chaos of events.” The chaos of events is everything the human body does externally; all while the order is functioning in an organized organism made up of many systems working together, perfectly, or near to perfectly. In this second way, the claim works to a better extent, than to the first way one might use the Natural Sciences to argue the point.
Religion also has a very strong base, with which the claim that people need to find order in the chaos of events, works. I find that emotion plays very strongly into religion. For example, it seems to me that many people believe in God and Heaven, and Hell, because they are afraid that after we die, there is nothing. I find that this may be entirely possible, however, sometimes I see beauty in nature, or an event will happen that just seems senseless, but will then connect to another event that occurs later, and it just seems to me like there must be a higher power, perhaps who is orchestrating the life that goes on all around me. An experience from my childhood which helps me perceive and believe in a higher power, was the death of my maternal grandmother when I was six years old. She died of a stroke on the morning of her sixtieth birthday. At the time, her death seemed irrational and so out of place in my six-year-old world. I saw how it devastated my mother and my grandfather. About a month after her death, my aunt (my mother’s sister) announced that after trying for some time, she was finally pregnant, yet sad that she had not shared the news while my grandmother was still alive. Yet, again, to my six-year-old mind, it made sense. My unborn cousin was joining our world, because my grandmother had left it. The baby was not a replacement, in any way, shape, or form, she was just the newest addition. This event is probably the most signifying event to me of the idea of God and that everything happens for a reason, which would be the order in the chaos of events. However this is simply my perception, the way I view the world, based on the way that I was brought up, in two religions, although it was primarily Judaism and secondarily Catholicism (both very reformed), and my perception is completely different, not only from someone who has a different upbringing than I had, as well as a different belief system, such as Atheism, but also different than my sister, who is agnostic, and her views on religion and ideas about God. In this way, related to my experience, religion and the idea that there is order, or God, in the chaos of our lives and events, is something that some people “need to believe.”
One of the best examples of this claim is in the religion of Hinduism. The claim works to a great extent in this particular religion because of the concept of dharma, as well as the caste system. Both of these concepts, one may argue, are the order in the chaos, in that by performing your dharma, and reliving through the caste system, you will eventually reach enlightenment, which is the true order in the midst of chaos of one’s many lives. The dharma, is the concept that one has to do their duty, not only to one’s family, but also to the expectations of the caste one is in, in order to eventually move up into the next caste, to become closer to enlightenment. This concept provides a sort of order for which Hindis may base their lives around. Just as in Biology, dharma seems to be sort of the internal order, around which everything else is based, no matter how complicated the external chaos becomes. A Hindi puts his dharma before everything else, because of his perception that if he follows his dharma, he will move up into the next caste, whether it be from a Vaisya (merchant) to a Khasatrya (warrior), or a Brahimn (priest) onto enlightenment. He may also be fueled by the fear of the wrath of one of the gods/goddesses, such as Kali or Shiva, or by his devotion them, like to Ganesh or Vishnu.
In conclusion, the claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” applies a good extent to Natural Science, as well as to Religion, although they are not the only two areas of knowledge to which this claim applies to. The ways of knowing to which this claim apply, are mostly through perception and emotion, but particularly in the Natural Sciences, reason as well.
People who “need to believe” that order can be seen amidst chaos may use knowledge of the Natural Sciences, here, more specifically: Biology, to cite examples for their claim. Using Reason, one might suggest that in examining any animal’s body and/or its function, amongst all the working parts of the body all, only one organ runs the entire body, and so this must be some sort of order. I do not think that this claim applies a to a great extent in Biology simply because there is no real chaos in the body, unless the body is malfunctioning. While some might argue that there are so many different working parts of the body with different functions that inside our skin, that it is all chaos, yet there is order because one single part controls the function of every other body part. However, I would disagree with this argument, because I know, through both authority and empirical evidence, that the body is split up into different systems, all of which, while being overall controlled by the brain, work together in each system to perform different jobs. To me, this is not chaos, simply a well-organized sort of machine. In ninth grade we had to study the different systems of the bodies. One group of between 2-4 people would each do a presentation on a different system from the human body. My group’s system was the Respiratory system, and while reading my textbook for information I gained knowledge by authority that allowed me to better understand the how the Respiratory system worked. I decided to trust this authority because it those involved in publishing would have researched their topic well, so as not to misinform thousands of students. I also have empirical knowledge of how a Respiratory system works, in two ways. One is my own Respiratory system, I understand the basics, in that when I breathe in, my lungs inflate with oxygen, and that when I breathe out, carbon dioxide leaves my lungs, and this is how I stay alive. I have also seen the same process with a pig’s lungs, when I was showed the difference between the lung of a “smoker” and that of “non-smoker,” because pigs’ lungs are extremely similar to human lungs. I understand that each system works together to keep the human, or animal body going, and is controlled overall by the brain. This to me does not seem to be order in chaos, in the way that our bodies work. However, when one considers that the body is doing all of this internally, while doing many other things externally, such as driving, reading, speaking, etc., that would seem to me to fit the claim of “glimpsing order in the chaos of events.” The chaos of events is everything the human body does externally; all while the order is functioning in an organized organism made up of many systems working together, perfectly, or near to perfectly. In this second way, the claim works to a better extent, than to the first way one might use the Natural Sciences to argue the point.
Religion also has a very strong base, with which the claim that people need to find order in the chaos of events, works. I find that emotion plays very strongly into religion. For example, it seems to me that many people believe in God and Heaven, and Hell, because they are afraid that after we die, there is nothing. I find that this may be entirely possible, however, sometimes I see beauty in nature, or an event will happen that just seems senseless, but will then connect to another event that occurs later, and it just seems to me like there must be a higher power, perhaps who is orchestrating the life that goes on all around me. An experience from my childhood which helps me perceive and believe in a higher power, was the death of my maternal grandmother when I was six years old. She died of a stroke on the morning of her sixtieth birthday. At the time, her death seemed irrational and so out of place in my six-year-old world. I saw how it devastated my mother and my grandfather. About a month after her death, my aunt (my mother’s sister) announced that after trying for some time, she was finally pregnant, yet sad that she had not shared the news while my grandmother was still alive. Yet, again, to my six-year-old mind, it made sense. My unborn cousin was joining our world, because my grandmother had left it. The baby was not a replacement, in any way, shape, or form, she was just the newest addition. This event is probably the most signifying event to me of the idea of God and that everything happens for a reason, which would be the order in the chaos of events. However this is simply my perception, the way I view the world, based on the way that I was brought up, in two religions, although it was primarily Judaism and secondarily Catholicism (both very reformed), and my perception is completely different, not only from someone who has a different upbringing than I had, as well as a different belief system, such as Atheism, but also different than my sister, who is agnostic, and her views on religion and ideas about God. In this way, related to my experience, religion and the idea that there is order, or God, in the chaos of our lives and events, is something that some people “need to believe.”
One of the best examples of this claim is in the religion of Hinduism. The claim works to a great extent in this particular religion because of the concept of dharma, as well as the caste system. Both of these concepts, one may argue, are the order in the chaos, in that by performing your dharma, and reliving through the caste system, you will eventually reach enlightenment, which is the true order in the midst of chaos of one’s many lives. The dharma, is the concept that one has to do their duty, not only to one’s family, but also to the expectations of the caste one is in, in order to eventually move up into the next caste, to become closer to enlightenment. This concept provides a sort of order for which Hindis may base their lives around. Just as in Biology, dharma seems to be sort of the internal order, around which everything else is based, no matter how complicated the external chaos becomes. A Hindi puts his dharma before everything else, because of his perception that if he follows his dharma, he will move up into the next caste, whether it be from a Vaisya (merchant) to a Khasatrya (warrior), or a Brahimn (priest) onto enlightenment. He may also be fueled by the fear of the wrath of one of the gods/goddesses, such as Kali or Shiva, or by his devotion them, like to Ganesh or Vishnu.
In conclusion, the claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” applies a good extent to Natural Science, as well as to Religion, although they are not the only two areas of knowledge to which this claim applies to. The ways of knowing to which this claim apply, are mostly through perception and emotion, but particularly in the Natural Sciences, reason as well.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
BNW Chapter 7
Please read Chapter 7 and answer the following questions. Answers must be posted by November 17th for full credit.
1. How does Lenina feel about their appointed guide?
Lenina does not like their appointed Indian guide. She thinks he smells, as well.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
Lenina is very shocked at the old naked Indian. She stares at him in "horror and amazement." She has never seen a truly old person, because the World Order doesn't allow them to look old, and they usually die around 60. She finds it "terrible," and "awful."
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
Bernard is ashamed of "the weakness he had displayed that morning at the hotel, so he is trying to show Lenina that he is "strong and unorthodox." He does this by being "deliberately outrageous," and talking about the "wonderful" relationship between the Indian mothers breast-feeding their babies, to purposefully freak Lenina out.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
Linda is Tomakin's mother. She had come from the "Other Place" before Tomakin was born, with Tomakin's father, who, it is implied, is the DHC. This means that she is the girl who went on a walk during the thunderstorm, and couldn't be found, and so was assumed dead.
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
Linda believes that, "everything they do is mad" because "it's all different here." It's mad because they mend their clothes instead of buying new ones, and are monogamous, and the women are "cruel," and they don't use birth control.
1. How does Lenina feel about their appointed guide?
Lenina does not like their appointed Indian guide. She thinks he smells, as well.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
Lenina is very shocked at the old naked Indian. She stares at him in "horror and amazement." She has never seen a truly old person, because the World Order doesn't allow them to look old, and they usually die around 60. She finds it "terrible," and "awful."
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
Bernard is ashamed of "the weakness he had displayed that morning at the hotel, so he is trying to show Lenina that he is "strong and unorthodox." He does this by being "deliberately outrageous," and talking about the "wonderful" relationship between the Indian mothers breast-feeding their babies, to purposefully freak Lenina out.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
Linda is Tomakin's mother. She had come from the "Other Place" before Tomakin was born, with Tomakin's father, who, it is implied, is the DHC. This means that she is the girl who went on a walk during the thunderstorm, and couldn't be found, and so was assumed dead.
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
Linda believes that, "everything they do is mad" because "it's all different here." It's mad because they mend their clothes instead of buying new ones, and are monogamous, and the women are "cruel," and they don't use birth control.
BNW Chapter 6
Part I
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
Lenina thinks Bernard Marx is "odd" because he didn't "respond properly to conditioning" (pg 88), his "mania for doing things in private" (pg 88), he did not think that time should be wasted (pg 89), wanting to spend the afternoon walking and talking, (pg.89), not wanting to take soma (pg 89), "not wanting to be a part of the social body" (pg 91), and not wanting to end their day in bed (pg 93).
2. Please provide more lines from Lenina that she learned from hypnopedia (there are some great ones in this chapter!). Do any of them remind you of sayings that we may use - please don't use commercial jingles. i.e. "1-800-54-Giant!"
- "A gramme in time saves nine". (pg 89)
This is very similar to our "A stitch in time saves nine." They both mean that if you do soemthing now you can prevent having to do much more later. (Like doing your blogs when they're due, not all at the same time...oops.)
-"Remember on cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments." (pg 89)
-"A gramme is always better than a damn." (pg 90)
I think we have a saying that says to do something instead of just complaining.
-"Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one. Even Epsilons...are useful!" (pg 91)
-"Everyone's happy nowadays." (pg 91)
-"Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today."(pg 93)
We also have a saying like this, but it refers more to doing work today so you can have fun tomorrow.
-When the individual feels, the community reels." (pg 94)
All in all, what hypnopedia sayings are to BNW, so cliches are to (American?) Society 2009.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior is that there was too much alcohol in his blood surrogate.
Part II
4. What did the Director tell Bernard about his own trip to the Reservation? Why did it initially make Bernard feel uncomfortable?
The Director told Bernard that he had been to the Reservation "Twenty years, I suppose. Nearer twenty-five. I must have been your age..." (pg 96). This initally makes Bernard feel "extremely uncomfortable" because the Director is "so scrupulously correct," and he "commit[s] so gross a solecism!" by talking about the remote past.
The Director also tells Bernard that he also "wanted to have a look at the savages," and got a permit to the Reservation for his summer holiday. He took a girl who was "particularly pneumatic," and on the almost the last day, she got lost, by going out on a walk by herself while he was sleeping. Then there was a thunderstorm, and the horses they had been riding broke free and he hurt his knee, and could not find her. He eventually made it back to the rest-house hoping he'd find her there, but she wasn't, and when they conducted the search they couldn't find her. It made the Director almost too upset.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
The Director threatens Bernard with transference to a Sub-Centre, like Iceland, if he does not make an effort to conform and lapses again "from a proper standard of infantile decorum." This elates Bernard because he believes that he now stood alone, and has "consciousness of his individual significance and importance." He feels s"strong enough to meet and overcome affliction."
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
The Warden describes the Reservation as very large (560,000 sq km), but divided into four Sub-reservations, which are surrounded by "a high-tension wire fence." There's 5,000 km of fencing at 60,000 volts, supplied from the Grand Canyon hydro-electric station. Therefore "there is no escape from a Savage Reservation." The children who are actually born on the Reservation, must not leave, and die on the Reservation.
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
Lenina thinks Bernard Marx is "odd" because he didn't "respond properly to conditioning" (pg 88), his "mania for doing things in private" (pg 88), he did not think that time should be wasted (pg 89), wanting to spend the afternoon walking and talking, (pg.89), not wanting to take soma (pg 89), "not wanting to be a part of the social body" (pg 91), and not wanting to end their day in bed (pg 93).
2. Please provide more lines from Lenina that she learned from hypnopedia (there are some great ones in this chapter!). Do any of them remind you of sayings that we may use - please don't use commercial jingles. i.e. "1-800-54-Giant!"
- "A gramme in time saves nine". (pg 89)
This is very similar to our "A stitch in time saves nine." They both mean that if you do soemthing now you can prevent having to do much more later. (Like doing your blogs when they're due, not all at the same time...oops.)
-"Remember on cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments." (pg 89)
-"A gramme is always better than a damn." (pg 90)
I think we have a saying that says to do something instead of just complaining.
-"Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one. Even Epsilons...are useful!" (pg 91)
-"Everyone's happy nowadays." (pg 91)
-"Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today."(pg 93)
We also have a saying like this, but it refers more to doing work today so you can have fun tomorrow.
-When the individual feels, the community reels." (pg 94)
All in all, what hypnopedia sayings are to BNW, so cliches are to (American?) Society 2009.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior is that there was too much alcohol in his blood surrogate.
Part II
4. What did the Director tell Bernard about his own trip to the Reservation? Why did it initially make Bernard feel uncomfortable?
The Director told Bernard that he had been to the Reservation "Twenty years, I suppose. Nearer twenty-five. I must have been your age..." (pg 96). This initally makes Bernard feel "extremely uncomfortable" because the Director is "so scrupulously correct," and he "commit[s] so gross a solecism!" by talking about the remote past.
The Director also tells Bernard that he also "wanted to have a look at the savages," and got a permit to the Reservation for his summer holiday. He took a girl who was "particularly pneumatic," and on the almost the last day, she got lost, by going out on a walk by herself while he was sleeping. Then there was a thunderstorm, and the horses they had been riding broke free and he hurt his knee, and could not find her. He eventually made it back to the rest-house hoping he'd find her there, but she wasn't, and when they conducted the search they couldn't find her. It made the Director almost too upset.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
The Director threatens Bernard with transference to a Sub-Centre, like Iceland, if he does not make an effort to conform and lapses again "from a proper standard of infantile decorum." This elates Bernard because he believes that he now stood alone, and has "consciousness of his individual significance and importance." He feels s"strong enough to meet and overcome affliction."
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
The Warden describes the Reservation as very large (560,000 sq km), but divided into four Sub-reservations, which are surrounded by "a high-tension wire fence." There's 5,000 km of fencing at 60,000 volts, supplied from the Grand Canyon hydro-electric station. Therefore "there is no escape from a Savage Reservation." The children who are actually born on the Reservation, must not leave, and die on the Reservation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
