1. What would Michael Pollan (Remember? The Omnivore's Dilemma) say about the first paragraph in Chapter 5?
Michael Pollan would say that if the hormones and milk were the raw materials for the factory, then everything the factory produced would, at it's base, be from corn, as the cows eat the corn and in turn, everything they produce is made from corn.
2. Do you see any similarities with how the World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with what is discussed in Plato's Republic?
There is a strong similarity between Hinduism and World State views on death, because they both believe that their bodies are recycled and returned to the Earth, and their energy is used to continue life on earth. Lenina's remembrance of hypnopaedia is also very similar to what is discussed in Plato's Republic in that at each level, everyone is conditioned to be happy where they are. "Epsilons don't really mind being Epsilons," in the same way that warriors, of silver, don't mind being warriors. However, one difference between the two is that in the World State, your heredity matters, as Henry mentions on page 74. In the Republic, Socrates argues that golden children can come from bronze or silver parents and vice versa.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
To me it's fascinating that in order for not only them, but everyone else to have a good night, they need to get high. They call it being "happy," and they say that "everyone is happy now," but it seems almost sad that they need several does of a drug to enjoy themselves, and that their own positive emotions are not enough to produce that effect for them. I do like the way that the music seems to fill them, although that too could be because they're high, but Huxley uses such wonderful adjectives and details in describing the music, that one can almost enjoy it, simply by reading about it.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters because they don't really have any substance to them. The word "pneumatic" means "containg or operated by air or gas under pressure." This seems to fit the girls that Huxley is describing, at least through Bernard's eyes, on page 80. He finds Clara Deterding "really too pneumatic." She is not "plump, blonde, not too large," the qualities Huxley has Bernard use to describe Fifi and Joanna who "were absolutely right."
5. What is Solidarity Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
Solidarity Service is an orgy, meant for those at the service to achieve "rapture," and "calm ecstasy," and to come together. However, Bernard does not feel this way. Again he feels isolated, empty, "separate and atoned."
Monday, November 23, 2009
Connections
Cave and Grendel:
-Grendel is being enlightened, steeping out of the cave, and trying to find a higher power
BNW and Hinduism:
-The Caste system, in which there is a hierarchy of the most enlightened and intelligent at the top, and the "stupidest" lowest echelons of society at the bottom in both societies.
18 w/ a bullet and Hinduism:
-everyone has there place and everyone has a responsibility. A gang member has a duty to protect the gang and serve the gang, which they consider to be their family, which is similar to the Hindu concept of Dharma, which is responsibility to their family.
For all:
Society has created a prison, they are all trapped by the standards of that society. Also, everyone is a prisoner to their own Dharma.
Grendel and 18 w/ a bullet:
Both are struggling with the concept of monster. Both can be defined as monsters, they are both very savage, and do bad things, but they both have their humanistic sides, which reveal characteristics which makes it hard to completely classify them as monsters.
BNW, Nacirema and 18 w/ a bullet:
focus strongly on materialism.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Gangs in el Salvador
Why does Slappy act this way?
can't measure human experience
-too many human variables, everyone has different experiences
-different points of view
-different opinions
-people aren't numbers
-it's hard to find qualitative conclusions
On the other hand, these things can be measured:
-crime stats
-unemployment stats
-poverty census
-Dysfunctional family
-Gang has replaced family/church--they look out for each other, live by their own rules & morals, belonging, protection, structure, school, community--contribute to 'cause', jobs:extortion & drugs, initiation (beating), tattoos, shaved head, participate in democracy.
Idea of Crime: Causes and Effects
-no other options
-no job opportunities--not hiring, added expenses
-addiction
-need for money
-no advancement (stuck at the bottom of the food-chain)
-need for structure
-poverty
"The gang structure is a lot like Wal-Mart."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Nacirema
1. What happened yesterday? Why couldn't we recognize our own culture?
Yesterday we read about a tribe, called the Nacirema located between Canada and Mexico, who, we decided were barbarians, savage, and uncivilized. However, at the end of the class, we found out that the tribe being described were actually Americans, and the word "american" had simply been spelled backwards. I think that we couldn't recognize our own culture because of the terms in which it was describe to us. The language of the article altered our perception, and so they way it was presented, as if by an outsider was observing our culture.
2. What does your answer say about the the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology?
2. What does your answer say about the the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology?
My answer shows both the strengths and weaknesses of the social sciences. On one hand, the article allowed us a look at the psychology, not only of our own culture, but also of how an insider might view American culture, which is a strength, to have the two different view points. At the same time, there is the weakness in the bias opinion one takes of anyone who is different. In the article, many words describing "rituals" not only had negative connotations, like "witch-doctor," but also had a condescending tone when describing a "magical," tool or supply. This shows the weakness of social sciences, in that we are condescending towards other cultures, and we look down on other cultures and ideas about what is "normal."
Monday, November 9, 2009
Abel Questions Chapter 15
1. Why is history being rewritten constantly?
History is being rewritten constantly because is "always written wrong." Abel says that the past is a "steady process of imaginative reinterpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present."
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
-our interests change:example-In 50 years, will will probably care less about Miley Cyrus's "scandalous" photos, than her impact on popular music.
-our conceptual apparatus changes: example-we now have access to confidential documents from the Soviet Union about the Cold War, which we did not have before the collapse.
-our view for basic historical segment changes:example-"Toynbee holds the most intelligent unit not to be the nation, but the 'society.'"
-the interests and idiosyncrasies of the historian change:example-after WWII, Hitler was a very popular subject of study. Today, it might be Obama.
-the audience for whom the historian writes changes:example-a change in political party rule:republicans vs. democrats->the majority of the house changes.
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The "Baconian fallacy" is the idea that "all the historians have to do is collect the facts." The Positivits would completely agree with this view, and say that the facts speak for themselves. Carr would agree with Namier, because Naimer believes that historians have to "single-out and stress" the most important parts, like a painter, and not like a photographer, who can capture everything at once.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History differs from Geology in that historians "attribute meaning to [the] data." Whereas the geologists focus more on the present aspects of the rock they are examining and how the past could have affected it to look as it does.
5. According to Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by "the facts (p. 166-7)." Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?
Based on my experience with the Cheques Lab, I agree to a decent extent with this explanation of history. Sometimes in History, the historian has to be able to see patterns to establish them as relevant, but the patterns are not necessarily the most important or even actual patterns vs. coincidences.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
In my opinion, future historians will focus on the biggest issues facing our society today. In the future, historians will elect to discuss whether or not the first black American president was a good president, they will discuss the state of the economy, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
7. What is historical pluralism?
Historical pluralism is the historical process made up of the enumerable components which don't "form a completely inter-related set...[Historiacl pluralism] denies that every event is related to every other event."
8. The list of events (or non-events) listed on p. 168 makes Abel ask the question: "Is there, then, no hard core or bed-rock of indisputable facts that the historian must recognize." Does it matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky?
I think that based on perception, there is no hard-core of indisputable fact; in history everything is disputable. There are generally accepted facts, such as the Holocaust happened. Yet there are people who don't believe that the Holocaust happened. It matters that the Holocaust happened, and that there was a man named Trotsky, so that humans can keep a generally accepted record of what happened. This way, we become better at preventing things like mass genocide of a people, or the establishment of a cruel dictatorship.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
A historian is like a physicist in that they both go "beyond the evidence," select their facts and how to describe them.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
-I:Cyclical:Repetition is likely.-The Jewish-Arab fight. Both sides feel so strongly that there are only a limitd amount of solution to the problem, and history, like the 1929 Riots and the Hebron Massacre are likely to repeat themselves until the problem is solved.
-II:foundational:they isolate and stress certain factors.
-a) History of civilization depends on "climate, soil, and geography."-The majority of land in the Middle East is not particularly arable, so Arabs have a hard time cultivating certain types of plants, which are part of a huge trading industry. Also, the Middle East is geographically located farther away from a major ocean, and therefore their history of civilization may be said to be slowed in comparison to lands such as England and America, which are located on arable lands near major trading routes.
-b)Race is stressed by historians as ancient-Jews, who have been considered to be a race, have been suppressed for millennia. They were the ones who had to handle money in the MIddle Ages when that was considered "dirty," and their control over banks because of that, which caused discrimination against them in the modern world (1920s-WWII, specifically).
-c)Heredity ability is paramount in historical interpretations-In the the Middle East, Prince Faisal was expected to be a good leader of Syria, and help establish a independent Arab state, just as his father did with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.
-d)Psychological factors are identified by many as the moving force in history.-Hitler's campaign against the Jews worked in part because the people of Germany were downtrodden by the Treaty of Versailles, and were in the psychological condition to blame a scapegoat for their troubles.
-e)The motive of History to be the appearance of superior individuals.-Winston Churchill, who talked about making allies with the Russians before the end of the war, has eventually come to be known as one of England's most accomplished Prime Ministers.
-III:Progress:change in the direction of human interests-In Germany, HItler believed he was making progress for the betterment of Germans, by extinguishing Jews, homosexuals, and those who were disabled.
-IV:Christian:History is a great drama of sin and redemption.-Part of the Lebanese National Pact is that Lebanon will be an independent Arab state with special ties to the west (They are Christian) and are therefore mostly peaceful and not enter alliance against any other Arab state.
-V:Organismic:all civilizations grow, from infancy to death.-The Nazi ideals, which grew from anti-Semitism and from infancy after WWI, and the treaty of Versailles, and blossomed into frull growth, hence WWII, have nearly reached the death stage, although Neo-Nazism still exists today.
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
I do not believe in Historical Inevitability because I do not believe that future is predictable because of some overall "plot." I believe that history is continuing series of events that are interconnected, and may help us prevent certain diasters and calamities in the future, but will not hepl us predict the future.
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
Abel means that there is no way to test a theory of history, because the future is unknown. you can uses a theory to predict what will happen, and then, only after it has happened, use those results from history to verify your theory insofar. However, there is always the chance that something will happen which completely contradicts your theory, and there is simply no way to prepare for that.
13. Abel writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (p. 174)." How would Jill Lepore of Just the Facts, Ma'am respond? Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.
JIll Lepore would agree, for the same reason that Abel states: "the historian, like the novelist, tells a story: this is how things happened." She would agree by saying that the historian looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a general story of what happened, while the novleist looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a story about human nature.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
The footnote at the bottom of page 175 relates to the Shaper from Grendel, because the Shaper takes the commonly acknowledged history, and changes it so that is the most falttering and reflective view, which is what each culture/race mentioned in the footnote is doing.
History is being rewritten constantly because is "always written wrong." Abel says that the past is a "steady process of imaginative reinterpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present."
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
-our interests change:example-In 50 years, will will probably care less about Miley Cyrus's "scandalous" photos, than her impact on popular music.
-our conceptual apparatus changes: example-we now have access to confidential documents from the Soviet Union about the Cold War, which we did not have before the collapse.
-our view for basic historical segment changes:example-"Toynbee holds the most intelligent unit not to be the nation, but the 'society.'"
-the interests and idiosyncrasies of the historian change:example-after WWII, Hitler was a very popular subject of study. Today, it might be Obama.
-the audience for whom the historian writes changes:example-a change in political party rule:republicans vs. democrats->the majority of the house changes.
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The "Baconian fallacy" is the idea that "all the historians have to do is collect the facts." The Positivits would completely agree with this view, and say that the facts speak for themselves. Carr would agree with Namier, because Naimer believes that historians have to "single-out and stress" the most important parts, like a painter, and not like a photographer, who can capture everything at once.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History differs from Geology in that historians "attribute meaning to [the] data." Whereas the geologists focus more on the present aspects of the rock they are examining and how the past could have affected it to look as it does.
5. According to Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by "the facts (p. 166-7)." Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?
Based on my experience with the Cheques Lab, I agree to a decent extent with this explanation of history. Sometimes in History, the historian has to be able to see patterns to establish them as relevant, but the patterns are not necessarily the most important or even actual patterns vs. coincidences.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
In my opinion, future historians will focus on the biggest issues facing our society today. In the future, historians will elect to discuss whether or not the first black American president was a good president, they will discuss the state of the economy, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
7. What is historical pluralism?
Historical pluralism is the historical process made up of the enumerable components which don't "form a completely inter-related set...[Historiacl pluralism] denies that every event is related to every other event."
8. The list of events (or non-events) listed on p. 168 makes Abel ask the question: "Is there, then, no hard core or bed-rock of indisputable facts that the historian must recognize." Does it matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky?
I think that based on perception, there is no hard-core of indisputable fact; in history everything is disputable. There are generally accepted facts, such as the Holocaust happened. Yet there are people who don't believe that the Holocaust happened. It matters that the Holocaust happened, and that there was a man named Trotsky, so that humans can keep a generally accepted record of what happened. This way, we become better at preventing things like mass genocide of a people, or the establishment of a cruel dictatorship.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
A historian is like a physicist in that they both go "beyond the evidence," select their facts and how to describe them.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
-I:Cyclical:Repetition is likely.-The Jewish-Arab fight. Both sides feel so strongly that there are only a limitd amount of solution to the problem, and history, like the 1929 Riots and the Hebron Massacre are likely to repeat themselves until the problem is solved.
-II:foundational:they isolate and stress certain factors.
-a) History of civilization depends on "climate, soil, and geography."-The majority of land in the Middle East is not particularly arable, so Arabs have a hard time cultivating certain types of plants, which are part of a huge trading industry. Also, the Middle East is geographically located farther away from a major ocean, and therefore their history of civilization may be said to be slowed in comparison to lands such as England and America, which are located on arable lands near major trading routes.
-b)Race is stressed by historians as ancient-Jews, who have been considered to be a race, have been suppressed for millennia. They were the ones who had to handle money in the MIddle Ages when that was considered "dirty," and their control over banks because of that, which caused discrimination against them in the modern world (1920s-WWII, specifically).
-c)Heredity ability is paramount in historical interpretations-In the the Middle East, Prince Faisal was expected to be a good leader of Syria, and help establish a independent Arab state, just as his father did with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.
-d)Psychological factors are identified by many as the moving force in history.-Hitler's campaign against the Jews worked in part because the people of Germany were downtrodden by the Treaty of Versailles, and were in the psychological condition to blame a scapegoat for their troubles.
-e)The motive of History to be the appearance of superior individuals.-Winston Churchill, who talked about making allies with the Russians before the end of the war, has eventually come to be known as one of England's most accomplished Prime Ministers.
-III:Progress:change in the direction of human interests-In Germany, HItler believed he was making progress for the betterment of Germans, by extinguishing Jews, homosexuals, and those who were disabled.
-IV:Christian:History is a great drama of sin and redemption.-Part of the Lebanese National Pact is that Lebanon will be an independent Arab state with special ties to the west (They are Christian) and are therefore mostly peaceful and not enter alliance against any other Arab state.
-V:Organismic:all civilizations grow, from infancy to death.-The Nazi ideals, which grew from anti-Semitism and from infancy after WWI, and the treaty of Versailles, and blossomed into frull growth, hence WWII, have nearly reached the death stage, although Neo-Nazism still exists today.
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
I do not believe in Historical Inevitability because I do not believe that future is predictable because of some overall "plot." I believe that history is continuing series of events that are interconnected, and may help us prevent certain diasters and calamities in the future, but will not hepl us predict the future.
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
Abel means that there is no way to test a theory of history, because the future is unknown. you can uses a theory to predict what will happen, and then, only after it has happened, use those results from history to verify your theory insofar. However, there is always the chance that something will happen which completely contradicts your theory, and there is simply no way to prepare for that.
13. Abel writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (p. 174)." How would Jill Lepore of Just the Facts, Ma'am respond? Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.
JIll Lepore would agree, for the same reason that Abel states: "the historian, like the novelist, tells a story: this is how things happened." She would agree by saying that the historian looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a general story of what happened, while the novleist looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a story about human nature.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
The footnote at the bottom of page 175 relates to the Shaper from Grendel, because the Shaper takes the commonly acknowledged history, and changes it so that is the most falttering and reflective view, which is what each culture/race mentioned in the footnote is doing.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Prescribed Title #7
“We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.” Discuss this claim in relation to at least
two ways of knowing.
They way we see and understand things are not actually based on the way they are, but we see and understand things based on the way we are. This means that we use two of our ways of knowing, perception and emotion, to see things differently than they might actually be.
Sometimes, when we perceive an event, our own personal biased comes into what we believe to be happening, and takes precedence on how we interpret this event. Often past behaviors are a reason why our perception in influenced. For example, I have a lot of guy friends, and I'm used to them like pushing me playfully, or punching me on the shoulder, just in a friendly, platonic, non-romantic sort of way. This means that if I made a new guy friend, and he had feelings for me, and tried to express his feelings for me by touching me more than he normally would, such as pushing me playfully, or punching me lightly on the shoulder, I would not be able to understand the way he was expressing himself, because of my own biased, perceiving something differently than what was actually there. I understood, or rather misunderstood, something based on the way I am, rather on the way it actually is.
Emotion can often play into the way we see or understand things based on who we are rather, than the way things actually are. I am usually a pretty happy person. This does not mean that I always see things through rose-colored glasses, but I am more likely to assume that people appear happier than they actually are, because of my own emotion. Unless I have Apriori knowledge, where maybe Person X is a generally grumpy person, I might have difficulty distinguishing between someone who is actually happy, and someone who is only pretending to be happy This would be if I didn't know them and saw them in the hallway at school, or in some other public forum, because I generally consider myself to be a perceptive person. Therefore if my own emotion, of general happiness, changes the way I understand and see some things, because of the way I am, not because of the way they are.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
BNW Chapter 4
Part 1
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
Bernard and Helmhotlz have similar knowledge that "they were individuals." Bernard knows this because he has "too little bone and brawn," whereas Helmholtz knows he ahs too much ability. Both men have a "mental excess."
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
She is puzzled by him flushing when she mentions their New Mexico plan, saying that he had reacted as if she had made a dirty joke.
2. Please provide examples of Lenina using what she learned from hypnopaedia.
She voices her dislike of khaki, which Huxley says she is "voicing the hypnopaedic prejudices of her caste." She also says the phrase "I'm glad I'm not a Gamma," which is the exact phrasing from the hypnopaedia.
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
They are going to play Obstacle Golf at Stoke Poges.
Part 2:
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
Part 2:
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
Bernard Marx is distressed because Lenina thought it was a perfect afternoon for Obstacle Golf and went off to play with Henry Foster. This distresses him because he spent so much time and took his courage to ask her to go to New Mexico, which he considers to be "their most private affairs," which she openly wants to discuss in public.
Also, contact with members of the lower castes distresses him because it "always reminded him painfully of [his] physical inadequacy." His self-conciousness is distressing.
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
Helmhotz Watson works as a lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering (Department of Writing), and he is an Emotional Engineer as well. Also, "he wrote regularly for The Hourly Radio, composed feely scenarios, and had the happinest knack for slogans and hypnopaedic rhymes.
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
Bernard and Helmhotlz have similar knowledge that "they were individuals." Bernard knows this because he has "too little bone and brawn," whereas Helmholtz knows he ahs too much ability. Both men have a "mental excess."
4. What is troubling Helmholtz?
Helmholtz is troubled by a feeling he has, a feeling that he has this power inside himself to do something, which is waiting to come out of he gives it a chance. A "sort of extra power that [he isn't] using." He feels like he has the potential to do something greater than what he is doing now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
