For this topic, which appropriately enough comes after exposure to a group of parents and children on "play day", the focus was on whether or not violence results from a lack of love. All three articles/sources seem to touch on the subject, and thus I have prepared a short list of bullet points from the youtube video and two articles that will summarize the key aspects of violence and touch.
Key points:
It seems as if close contact and affection are closely related to peace. While there is violence galore in unstable households and cities, a foreign tribe that focuses on physical contact, love, and affection have little to no violence in there community.
Physical contact helps develop an indescribable bond that seems vital for proper and healthy development.
There is an inverse nature between affection and violence.
Ferocious tribes were characterized by repressive sexual taboos.
Brain development can be impaired when a mother is not present to show the necessary affection.
Breast feeding is supposed to go on for at least two point five years to ensure proper development.
Infliction of pain must be eliminated for proper growth and development.
There are seven B's of parrenting attachment: Bonding, breast feeding, babywearing, bedding close to baby, belief in crying, beware of baby trainers, balance.
Based on my reading and comprehension of these three articles/sources, the emotions that I feel are that of happiness towards the prospect of parenthood. It seems that if you take the right steps and make the right preparations, you can ensure that your child will live in environment of peace, have an aversion to violence, and feel nurtured. The youtube video was sad, because to showed that A. there are plenty of people out there living perfectly peaceful lives and B. We live in a society where violence is everywhere. Accordingly, it is depressing to think that our own lack of love, our own lack of affection, and our own lack of contact has caused some of the atrocities that have occured. I am not putting it all on our parenting and affection, but the death and murder rates may be lower if we all just learned a little bit about love and affection.
The connection I see here is to the mothers that came in to share their children with us. It seemed as if they were perfectly functioning kids, probably because their mother had shown them an adequate amount of love and affection. It helps that their mothers were all psychology professors and thus had prevalent access to this information. These articles also bring up topics addressed by Jensen. Would he have been different if his father hadn't beat him. It seems clear from all sorts of class material that affection is vital for the proper development of kids.
According to these recent and long term discoveries I have made about love and affection, I intend to be as loving and affectionate as I can from now until I die. If my physical contact and emotional connection with children can foster a society of peace and discourage violence, I intend to do so with all of my heart. It is amazing to here how isolated tribes live so differently and thus have different levels of emotional and physical well being. From now on I intend to foster optimal emotional and physical well being in my kids and all of the children around me.
Questions:
What if kids turned out ok regardless of physical touch and emotional care? Is there some way kids can overcome terrible parents?
Is a mother intrinsically more connected to her kids than the father is?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Playing By Heart, Ch 1,2,3
In order to briefly summarize what was stated in "Playing By the Heart", I will state three key points from each of the chapters:
Ch.1
Children and adults have different perception of reality
Mystic contact with the earth is available all around us. In other words, we can connect with the earth in varying ways.
Play brings us close to the substance of the universe.
Ch. 2
Play is intrinsic to creation, not something created by culture
Kindness from play transcends "sociocultural motivations" and deals with life
Our existence is embedded in the universe, and play brings us closer to that
Ch. 3
Play is not forced, it is in the nature of things just like gravity
Adults cannot be taught to play, but they can be untaught their nature in order more effectively absorb the play of kids
Play emphasizes the community of "we" or "you and I"
As expected, this article brought about emotions of joy and happiness in me. I love play, and it is refreshing to hear about the positive things that come from it. What was most surprising was the intrinsic nature of play. It came as a surprise to me that play was not be created by modern or past cultures, play has been embedded in the earth since its inception. Thus, it is natural for us to play and unnatural for us to behave in a way that condemns or stunts play. Accordingly, I was overjoyed to heart that my tendency towards play is a positive and sustainable thing.
The connection I see with this article and other class activities, is the time where we played in class. It was a magical day in my college career, and I will never forget that hour and fifteen minutes of pure joy I felt. What we experience is really backed up by the information found in this article. Although the 16 of us aren't necessarily best friends or used to socializing with each other, we were able to interact in a play setting without a single hitch. It was as if we had all grown up together and played on the playground in a group everyday since we were five. This proved to me that play is not cultural, but natural. That it is intrinsic with life.
What I will take from this is a greater desire to play. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will gather friends for red rover ever chance I get, but it does mean that I will seize every opportunity I can to play. Here's a great example. Ever since I was a young child I have loved swimming pools. Something about them makes me feel free, weightless, and unstoppable. I never really understand why I felt so at home swimming for leisure, but I now understand that this tendency is closely ingrained with my intrinsic desire to play. So, instead of shying away from my affinity from pools as a I grow old, I intend to embrace this watery infatuation by playing in and under the water every chance I get.
Questions:
If play is so natural, what brings us away from it as we get older? And when does the decline begin?
Are there ways that adults play that kids don't? Like are poker nights play?
Ch.1
Children and adults have different perception of reality
Mystic contact with the earth is available all around us. In other words, we can connect with the earth in varying ways.
Play brings us close to the substance of the universe.
Ch. 2
Play is intrinsic to creation, not something created by culture
Kindness from play transcends "sociocultural motivations" and deals with life
Our existence is embedded in the universe, and play brings us closer to that
Ch. 3
Play is not forced, it is in the nature of things just like gravity
Adults cannot be taught to play, but they can be untaught their nature in order more effectively absorb the play of kids
Play emphasizes the community of "we" or "you and I"
As expected, this article brought about emotions of joy and happiness in me. I love play, and it is refreshing to hear about the positive things that come from it. What was most surprising was the intrinsic nature of play. It came as a surprise to me that play was not be created by modern or past cultures, play has been embedded in the earth since its inception. Thus, it is natural for us to play and unnatural for us to behave in a way that condemns or stunts play. Accordingly, I was overjoyed to heart that my tendency towards play is a positive and sustainable thing.
The connection I see with this article and other class activities, is the time where we played in class. It was a magical day in my college career, and I will never forget that hour and fifteen minutes of pure joy I felt. What we experience is really backed up by the information found in this article. Although the 16 of us aren't necessarily best friends or used to socializing with each other, we were able to interact in a play setting without a single hitch. It was as if we had all grown up together and played on the playground in a group everyday since we were five. This proved to me that play is not cultural, but natural. That it is intrinsic with life.
What I will take from this is a greater desire to play. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will gather friends for red rover ever chance I get, but it does mean that I will seize every opportunity I can to play. Here's a great example. Ever since I was a young child I have loved swimming pools. Something about them makes me feel free, weightless, and unstoppable. I never really understand why I felt so at home swimming for leisure, but I now understand that this tendency is closely ingrained with my intrinsic desire to play. So, instead of shying away from my affinity from pools as a I grow old, I intend to embrace this watery infatuation by playing in and under the water every chance I get.
Questions:
If play is so natural, what brings us away from it as we get older? And when does the decline begin?
Are there ways that adults play that kids don't? Like are poker nights play?
A Language Older than Words 27, 28, 29
Jensens last three chapters are as powerful as ever. He closes of the book strong, but maintains his anecdotal style.
Chapter "out of Mourning, Play" touches on the idea of our relationship with the forests around us. We have been forced into this relationship, and must respect the fact that we need to have extended vision and concern. "Forest, too, have been playing with us."
Trauma and Recovery talks about just that, trauma and recovery. It first touches on appalling attrocities, and then goes on to talk about how the symptoms of trauma are thing like "sutting down feelings, a constrictions of emotions, intellect, and behavior." The ultimate conclusion though is that if we are wrong in thought, then our actions will be wrong and follow accordingly. Also, it is important to not that after trauma, the recovery process is communal and not solitary.
Some key points from the final chapter of "A Language Older Than Words" include ideas like production value over life, and that cooperation overcoems atrocities. We must band together to get rid of poor practices. Failing to do so is suicide for ourselves and our societies.
After finishing the book, I feel overwhelmed. Jensen suggests that to survive we must band together and overcome attrocities. I see two problems with that. A. it is going to be extremely difficult to organize and B. overcoming atrocity is very hard because attrocity is fueled by greed and power. Somehow though, the sane and the brave must cooperate for change...either that or it is suicide.
The connection I see her is to the rest of Jensen's book. Everything has sort of been building to this call for cooperation. He leaves us on an optimistic yet scary quote. "God's speed" as if we are only going to be able to accomplish this with a miracle. Everything seems to come together alright though. Early stuff about schools stunting growth, about the environment having feelings, and about using violence if necessary. It all boils down to change.
I have learned quite a lot from Jensen overall, but it is tough to put my finger on all of it. Here is the message that I will take away from the last three chapters and the book as a whole. I can no longer sit back and watch injustice. Ignorance can no longer be bliss. I must work hard, suffer, struggle, and maybe even approach death in order to band together for change. Cooperation is the key.
Questions:
I really want to know what your five other books are about? You fill this thing with some pretty heavy stuff. What do you have left to write about?
Chapter "out of Mourning, Play" touches on the idea of our relationship with the forests around us. We have been forced into this relationship, and must respect the fact that we need to have extended vision and concern. "Forest, too, have been playing with us."
Trauma and Recovery talks about just that, trauma and recovery. It first touches on appalling attrocities, and then goes on to talk about how the symptoms of trauma are thing like "sutting down feelings, a constrictions of emotions, intellect, and behavior." The ultimate conclusion though is that if we are wrong in thought, then our actions will be wrong and follow accordingly. Also, it is important to not that after trauma, the recovery process is communal and not solitary.
Some key points from the final chapter of "A Language Older Than Words" include ideas like production value over life, and that cooperation overcoems atrocities. We must band together to get rid of poor practices. Failing to do so is suicide for ourselves and our societies.
After finishing the book, I feel overwhelmed. Jensen suggests that to survive we must band together and overcome attrocities. I see two problems with that. A. it is going to be extremely difficult to organize and B. overcoming atrocity is very hard because attrocity is fueled by greed and power. Somehow though, the sane and the brave must cooperate for change...either that or it is suicide.
The connection I see her is to the rest of Jensen's book. Everything has sort of been building to this call for cooperation. He leaves us on an optimistic yet scary quote. "God's speed" as if we are only going to be able to accomplish this with a miracle. Everything seems to come together alright though. Early stuff about schools stunting growth, about the environment having feelings, and about using violence if necessary. It all boils down to change.
I have learned quite a lot from Jensen overall, but it is tough to put my finger on all of it. Here is the message that I will take away from the last three chapters and the book as a whole. I can no longer sit back and watch injustice. Ignorance can no longer be bliss. I must work hard, suffer, struggle, and maybe even approach death in order to band together for change. Cooperation is the key.
Questions:
I really want to know what your five other books are about? You fill this thing with some pretty heavy stuff. What do you have left to write about?
Friday, April 30, 2010
A Language Older Than Words 23,24,25
It just so happens that I had the pleasure of presenting on these three chapters. As a result, I have a pretty good grasp of the topics they address. Hopefully what I can do in this blog is take a right brained approach to discussing them From what I can tell, the majority of my blogs have been very left brained. Analysis in its essence is a left brained activity, so its not surprising that detailed analysis of every chapter turned into something left brained. Hopefully in discussing these three chapters, I can flex my right brained muscles seeing as I have an especially good
understanding of what I need to talk about.
The first chapter in this section, chapter 23, is entitled "The Plants Respond." Of all the chapters I have read up until this point, this one is the most thought provoking. No though provoking in a traditional sense (like what is the meaning of life) but thought provoking in this sense: can plants feel? Jensen discusses an encounter he had with a man named Cleve Backster. Backster's life changed on February 2, 1966 when he came to the conclusion that a plant felt pain. As a result, he has lived his life according to this finding day in and day out. The emotions and notions that Jensen introduced early on this book are directly supported by Backster's claims: "the world is alive and sentient." The applications are endless. If Backster can prove that plants have feelings for humans, for plants, and for other living creatures, then Jensen can utilize his research to support his own claims of talking coyotes and fowl. One more point I would like to touch on is the fact that Backsters research is not thought of as scientifically valid because he cannot validate it with repeatable research. The plant emotions are unpredictable and cannot be tracked. Tracking them would ruin them.
The next chapter deals with Jensen's horrific experience with Crohn's disease. As he opens the chapter with, "Not only did the bees die, but I died." His body was absolutely ravaged by the disease, but what it teaches is that Jensen needed to be taken to the edge to be reborn. This collapse leads to growth.
A few key themes from chapter twenty five are these: "Every creature on the planet must be hoping that our cultures awakening comes soon," and "waiting for kairos and the need for action." Essentially Jensen is trying to convey that all of the earth's populations are eager for death and rebirth, or maybe more accurately stated: change. This comes from self learning.
The emotions that these chapters bring about in me are that of sorrow, hope, and concern. First, I feel sorrow over the fact that Jensen and others have to come so close to death to change. Second, I feel hope over the fact that change seems ineviatable. We can't continue on like this, at some point we will learn from our mistakes and grow: our society has to be taken to the edge. Last, concern is for when this is going to happen. I am doomed? are my children doomed? Will change be too little too late.
The connection I see between this article and other class readings is from "Becoming a Vegetarian." The connection I see is that, both Jensen and this article discuss practices that humans partake in that are not sustainable. In the vegetarian article, we refuse to feed billions so that we can feed the cows that provide us meat. Likewise, Jensen brings up unsustainable practices. It seems as if we will have to come very close to societal death in order to see dramatic change.
These chapters have taught me three important things. First, that there are other beings that feel besides humans. Second, that I need to imbrace adversatey and stare death in the face if it ever approaches. Third, that the only way to bring about change for myself and society is through self learning.
Question:
How can someone who seems so devoted and correct in his analysis (the plant guy) be rejected by professionals?
What was almost dying like in terms of your mental health? Did you go crazy?
understanding of what I need to talk about.
The first chapter in this section, chapter 23, is entitled "The Plants Respond." Of all the chapters I have read up until this point, this one is the most thought provoking. No though provoking in a traditional sense (like what is the meaning of life) but thought provoking in this sense: can plants feel? Jensen discusses an encounter he had with a man named Cleve Backster. Backster's life changed on February 2, 1966 when he came to the conclusion that a plant felt pain. As a result, he has lived his life according to this finding day in and day out. The emotions and notions that Jensen introduced early on this book are directly supported by Backster's claims: "the world is alive and sentient." The applications are endless. If Backster can prove that plants have feelings for humans, for plants, and for other living creatures, then Jensen can utilize his research to support his own claims of talking coyotes and fowl. One more point I would like to touch on is the fact that Backsters research is not thought of as scientifically valid because he cannot validate it with repeatable research. The plant emotions are unpredictable and cannot be tracked. Tracking them would ruin them.
The next chapter deals with Jensen's horrific experience with Crohn's disease. As he opens the chapter with, "Not only did the bees die, but I died." His body was absolutely ravaged by the disease, but what it teaches is that Jensen needed to be taken to the edge to be reborn. This collapse leads to growth.
A few key themes from chapter twenty five are these: "Every creature on the planet must be hoping that our cultures awakening comes soon," and "waiting for kairos and the need for action." Essentially Jensen is trying to convey that all of the earth's populations are eager for death and rebirth, or maybe more accurately stated: change. This comes from self learning.
The emotions that these chapters bring about in me are that of sorrow, hope, and concern. First, I feel sorrow over the fact that Jensen and others have to come so close to death to change. Second, I feel hope over the fact that change seems ineviatable. We can't continue on like this, at some point we will learn from our mistakes and grow: our society has to be taken to the edge. Last, concern is for when this is going to happen. I am doomed? are my children doomed? Will change be too little too late.
The connection I see between this article and other class readings is from "Becoming a Vegetarian." The connection I see is that, both Jensen and this article discuss practices that humans partake in that are not sustainable. In the vegetarian article, we refuse to feed billions so that we can feed the cows that provide us meat. Likewise, Jensen brings up unsustainable practices. It seems as if we will have to come very close to societal death in order to see dramatic change.
These chapters have taught me three important things. First, that there are other beings that feel besides humans. Second, that I need to imbrace adversatey and stare death in the face if it ever approaches. Third, that the only way to bring about change for myself and society is through self learning.
Question:
How can someone who seems so devoted and correct in his analysis (the plant guy) be rejected by professionals?
What was almost dying like in terms of your mental health? Did you go crazy?
A Language Older Than Words Ch. 20, 21, 22
The following chapter from A Language Older Than Words, 20 - 22, are powerful as always. They reiterate the ideas about how change is painful and at times impossible. Regardless, Jensen intends to provide insight that will hopefully spark a positive and effective revolution.
Chapter 20, "A Turning Over", opens with a story about Jensen's discontent friend. He works three jobs, his wife works one, and their marriage is falling apart. Consequently, he sees no escape from the miserable cycle of a failing marriage. Jensen uses this as a springboard into a discussion about how apparent change is usually just the same old injustice masked by new leadership. The reason we are able to adapt to such injustice is the "major reason revolutions fail." Because as it is, "Amnesia, that most adaptable of all forms of adaptation" causes humans to live with atrocities: they work hard to forget instead of working hard for change. The most powerful example he brings up is of Jews in the courtyard of a Warsaw stadium. They sat in silence as they watched their brother-en machine gunned to death in front of their eyes. The ultimate problem is that we can't expect much different from the same society.
A life of my own is short and sweet, and so is this summary. Jensen talks about how liberating and experience it was to be a bee-keeper. He loved working for himself and he loved bees; accordingly it was the best of both worlds. Everything about the time he spent with the bees living out of his car was rewarding, enlightening and positive especially the dog that was truly impacted his life: "I can't imagine a better teacher."
Interconnection is a complex chapter, and in order to simplify things I will reference one story that sums it all up from chapter 22. Jensen talks about his Vietnamese dinner with George. The two of them went out to dinner and ordered lemon grass chicken, chile, and steamed vegetables. It seems simple enough, but here is where the interconnection comes in. Chicken that spans 5 states, oil that spans 5 countries, vegetables fused with ingredients from all over the world, and 10,000 chemicals. The ultimate conclusion that Jensen, and consequently the readers draw, is that there is something not right about "the complexity of the modern economy's web but also its destructiveness." In other words, this interconnection is not only amazing but also troubling.
The emotion these chapters instill in me is sorrow. Sorrow over the fact that our revolutions seem trivial, that the complexity of the world economy is a big problem, and all the while...we just need a job we love and a wise dog to keep us happy. I think that Jensen includes the short 21st chapter as a break from all of the heavy stuff he has been hitting us with and intends to continue to hit us with. The chapter preceding it discusses the murder of Jews while there peers remain silent, and the following chapter shows that even the simplest and genuine of meals contains disgusting combinations of unnatural ingredients. Its refreshing to hear that contentment is achievable if we remove ourselves from complex webs and fight troubling injustice. With that being said, the other two chapter were eye opening. The fact that revolutions may never have a significant impact because they are simply recycled means that we need to come up with a new form of change. Will that be possible though with the interconnectedness of the world economy?
The best intra-class connection to be made is from chapter 22, "Interconnection", and the article "Going Vegetarian". The article essentially makes this claim: simplify our diet and benefit the world. The stats it uses to back this up are as follows: if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive) and everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas (greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution). Those numbers are huge. I realize that Jensen doesn't necessarily condone turning vegetarian, but I think he would buy into this concept that we could save lives by changing our habits. Its also important to note that if we were eating natural vegetables, we would be reducing the interconnected economic web that plagues our society.
The application to may life is simple, and applicable by chapter. Ch. 20 teaches me to revolt in ways that are nontraditional. We can't just keep recycling the same ideals, because then the injustice just cycles through different leadership and never actually improves. At the heart of this is killing the silence that holds us down. Ch. 21 is lighthearted, telling me to follow my professional dreams, enjoy work that is fulfilling, and be aware of teachers that come in all forms (dogs in particular). The last chapter, 23, brings it home by condemning the interconnectedness of society. This ties in aspects from the first two (injustice, and happiness) and implies that if we can break away from the injustice of interconnectedness, it is then that we will be happy. All of these lessons will remain with me as attempt to break away from the contemporary economic practice and work to have my voice heard above the silence.
Questions
What is it about bees the Jensen finds so attractive? How do they help him develop so much that he references them every few chapters?
I'm confused what the difference between silence and pride is?
Chapter 20, "A Turning Over", opens with a story about Jensen's discontent friend. He works three jobs, his wife works one, and their marriage is falling apart. Consequently, he sees no escape from the miserable cycle of a failing marriage. Jensen uses this as a springboard into a discussion about how apparent change is usually just the same old injustice masked by new leadership. The reason we are able to adapt to such injustice is the "major reason revolutions fail." Because as it is, "Amnesia, that most adaptable of all forms of adaptation" causes humans to live with atrocities: they work hard to forget instead of working hard for change. The most powerful example he brings up is of Jews in the courtyard of a Warsaw stadium. They sat in silence as they watched their brother-en machine gunned to death in front of their eyes. The ultimate problem is that we can't expect much different from the same society.
A life of my own is short and sweet, and so is this summary. Jensen talks about how liberating and experience it was to be a bee-keeper. He loved working for himself and he loved bees; accordingly it was the best of both worlds. Everything about the time he spent with the bees living out of his car was rewarding, enlightening and positive especially the dog that was truly impacted his life: "I can't imagine a better teacher."
Interconnection is a complex chapter, and in order to simplify things I will reference one story that sums it all up from chapter 22. Jensen talks about his Vietnamese dinner with George. The two of them went out to dinner and ordered lemon grass chicken, chile, and steamed vegetables. It seems simple enough, but here is where the interconnection comes in. Chicken that spans 5 states, oil that spans 5 countries, vegetables fused with ingredients from all over the world, and 10,000 chemicals. The ultimate conclusion that Jensen, and consequently the readers draw, is that there is something not right about "the complexity of the modern economy's web but also its destructiveness." In other words, this interconnection is not only amazing but also troubling.
The emotion these chapters instill in me is sorrow. Sorrow over the fact that our revolutions seem trivial, that the complexity of the world economy is a big problem, and all the while...we just need a job we love and a wise dog to keep us happy. I think that Jensen includes the short 21st chapter as a break from all of the heavy stuff he has been hitting us with and intends to continue to hit us with. The chapter preceding it discusses the murder of Jews while there peers remain silent, and the following chapter shows that even the simplest and genuine of meals contains disgusting combinations of unnatural ingredients. Its refreshing to hear that contentment is achievable if we remove ourselves from complex webs and fight troubling injustice. With that being said, the other two chapter were eye opening. The fact that revolutions may never have a significant impact because they are simply recycled means that we need to come up with a new form of change. Will that be possible though with the interconnectedness of the world economy?
The best intra-class connection to be made is from chapter 22, "Interconnection", and the article "Going Vegetarian". The article essentially makes this claim: simplify our diet and benefit the world. The stats it uses to back this up are as follows: if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive) and everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas (greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution). Those numbers are huge. I realize that Jensen doesn't necessarily condone turning vegetarian, but I think he would buy into this concept that we could save lives by changing our habits. Its also important to note that if we were eating natural vegetables, we would be reducing the interconnected economic web that plagues our society.
The application to may life is simple, and applicable by chapter. Ch. 20 teaches me to revolt in ways that are nontraditional. We can't just keep recycling the same ideals, because then the injustice just cycles through different leadership and never actually improves. At the heart of this is killing the silence that holds us down. Ch. 21 is lighthearted, telling me to follow my professional dreams, enjoy work that is fulfilling, and be aware of teachers that come in all forms (dogs in particular). The last chapter, 23, brings it home by condemning the interconnectedness of society. This ties in aspects from the first two (injustice, and happiness) and implies that if we can break away from the injustice of interconnectedness, it is then that we will be happy. All of these lessons will remain with me as attempt to break away from the contemporary economic practice and work to have my voice heard above the silence.
Questions
What is it about bees the Jensen finds so attractive? How do they help him develop so much that he references them every few chapters?
I'm confused what the difference between silence and pride is?
A Language Older Than Words Ch. 13-15
Metamorphosis, Insatiability, and Violence are the one world titles of the next three chapters; all concise and all to the point. These chapters continue on with Jensen's style of anecdotes, stories, and bold climbs, each of which is effectively combined to drive his point across that the state of the world is in shambles. The main point that he continues to drive home though is that on an individual level we can continue to strive for change. Hopefully this change will help us revolutionize societal conventions and help us to work towards harmony.
Metamorphosis is mostly a discussion of plants, animals, and change. The first conclusion he draws is that we are often oblivious to the nature that surrounds us. The second story he tells is in reference to a swarm of lady bugs killing trees and aphids. Jensen talks about how he contemplates the various members of this interaction. Do the trees feel pain? Do the ladybugs feel growing pain? The conclusion that he comes to is that transitions by definitions invovle "pain. loss, sorrow, and even death." If we can survive this hardship we are given new life/vitality.
Insatiability is a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Turns out it means "unable to be satisfied". Hahaha, I guess I should have picked up on that from the root "satiable". Anways, this chapter addresses the fact that we cannot just keep refusing to acknowledge humanity's desire for more and more: "I don't know how much longer we can keep running." Our society as a whole uses money to fabricate truth and deny the pressing truth of our destruction. The word that Jensen repeatedly goes back to is "silencing". Silencing the natives to steal their land, silencing the voices that offer up dissent. The last aspect of this chapter deals with the "central question of our time: what are sane and appropriate responses to insanely destructive behavior." Writing letters doesn't seem to do the trick; it didn't work for Gandhi trying to stop Hitler so why would it work for Jensen? He boldly admits that if he could have killed his father....he would have. This proves that he condones extreme behavior if it brings about the desired ends.
Violence is a word that I do no the definition of, unlike insatiable. The words meaning is almost as straightforward as the chapter it describes: its about violence and murder. Right off the bat he puts forth the idea that "life feeds off life, and because every action causes a killing, the purpose of existence cannot be to simply avoid taking lives. All of the stories that follow are centered around the claim that those who destroy mus be stopped. The stories that he supports this with are all about taking "up the rifle" which makes it blatantly obvious that Jensen's solution is offensive. I don't think he necessarily condones murder, but is vehemently against continuing to be on the defensive: "we must struggle."
The first of these chapters was a light transition into the violence and pain that the other two encompass. Metamorphosis touches on pain, transition, and struggle but the subsequent two really bring it home with talk of murder and violence. It makes sense, and definitely ties with other claims that Jensen has made. From the beginning it has been his assertion that we must come close to the edge and make a triumphant return. There isn't much closer to the edge than murder and violence. Accordingly, it makes sense that Jensen would make these assertions about what how to stop those who destroy. I learned that extreme action needs to be taken to spark change, a fact that I have mixed emotions about.
The connection that I intend to make here is to the article entitled "Ten, Count'em Ten Uses for Parents". It might sound sick or cynical, but here are Jensen's "Two, Count'em Two Reasons for Violence." First off, it establishes that you mean business. Someone who has resorted to violence is not messing around. Although murder and other forms of action are not necessarily ideal, those whose attention you are seeking will undoubtedly take you seriously. The second reason is that it puts you on the offensive as opposed to the defensive. Without being on offense, you are much more vulnerable and susceptible to the attacks of your opponent.
I'm a little torn about what I should take from these three chapters. There is no situation in my life as of right now that constitutes violence in my opinion. What I can take from it though is that when there does come a time that I am passionate enough about something to step and take violent action in defense of it, I'll be ready. Perhaps one day I will be in a situation where are friend is being raped or assaulted. I will not sit back on the defensive, and attempt to never let it happen again. I will take up arms (metaphorically that is) and take offensive actions against my opposition. The difficult thing is that while Jensen is livid about enough injustices to take violent action in many situations, there is not that much that I feel strongly enough about to physical harm others. Because of that, I need to develop stronger ideals so that I do have something to fight for.
Questions
Is there a reason why children don't comprehend murder? If he had of killed his father, he would have gone to jail and never developed in the same way he did?
Is it wrong to identify the fact that transition and growing pains is a positive thing? Is it possible you could turn into a masochist because of it?
Metamorphosis is mostly a discussion of plants, animals, and change. The first conclusion he draws is that we are often oblivious to the nature that surrounds us. The second story he tells is in reference to a swarm of lady bugs killing trees and aphids. Jensen talks about how he contemplates the various members of this interaction. Do the trees feel pain? Do the ladybugs feel growing pain? The conclusion that he comes to is that transitions by definitions invovle "pain. loss, sorrow, and even death." If we can survive this hardship we are given new life/vitality.
Insatiability is a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Turns out it means "unable to be satisfied". Hahaha, I guess I should have picked up on that from the root "satiable". Anways, this chapter addresses the fact that we cannot just keep refusing to acknowledge humanity's desire for more and more: "I don't know how much longer we can keep running." Our society as a whole uses money to fabricate truth and deny the pressing truth of our destruction. The word that Jensen repeatedly goes back to is "silencing". Silencing the natives to steal their land, silencing the voices that offer up dissent. The last aspect of this chapter deals with the "central question of our time: what are sane and appropriate responses to insanely destructive behavior." Writing letters doesn't seem to do the trick; it didn't work for Gandhi trying to stop Hitler so why would it work for Jensen? He boldly admits that if he could have killed his father....he would have. This proves that he condones extreme behavior if it brings about the desired ends.
Violence is a word that I do no the definition of, unlike insatiable. The words meaning is almost as straightforward as the chapter it describes: its about violence and murder. Right off the bat he puts forth the idea that "life feeds off life, and because every action causes a killing, the purpose of existence cannot be to simply avoid taking lives. All of the stories that follow are centered around the claim that those who destroy mus be stopped. The stories that he supports this with are all about taking "up the rifle" which makes it blatantly obvious that Jensen's solution is offensive. I don't think he necessarily condones murder, but is vehemently against continuing to be on the defensive: "we must struggle."
The first of these chapters was a light transition into the violence and pain that the other two encompass. Metamorphosis touches on pain, transition, and struggle but the subsequent two really bring it home with talk of murder and violence. It makes sense, and definitely ties with other claims that Jensen has made. From the beginning it has been his assertion that we must come close to the edge and make a triumphant return. There isn't much closer to the edge than murder and violence. Accordingly, it makes sense that Jensen would make these assertions about what how to stop those who destroy. I learned that extreme action needs to be taken to spark change, a fact that I have mixed emotions about.
The connection that I intend to make here is to the article entitled "Ten, Count'em Ten Uses for Parents". It might sound sick or cynical, but here are Jensen's "Two, Count'em Two Reasons for Violence." First off, it establishes that you mean business. Someone who has resorted to violence is not messing around. Although murder and other forms of action are not necessarily ideal, those whose attention you are seeking will undoubtedly take you seriously. The second reason is that it puts you on the offensive as opposed to the defensive. Without being on offense, you are much more vulnerable and susceptible to the attacks of your opponent.
I'm a little torn about what I should take from these three chapters. There is no situation in my life as of right now that constitutes violence in my opinion. What I can take from it though is that when there does come a time that I am passionate enough about something to step and take violent action in defense of it, I'll be ready. Perhaps one day I will be in a situation where are friend is being raped or assaulted. I will not sit back on the defensive, and attempt to never let it happen again. I will take up arms (metaphorically that is) and take offensive actions against my opposition. The difficult thing is that while Jensen is livid about enough injustices to take violent action in many situations, there is not that much that I feel strongly enough about to physical harm others. Because of that, I need to develop stronger ideals so that I do have something to fight for.
Questions
Is there a reason why children don't comprehend murder? If he had of killed his father, he would have gone to jail and never developed in the same way he did?
Is it wrong to identify the fact that transition and growing pains is a positive thing? Is it possible you could turn into a masochist because of it?
A Language Older than Words Ch. 10, 11, 12
Chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Jensen's A Language Older Than Words are quite short compared to previous chapters. Accordingly, they get right to the point without to much fluff or to many questionable anecdotes. This cannot be said for all of his writing, so it is refreshing to read something that cuts right to the core. The chapters are referred to as Economics, discussing theories of how the world's economy functions unjustly, The Goal is the Process, discussing how it should not be the wealth or the power that drives us but the process of life, and the Heroes, which is somewhat self explanatory.
Here's the breakdown. "Economics" the 10th chapter opens with the greek root of the work which translates to "the science of household management". The conclusion that Jensen immediately draws is that the majority of things that are healthy, moral, and positive do not make economic sense. Unfortunately though, we have begun to put an economic price on everything. This fact has lead to the conclusion that "money is valued over all else" and as a result the world has been degraded destroyed and life is not what it is meant to be. Jensen is unwavering in the idea that our economic system can only cause atrocities: "Make no mistake, our economic system can do no other than destroy everything it encounters." The chapter closes claiming that if we did everything on an individual level, unselfishly and with no concern with economic gain, then th world would be a lovely place. Here's why: "money perfectly manifests the desires of our culture."
Chapter 11 opens with a powerful quote: "What if the point instead is let go of that control?" The most powerful story that I have read throughout the entirety of this book is contained in this chapter. Jensen talks about how a girl in a class he was lecturing had and "aha" moment on the last day of class. He was standing at the board trying to write down everything they could remember from the semester. Some girl yells out " I get it... the point is that he can't tell us the point. The point is that we have to get it ourselves!" Jensen's reply was short and sweet: "There's nothing else I can teach you. Thank you. Have fun." That story pretty much sums up the chapter. He ends by talking about the dynamic between his fear and desire to blow up dams and breakdown the atrocities society has created.
The 12 chapter is filled with a whole bunch of stories. Although the previous two were right to the point, this final one called "Heroes" dances around the topic much more. Although confusing, I have come to this conclusion: Jensen believes that we need role models (admirable individuals) to leave behind "threads" for us to be guided by. Heroes could be people you respect, look up to, or appreciate their accomplishments. Regardless, they provide a great example to live by so that we might emulate those who have achieved in the past.
The feelings this set of readings invoked in me were strong and positive. Chapter 12 in particular was powerful because it touched on the idea of heroes. I've got some role models that have left threads behind for me that I follow and base my life around. The first two I got from attending catholic high school: St. Francis of Assis and St. Anthony of Padua. These two famous Franciscan Friars respected the earth, humanity, God, and life itself. Those are things I undoubtedly strive for. The other hero I emulate is my brother. He has fostered my education, my growth, and my desire to achieve/do good. The other thing I like about this section was chapter 11's notion that we need to let go. I think its important to give up on normal conventions and just live.
The connections to other readings are tough in this case. I initially had trouble finding someone else's work to draw on, but I the conclusion that I came to is that Mark Leahy's "Making Ourselves Miserable" seems relevant in this situation. Leahy uses all sorts of examples to prove his point that we are self-destructive, the Wizard of Oz in particular, but the connecting them is that we need to become aware of our shortcomings and avoid them. Jensen thinks our downfall is that we feel the need to be in control, Leahy thinkgs it is the "useless worry" that does us in. Regardless, both are aware of the fact that we are hurting ourselves unnecessarily.
In terms of application to real life, I will now be much more aware of my heroes, make a conscious effort to let go, and try to rebel against conventional economics. The common theme that runs true between all three is that our world has established detrimental norms, but there are ways around them. If we try hard enough, we can break away from our current economy that is ruining the world. If we try hard enough, we can let go of the control that we are addicted to. If we try hard enough, we can emulate the thread of role models that have set a positive precedent. I intend to work hard enough in all three of those areas.
Questions
How do you propose we break away from atrocious economics and move towards something that is healthy and sustainable?
How can I be a hero to others?
Here's the breakdown. "Economics" the 10th chapter opens with the greek root of the work which translates to "the science of household management". The conclusion that Jensen immediately draws is that the majority of things that are healthy, moral, and positive do not make economic sense. Unfortunately though, we have begun to put an economic price on everything. This fact has lead to the conclusion that "money is valued over all else" and as a result the world has been degraded destroyed and life is not what it is meant to be. Jensen is unwavering in the idea that our economic system can only cause atrocities: "Make no mistake, our economic system can do no other than destroy everything it encounters." The chapter closes claiming that if we did everything on an individual level, unselfishly and with no concern with economic gain, then th world would be a lovely place. Here's why: "money perfectly manifests the desires of our culture."
Chapter 11 opens with a powerful quote: "What if the point instead is let go of that control?" The most powerful story that I have read throughout the entirety of this book is contained in this chapter. Jensen talks about how a girl in a class he was lecturing had and "aha" moment on the last day of class. He was standing at the board trying to write down everything they could remember from the semester. Some girl yells out " I get it... the point is that he can't tell us the point. The point is that we have to get it ourselves!" Jensen's reply was short and sweet: "There's nothing else I can teach you. Thank you. Have fun." That story pretty much sums up the chapter. He ends by talking about the dynamic between his fear and desire to blow up dams and breakdown the atrocities society has created.
The 12 chapter is filled with a whole bunch of stories. Although the previous two were right to the point, this final one called "Heroes" dances around the topic much more. Although confusing, I have come to this conclusion: Jensen believes that we need role models (admirable individuals) to leave behind "threads" for us to be guided by. Heroes could be people you respect, look up to, or appreciate their accomplishments. Regardless, they provide a great example to live by so that we might emulate those who have achieved in the past.
The feelings this set of readings invoked in me were strong and positive. Chapter 12 in particular was powerful because it touched on the idea of heroes. I've got some role models that have left threads behind for me that I follow and base my life around. The first two I got from attending catholic high school: St. Francis of Assis and St. Anthony of Padua. These two famous Franciscan Friars respected the earth, humanity, God, and life itself. Those are things I undoubtedly strive for. The other hero I emulate is my brother. He has fostered my education, my growth, and my desire to achieve/do good. The other thing I like about this section was chapter 11's notion that we need to let go. I think its important to give up on normal conventions and just live.
The connections to other readings are tough in this case. I initially had trouble finding someone else's work to draw on, but I the conclusion that I came to is that Mark Leahy's "Making Ourselves Miserable" seems relevant in this situation. Leahy uses all sorts of examples to prove his point that we are self-destructive, the Wizard of Oz in particular, but the connecting them is that we need to become aware of our shortcomings and avoid them. Jensen thinks our downfall is that we feel the need to be in control, Leahy thinkgs it is the "useless worry" that does us in. Regardless, both are aware of the fact that we are hurting ourselves unnecessarily.
In terms of application to real life, I will now be much more aware of my heroes, make a conscious effort to let go, and try to rebel against conventional economics. The common theme that runs true between all three is that our world has established detrimental norms, but there are ways around them. If we try hard enough, we can break away from our current economy that is ruining the world. If we try hard enough, we can let go of the control that we are addicted to. If we try hard enough, we can emulate the thread of role models that have set a positive precedent. I intend to work hard enough in all three of those areas.
Questions
How do you propose we break away from atrocious economics and move towards something that is healthy and sustainable?
How can I be a hero to others?
Jensen 7-9
fghasdfkl Just as with the rest of his sections, Jensen makes some powerful assertions in chapters 7 through. The interesting thing is that for the first time that I can remember, he brings Jesus into the debate. Chapter 7, "Claims of Virtue" opens with a discussion of Jesus. The 8th chapter brings the reader back to the fact that we are intrinsically good. Finally, the 9th chapter "Breaking Out" makes the most bold claim so far in the book; that the reason for our worlds turmoil is not our selfishness. I will touch on all three of these chapters.
In Chapter 7, Jensen portrays church in a kind of negative light. He says it simply unites an unruly group of people and gives them a moral code that they should have developed themselves. Rape is the example given: the church says rape is wrong so we don't rape. Instead, we should be making conscious unhampered decision ourselves. This brings us once again back to the idea that there is communication between animals and various species that helps us all to cooperate and consequently succeed. The communication and cooperation breaks down when we lie to ourselves. Deforestation happens when and individuals to himself about the consequences, in light of the fact that it will be extremely beneficial financially. The chapter closes on another surprising attack on Christianity and religion. What spirituality boils down to that we believe what we are supposed or pressed to believe, when in actuality we should be developing our own beleifs.
Chapter 8 opens with a reference to Jensen's childhood experience with stars. He comments that "the message from the stars...that cruelty we take for granted is not natural...sustains me to this day. The subsequent points that he makes are in regard to the conventions of school. The terminology he uses is pretty stinging: " schol last thirteen years [because] it takes that long to sufficiently break a child's will". He believes that the primary function of school is not to educated, but to subdue the minds of young people and lead them away from experience. Jensen continues on with examples of how individuals across the world are subdued and controlled. Nazis controlled Jews by presenting them with choices that gave the allusion that they were controlling their own destiny. Later, the topic of interspecies communication is addressed: Jensen put a group of rodents out of their homes and in return they defecated on his sink. The chapter finally closes on an ominous note: "we can distance ourselves from the world of experience, sense, and emotion, or we can die."
The last chapter in this reading, "Breaking Out" first addresses the topic of selfishness. Jensen claims that "we would be better off if we were to act in our own best interest." This seems like a contradictory notion to everything we've ever been taught, but Jensen provides solid support: we have destroyed the world and done so under the guise that we were acting out of self-interest. Wrong, he says, we have simply been coercing others into doing what we want them to do. The truth is that exploiting others is not in our best interest and is thus not selfish. Other points made in this chapter include the fact that trauma lasts a very long time, if communicated with correctly animals can be utilized for our selfish needs, and that economics is the the horrific study of exploitation and blood.
Essentially, this portion of reading from a "A Language Older Than Time" says the same thing over three chapters: we shouldn't believe things that we are told to believe. Chapter seven addresses this topic by talking about god; we shouldn't not rape because Jesus says so, we should not rape because we have developed a set of morals that says its wrong. Chapter eight addresses this topic by talking about the injustices of school and other atrocities; we are subdued, controlled, and manipulated by those with more power. Chapter nine addresses this topic by refuting the common conception that the world has been ruined by selfishness; in fact, most of the injustices we participate in have no benefit to us at all.
As always, the classroom connections are endless to Jensen's work, but the most relevant on that I see is to Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance". In this piece of literature, Emerson addresses three topics that are extremely relevant to Jensen's discussion: independent thought, non-conformity, and variance. Here's an example of their the application. Jensen vehemently attacks school saying that it subdues the mind and promotes conformity. Emerson is on the exact same page, condemning those blindly believe and refuse to think for themselves. Emerson also talks about conforming to the norm can be detrimental to ones health and success. That is undoubtedly true when it comes to the idea of selfishness being the route of all evil. This idea is a commonly accepted them, and yet intrinsically wrong. We need to break away from such things.
Ultimately what I will take from this excerpt is that I need to think for myself. Both Jensen and those that can be referenced in support of his arguments are adamant in their view that conclusions, mindsets, and lifestyles need to come from within. Jensen first highlights this by condemning religion; he feels as if it stunts free thinking. He then continues on to highlight the ways in which school and society repress original thoughts and promote conformism. I don't know if I completely buy into the fact that religion and school are stunting our growth, but I definitely see what Jensen is going for. He is pointing out that their are societal conventions pushing us towards ends that we have not chosen for ourselves. As a result, I intend to be infinitely more aware of the ends that I am being pushed towards. I will no longer blindly follow what my superiors have laid out for me. I will be critical, questioning, and original to ensure that the best possible path is always the one that I am on.
Questions:
I am quite confused about this concept of selfishness? Could Jensen clarify a little better?
What are the positives of religion? Is Jensen religious? Is there something wrong with the fact that religion instills good morals from day one?
In Chapter 7, Jensen portrays church in a kind of negative light. He says it simply unites an unruly group of people and gives them a moral code that they should have developed themselves. Rape is the example given: the church says rape is wrong so we don't rape. Instead, we should be making conscious unhampered decision ourselves. This brings us once again back to the idea that there is communication between animals and various species that helps us all to cooperate and consequently succeed. The communication and cooperation breaks down when we lie to ourselves. Deforestation happens when and individuals to himself about the consequences, in light of the fact that it will be extremely beneficial financially. The chapter closes on another surprising attack on Christianity and religion. What spirituality boils down to that we believe what we are supposed or pressed to believe, when in actuality we should be developing our own beleifs.
Chapter 8 opens with a reference to Jensen's childhood experience with stars. He comments that "the message from the stars...that cruelty we take for granted is not natural...sustains me to this day. The subsequent points that he makes are in regard to the conventions of school. The terminology he uses is pretty stinging: " schol last thirteen years [because] it takes that long to sufficiently break a child's will". He believes that the primary function of school is not to educated, but to subdue the minds of young people and lead them away from experience. Jensen continues on with examples of how individuals across the world are subdued and controlled. Nazis controlled Jews by presenting them with choices that gave the allusion that they were controlling their own destiny. Later, the topic of interspecies communication is addressed: Jensen put a group of rodents out of their homes and in return they defecated on his sink. The chapter finally closes on an ominous note: "we can distance ourselves from the world of experience, sense, and emotion, or we can die."
The last chapter in this reading, "Breaking Out" first addresses the topic of selfishness. Jensen claims that "we would be better off if we were to act in our own best interest." This seems like a contradictory notion to everything we've ever been taught, but Jensen provides solid support: we have destroyed the world and done so under the guise that we were acting out of self-interest. Wrong, he says, we have simply been coercing others into doing what we want them to do. The truth is that exploiting others is not in our best interest and is thus not selfish. Other points made in this chapter include the fact that trauma lasts a very long time, if communicated with correctly animals can be utilized for our selfish needs, and that economics is the the horrific study of exploitation and blood.
Essentially, this portion of reading from a "A Language Older Than Time" says the same thing over three chapters: we shouldn't believe things that we are told to believe. Chapter seven addresses this topic by talking about god; we shouldn't not rape because Jesus says so, we should not rape because we have developed a set of morals that says its wrong. Chapter eight addresses this topic by talking about the injustices of school and other atrocities; we are subdued, controlled, and manipulated by those with more power. Chapter nine addresses this topic by refuting the common conception that the world has been ruined by selfishness; in fact, most of the injustices we participate in have no benefit to us at all.
As always, the classroom connections are endless to Jensen's work, but the most relevant on that I see is to Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance". In this piece of literature, Emerson addresses three topics that are extremely relevant to Jensen's discussion: independent thought, non-conformity, and variance. Here's an example of their the application. Jensen vehemently attacks school saying that it subdues the mind and promotes conformity. Emerson is on the exact same page, condemning those blindly believe and refuse to think for themselves. Emerson also talks about conforming to the norm can be detrimental to ones health and success. That is undoubtedly true when it comes to the idea of selfishness being the route of all evil. This idea is a commonly accepted them, and yet intrinsically wrong. We need to break away from such things.
Ultimately what I will take from this excerpt is that I need to think for myself. Both Jensen and those that can be referenced in support of his arguments are adamant in their view that conclusions, mindsets, and lifestyles need to come from within. Jensen first highlights this by condemning religion; he feels as if it stunts free thinking. He then continues on to highlight the ways in which school and society repress original thoughts and promote conformism. I don't know if I completely buy into the fact that religion and school are stunting our growth, but I definitely see what Jensen is going for. He is pointing out that their are societal conventions pushing us towards ends that we have not chosen for ourselves. As a result, I intend to be infinitely more aware of the ends that I am being pushed towards. I will no longer blindly follow what my superiors have laid out for me. I will be critical, questioning, and original to ensure that the best possible path is always the one that I am on.
Questions:
I am quite confused about this concept of selfishness? Could Jensen clarify a little better?
What are the positives of religion? Is Jensen religious? Is there something wrong with the fact that religion instills good morals from day one?
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Language Older Than Words Ch. 16-19
In this section of his book, Jensen continues to drop jaws with shocking statistics, bold claims, and subtly persuasive arguments. For the first time thus far I found myself not being skeptical with left brained thinking, but really starting to grasp Jensens message about the shocking state that our society is in. The reading covers four chapters, with a definite shift between chapters 17 and 18. Because these two distinct sections (16&17 and then 18&19), I will summarize these two parts and then break into an analysis of both.
Chapter 16, entitled the Parable of the Box, opens up by discussing the misconception that the rich man owns the right to resources and that all of the little people must abide by his rules. The example given is a man on top of box. he claims to own all the fish in the water. The poor people thus starve next to the river under the impression that this rich man really does own the fish, and their are soldiers that protect these lies with weapons. In actuality, the rich man has no right to these fish while his fellow man starves. Jensen breaks into a discussion about how successful or "good countries" have a system where wealth is funneled from the rich to the poor. "Bad countries" function under the principle that we must do whatever it takes gain power, and then whatever it takes to maintain that power. Chapter 17, entitled Violence Revisited, continues by addressing the idea of assassination attempts. Jensen brings up the idea that even if we were to kill the men in power that are destroying the world, there would be several men waiting in line to take their position. Hitler for example. Even if we could have killed him, there was a laundry list of people waiting to take his spot as commander of the Nazi regime. Besides, if we had killed him then we are just as bad as him: murderers. Jensen then breaks into a numbers analysis of plutononiam. Basically the message he is trying to get across is that we have created a deadly element that didn't exist naturally, and now we are risking killing our entire population just to utilize this element. For instance, the probe sent to explore venus could have exploded on lift off, infecting 5 billion people. The last bit of this chapter deals with utilizing anger in a positive manner.
Chapter 17, coercion, talks about exactly that: coercion. The opening few paragraphs talk about the fact that Jenson is "pretty fucked up" and consequently he has all sorts of questions with no viable answers. If her weren't to pose these questions though, we would just maintain our ignorance. Talk of coercion is in reference to the idea that we feel the need to convince others that we are right. We coerce them with our philosophical views, our applied sciences, our economics, our legal system, our politics, our child rasing, and so on. One great example of this coercion is how his father coerced everyone into thinking his beatings were justified. This clears the conscious of the one doing the coercing while justifying him legally. Another example of coercion is wage slavery. The only saving grace is the good will of a small number of us humans we refuse to rape or coerce. The last chapter, chapter 18 Honeybees, revisits the idea of interspecies communication. It starts off with an anecdote about a dog who wouldn't listen, and some cats who would (but only if jensen played by the rules). The second half though is about bee keeping and Jensen's affinity towards insects. The conclusion drawn is that cooperation with such creatures can bring joy, honey, and satisfaction from hard work. The ever present theory to live by: treat them as you would want to be treated.
As always, Chapters 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Derek Jensen's Book insight some very strong feelings in me. The interesting thing though is that this is the first section of "A Language Older Than Words" that has not left me skeptical. On the contrary, the words found in this chapter really had me believing in Jensen's message. The statistics about defense spending and wasted research funds made me drop my jaw to the floor. I was appalled at the fact that we could be saving millions of lives for the same price as it costs to build a bomber airplane. The other important thing I learned was the concept about the hording of resources; how one man prevents others from fishing in a river that is clearly not his. This references giant monopolies (ie. utility companies) and oligopolies (ie. phone companies) and how they leave the rest of the world starving and in need. The problem is that they control resources that should be readily available to the public, and yet their tyrannical control over such resources results in population suffering. My mind isn't necessarily changed on the topic, its more that my eyes have been opened to the injustices.
In terms of application to the real world (the big picture), I think that the American's conquest of the Indians ties right in. When the colonists arrived in the states, they stumbled upon a foreign land where they knew and owned nothing. Coexisting and interacting with the Natives would have been perfectly moral and good for the state of the US, but the colonists quickly chose to conquer and exploit the local tribes. As time passed, the white's conquest of Indians escalated at an extremely rapid pace, culminating in the 1830's trail of tears and the current Native American oppression we maintain. Just like in the rich man and the fish story, the Colonists thought they were entitled to the land that they had discovered. Using force and intimidation, the Colonists successfully convinced the Indians, just like the rich man convinced the hungry, that the states intrinsically belonged to them. Despite the fact that they were wrong about this ownership, their disillusions and military skill allowed them to dictate how American soil was allotted. Both Jensen and I are appalled by this injustice. There is nothing that says that starving individuals cannot fish in that river, and accordingly there is nothing that says the Indians were not entitled to the Americas. We must work to ensure that such authoritarian systems are not allowed to unlawfully claim and exploit common resources.
Application to my life is difficult when it comes to this reading, but essential none the less. Although I personally do not prevent others from obtaining resources they are entitled to or coerce individuals politically, philosophically, or legally, I CAN work to prevent others from doing so. For example, one big injustice that I personally have worked to correct is Notre Dame's food service practices, and I intend to maintain my efforts to fix such problems. In my opinion, the manner in which food is distributed at our school is extremely dictatorial. There are no viable alternatives to the norm, there is no competition in place that pushes prices lower, and their is no student representation advising the administrators on how to fix these problems. Thus NDFS (Notre Dame Food Services) is the man on top of the box or the white colonist conquering the Native Americans. Based on my knowledge and understanding of Jensen's work, I intend to continue my pursuit of curing food service injustices at Notre Dame. The key is that at some point these tyrants must be stood up to, because unchecked they will continue to take advantage of those they control. Action against them removes this control and leads to a more balanced equilibrium. In my specific case, I hope that opposition to NDFS's practices will lead to meal plans that better cater to the needs of every student.
Questions -
Why was the extra work to tend the spread out bees not with the increase in productivity?
How can coercion be spotted on a daily basis? Are there lesser forms of coercion that are ok? Such as persuasion?
Are there any cases where killing on man WOULD save many lives? Perhaps a serial killer who functions alone?
Chapter 16, entitled the Parable of the Box, opens up by discussing the misconception that the rich man owns the right to resources and that all of the little people must abide by his rules. The example given is a man on top of box. he claims to own all the fish in the water. The poor people thus starve next to the river under the impression that this rich man really does own the fish, and their are soldiers that protect these lies with weapons. In actuality, the rich man has no right to these fish while his fellow man starves. Jensen breaks into a discussion about how successful or "good countries" have a system where wealth is funneled from the rich to the poor. "Bad countries" function under the principle that we must do whatever it takes gain power, and then whatever it takes to maintain that power. Chapter 17, entitled Violence Revisited, continues by addressing the idea of assassination attempts. Jensen brings up the idea that even if we were to kill the men in power that are destroying the world, there would be several men waiting in line to take their position. Hitler for example. Even if we could have killed him, there was a laundry list of people waiting to take his spot as commander of the Nazi regime. Besides, if we had killed him then we are just as bad as him: murderers. Jensen then breaks into a numbers analysis of plutononiam. Basically the message he is trying to get across is that we have created a deadly element that didn't exist naturally, and now we are risking killing our entire population just to utilize this element. For instance, the probe sent to explore venus could have exploded on lift off, infecting 5 billion people. The last bit of this chapter deals with utilizing anger in a positive manner.
Chapter 17, coercion, talks about exactly that: coercion. The opening few paragraphs talk about the fact that Jenson is "pretty fucked up" and consequently he has all sorts of questions with no viable answers. If her weren't to pose these questions though, we would just maintain our ignorance. Talk of coercion is in reference to the idea that we feel the need to convince others that we are right. We coerce them with our philosophical views, our applied sciences, our economics, our legal system, our politics, our child rasing, and so on. One great example of this coercion is how his father coerced everyone into thinking his beatings were justified. This clears the conscious of the one doing the coercing while justifying him legally. Another example of coercion is wage slavery. The only saving grace is the good will of a small number of us humans we refuse to rape or coerce. The last chapter, chapter 18 Honeybees, revisits the idea of interspecies communication. It starts off with an anecdote about a dog who wouldn't listen, and some cats who would (but only if jensen played by the rules). The second half though is about bee keeping and Jensen's affinity towards insects. The conclusion drawn is that cooperation with such creatures can bring joy, honey, and satisfaction from hard work. The ever present theory to live by: treat them as you would want to be treated.
As always, Chapters 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Derek Jensen's Book insight some very strong feelings in me. The interesting thing though is that this is the first section of "A Language Older Than Words" that has not left me skeptical. On the contrary, the words found in this chapter really had me believing in Jensen's message. The statistics about defense spending and wasted research funds made me drop my jaw to the floor. I was appalled at the fact that we could be saving millions of lives for the same price as it costs to build a bomber airplane. The other important thing I learned was the concept about the hording of resources; how one man prevents others from fishing in a river that is clearly not his. This references giant monopolies (ie. utility companies) and oligopolies (ie. phone companies) and how they leave the rest of the world starving and in need. The problem is that they control resources that should be readily available to the public, and yet their tyrannical control over such resources results in population suffering. My mind isn't necessarily changed on the topic, its more that my eyes have been opened to the injustices.
In terms of application to the real world (the big picture), I think that the American's conquest of the Indians ties right in. When the colonists arrived in the states, they stumbled upon a foreign land where they knew and owned nothing. Coexisting and interacting with the Natives would have been perfectly moral and good for the state of the US, but the colonists quickly chose to conquer and exploit the local tribes. As time passed, the white's conquest of Indians escalated at an extremely rapid pace, culminating in the 1830's trail of tears and the current Native American oppression we maintain. Just like in the rich man and the fish story, the Colonists thought they were entitled to the land that they had discovered. Using force and intimidation, the Colonists successfully convinced the Indians, just like the rich man convinced the hungry, that the states intrinsically belonged to them. Despite the fact that they were wrong about this ownership, their disillusions and military skill allowed them to dictate how American soil was allotted. Both Jensen and I are appalled by this injustice. There is nothing that says that starving individuals cannot fish in that river, and accordingly there is nothing that says the Indians were not entitled to the Americas. We must work to ensure that such authoritarian systems are not allowed to unlawfully claim and exploit common resources.
Application to my life is difficult when it comes to this reading, but essential none the less. Although I personally do not prevent others from obtaining resources they are entitled to or coerce individuals politically, philosophically, or legally, I CAN work to prevent others from doing so. For example, one big injustice that I personally have worked to correct is Notre Dame's food service practices, and I intend to maintain my efforts to fix such problems. In my opinion, the manner in which food is distributed at our school is extremely dictatorial. There are no viable alternatives to the norm, there is no competition in place that pushes prices lower, and their is no student representation advising the administrators on how to fix these problems. Thus NDFS (Notre Dame Food Services) is the man on top of the box or the white colonist conquering the Native Americans. Based on my knowledge and understanding of Jensen's work, I intend to continue my pursuit of curing food service injustices at Notre Dame. The key is that at some point these tyrants must be stood up to, because unchecked they will continue to take advantage of those they control. Action against them removes this control and leads to a more balanced equilibrium. In my specific case, I hope that opposition to NDFS's practices will lead to meal plans that better cater to the needs of every student.
Questions -
Why was the extra work to tend the spread out bees not with the increase in productivity?
How can coercion be spotted on a daily basis? Are there lesser forms of coercion that are ok? Such as persuasion?
Are there any cases where killing on man WOULD save many lives? Perhaps a serial killer who functions alone?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
A Language Older Than Words Ch. 4,5,6
Once again Derrick Jensen has our jaws dropping in chapters 4, 5, and 6. His words are controversial, and yet his support is convincing. The literature is infused with excellent anecdotes, compelling stories, and allusions to Descartes and other great thinkers. Seeing as the the reading as a whole is broken down into three chapters, I will break my analysis down into three parts. The fourth chapter, entitle cultural eyeglasses, delves into some of our societal lies. The fifth chapter, entitled cranes, Jensen talks about self confidence and growing up. The sixth chapter, a safety metaphor, he initially addresses the human/animal dynamic and then talks about fear.
Cultural eyeglasses opens with discussion about a set of scientists that studied monkeys who had been treated extremely poorly as infants. When it was these monkeys turns to parent their own children, they had no idea what to do. They either ignored the children or beat them to death. This opening anecdote transitions effectively into a series of statistics about the abuse and neglect of children in America. Essentially the point that Jensen is trying to make is that "the physical cannot be separated from the nonphysical." The one strong example given is the Nazi regime. Although they were adamant that Jews, Russians, homosexuals etc. were subhuman, they couldn't justify such conclusions 100% in their head. Later in the chapter, he briefly talks about how self experience is the most important of all proof. Essentially equations and theories are used to explain phenomenon that need not be explained, and thus are cheapened with such descriptions. One of the most striking conclusions that Jensen comes to in this chapter that "the world is drowning in a sea of words, and I add to the deluge, then hope that i can sleep that night, secure in the knowledge that I have done my part." Essentially what this implies is that the world is just words, Jensen speak words, and he is content with that. Regardless, Jensen brings it all back to the animal conversations going on all around us.
Cranes, the second chapter from this reading, is short but fairly straight forward. The topic Jensen addresses across the four pages of this Chapter is that breakdown is the best foundation for build up. On a personal level, he was abused and plagued by turmoil growing up. As a result though, he was able to start from scratch and develop into a fully functional adult. As he says, "mythologies of all times and all places tell us that those who enter the abyss and survive can bring back important lessons."
The last chapter of this set of reading is titled "The Safety of Metaphor" opens with Jensen discussion his mission to find out if others converse with animals. The conclusion that he comes to is that no one believes him because there is not proof. To combat this fact, Jensen references how most of the important things we know are internal truth, and not empirical fact. The difficult truth is that we ignore problems that we label as unsolvable. Animals do not do this, for they are all "pulling towards life." The problematic thing in our society is that we as humans refuse to break away from the worlds injustices because that is the easy path. "We lie, destroy, rape, murder, experiment, extirpate, all to control this wildly uncontrollable symphony."
The biggest thing this reading brought to my attention was the ignorance we are plagued by. The first chapter proves we are ignorant of is the truth that lies right before our eyes; that jews are human, that we are all talk, that politicians are corrupt. The second chapter proves that we are ignorant to the fact that we can succeed by rising from the ashes of distress. The last chapter proves that we are ignorant of the connections and relations we are missing out on; ignorant to the fact that we are destroying what we set out to save. Jensen shocked me with the revelation of all of this ignorance.
A great connection from this excerpt to other class readings is with the article that touched on the benefits of becoming vegetarian. That article really summed up the ignorance that Jensen was speaking out against in these three chapters. For instance, the vegetarian article talked about how the amount of food fed to the chickens that we eat as meat could feed four times as many people as those fed chickens actually do. It also talked about the fossil fuels and toxic emissions necessary to maintain livestock. The statistics are amazing, and yet we continue to eat meat and play into this vicious cycle of waste. This is the sort of ignorance that Jensen says is destroying the world. We choose to ignore blatant facts, because the prospect of solving the world's injustices is much more difficult than refusing to believe they don't exist.
As a result of this article, I intend to fight ignorance. In the days, weeks, and years to come, I will make a conscious effort not to lie to myself. Lying to yourself only pacifies the sorrow that would be a direct result of the truth. For instance, I intend to buy products that were not made in a fair environment. Things that were created because of slave labor or sub-human wages will not be found in my possession. Thanks to Jensen, I can no longer remain comfortably ignorant on such topics, just so the goods I buy are dirt cheap. Another impact this article has made on me is in regards to his allusions to the fact that if you survive going through hell, you'll be better off for it. From now, anytime I experience extreme sorrow, hardship, or turmoil, I will come out not only being a better person but actively acknowledging that I am a better person.
Questions:
What were some of the exact responses you got when you asked people if they talked to animals?
What happens if you don't survive hardship? Is hardship just a waste in that case?
How can we convince society to stop turning a blind eye to injustice?
Cultural eyeglasses opens with discussion about a set of scientists that studied monkeys who had been treated extremely poorly as infants. When it was these monkeys turns to parent their own children, they had no idea what to do. They either ignored the children or beat them to death. This opening anecdote transitions effectively into a series of statistics about the abuse and neglect of children in America. Essentially the point that Jensen is trying to make is that "the physical cannot be separated from the nonphysical." The one strong example given is the Nazi regime. Although they were adamant that Jews, Russians, homosexuals etc. were subhuman, they couldn't justify such conclusions 100% in their head. Later in the chapter, he briefly talks about how self experience is the most important of all proof. Essentially equations and theories are used to explain phenomenon that need not be explained, and thus are cheapened with such descriptions. One of the most striking conclusions that Jensen comes to in this chapter that "the world is drowning in a sea of words, and I add to the deluge, then hope that i can sleep that night, secure in the knowledge that I have done my part." Essentially what this implies is that the world is just words, Jensen speak words, and he is content with that. Regardless, Jensen brings it all back to the animal conversations going on all around us.
Cranes, the second chapter from this reading, is short but fairly straight forward. The topic Jensen addresses across the four pages of this Chapter is that breakdown is the best foundation for build up. On a personal level, he was abused and plagued by turmoil growing up. As a result though, he was able to start from scratch and develop into a fully functional adult. As he says, "mythologies of all times and all places tell us that those who enter the abyss and survive can bring back important lessons."
The last chapter of this set of reading is titled "The Safety of Metaphor" opens with Jensen discussion his mission to find out if others converse with animals. The conclusion that he comes to is that no one believes him because there is not proof. To combat this fact, Jensen references how most of the important things we know are internal truth, and not empirical fact. The difficult truth is that we ignore problems that we label as unsolvable. Animals do not do this, for they are all "pulling towards life." The problematic thing in our society is that we as humans refuse to break away from the worlds injustices because that is the easy path. "We lie, destroy, rape, murder, experiment, extirpate, all to control this wildly uncontrollable symphony."
The biggest thing this reading brought to my attention was the ignorance we are plagued by. The first chapter proves we are ignorant of is the truth that lies right before our eyes; that jews are human, that we are all talk, that politicians are corrupt. The second chapter proves that we are ignorant to the fact that we can succeed by rising from the ashes of distress. The last chapter proves that we are ignorant of the connections and relations we are missing out on; ignorant to the fact that we are destroying what we set out to save. Jensen shocked me with the revelation of all of this ignorance.
A great connection from this excerpt to other class readings is with the article that touched on the benefits of becoming vegetarian. That article really summed up the ignorance that Jensen was speaking out against in these three chapters. For instance, the vegetarian article talked about how the amount of food fed to the chickens that we eat as meat could feed four times as many people as those fed chickens actually do. It also talked about the fossil fuels and toxic emissions necessary to maintain livestock. The statistics are amazing, and yet we continue to eat meat and play into this vicious cycle of waste. This is the sort of ignorance that Jensen says is destroying the world. We choose to ignore blatant facts, because the prospect of solving the world's injustices is much more difficult than refusing to believe they don't exist.
As a result of this article, I intend to fight ignorance. In the days, weeks, and years to come, I will make a conscious effort not to lie to myself. Lying to yourself only pacifies the sorrow that would be a direct result of the truth. For instance, I intend to buy products that were not made in a fair environment. Things that were created because of slave labor or sub-human wages will not be found in my possession. Thanks to Jensen, I can no longer remain comfortably ignorant on such topics, just so the goods I buy are dirt cheap. Another impact this article has made on me is in regards to his allusions to the fact that if you survive going through hell, you'll be better off for it. From now, anytime I experience extreme sorrow, hardship, or turmoil, I will come out not only being a better person but actively acknowledging that I am a better person.
Questions:
What were some of the exact responses you got when you asked people if they talked to animals?
What happens if you don't survive hardship? Is hardship just a waste in that case?
How can we convince society to stop turning a blind eye to injustice?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Language Older Than Words Ch. 1,2 and 3
From my initial exposure to Derick Jensen's A Language Older Than Words, it seems as if the text is going to make me (and anyone else reading it) really question the blind eye we have turned to things in society. Right off the bat Jenson attacks "schooling and other forms of socialization" for diluting ones perception. The approach he takes bounces from historical references, like Descartes, to personal stories, like his conversations with coyotes, to straightforward discussion of an issue. Since the reading was conveniently divided into three chapters, I will give a brief synopsis of each, and then I will discuss the impact of A Language Older Than Words as a whole.
The first chapter, entitled "Silencing" opens with a discussion of how the world is filled with the lies. The role of these lies is disguise and thus allow deplorable acts. Jensen then continues on to discuss how the world's conversation ( between the trees, animals, and stars) was audible as a child, and yet slowly began to fade away. This talk of silence quickly turns to real world examples: we choose to forget violence or to not acknowledge the pollution around us. Our reasoning behind this is that they are "too horrific to comprehend." When Jensen was a child, he turned to the stars to combat this apparent ignorance. They in turn told him that the world wasn't as it was supposed to be, and that he would survive this. As Jensen grew old and learned more, he came to a bold conclusion that combats the commonly accepted ideals of Rene Descartes. This conclusion was that existence was self proving (I exist therefore I exist). The chapter closes with several more examples of personal and global disillusion. Jensen's only solution to the world's constant erosion: learning how to listen.
The second chapter, entitled "Coyotes, Kittens, and Conversations" starts off with a story about how Jensen had a successful conversation with a group of coyotes, deterring them from massacring his chicken population. The discussion that follows addresses the fact the world is set up in a way that as soon was humans understand something, we exploit it. Jensen finds this horrifying and wrong. The rest of this chapter alternates between examples/anecdotes about humans raping the world and its inhabitants and more about Jensen's ability to talk to animals. The conclusion that he draws is that conversations with nature are feasible and necessary for humans to exist in harmony with the world around them. Unfortunately though, Jensen points out that the state of the world is anything but harmony. Indians are massacred, children are beaten, and the land is devastated all under the lie that it is necessary and right.
The third and final chapter in the assigned reading is called "Taking a Life". Jensen opens this chapter with a question that the readers themselves might have been asking: how is it right that you slaughter the chickens yourself? He goes through a brief encounter where he was forced to kill one of his favorite ducks. He warned the fowl that the next bird to force himself on a hen was going to lose his life. This particular duck did so, and was forced to face the consequence. In respectfully giving this bird time to think about his death, Jensen comes to the realization that just like sex, violence is a very intimate relationship. Both are deeply emotional experiences and thus inspire similar responses: intimacy.
Similarly to articles in the past, this reading from A Language Older Than Words Evoked good and bad emotions. It was definitely interesting and powerful to hear about Jensen's success in talking to nature, but on the contrary it was troubling to hear how the world is just a series of lies that hides atrocities. First I'll focus on the positive response. What I learned from these three chapters is that if one is able to get over the common misconception that "listening to the land is a metaphor" then one can start to uncover some very important truths in the world. These truths are typically disguised by lies that humans have created, but if you can cut through the crap then you can develop an extremely deep solidarity with the world. Now in contrast, I'll highlight the bad emotions it brought out. They are best expressed in rhetorical questions. Have I too been raping the land and its resources? Do I marginalized and condemn entire groups of people? Do I justify my own wrongs with lies? I think it is clear that the reading had positive and yet adverse affects on my life.
These first three chapters of A Language Older Than Words (and probably the entirety of the book) tie in wonderfully with all of the articles we have read on nature. In light of available time and space I'll highlight one. Looking back at "A Blizzard Under the Blue Sky" by Houston in Literature and The Environment, there are some subtle but important similarities. For example, Houston speaks from the point of her dogs on several occasions. This may seem irrelevant to Jenson's message, but on the contrary, it is pivotal. Houston had a connection with her dogs that was so strong that she felt like she could speak as if she were actually them. This definitely implies a form of communication between human and animal that is right in line with what Jensen exhibits. A connection is how nature changed both authors understanding of the world. Houston learned through extreme weather that life was not as bad as it seemed; Jensen learned trhough communications with a chicken that violence, sex, and intimacy are all connected.
Ultimately, Jensen's message in these first three chapters is applicable across the board. It is clear to me now that our society is filled with liars and frauds, all of which are hiding horrific realities. I intend to combat these lies, whether it be in regards to human treatment of animals or equal rights (not just implied, but acted on) for all people. The other important message that I gained, and consequently will apply from this reading, is that there is without a doubt a language that can be spoken between man and nature. The results of such conversations are ultimately positive because they develop a unity between populations that had previously been isolated. Through personal stories, empirical facts, and interesting metaphors, Jensen puts forth many visionary ideals. With hard work and some overhaul of previous conventions, I will apply them to my life.
Questions:
Were the conversations with these animals and trees verbal or implied?
What does the connection between sex and violence really mean?
How do we cut through the lies? Does it matter that the world will probably never be able to do it as a whole?
The first chapter, entitled "Silencing" opens with a discussion of how the world is filled with the lies. The role of these lies is disguise and thus allow deplorable acts. Jensen then continues on to discuss how the world's conversation ( between the trees, animals, and stars) was audible as a child, and yet slowly began to fade away. This talk of silence quickly turns to real world examples: we choose to forget violence or to not acknowledge the pollution around us. Our reasoning behind this is that they are "too horrific to comprehend." When Jensen was a child, he turned to the stars to combat this apparent ignorance. They in turn told him that the world wasn't as it was supposed to be, and that he would survive this. As Jensen grew old and learned more, he came to a bold conclusion that combats the commonly accepted ideals of Rene Descartes. This conclusion was that existence was self proving (I exist therefore I exist). The chapter closes with several more examples of personal and global disillusion. Jensen's only solution to the world's constant erosion: learning how to listen.
The second chapter, entitled "Coyotes, Kittens, and Conversations" starts off with a story about how Jensen had a successful conversation with a group of coyotes, deterring them from massacring his chicken population. The discussion that follows addresses the fact the world is set up in a way that as soon was humans understand something, we exploit it. Jensen finds this horrifying and wrong. The rest of this chapter alternates between examples/anecdotes about humans raping the world and its inhabitants and more about Jensen's ability to talk to animals. The conclusion that he draws is that conversations with nature are feasible and necessary for humans to exist in harmony with the world around them. Unfortunately though, Jensen points out that the state of the world is anything but harmony. Indians are massacred, children are beaten, and the land is devastated all under the lie that it is necessary and right.
The third and final chapter in the assigned reading is called "Taking a Life". Jensen opens this chapter with a question that the readers themselves might have been asking: how is it right that you slaughter the chickens yourself? He goes through a brief encounter where he was forced to kill one of his favorite ducks. He warned the fowl that the next bird to force himself on a hen was going to lose his life. This particular duck did so, and was forced to face the consequence. In respectfully giving this bird time to think about his death, Jensen comes to the realization that just like sex, violence is a very intimate relationship. Both are deeply emotional experiences and thus inspire similar responses: intimacy.
Similarly to articles in the past, this reading from A Language Older Than Words Evoked good and bad emotions. It was definitely interesting and powerful to hear about Jensen's success in talking to nature, but on the contrary it was troubling to hear how the world is just a series of lies that hides atrocities. First I'll focus on the positive response. What I learned from these three chapters is that if one is able to get over the common misconception that "listening to the land is a metaphor" then one can start to uncover some very important truths in the world. These truths are typically disguised by lies that humans have created, but if you can cut through the crap then you can develop an extremely deep solidarity with the world. Now in contrast, I'll highlight the bad emotions it brought out. They are best expressed in rhetorical questions. Have I too been raping the land and its resources? Do I marginalized and condemn entire groups of people? Do I justify my own wrongs with lies? I think it is clear that the reading had positive and yet adverse affects on my life.
These first three chapters of A Language Older Than Words (and probably the entirety of the book) tie in wonderfully with all of the articles we have read on nature. In light of available time and space I'll highlight one. Looking back at "A Blizzard Under the Blue Sky" by Houston in Literature and The Environment, there are some subtle but important similarities. For example, Houston speaks from the point of her dogs on several occasions. This may seem irrelevant to Jenson's message, but on the contrary, it is pivotal. Houston had a connection with her dogs that was so strong that she felt like she could speak as if she were actually them. This definitely implies a form of communication between human and animal that is right in line with what Jensen exhibits. A connection is how nature changed both authors understanding of the world. Houston learned through extreme weather that life was not as bad as it seemed; Jensen learned trhough communications with a chicken that violence, sex, and intimacy are all connected.
Ultimately, Jensen's message in these first three chapters is applicable across the board. It is clear to me now that our society is filled with liars and frauds, all of which are hiding horrific realities. I intend to combat these lies, whether it be in regards to human treatment of animals or equal rights (not just implied, but acted on) for all people. The other important message that I gained, and consequently will apply from this reading, is that there is without a doubt a language that can be spoken between man and nature. The results of such conversations are ultimately positive because they develop a unity between populations that had previously been isolated. Through personal stories, empirical facts, and interesting metaphors, Jensen puts forth many visionary ideals. With hard work and some overhaul of previous conventions, I will apply them to my life.
Questions:
Were the conversations with these animals and trees verbal or implied?
What does the connection between sex and violence really mean?
How do we cut through the lies? Does it matter that the world will probably never be able to do it as a whole?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Sleep in the Dark
It is four o'clock in the morning and I am sitting in the fluorescent light infested east room of LaFortune. Not the best time to be reading an article about how over-exposure to light during the night time increases your risk of cancer, but I digress. The articles grouped under the title "Sleep in the Dark" each discuss studies where evidence point to the fact that A.) melatonin is a cancer suppressor and B.) that sleeping with the lights on (overexposure to light) stunts your production of melatonin. Based on these two statements, overexposure to light increases your risk of cancer. My two key points will describe these two key statements.
First off, these articles as a whole assert that melatonin is a cancer suppressor. The last article in particular makes a point of noting that "there is abundant evidence indicating that melatonin is involved in preventing tumor initiation, promotion, and progression." A lot of the language used to describe this phenomenon is way over my head, but the conclusion is clear: more melatonin produced by an individuals body, less likely that the individual will have cancer.
Second off, these articles as a whole assert that being exposed to light when we should be in the dark sleeping decreases a bodies production of melatonin. The first article says that "lighting fixtures should be designed to minimize interference with normal circadian rhythms in plants and animals" based on the fact that melatonin is produced because of these circadian rhythms. Individuals like those who work the night shift at their job are at high risk of producing dangerously low levels of this melatonin. They are awake and in the light when its dark outside, and they are asleep and still in the light when its light outside.
This article has instilled emotions resembling fear. I have an extremely unorthodox sleep schedule where I am up until 4 or 5 in the morning most days and take long naps during the time when it is light out. Based on these studies, I am thus at high risk for cancer. The question is though, what am I supposed to do? I am extremely productive in the wee hours of the morning and extremely unproductive during the day. It seems intuitive then that I would stay awake when I am focused and sleep when I am not. The problem now though is that I am being exposed to light in a contrary manner to my natural circadian rhythm. Essentially, this article has brought me awareness to this fact but at the same time I have no viable solution to fix it. As of right now it would be a feeble attempt to try and change my sleep cycle. I am permanently, or at least til the end of college, a night owl.
In terms of the big picture, this article ties in very well with the other readings assigned for March 4th. These articles also addressed health, but they were concerned with our diets. The connection between the two is that we as humans have begun practices that are unnatural and thus unhealthy. For instance, we have started eating things that are not actually food but artificial substances that closely resemble food. Similarly, we have rebelled against the traditional day of waking at sunrise and sleeping at by working nighttime jobs in an attempt to increase productivity. Both of these unnatural practices are increasing our health risks. By eating foods that are artificial and eating them in outrageous portions, we are increasing the chance that we will get heart disease or diabetes. By overexposing ourselves to unnatural light, we are increasing our chance of getting cancer.
Essentially these articles on melatonin, circadian rhythms and cancer are explicitly telling me to change my sleeping habits. They have presented facts based on valid research that prove that my practices are unhealthy and could very likely lead to cancer. At the end of the day, I would love to sleep at the natural times and respect my circadian rhythms, but I seem unable to break the habit. My studies require me to put in long hours every day, and based on the way I seem to function best, these long hours seem to be very late at night (early in the morning). With that being said, I will make a conscious effort to correct my sleep schedule as time goes on. Spring break is this week, so it should be a great opportunity to regroup and get on a proper nighttime regimen. If all of that does not work though, I will just have to keep my fingers crossed that the damage I do to my body during these years of college can be undone in the years that follow.
Questions -
Can sleep in pitch black during the day compensate for having to work the night shift?
Are there any artificial ways to increase your levels of melatonin?
Nine hours of sleep seems like a lot to maintain, is there anyways of cheating the system?
First off, these articles as a whole assert that melatonin is a cancer suppressor. The last article in particular makes a point of noting that "there is abundant evidence indicating that melatonin is involved in preventing tumor initiation, promotion, and progression." A lot of the language used to describe this phenomenon is way over my head, but the conclusion is clear: more melatonin produced by an individuals body, less likely that the individual will have cancer.
Second off, these articles as a whole assert that being exposed to light when we should be in the dark sleeping decreases a bodies production of melatonin. The first article says that "lighting fixtures should be designed to minimize interference with normal circadian rhythms in plants and animals" based on the fact that melatonin is produced because of these circadian rhythms. Individuals like those who work the night shift at their job are at high risk of producing dangerously low levels of this melatonin. They are awake and in the light when its dark outside, and they are asleep and still in the light when its light outside.
This article has instilled emotions resembling fear. I have an extremely unorthodox sleep schedule where I am up until 4 or 5 in the morning most days and take long naps during the time when it is light out. Based on these studies, I am thus at high risk for cancer. The question is though, what am I supposed to do? I am extremely productive in the wee hours of the morning and extremely unproductive during the day. It seems intuitive then that I would stay awake when I am focused and sleep when I am not. The problem now though is that I am being exposed to light in a contrary manner to my natural circadian rhythm. Essentially, this article has brought me awareness to this fact but at the same time I have no viable solution to fix it. As of right now it would be a feeble attempt to try and change my sleep cycle. I am permanently, or at least til the end of college, a night owl.
In terms of the big picture, this article ties in very well with the other readings assigned for March 4th. These articles also addressed health, but they were concerned with our diets. The connection between the two is that we as humans have begun practices that are unnatural and thus unhealthy. For instance, we have started eating things that are not actually food but artificial substances that closely resemble food. Similarly, we have rebelled against the traditional day of waking at sunrise and sleeping at by working nighttime jobs in an attempt to increase productivity. Both of these unnatural practices are increasing our health risks. By eating foods that are artificial and eating them in outrageous portions, we are increasing the chance that we will get heart disease or diabetes. By overexposing ourselves to unnatural light, we are increasing our chance of getting cancer.
Essentially these articles on melatonin, circadian rhythms and cancer are explicitly telling me to change my sleeping habits. They have presented facts based on valid research that prove that my practices are unhealthy and could very likely lead to cancer. At the end of the day, I would love to sleep at the natural times and respect my circadian rhythms, but I seem unable to break the habit. My studies require me to put in long hours every day, and based on the way I seem to function best, these long hours seem to be very late at night (early in the morning). With that being said, I will make a conscious effort to correct my sleep schedule as time goes on. Spring break is this week, so it should be a great opportunity to regroup and get on a proper nighttime regimen. If all of that does not work though, I will just have to keep my fingers crossed that the damage I do to my body during these years of college can be undone in the years that follow.
Questions -
Can sleep in pitch black during the day compensate for having to work the night shift?
Are there any artificial ways to increase your levels of melatonin?
Nine hours of sleep seems like a lot to maintain, is there anyways of cheating the system?
Unhappy Meals and Going Vegetarian
I'll be honest: the material I read in Michael Pollan's article "Unhappy Meals" and in Kathy Freston's "The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for One Day" was eye opening and startling. After being somewhat ignorant to the nutritional misconceptions in our society for the first 20 years of my life, these two articles without a doubt had a profound impact one me. Michale Pollan really stresses the institutions in America that have made us unhealthy eaters while Kathy Freston provides statistics for a hypothetical scenario where we all gave up the consumption of meat. Both of these individuals seem to achieve exactly what they wanted in their articles: to raise awareness and propose alternatives. Since these two articles cover similar material, I will summarize each of them individually for my two key points.
Pollan opens with a statement that summarizes his entire article: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He then goes on to say that the rest of the article will probably just make this bold statement more confusing, but he proceeds anyway. At first I was disappointed by this fact, wishing I could get away with reading only six words. Soon though it became apparent that although the rest of his article was confusing, it was also very enlightening. He starts out by discussing the progression from eating foods to eating nutrients. Back in the day we simply consumed food without concern for what they were made up of. Now though, we strive to eat nutrients on individual level instead of foods as a whole. What this does is it takes away from the holistic nutrition (like the idea of eating an bread) and instead focuses on eating fiber (which we can artificially infuse into all sorts of things, including bread). This idea is referred to as nutritionism. The most striking problems that Pollan points out that proves nutriotionism is bad is that A.) we often wrongly identify those nutrients that are good for us and B.) that nutrients have different effects based on their combinations and relations to other foods. A perfect example of these negative ideas is how when we eat right, we get fatter. The push to replace fats with carbohydrates actually made America much fatter. In trying to improve nutrition though, scientists hit two big problems. The first is that focusing on nutrients is the only feasible way to analyze food. The second is that surveys that analyze consumption of food are usually not accurate due to extensive lying. Ultimately it comes down to this: either we keep our fingers crossed that natural selection adapts our bodies to this terrible diet or we strive to reduce meat consumption, increase plant consumption, and start eating real food.
The second article, by Kathy Preston, is essentially just a list of statistics about what would happen if everyone became a vegetarian for the day. Essentially everyone of the statistics points to one of two things: everyone as a vegetarian will conserve resources and decrease waste. In light of the fact that this is a statistics based article, I will highlight the three I found most impactful. First, if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive). Second, that everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas. Finally, greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution. These facts, and all of the others, are very powerful.
As I said in the beginning of this blog, the emotions these articles stirred up in me were very strong. They managed to insight questioning, shock, and even fear in me as I read them. The reason they were so powerful was because they applied to my everyday decisions. Every time I walk into the dining hall I am faced with the option to eat healthy or to eat unhealthy; I have usually picked the latter. At what cost does this come though? Essentially I have learned to take my diet much more seriously and to analyze everything I put into my body. Pollan's idea that we should eat food and not just "food like substances" is a very strong one. If you would have asked me a day ago if what I ate was food, I would have told you yes. Now though, I am no quite sure what I would say to such a question. The two articles combine to make me question whether or not I should be a vegetarian. Am I risking a short life or early medical complications if I do not?
In terms of relating this article to the big picture, it reminds me a lot of a film I watched over Christmas break called Supersize Me. This documentary follows a New York native around on his quest to eat McDonalds for thirty days straight. Three separate doctors examine him and evaluate his health throughout the experiment, giving him expert advice on what his body is being exposed to. When compared to Pollan and Freston's articles, it is clear that what he was eating was not food but instead was something that resembled food. His health showed it. By day 21 of his 30 day journey he was having heart palpitations and had to check himself into the emergency room. Obviously the average American does not consume this much that resembles food, but they are almost as guilty/at risk. The fact that we go to the stores and buy bread infused with various nutrients and meat that has been raised on preservative infused grain means that we are also at risk of medical complication. I think the fact that these articles and the film tie in so well together is an important connection to make when delving into the topic of nutrition.
In terms of application, I think the most important thing to note from both of articles is a topic raised in "Unhappy Meal". Some might say that our bodies as humans will ultimately adapt to this new nutritional system. Here's the problem though: we don't let survival of the fittest work its magic. Ideally (not in a sadistic way) those whose genes are not conducive to the US's current diet would die off and only those with favorable genes for surviving on those types of food would survive. The problem is that modern medicine has been charged with trying to extend everyone's life regardless of nutritional background. Consequently, I intend to imply all of this information to my life. Perhaps I will try and be a vegetarian for a day. There obviously will not be a dramatic reduction in pollution and hunger as a result of my vegetarian exploits, but there will be some good done: I will be healthier and hopefully people will follow my lead. The biggest thing that I intend to do is reduce my meat consumption across the board. I am a big time fan of giant meat proportions (steak, chicken, pork, you name it) but now I will be a lot more conscientious about the amounts I consume. Hopefully I will see health benefits as a result of this transition.
Questions -
Some of the Vegetarian statistics are not labeled with time periods. How long will the changes be in effect? For instance, how long could the excess fuel power cars?
Will there ever be a time somewhere far down the road where the health benefits of certain foods will be fully understood and thus utilized in our everyday lives.
Pollan opens with a statement that summarizes his entire article: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He then goes on to say that the rest of the article will probably just make this bold statement more confusing, but he proceeds anyway. At first I was disappointed by this fact, wishing I could get away with reading only six words. Soon though it became apparent that although the rest of his article was confusing, it was also very enlightening. He starts out by discussing the progression from eating foods to eating nutrients. Back in the day we simply consumed food without concern for what they were made up of. Now though, we strive to eat nutrients on individual level instead of foods as a whole. What this does is it takes away from the holistic nutrition (like the idea of eating an bread) and instead focuses on eating fiber (which we can artificially infuse into all sorts of things, including bread). This idea is referred to as nutritionism. The most striking problems that Pollan points out that proves nutriotionism is bad is that A.) we often wrongly identify those nutrients that are good for us and B.) that nutrients have different effects based on their combinations and relations to other foods. A perfect example of these negative ideas is how when we eat right, we get fatter. The push to replace fats with carbohydrates actually made America much fatter. In trying to improve nutrition though, scientists hit two big problems. The first is that focusing on nutrients is the only feasible way to analyze food. The second is that surveys that analyze consumption of food are usually not accurate due to extensive lying. Ultimately it comes down to this: either we keep our fingers crossed that natural selection adapts our bodies to this terrible diet or we strive to reduce meat consumption, increase plant consumption, and start eating real food.
The second article, by Kathy Preston, is essentially just a list of statistics about what would happen if everyone became a vegetarian for the day. Essentially everyone of the statistics points to one of two things: everyone as a vegetarian will conserve resources and decrease waste. In light of the fact that this is a statistics based article, I will highlight the three I found most impactful. First, if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive). Second, that everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas. Finally, greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution. These facts, and all of the others, are very powerful.
As I said in the beginning of this blog, the emotions these articles stirred up in me were very strong. They managed to insight questioning, shock, and even fear in me as I read them. The reason they were so powerful was because they applied to my everyday decisions. Every time I walk into the dining hall I am faced with the option to eat healthy or to eat unhealthy; I have usually picked the latter. At what cost does this come though? Essentially I have learned to take my diet much more seriously and to analyze everything I put into my body. Pollan's idea that we should eat food and not just "food like substances" is a very strong one. If you would have asked me a day ago if what I ate was food, I would have told you yes. Now though, I am no quite sure what I would say to such a question. The two articles combine to make me question whether or not I should be a vegetarian. Am I risking a short life or early medical complications if I do not?
In terms of relating this article to the big picture, it reminds me a lot of a film I watched over Christmas break called Supersize Me. This documentary follows a New York native around on his quest to eat McDonalds for thirty days straight. Three separate doctors examine him and evaluate his health throughout the experiment, giving him expert advice on what his body is being exposed to. When compared to Pollan and Freston's articles, it is clear that what he was eating was not food but instead was something that resembled food. His health showed it. By day 21 of his 30 day journey he was having heart palpitations and had to check himself into the emergency room. Obviously the average American does not consume this much that resembles food, but they are almost as guilty/at risk. The fact that we go to the stores and buy bread infused with various nutrients and meat that has been raised on preservative infused grain means that we are also at risk of medical complication. I think the fact that these articles and the film tie in so well together is an important connection to make when delving into the topic of nutrition.
In terms of application, I think the most important thing to note from both of articles is a topic raised in "Unhappy Meal". Some might say that our bodies as humans will ultimately adapt to this new nutritional system. Here's the problem though: we don't let survival of the fittest work its magic. Ideally (not in a sadistic way) those whose genes are not conducive to the US's current diet would die off and only those with favorable genes for surviving on those types of food would survive. The problem is that modern medicine has been charged with trying to extend everyone's life regardless of nutritional background. Consequently, I intend to imply all of this information to my life. Perhaps I will try and be a vegetarian for a day. There obviously will not be a dramatic reduction in pollution and hunger as a result of my vegetarian exploits, but there will be some good done: I will be healthier and hopefully people will follow my lead. The biggest thing that I intend to do is reduce my meat consumption across the board. I am a big time fan of giant meat proportions (steak, chicken, pork, you name it) but now I will be a lot more conscientious about the amounts I consume. Hopefully I will see health benefits as a result of this transition.
Questions -
Some of the Vegetarian statistics are not labeled with time periods. How long will the changes be in effect? For instance, how long could the excess fuel power cars?
Will there ever be a time somewhere far down the road where the health benefits of certain foods will be fully understood and thus utilized in our everyday lives.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Marriage, Sex, Abuse, and Parents
The readings for March 2nd encompassed a wide variety of topics, but the motif that spanned every one of them was love. The first encouraged getting back to the love of marriage, the second to the love of intimacy, the third to the love that combats abuse, and the fourth to the love that your parents have for you. The fusion of all of these articles has one key message: we need to work hard to develop and maintain healthy relationships that are infused with love. In order to outline three key points from the articles, I will summarize the articles on marriage, sex and parents. Consequently, I will highlight the main ideas from the abuse articles later in the blog.
The first article, entitle "What Makes a Marriage Work", was written by John Gottman who seems to have done research on the topic of marriage. Right off the bat, Gottman highlights several statistics in regards to failed marriages: 50% of first marriages fail, 60% of second marriages fail. Although these statistics are daunting, he provides hope for those who are willing to understand and work on their marriages. The first topic Gottman addresses is the misconceptions about what a healthy marriage should look like. "Validating. Couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise," is the what the majority people think is needed for success. On the contrary, Gottman asserts, there are two other healthy couples that can succeed: volitale and conflict avoiding. Once this assertion is established, he continues on to highlight the four warning signs that a marriage is in trouble: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stone-walling. In order to combat these, a couple must be calm, honest, and identify what they see to be healthy.
The second article, entitled "Lust for the Long Hall", analyzes the physicality of relationships. The author, Elizabeth Raeburn starts by talking about her own experience. Her and her husband were initially very lovey dovey: seizing every possible opportunity to make physical contact with each other. After a while though, this close physical intimacy faded and Raeburn began to question whether or not her marriage was failing. This idea launches the article into a discussion about physical intimacy: its misconceptions, its rewards, and how to make it work. The meat of the article is spent talking about how couples have a tendency to wrongly identify the reason for their intimacy problems. They blame it on a lack of physical desire, an abundance of stress, and other misguided reasons. In actuality, Raeburn asserts, successful physical intimacy is rooted in the holistic healthiness of a relationship. Couples must identify there problems, such as being too demanding or needy, before their bedroom life can flourish. The end result of achieving this is adulthood, maturity, and lifelong successful intimacy.
The third article, "Ten Count'em, Ten Uses for Parents", and it is essentially ten reasons why we need our parents. Instead of talking about all of the uses for parents, I am going to highlight my two favorites. First is number one: parents know you. The brief description of this use is very powerful. It talks about how their early exposure to every aspect of you means that parents know you better anyone else (spouses and best friends included). What it all boils down to is that "your parents came to know you before you started to hide your real self from the rest of the world." This fact is important because it means that whenever we need to look in the mirror, we can just go to our parents. My second favorite is number nine: parents are your critics. One realization that I came to in college was that the criticism I receive from my parents is the most painful and yet helpful criticism I ever get. The things that they tell me sting to the core sometimes, but I always know that they are right. The way I like to put it is that parents say everything that I fear internally...out loud.
All of these articles evoke feelings of understanding and excitement. The first two are a little over my head, seeing as I am not married or intimate with anyone, but I understand the general message. The last article is perfect: it highlights everything I have always thought about parents while reminding me to cherish them. The biggest thing that I gained from all of this came from the first article. It was very interesting for me to hear that there are several types of healthy relationships and that the normal conventions of marital success are not necessarily true. As a result of all of the information I learned in these readings, I intend to pursue a healthy marriage where honesty is the foundation, I intend to respect intimacy by understanding that it stems from other aspects of the relationship, and I intend to cherish/utilize my parents constantly.
In terms of the big picture, these topics tie in directly with the idea of constructing a good life for human flourishing. A solid marriage, healthy intimacy, and a good relationship with ones parents are all vital for personal success. What they provide is a foundation for the development of other relationships. The fact that your spouse and your parents are some of the closest people to you means that how you interact with them will dictate how you interact with others. Accordingly, one should build from the ground up: get your home life right and the rest will fall in line.
Applying all of this information to my own life should be pretty simple. All of the ideals put for the in these articles are very attainable. I would like to take a second to touch on the abuse articles now. One thing that I definitely intend to do after doing these readings is keep my eye out for domestic abuse. The "loveisnotabuse" website puts forth some accurate warning signs that prove domestic abuse is occuring. I will do my best to keep an eye out for these hints, especially when it comes to those close enough that I could accurately identify them (family and friends). Besides the domestic abuse stuff, I really intend to appreciate my parents more. Growing up, my relationship with them was extremely volitale. Now that I am older though, it should be easier to cherish, love and respect them. All the information that I got from each of these five articles should combine to increase my ability to love in healthy relationships.
Questions -
How did you come up with the one to five ratio for fighting and getting along in a marriage?
Is there anyone who is able to maintain touchy feely relationships for an entire marriage?
What is the best thing to do when domestic abuse is identified?
The first article, entitle "What Makes a Marriage Work", was written by John Gottman who seems to have done research on the topic of marriage. Right off the bat, Gottman highlights several statistics in regards to failed marriages: 50% of first marriages fail, 60% of second marriages fail. Although these statistics are daunting, he provides hope for those who are willing to understand and work on their marriages. The first topic Gottman addresses is the misconceptions about what a healthy marriage should look like. "Validating. Couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise," is the what the majority people think is needed for success. On the contrary, Gottman asserts, there are two other healthy couples that can succeed: volitale and conflict avoiding. Once this assertion is established, he continues on to highlight the four warning signs that a marriage is in trouble: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stone-walling. In order to combat these, a couple must be calm, honest, and identify what they see to be healthy.
The second article, entitled "Lust for the Long Hall", analyzes the physicality of relationships. The author, Elizabeth Raeburn starts by talking about her own experience. Her and her husband were initially very lovey dovey: seizing every possible opportunity to make physical contact with each other. After a while though, this close physical intimacy faded and Raeburn began to question whether or not her marriage was failing. This idea launches the article into a discussion about physical intimacy: its misconceptions, its rewards, and how to make it work. The meat of the article is spent talking about how couples have a tendency to wrongly identify the reason for their intimacy problems. They blame it on a lack of physical desire, an abundance of stress, and other misguided reasons. In actuality, Raeburn asserts, successful physical intimacy is rooted in the holistic healthiness of a relationship. Couples must identify there problems, such as being too demanding or needy, before their bedroom life can flourish. The end result of achieving this is adulthood, maturity, and lifelong successful intimacy.
The third article, "Ten Count'em, Ten Uses for Parents", and it is essentially ten reasons why we need our parents. Instead of talking about all of the uses for parents, I am going to highlight my two favorites. First is number one: parents know you. The brief description of this use is very powerful. It talks about how their early exposure to every aspect of you means that parents know you better anyone else (spouses and best friends included). What it all boils down to is that "your parents came to know you before you started to hide your real self from the rest of the world." This fact is important because it means that whenever we need to look in the mirror, we can just go to our parents. My second favorite is number nine: parents are your critics. One realization that I came to in college was that the criticism I receive from my parents is the most painful and yet helpful criticism I ever get. The things that they tell me sting to the core sometimes, but I always know that they are right. The way I like to put it is that parents say everything that I fear internally...out loud.
All of these articles evoke feelings of understanding and excitement. The first two are a little over my head, seeing as I am not married or intimate with anyone, but I understand the general message. The last article is perfect: it highlights everything I have always thought about parents while reminding me to cherish them. The biggest thing that I gained from all of this came from the first article. It was very interesting for me to hear that there are several types of healthy relationships and that the normal conventions of marital success are not necessarily true. As a result of all of the information I learned in these readings, I intend to pursue a healthy marriage where honesty is the foundation, I intend to respect intimacy by understanding that it stems from other aspects of the relationship, and I intend to cherish/utilize my parents constantly.
In terms of the big picture, these topics tie in directly with the idea of constructing a good life for human flourishing. A solid marriage, healthy intimacy, and a good relationship with ones parents are all vital for personal success. What they provide is a foundation for the development of other relationships. The fact that your spouse and your parents are some of the closest people to you means that how you interact with them will dictate how you interact with others. Accordingly, one should build from the ground up: get your home life right and the rest will fall in line.
Applying all of this information to my own life should be pretty simple. All of the ideals put for the in these articles are very attainable. I would like to take a second to touch on the abuse articles now. One thing that I definitely intend to do after doing these readings is keep my eye out for domestic abuse. The "loveisnotabuse" website puts forth some accurate warning signs that prove domestic abuse is occuring. I will do my best to keep an eye out for these hints, especially when it comes to those close enough that I could accurately identify them (family and friends). Besides the domestic abuse stuff, I really intend to appreciate my parents more. Growing up, my relationship with them was extremely volitale. Now that I am older though, it should be easier to cherish, love and respect them. All the information that I got from each of these five articles should combine to increase my ability to love in healthy relationships.
Questions -
How did you come up with the one to five ratio for fighting and getting along in a marriage?
Is there anyone who is able to maintain touchy feely relationships for an entire marriage?
What is the best thing to do when domestic abuse is identified?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sacred Time, Chapters 5,6,7 and the After Word
Just as in previous chapters of Sacred Time and the Search for Meaning, Gary Eberle continues to contrast sacred time with secular time using concrete examples from present time and history. By doing so he is able to highlight flaws in our modern conception of time and suggest steps we can take to change it. The most amazing thing about time is how fast we went from having no concern for it, to having every aspect of our lives dominated by it. In accord with this statement, chapter five, "The Triumph of the Clock" takes readers through history of the clock (secular time) from the 14th century to modern times. The following two chapters change the focus; Eberle talks now talks about sacred time, specifically searching for it and finding it. The three main points that I intend to highlight will be summaries of these three chapters.
In chapter 5, "Triumph of the Clock" Eberle continues the topic he introduced in the previous chapter: how clocks spread from monasteries to the rest of the world. From what I can tell, clocks began to pop up in cities all over Euroipe in the 1300's. They were a sign of power or a sign of development. Some of the most impressive specimens were clock that highlighted the movement of the planets and the houses of the zodiac. The chapter closes with a discussion of mid-twentieth century clock and how "absolute time, more precise clocks, and the worldwide standardization of time had effectively divorced time from our subjective experience of it." Eberle stresses that despite all of this that there is hope. Sacred time is simply a seed in us that is waiting to be watered.
Chapter 6, "In Search of Sacred Time" Eberle opens by pointing out that although in Western culture we are consume by the clock, there are other places in the world that have effectively evaded the suffocating grasp of time. This includes countries like Ghana, where they have dancing/drumming rituals that transcend time, or Japan, where the consecration of a family shrine pulls people away from industrialization, or in the Islamic communities, where people pray to Mecca Five times a day. Towards the end of the chapter, after several powerful examples, Eberle notes thata "in the ritual festive moment, we touch an eternity that knows no privation." Sacred time is always ready to be seized, utilized, and cherished; we just need to make an effort to do so. This, as Eberle asserts, can be accomplish rituals and celebration.
In chapter 7, Eberle, for the first time in this book, highlights his personal journey to find Sacred time. To do so, he tried to respect the Sabbath for an entire year. This meant no household chores, no grading papers, and an emphasis placed on church. He talks about how somewhere along the line, the concept of revering the Sabbath was lost. By living this way, Eberle was able to achieve many things. He became more in tune with nature, specifically the motion of the sky and the moon. He became more in tune with religious traditions, finding powerful meaning in advent and lent. Finally he became more in tune with what our culture takes for granted; for instance, food. The chapter, and consequently the book, finish on with Eberle pointing out that "sacred time must be honored, for in finding sacred time, we find ourselves." This last chapter really brings it all together, for now Eberle has discussed the evil of sacred time, the progression of the clock, and finally how to search for/find sacred time.
The feelings that this literature evokes are ones of hope. The majority of Eberle's book was ironically depressing; he simply talked about how horrible secular time was and how its effects were inescapable in modern time. Sacred Time and the Search for Meaning takes a turn for the best though in these last few chapters. Eberle takes some time to really highlight how we search for sacred time and what it is like when we achieve it. I think the most convincing information that he portrays is his first hand account of revering the sabbath. As a Christian, I have always been taught to do this but never actually shown by example. My family and friends have always gone to church Sunday morning, but have never really treated the rest of the day differently afterwards. Because of Eberle's words, I intend to try and keep Sunday Holy so that I may experience restfulness and in turn sacred time.
In terms of the big picture, these chapters and the After Word tie in very well with the rest of the Sacred Time readings, but also with other material from the class. For instance in "Blizzard Under Blue Sky" Pam Houston talks about the soul searching she did while winter camping. In her quest to get rid of her deeply ingrained depression, Houston takes her two dogs and goes camping in the snowy wilderness of Utah. Unfortunately she chooses the coldest night of the year to do so, and in turn finds herself and her dogs freezing to death in a snow cave. In this state of life or death when secular time had no meaning, Houston was able to free herself from depression and focus on sacred time. Hours did not pass by the hands of a clock, but they past as Pam Houston sat there craving the chance to continue life. Although this seems like a negative example of sacred time, it is in actuality very similar to the process Eberle went through to find sacred time. Both of these individuals had to remove all distractions, all modern pressures, and all inhibitions in order to get a taste of sacred time. The only difference: Houston's encounter was life or death.
Essentially Eberle's book as a whole proves that we can break away from secular time. The after word in particular summarizes some of the topics discussed in previous chapters, but the overall message is this: without special care secular time will take over an individuals life, but with special care one can thrive and flourish with sacred time. In terms of applying it to my daily life, I intend to take many of the ideals the Eberle shares with readers and integrate them into my day. Honestly this will be very tough seeing as the world that I live in, especially one infused with higher education, is very demanding of time. With that being said, I still think that I can take time weekly or even daily to step back and enjoy sacred time. Some activities that would foster this are resting on sunday, weekeday prayer and meditation, and the practice of various religious rituals/ceremonies. Eberle is optimistic that everyone can achieve sacred time, so why not me? He closes the book very powerfully, and it is this quote that I would like to leave you with: "Finding sacred time, maintaining our connection with it, we may have the leisure to lie back and look at the stars and say yes, the end of time is now and forever."
Questions -
Is there anyway the the Sabbath can be respected without totally giving up Sunday? That is prime homework time for me...
Did monasteries realize what they were doing when they instituted clocks? Is there anyway to reverse what they did?
What is the best way to achieve sacred time, if only for an instant, on a daily basis?
In chapter 5, "Triumph of the Clock" Eberle continues the topic he introduced in the previous chapter: how clocks spread from monasteries to the rest of the world. From what I can tell, clocks began to pop up in cities all over Euroipe in the 1300's. They were a sign of power or a sign of development. Some of the most impressive specimens were clock that highlighted the movement of the planets and the houses of the zodiac. The chapter closes with a discussion of mid-twentieth century clock and how "absolute time, more precise clocks, and the worldwide standardization of time had effectively divorced time from our subjective experience of it." Eberle stresses that despite all of this that there is hope. Sacred time is simply a seed in us that is waiting to be watered.
Chapter 6, "In Search of Sacred Time" Eberle opens by pointing out that although in Western culture we are consume by the clock, there are other places in the world that have effectively evaded the suffocating grasp of time. This includes countries like Ghana, where they have dancing/drumming rituals that transcend time, or Japan, where the consecration of a family shrine pulls people away from industrialization, or in the Islamic communities, where people pray to Mecca Five times a day. Towards the end of the chapter, after several powerful examples, Eberle notes thata "in the ritual festive moment, we touch an eternity that knows no privation." Sacred time is always ready to be seized, utilized, and cherished; we just need to make an effort to do so. This, as Eberle asserts, can be accomplish rituals and celebration.
In chapter 7, Eberle, for the first time in this book, highlights his personal journey to find Sacred time. To do so, he tried to respect the Sabbath for an entire year. This meant no household chores, no grading papers, and an emphasis placed on church. He talks about how somewhere along the line, the concept of revering the Sabbath was lost. By living this way, Eberle was able to achieve many things. He became more in tune with nature, specifically the motion of the sky and the moon. He became more in tune with religious traditions, finding powerful meaning in advent and lent. Finally he became more in tune with what our culture takes for granted; for instance, food. The chapter, and consequently the book, finish on with Eberle pointing out that "sacred time must be honored, for in finding sacred time, we find ourselves." This last chapter really brings it all together, for now Eberle has discussed the evil of sacred time, the progression of the clock, and finally how to search for/find sacred time.
The feelings that this literature evokes are ones of hope. The majority of Eberle's book was ironically depressing; he simply talked about how horrible secular time was and how its effects were inescapable in modern time. Sacred Time and the Search for Meaning takes a turn for the best though in these last few chapters. Eberle takes some time to really highlight how we search for sacred time and what it is like when we achieve it. I think the most convincing information that he portrays is his first hand account of revering the sabbath. As a Christian, I have always been taught to do this but never actually shown by example. My family and friends have always gone to church Sunday morning, but have never really treated the rest of the day differently afterwards. Because of Eberle's words, I intend to try and keep Sunday Holy so that I may experience restfulness and in turn sacred time.
In terms of the big picture, these chapters and the After Word tie in very well with the rest of the Sacred Time readings, but also with other material from the class. For instance in "Blizzard Under Blue Sky" Pam Houston talks about the soul searching she did while winter camping. In her quest to get rid of her deeply ingrained depression, Houston takes her two dogs and goes camping in the snowy wilderness of Utah. Unfortunately she chooses the coldest night of the year to do so, and in turn finds herself and her dogs freezing to death in a snow cave. In this state of life or death when secular time had no meaning, Houston was able to free herself from depression and focus on sacred time. Hours did not pass by the hands of a clock, but they past as Pam Houston sat there craving the chance to continue life. Although this seems like a negative example of sacred time, it is in actuality very similar to the process Eberle went through to find sacred time. Both of these individuals had to remove all distractions, all modern pressures, and all inhibitions in order to get a taste of sacred time. The only difference: Houston's encounter was life or death.
Essentially Eberle's book as a whole proves that we can break away from secular time. The after word in particular summarizes some of the topics discussed in previous chapters, but the overall message is this: without special care secular time will take over an individuals life, but with special care one can thrive and flourish with sacred time. In terms of applying it to my daily life, I intend to take many of the ideals the Eberle shares with readers and integrate them into my day. Honestly this will be very tough seeing as the world that I live in, especially one infused with higher education, is very demanding of time. With that being said, I still think that I can take time weekly or even daily to step back and enjoy sacred time. Some activities that would foster this are resting on sunday, weekeday prayer and meditation, and the practice of various religious rituals/ceremonies. Eberle is optimistic that everyone can achieve sacred time, so why not me? He closes the book very powerfully, and it is this quote that I would like to leave you with: "Finding sacred time, maintaining our connection with it, we may have the leisure to lie back and look at the stars and say yes, the end of time is now and forever."
Questions -
Is there anyway the the Sabbath can be respected without totally giving up Sunday? That is prime homework time for me...
Did monasteries realize what they were doing when they instituted clocks? Is there anyway to reverse what they did?
What is the best way to achieve sacred time, if only for an instant, on a daily basis?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Aristotle's Ethics
For me, reading the work's of Aristotle is usually an arduous process. Maybe something got lost in translation from Greek to Latin and Latin to English, or maybe something his notion were easier to understand in the context of the 4th century BC; either way it is very difficult for me to trudge through his words. On the contrary, this by no means that I do not get a lot out of the message Aristotle is trying to convey; I just have to work very hard to get it. With that being said, Russ Payne's synopsis of Aristotle's ethics was very refreshing. He managed to boil Aristotle's message down to the bare essentials. This meant two very important things: I did not get lost in Aristotle's excess and I gained a much better understanding of what was meant to be conveyed in Nichomacean Ethics. With this new found comprehension, I can easily highlight three key points from Russ's text.
He opens by addressing the popular conceptions of the good life, which happen to fall under four categories: pleasure, wealth, honor, and virtue. The first three of these are irrelevant and insignificant when discussing the good life based on the fact that they are superficial, distracting, and temporary. The problem is that all three of them lead to no greater ends. On the same topic, Russ then continues on to discuss the "notion of hierarchy of ends". There is certain "good" that leads to other things, but the ultimate good is that which is an end in itself. Accordingly, happiness, which is an end, is the ultimate good.
Russ then continues on to break down virtue into three categories: calculative, appetitive, and vegetative. Aristotle, and consequently Russ, says that these appetative and vegetative virtues do not make us unique based on the fact that other animals fulfill those needs as well. Calculative on the other hand sets a us apart. The rational thought that humans are capable makes them entirely unique.
The last part of Russ's article starts to get a little bit choppy based on the fact that it is broken up into one sentence paragraphs that each contain broad ans unique meaning. From what I gather, the general message behind these last ten sentences or so is this: living with moral and intellectual virtues provides the ultimate happiness, accidentally living virtuously does not produce the same results as intending to live virtuously, and that virtues are essentially parts of are character that we develop through knowledge of excess and deficiency. If I am correct in my analysis just now, this Russ's closing statements are powerful. He defines what virtues, enlightens us as to how to achieve them, and makes it clear that we cannot just stumble upon virtuous living: we must strive for it.
The feelings that this article evokes are very similar to those that Nichomacean Ethics evoked in me. This seems pretty intuitive based on the fact that they are about the exact same material and have the exact same opinion on the matter. The thing that stuck out about Russ's article in particular was his emphasis on the fact that virtuous and justice cannot be stumbled upon. They must be worked for. This is in direct contrast with the common phrase "the ends justify the means." I am still not quite sure where I stand on the matter, but Russ's input will help me define whether or not I do think that the ends justify the means.
In terms of relation to the big picture, it is clear that the very last statement "virtuous states of character are the means between 2 extremes of excess and deficiency," ties in directly with the "Not too loose, Not too Tight" article. Another application to something out of class is something that we talked about in philosophy. We talked about a hypothetical situation in regards to the greatest good. The situation involved a boy drowning in a lake and a child molester saving him only to rape him later. If this situation is thought of from and "ends justifies the means" stand point, the boys life is more valuable then the consequent molestation. It would be interesting to consider this situation in regards to Aristotle and Russ's view.
Just as with the Nichomacean ethics, I intend to apply Russ's words to my life. This includes living virtuously, setting myself apart from animals, and choosing a life that does not include superficial, limited, and worthless good. Happiness is the greatest good because it is self sufficient; I intend to prove that.
Questions -
Does Russ's analysis concern the whole Nichomacean texts, or just an excerpt?
What prompted him to make this analysis?
He opens by addressing the popular conceptions of the good life, which happen to fall under four categories: pleasure, wealth, honor, and virtue. The first three of these are irrelevant and insignificant when discussing the good life based on the fact that they are superficial, distracting, and temporary. The problem is that all three of them lead to no greater ends. On the same topic, Russ then continues on to discuss the "notion of hierarchy of ends". There is certain "good" that leads to other things, but the ultimate good is that which is an end in itself. Accordingly, happiness, which is an end, is the ultimate good.
Russ then continues on to break down virtue into three categories: calculative, appetitive, and vegetative. Aristotle, and consequently Russ, says that these appetative and vegetative virtues do not make us unique based on the fact that other animals fulfill those needs as well. Calculative on the other hand sets a us apart. The rational thought that humans are capable makes them entirely unique.
The last part of Russ's article starts to get a little bit choppy based on the fact that it is broken up into one sentence paragraphs that each contain broad ans unique meaning. From what I gather, the general message behind these last ten sentences or so is this: living with moral and intellectual virtues provides the ultimate happiness, accidentally living virtuously does not produce the same results as intending to live virtuously, and that virtues are essentially parts of are character that we develop through knowledge of excess and deficiency. If I am correct in my analysis just now, this Russ's closing statements are powerful. He defines what virtues, enlightens us as to how to achieve them, and makes it clear that we cannot just stumble upon virtuous living: we must strive for it.
The feelings that this article evokes are very similar to those that Nichomacean Ethics evoked in me. This seems pretty intuitive based on the fact that they are about the exact same material and have the exact same opinion on the matter. The thing that stuck out about Russ's article in particular was his emphasis on the fact that virtuous and justice cannot be stumbled upon. They must be worked for. This is in direct contrast with the common phrase "the ends justify the means." I am still not quite sure where I stand on the matter, but Russ's input will help me define whether or not I do think that the ends justify the means.
In terms of relation to the big picture, it is clear that the very last statement "virtuous states of character are the means between 2 extremes of excess and deficiency," ties in directly with the "Not too loose, Not too Tight" article. Another application to something out of class is something that we talked about in philosophy. We talked about a hypothetical situation in regards to the greatest good. The situation involved a boy drowning in a lake and a child molester saving him only to rape him later. If this situation is thought of from and "ends justifies the means" stand point, the boys life is more valuable then the consequent molestation. It would be interesting to consider this situation in regards to Aristotle and Russ's view.
Just as with the Nichomacean ethics, I intend to apply Russ's words to my life. This includes living virtuously, setting myself apart from animals, and choosing a life that does not include superficial, limited, and worthless good. Happiness is the greatest good because it is self sufficient; I intend to prove that.
Questions -
Does Russ's analysis concern the whole Nichomacean texts, or just an excerpt?
What prompted him to make this analysis?
Nichomacean Ethics
Arguably his most famous piece of literature, Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle’s take on how life should be lived and what life’s motivation should be. Since their inception in the 4th century BC, these ethics have been referenced, cited, and utilized by all sorts of individuals, including lawyers, philosophers, and everyday men. Although the complete work deals with ethics as a whole, this four chapter excerpt highlights some important aspects of ethics: the types of life, source of good/happiness, and the importance/ nature of virtue. Since there are four chapters in total, I will briefly synopsize each of them and then continue to how they function as a whole.
Chapter five from Nicomachean ethics is Aristotle proposal of the two of the three types of life: the life of political success and the life of contemplation. The former of these two seeks honor to satisfy their happiness needs while the latter seeks knowledge to satisfy their happiness. Aristotle condemns the political life for being superficial and unfulfilling, and then he says, “we shall consider later” the contemplative life.
Chapter seven from Nicomacahean ethics analyzes the dynamic between good and happiness. Aristotle identifies the fact that all of us seek the greatest good. What sets the greatest good apart from other good is that it is an end with nothing subsequently resulting for it: we seek the greatest good not in pursuit of something else, but in pursuit of it alone. It is an end. What is this greatest good though? It is happiness. His reasoning behind this is as follows: “Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.”
Chapter eight from Nicomachean ethics identifies the fact that happiness comes from virtue and virtuous living. Aristotle comments that many different men have sought virtue in combination with other things including wisdom, pleasure, and prosperity. While virtue provides the ultimate good (happiness), Aristotle comes to terms with the fact that material and life sustaining needs must also be fulfilled. He comments that this fact has forced some to seek only these material pleasures: “As we said, then, happiness seems to need this sort of prosperity in addition; for which reason some identify happiness with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue.”
Chapter nine from Nicomachean ethics looks at the dynamic between happiness/virtue and in turn comes to this conclusion: that it is “plain also from the definition of happiness; for it has been said to be a virtuous activity of soul, of a certain kind.” Although he touched on this in the last chapter, Aristotle reiterates the fact that less significant goods must precede virtuous happiness based on the fact that we have survival needs. The final conclusion made by Aristotle in this chapter is bold: happiness require complete virtue and complete life.
The feelings that this excerpt from Nicomachean ethics evoke are very strong ones based on both composition and context. What I mean by this is that the content contained in it is very powerful and wise, and at the same time, the fact that it has survived two and a half millennia is truly amazing. From this piece I learned about the three types of life and why the first two are superficial and insignificant compared to the third. The most important insight that I gathered though was the fact that while happiness from virtue is the ultimate goal, there are lesser happinesses (goods) that must precede and coincide with it.
In terms of relating this excerpt to the big picture, I had referenced Nicomachean ethics very early on in the semester in regards to the “Not Too Loose, Not Too Tight” article. The correlation here is that both pieces of literature talk about developing a life style around finding happy mediums. Although the four chapters we read did not touch on this fact specifically, there are other class and life relations. For instance, the happiness that Artistotle describes as stemming from virtue seems very similar to happiness sought in the whole Sacred Time book. Both Eberle and Aristotle are vehement in refuting the conventional institutions of material and superficial happiness. In terms of life relations, this Aristotle’s ideals remind a lot of those proposed in Christianity. Both schools of thought condemn materialism and shallow living, all the while promoting thought, reflection, and virtue.
All in all, this excerpt from Nichomacean ethics has a ton of meaning in my life. First off, it has made it clear that what I seek in life (whether I know it or not) is happiness also known as the greatest good. The value in this stems from the fact that I will now identify lesser goods, such as monetary and successful happiness, and let them be subsidiary to my virtuous happiness. The second meaning it has is that I now understand happiness to be self sufficient. As a result, I will seek it as my number one goal.
Questions –
You touched on habituation and development of virtue? Although I have read other excerpts of the work, I still do not really understand what habituation means.
At what point do you know that material good is no longer subsidiary to virtuous good? How do you avoid this?
I have always been very confused with the term politics or political. What does it mean in the context of NIchomacean Ethics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)