Metacognition: Jane Eyre Collaboration

I think what made this project so effective was the chance to work in groups. Discussing ideas with fellow students helped me to get to a deeper level of the text. The conversations themselves were the vehicle for that. Every time someone responded, agreed, disagreed, questioned, or challenged my idea it forced me to think deeper about it and how I could articulate what I was feeling.

Because the discussion was the best part, my group and I took advantage of class time to discuss our project face to face. We then kept notes so to serve as the outline for our typed transcript. We ran into some problems there though because once we assigned characters it took a very long time to have the discussion again on our Google doc because everyone had such different schedules.

The work of relating the Jane Eyre text to modern times wasn't as hard as I thought it was going to be. Because so many of the take aways from the story talk about the dynamics of relationships it was very easy to juxtapose those dynamics with modern problems. For example the lovers kept apart by tradition became the lovers kept apart by technology mediated relationships. We keep the basis of the struggle, separated lovers, but just changed the circumstances.

The only thing my brain had trouble with were the logistics of the project, like trying to coordinate times when we could collaborate, but I think this was only because of the headache this caused, not due to level of difficulty.

Metacognition: Reading "Jane Eyre"

Reading Jane Eyre was a difficult experience. To get through the book I had to abandon my cultural upbringing and immerse myself in 19th century dialogue. I had to force myself to look at the events of the book through Jane's eyes and not my own ultra-feminist ones.

While reading the book, I would find my thoughts wandering. My eyes were reading the text, but I was hardly reading; it was the worst during the descriptions. Once my brain got enough visual description to form a basic picture my imagination set to work to fill in the rest and blocked out and more of the eloquent 19th century recounting. I wish my focusing abilities while reading dense text were stronger. I feel like I'm missing a lot of the beauty of literature when I am unable to focus on descriptions, but being a child of the 21st century, my brain immediately looks for verbs and actions.

I had relative easy getting through the conversations. I don't know if it was the lighter text, or my general interest in how characters interact, but I got more out of the conversations by far. My brain would work with, instead of against, the characters. My mind would follow their conversations and arguments all the while forming my own opinions and through annotations responding to the questions they posed.

Reading this book was an interesting experience that allowed me to see the society I've been raised in has shaped my world view.

360 Degrees: Marijuana

Marijuana and its legalization is an issue of much controversy. This debate like so many others boils down to a clash of science and religion. The biggest opposition to the legalization comes from the people who are uncomfortable with the drug morally, because the scientific evidence to back their arguments is fairly weak. They mostly worry that legalizing marijuana will create a society of pot-heads. The supporters of the its legalization point to benefits in the medical field, potentially revenue from its taxation, decreased cost from drug related arrests, and the potential to make the drug safer with FDA regulation.

When I first started doing a little research for this post I was pretty undecided, but after reading around I found my worries were pretty unfounded remnants of the "drugs are bad" speeches I listened to in elementary school. I tend to favor opinions with a lot of scientific backing and there was little to be found against marijuana, other than its role as a gateway drug. But then a thought occurred to me, prescription drugs are legal and government regulated, and they aren't gateway drugs. So why do people go through the trouble of abusing the illegal ones? I support the legalization of marijuana for mainly the following four reasons:

1. State Revenue- Although I generally disapprove of new taxes, this would be one that I would support. Just like we have taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, taxes of marijuana could provide much needed revenue to alleviate the debt caused by our profligate (just had to throw in a vocab word) government spending.

2. Regulation- If marijuana was legalized and corporations took over its production, then the government could step in and regulate it. This could make the drug safer and cheaper, theoretically lowering crimes associated with it such as theft. The cheaper costs could also stamp out the illegal trafficking of it buy putting dealers out of business. If you can walk down to your local pot store and grab a joint, why pay your creepy dealer hiding out by Subway double for poor quality weed?

3. Decreased Drug-related Arrests- Last year in the United States, over 847,000 arrests were made in relation to marijuana, and 89% of those arrests were for possession only. These arrests cost an estimated $10 billion. If it were legal, that would be $10 billion dollars in, wait for it, more spendable government money! It would also put less strain on our overcrowded jails and free up the court systems for more important cases than the "dumb teenager caught with a joint" cases.

4. Medical Uses- The active part in marijuana shows promising signs of being used effectively in pharmaceuticals. Marijuana itself has also been shown to have success when used therapeutically for terminally ill cancer patients. The drug itself is actually far less harmful to our health than we have been brainwashed to believe. Marijuana is less addictive than nicotine and is nearly impossible to overdose on. But legal alcohol accounts for over 50,000 overdose related deaths each year. The only health concerns are related to its long term smoking, but those effects are similar to long term tobacco use.

A lot of the fear surrounding the legalization of marijuana is associated with it getting into the hands of kids. Newsflash, it already is. Countries with a legalized marijuana market, such as The Netherlands and Switzerland, have lower adolescence abuse rates than the United States.

We don't even need to legalize marijuana for anything other than medical purposes, and most of this argument would still hold water. Although I'm uncomfortable with the idea of marijuana being legal, the more research I do the more my fears just look like fears.

An Inconvenient Truth: Small Children

So the title was more of an attention getter, I should probably retitle this post something along the lines of poor parenting or ill-behaved small children. But, many small children fit this generalized mold.

Spring break is supposed to be a time of relaxation. My family went down to the Florida Keys for just that reason. We hoped to sleep in late, lay pool side, and go out to dinner at night. Who knew that poor parenting and angry toddlers could ruin all of this. Conveniently enough, the unit next to ours housed about seven little youngsters, one of whom decided 8 am was the perfect time to have an out of body experience, every, single morning. We had our own vacation alarm clock. Well now that we're up so early we might as well head to the pool and relax. But as luck would have it, non-potty-trained kids and pools are not a good mix, so much for taking a swim. To make matters worse there are now 60 plus angry, bored, tired, and hungry little tots swarming around the pool area. At least we can enjoy a nice dinner together as a family at a nice restaurant, granted this table of seven kids next to us doesn't act up, which of course they do. Not only do they scream through the entire dinner, but they get up and run around playing tag throughout a nice seafood restaurants, while the parents stare at their drinks and pretend its not their kids ruining the peace. We ran into similar problems on the flight back home, luckily the flight attendants drink cart confined the disgruntled little demon to the back of the plane.

I wasn't very fond of small children before this...

What bothers me so much, is that in every instance the parents didn't do anything. In complete disregard of anyone around them, they just let their kids run around and misbehave. Is it so hard to understand that the world isn't one giant playground? I know that I was young once too, but according to my parents I had very few of these disruptive, public meltdowns. On the occasion I did, they left the restaurant/pool as a courtesy to the other people. What does it say about our culture if its the norm for all young children to be ill-mannered?

All it takes is a little preparation on the parents part to keep their children under control. For example at restaurants don't assume they cater to kids, bring a little bag of crayons or toys, just something to keep them occupy them. The same thing applies for airplanes, bring a few snacks and things to distract them with. For the pool, always have your toddler wear a swim diaper, that's just a given. I mean seriously, come on people. Lastly, it is understood that they are only children and not perfect, but if you're child decides it's time to scream, sob, and act out, just take them home, or into private so you can calm them down.

Dialectics: Freedom and Authority

Freedom and authority pose a very interesting dialectic. The definition of freedom itself has a dialectic nature. For example, in our post 9/11 world the United States government can tap your phone lines, intercept your emails, read your text messages, and access your web history. Many people say this is a violation of our personal freedoms, but the government claims these are measures to protect American freedom. Therefore, we must give up freedom to attain it.

In my previous example as in countless others, authority will sometimes limit your freedom in order to save it all together. Take the Romans for another example. They had written into their legislation that in a time of crisis, the elected leader could impose a military dictatorship to protect the empire. Although human nature made this policy imperfect and resulted in Caesars, the basic principal was the same. It was a sacrifice of freedom, for freedom.

Some philosophers argue though that freedom doesn't exist without authority. Philosophers such as Hegel and Holbach argue that we have no free will. Without free will there exists no freedom. You may feel free in your small portion of existence, but in the grand scheme of things you are not free. You answer to some greater authority at all times. This idea is also very post-modern. In post-modern theory, you exist as part of "the system" with no free will, much like the movie the matrix. You're only freedom is to find your niche in life, but you are never one hundred percent free. Authority determines your freedom at all times.

I then thought to apply this dialect relationship to my own experiences, and determined that high school is a perfect example of this struggle between freedom and authority. For instance, I cannot yell at my teachers when they annoy me, for then I would get a detention, clever restriction of freedom in which I am forced to sit in a classroom before or after school hours. I can also not leave whenever I want because I would get privileges taken away from me and not be able to have free period or open lunch. I also can't use my phone during class, because it would be taken away from me, and for added fun and enjoyment, I would probably receive several detentions. School is another authority that grants and relinquishes freedoms in an attempt to force obidience. Freedom has become the ultimate leverage for authorities of all kind.

Blogging Around

Merrick's blog post was about suicide, and whether or not we have the right to our lives.

Merrick this was an excellent post. I completely understand and respect your opinion, but I also disagree almost one hundred percent.

Life is a gift, but is existence itself a gift? To what degree should quality of life play a role in suicide regulations and your opinion of whether or not you have the right to your own life? Being raised Christian, I understand how Darrell and Merrick feel about God's greatest gift to us being life. but, for some people life a burden. Take for example someone that is paralyzed in a car accident from the neck down. Their quality of life is extremely low. Granted some people in this situation find new passions in life, many fall into depression. They can no longer do anything for themselves or lead any form of a "normal" life. They cannot even bathe themselves. For an adult that is completely degrading.

This applies to the terminally and chronically ill as well. If we keep them alive using our medicine and technology are they truly living, or are they merely existing? We need to realize that not everyone has the mental resiliency or faith in God to bear a life of such burden. Some people would honestly be happier if they didn't have to fight through the everyday battles life. I full heartedly believe that you have the right to your own life. Although suicide is selfish and tragic, it can be acceptable. People with incurable conditions that will force them to suffer physically or mentally through the rest of their lives should have the choice of whether or not they are up for the fight.

Chelsea's blog post described the terms of intimacy in our relationships.

I think I agree with you Chelsea, and Anna a little bit too. We definitely have a lack of intimacy in most high school relationships, like Anna pointed out. But with divorce rates at almost fifty percent, I think you're onto something Chelsea. A lot of criticism is put on our culture for our relationships and friendships lacking intimacy and being left to technology, and usually those arguments annoy me. But, I am starting to connect the dots and see that there must be a connection divorce rates and our culture.

You also brought up names, and how we address our most intimate friends by their names. Out of curiosity I decided to test this theory and go through my text messages and see how many people I actually addressed by name. Other than my family, and closest friends, I never referred to anyone else by name. Great insights Chel!

Best of Week: Importance of Voice

The best idea discussed in class this week was the importance of voice in writing. We got into the discussion, while trying to figure out why Raymond Carter ends his profound short story, Cathedral with mundane and nondescript words. Then Darrell brought up that the narrator speaks that way through the entire story. If all of a sudden the narrator began to use vivid and descriptive language, it would ruin the voice.

Keeping consistent voice is extremely important in preserving the authenticity of your writing. If you switch up voice, you are not only changing your writing style, but you are changing the character. Each character needs their own distinct voice; that voice is what makes them stand out as an individual, and it gives them human qualities. A breaking of voice is uncomfortable for the reader as well. It would be like if one of your close friends suddenly began speaking to you in a very philosophical manner, while all their life they had only talked to you about football. Its awkward and out of character.

I can see myself using this advice in my own writing, especially when we begin to write our short stories. I will try and make certain that each of my characters has a unique voice, and that I do not change and or shift their voice in a way that alters their established personality.

An Inconvienient Truth: We are within memory; memory is not within us

The post modern view that we are within memory and memory is not within us, makes me extremely uncomforable. I don't know where to start with it. The idea completely distorts and twists my basic understanding of existence. I believe that my memories exist inside of me; they are my recollections of things that happened, contained with in my brain. It is my own neurons, in my own brain, that synthesize them and store them. I am very possessive of my memories because they also describe my life and my expiriences.

Post modern view agrues that the system made my memories, and that I do not exist outisde the system. In fact I am really existing in a memory itself. It is hard for me to grasp that I could very well be in a memory because I have my own memories. This struggle is very similar to what the charcters Sophie and Alberto go through in the novel Sophie's World. They have a difficult time coming to terms with the fact that they dont not exist outside of the author's mind; they only exist in the story that he has created. In essence they only exist in his 'memories'. Could I only exist in memory as well? This seems absurb because I have memories and can struggle with the question. If I can ask the questions does that mean that I am not a memory? Another tenant of post modern thought is that no one person can comprehend the entire truth. That being said, is it even worth it to ponder my existence?

The implications of this truth are serious. If this statement is true, then my exisistence is limited. The basis of my religion, my understanding of the world, and my understading of myself would be shattered. It would destroy all the claims of Christianity about life and my purppose here. I don't know how I could find meaning with my life either. If this were true it would mean that I am not much more than a dream, or nightmare.

I don't even know where I would beign to come to terms with, and or accept this idea. It is an idea that I immeadiately reject, knowing very well that the implications of this truth would destory the existence I do have. If this becomes widely accpeted, I guess I would have to accept it to and try to find my niche in the system.

Connection: Heart Of Darkness and The Dark Night

At the end of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, the main character Marlow goes to visit the legendary ivory trader Kurtz's widow. The widow is paralzed by grief even a year after Kurtz's passing. She is desperate for someone to validate her love and devotion to Kurtz. When Marlow comes to return some of Kurtz's perosnal items the widow wants to know every sinlge detail about Kurtz's final moments, especially his finals words. Marlow tells her his final word was her name, when he really muttered, "The horror. The horror." Marlow chooses to protect her innocence realizing that she can only handle so much grief; he takes the burden of knowledge on himself in a chivilarous way.

A similar thing occurs in the movie, The Dark Night. Bruce Wayne's love interest Rachel gives his bulter Alfred a letter shortly before her death. She tells Alfred to give it to Bruce when he feels it is the right time. The letter basically states that although she still loves him they can never be together, and she would rather be with Harvey Dent. Alfred was about the give the letter to Bruce and reveal the truth when Bruce expresses his grief over Rachel's death because she was going to wait for him and still loved him. Alfred then throws the letter in the fire realizing that Bruce just can't handle the truth.

In both cases the lines between honesty and lies are blurred. Generally we think that being honest is always the best and right thing to do, but both of these examples provide us with examples where the little white lie is a kind of salvation for these distraught people. That little glimmer of hope from the lie gives them just enough to hold on to.

The connection between these two events also shed some slight on the burden of knowledge. As a society we are under the impression that having all the answers will make us happier or more comfortable, but as these examples show that isn't always the case. Sometimes it is much easier to live in blissful ignorance; you don't always want to know.

This relationship matters to me because it challenges my traditional moral upbringing. Its almost like someone went through and added footnotes to the Ten Commandments. Don't lie, unless the person can't handle the truth. It makes me think about that gray area of morality.

Metacognition: First Semester

Throughout English this semester my thought process has taken an interesting path. Two challenges illustrate this effectively.

The first challenges I ran into was how I viewed words. At the beginning of the semester, I thought of words as combinations of symbols that express ideas, objects, etc. But, by the end of the semester I have begun to realize that there are so many more levels to words. Words have their own rhythm, beauty, and music. Before this class I never really bothered much with word choice; I focused only on getting my ideas across, but now I've realized that word choice can be an effective tool in communicating my ideas. Word choice has also helped me to make my writing concise.

The second challenge to my thought process came when we were reading King Lear. Having no experience and or real interest in theater, other than being a spectator, made this unit especially difficult. It took all of my will power focus on artistic creativity. I really don't have any thought processes that could help me with theater other than a good memory, so I found myself exploring a part of my brain that doesn't get much use. Dealing with the fine arts can be overwhelming, especially in Academy where almost all the kids are involved in them. I wish that my thought process had something to help me through the arts, but it doesn't. This unit required me to break out of my comfort zone completely and try out some new ideas and perspectives.

Overall this semester in Academy has once again changes the way I think and how I see the world.