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.

Blogging Around

Conner discusses the two sides of the healthcare debate; he focuses on the "public option".

I agree with you Conner. I believe that a public option would not ultimately be the best solution. Aside from the fact that its unsettling to me to have the government involved in my personal health*, I feel like we don't have the money right now to initiate such a program.

The main agruement behind the public option is that it would drive down costs because of competition. States hold a virtual monopoly on healthcare, and currently you cannot insure people across state lines, but what if we changed that? If we had national competition for healthcare wouldn't that drive down the costs too? If we simply allowed insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines like they do auto insurance, we could drive down costs and insure low income Americans without involving the government. Conservatives are happy because of more capitialism and less government, and liberals should be happy because we provide the public with low cost healthcare.

*I realize it is an option I don't have to choose, but it has the potential to drive private insurers out of business and then I could be forced to take on a government option.

Chelsea wrote and intriguing post on a favorite song of hers, and in that post she discusses the importance of cliches.

Great post Chel! I agree, I think that as corny as cliches are, they hold some meaning. Before they were thrown in the washing machine we like to call "society" they held value. At some point they were someone's clever joke. Over time, their reputations tarnish, and they become the punch lines of bad sitcoms, but most of them are true life lessons. For example, "money doesn't grow on trees". A classic cliche but it gets at the importance of understanding the value of money. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," tells us that healthy habits keep us out of the doctors.
Although many people associate cliches with stupidity, I enjoy them. The have a sense of nostalgic value. How else do you teach children basic life lessons without ruining their innocence?

iMedia: Sleep Through the Static by: Jack Johnson

Music allows us to express ourselves and criticize society, but because its music, people tend to be more receptive. In this single song of Jack Johnson's he points out our societies' blind following of the media, neglect of major world issues, and constant warfare. But you can't help but be soothed by the music.

Johnson points out some very interesting aspects of our culture. Through lines like "You could watch it instead from the comfort of your burning beds …Or you can sleep through the static", Johnson points out that we tend to ignore worldly issues and just watch them unfold from our own homes. All the while, we fail to realize the impact on our own culture and lives the events can have; we don't realize that our beds are burning. We just "sleep through the static" or we ignore important things and cast of warnings as "static".

Songs like these are extremely important for our culture. It is a way of getting opinions out there, that might otherwise come off as the whining of a passive generation. Since we let our guard down when we listen to music, we open our minds. Once we have open minds we can listen to interesting ideas without being exceptionally critical. In a subconscious way, we can begin to accept the faults of our society and culture.

Music can also affect our culture negatively. Music with intense violence, sexuality, and music that objectifies women is not a positive subconscious influence. I am not advocating a worldwide clean-up of popular music, I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn't listen to this kind of music, but we should be careful with how openly we accept it. We should embrace eye-opening music and cautiously digest more vulgar music.

Connection: King Lear and Richard III

Shakespeare's play are not only beautiful works of art, but they also teach us something about the culture of the time period, especially in the context of social norms. For instance, both King Lear and Richard III share characters that illustrate the Elizabethan view of deformities and illegitimacy.

In King Lear we are introduced to Edmund the Bastard. We quickly become aware of his evil intentions and power lust. It was the Elizabethan view that illegitimate children were destined for evil. Lear even insults Reagan during the play calling her a "degenerate bastard". There is obviously a strong connection in the notion of evil actions and being of illegitimate birth. But in Edmund's soliloquy at the beginning of the play we discover another layer. Edmund feels oppressed by his position in society, he feels like the entire world is against him, therefore being an abomination gives him the right to be evil. Society molds him and fills his head with expectations that he feels compelled to live out.

Richard show striking similarities to Edmund in the play Richard III. Richard was born with a hunched back, and in Elizabethan times physical deformities were thought to have a direct correlation to a deformity of character. Shakespeare uses Richard's deformities to alert the audience that Richard is an evil and twisted man, the definitive antagonist of his play. Although similarly to Edmund, Richard gives a speech at the beginning that tells how society has oppressed him and that he feels like he has been a victim.

For a modern perspective we now understand that the circumstances of one's birth has little effect on what they turn out to be. Whether or not you were conceived while your parents were married or not does not directly translate to whether or not you will be a cruel and evil villain. To a modern reader, Edmund and Richard may appear to be victims of society and cannot truly be blamed for their actions. We view them with a twisted sense of compassion. But to Shakespeare, their impure births justify the tragedy of their stories; in his world the social outcasts do not win because they are inherently evil.

This confusion of perspectives further illustrates how even though societal views may change, Shakespeare's works shed light on human nature in a timeless way.

Dialectics: Unity and Separation

When I decided to blog about this topic, I started by trying to think of a really obscure and interesting dialectic connection. I was trying to find something that could arguably not have an opposite, when I came to the conclusion that everything I could comprehend had an opposite. Black and white, beginning and end, happy and sad: everything in the reach of my intelligence had an opposite.

As Newton's Third Law of Motion states, "For every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction." I believe this idea applies to life beyond mathematics and physics. I believe it applies to ideas and concepts as well. For examples there are those who believe in god and there are atheists, those who believe in free markets and socialists. This brought me to the intriguing idea of the relationship between unity and separation.

Unity represents a sense of togetherness and being united. But, how could we understand unity without the concept of being separated or in conflict. Separation gives meaning to unity, while unity also gives meaning to separation. We cannot know unity unless we have been separated for a time.

Unity is also the end goal of most conflicts, while at the same time unity can be used to create separation and conflict. One could argue that the unity of the Nazis was not a positive thing. In this case, unity was the negative force, and diversity and being separate needed to be embraced. In the Civil War separation led to conflict, which ultimately led to unity in the end. This brings me to another point, when is unity the positive force, and when does it cause harm? Similarly, when should we embrace separation and diversity?

For human kind to have a relatively peaceful existence, there needs to be a balance of unity and separation. Unity can be destructive, so people should only unite themselves under peaceful pretenses. In the same way separation can be dangerous, so people should not try to separate themselves, while at the same time embracing natural separations such as gender, race, and culture. With this balance of separation and unity a peaceful equilibrium can be achieved.

Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay

When I started to write my essay on The Kite Runner, I believed that Khaled Hosseini wanted us to think that redemption required some degree of insanity. Although that may still hold, as I sat down to think about my thesis, my thoughts took another path.

I thought of how Amir achieved his redemption and it seemed all to clear that Hosseini was trying to say we needed to be irrational to gain peace. But upon peeling back the layers, I realized that while what Amir did was insane that wasn't the point Hosseini was trying to emphasize. Hosseini was trying to tell us that we must face our problems and take direct action to resolve them. The insanity of Amir's action were placed there for a dramatic effect, not for deeper meaning.

When I considered Baba, my thoughts furthered down this same path. When I thought of all that Baba had done to redeem himself, with all the charity that ultimately failed, I found that some could argue that Baba's actions were insane. He forced himself to live a saintly life so that he could try and find inner peace, that is a tad bit insane. I thought then, that there were holes in my original thesis. Why would insanity work for one character but not another? The answer I came up with was that Amir unlike Baba took direct actions to atone for his sins. I had a mini epiphany at that point and realized that I had my new thesis.

I was shocked at how I could change my mind so easily. For an opinionated person, such as myself, changes in thought are especially profound, not to mention rare. I was a little taken back. It also surprised me how effectively and efficiently I was able to answer one of my own questions, "Why would insanity work for one character but not another?". When I first began to question my own thesis I was worried that I would never be able to patch the holes in it, but I did.

I enjoyed how I was able to be my own critic, and play my own devil's advocate. It was a really interesting experience to be able to challenge my own thoughts; I wish I could do this more often. I would like that my thoughts were less linear sometimes. It would make the process of reaching deeper meaning much easier. My thoughts follow a pattern and flow from one related topic to the next, so if I get stuck at one point, my thoughts refuse to reach a deeper level. A little bit more randomness could help me get past those road blocks.

Blogging Around

Lindsay's Connection: The Kite Runner and Jacob I Have Loved

Lindsay wrote an entry on how trying to fill the expectations other people set for us is a dangerous practice.

I completely agree with your point Lindsay. "Expectations can destroy us if we limit ourselves by them." It is dangerous for someone to define themselves by what other people think of them or want them to be. It can lead to a plethora of negative side effects like lack of self confidence and bullying to regain the confidence. Both of your examples beautifully illustrate the destruction caused by these molds.
I wonder if they person setting the mold ever realizes that they are even creating a mold? Do they subconsciously know, or is it more of something that society sets as a whole? It could even be as simple as a parent wanting the best for you and in the process losing sight of your best interest.

Chelsea's "Best of Week: nature. nurture. or maybe a mixture."

Chelsea wrote a blog entry about the concept of nature vs. nurture and consulted experts on both sides of the issue.

I love this debate, it is so fascinating. I also love how you've pulled ideas from leading experts to back up your arguments and to better explore this question of nature vs. nurture. One point that I found really intriguing was, “If environment didn't play a part in determining an individual's traits and behaviors, then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects” (Powell). This simple life experiment proves that your environment must have some sort of effect on who or what you become. Your friends, family, relationships, and experiences all contribute a little part to the greater you.