I took a more decisive route this time, ignoring my usual "find my own answer" technique. What I really wanted to do was to talk about how although media is a reflection of reality, it is still only through the media that we realize much of the information that we currently do. Although I touched upon this concept I think I could have focused it more on the fact that it truly depends on how you look at the subject. It's a bit of the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" - which do you consider first, that media is a just a transport method for information, or that information only can come via the media?
If there's one thing that worries me most about SATs it's the essay, just because of the fact that I doubt my own ability at thinking up 1) an answer to the question and more importantly 2) examples that are unique and significant. The fact that the people who grade your essay has just around 3 minutes to read your writing just puts more pressure upon you to make something from your essay to pop out and make memorable, along with all the other compulsory things such as a developed idea and so on.
I guess the best way to go about it is to just retain as much information about your experiences and your readings and things in class so that you can bring up examples that are personal yet deep.
I do enjoy writing SAT essays, though, unlike many (most?) of the other people in English. I'm not sure why, and I get annoyed when my essay sounds shallow, but there's something about being taken by surprise with a prompt or a quote to reflect upon. It's very challenging, in a way, and I like just tackling it head-on. While people can just study and study and study and do well on the multiple choice, I really do think essays are a curveball. It's a bit like how rain in F1 racing is called "the great equalizer". However much of a fantastic driver you are in the dry, the wet knocks everyone down to the same notch (it's like driving on glass, supposedly...). From that point on, you either shine or you don't. Michael Schumacher, who just retired, is fantastic in the dry.
But when it rains, Schuey is an absolute god.
I would like to be a Schumacher in writing essays.
(Like that's really gonna happen.)
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
SAT-tastic
In class we wrote a practice SAT essay. It dealt with the question of "does the media shape our views?"
Every day, we wake up to a barrage of information. We read the newspaper, watch the news, and view movies, among other things. Yet the real question is, "how do these things affect us?" A quote says that "The media not only transmit information and culture, they also decide what information is important. In that way, they help to shape culture and values". The truth of the matter is, it truly depends.
It depends on the specific nature or topic of the medium. When people read the newspaper every morning, what are they reading, exactly? It is certainly not pages of arbitrary information. The information on the pages are a reflection of the things that already have happened. In this case, there is ostensibly nothing to "shape" our culture or our views. Many will argue that because of this, most media do not truly have an effect on us. In reality, however, it does- simply because of the fact that even the news is selective. Headlines obviously do not portray everything that has happened in the world. Instead, they dictate what they (the editors) believe to be of importance to us. Imagine if we did not read anything about the Middle East, instead reading mostly about endangered panda bears every morning. This would undoubtedly shape our perceived level of importance for pandas v. middle east.
Many forms of media do not only have potential of changing our minds, but do so on a regular basis. For instace, if Vogue and other fashion magazines did not exist, would we be truly caught up with the newest trends from Milan? Sure, we would know eventually from word-of-mouth, but the currently-evident wildfire of trends that occur would probably not exist. Although in this way, the transmission of tis info is not truly restricted (people would figure it out via word-of-mouth), it is hampered - media has an affect on what we perceive to be important, therefore shaping our culture.
The hardest example is fiction. Although fiction many times portrays thigns or situations that do not and will not exists, that does not mean we will not be affected by the underlying messages of it. There are some extreme cases of this, one being Nazi germany's propaganda machine during World War II. Propaganda is a good example because the actual information is aimed at changing our views and opinions. In reality, the truth is usually not so distinct, yet propaganda can be a very powerful tactic to use during times of war, etc. In a more subtle way, fiction allows us to ponder and realize values that have already been acknowledged. Movies such as Apocalypse Now allow us to "see" the horrors of war, and even modern movies, such as Martin Scorsese's the Departed, depict moral dilemmas and question our identity. Many works of fiction pose concepts and questions which shape our morality in life.
In obvious or subliminal ways, the media has an effect on how we live. Whetere it be through what we wear, or how we live, the media permeates our everyday lives.
Every day, we wake up to a barrage of information. We read the newspaper, watch the news, and view movies, among other things. Yet the real question is, "how do these things affect us?" A quote says that "The media not only transmit information and culture, they also decide what information is important. In that way, they help to shape culture and values". The truth of the matter is, it truly depends.
It depends on the specific nature or topic of the medium. When people read the newspaper every morning, what are they reading, exactly? It is certainly not pages of arbitrary information. The information on the pages are a reflection of the things that already have happened. In this case, there is ostensibly nothing to "shape" our culture or our views. Many will argue that because of this, most media do not truly have an effect on us. In reality, however, it does- simply because of the fact that even the news is selective. Headlines obviously do not portray everything that has happened in the world. Instead, they dictate what they (the editors) believe to be of importance to us. Imagine if we did not read anything about the Middle East, instead reading mostly about endangered panda bears every morning. This would undoubtedly shape our perceived level of importance for pandas v. middle east.
Many forms of media do not only have potential of changing our minds, but do so on a regular basis. For instace, if Vogue and other fashion magazines did not exist, would we be truly caught up with the newest trends from Milan? Sure, we would know eventually from word-of-mouth, but the currently-evident wildfire of trends that occur would probably not exist. Although in this way, the transmission of tis info is not truly restricted (people would figure it out via word-of-mouth), it is hampered - media has an affect on what we perceive to be important, therefore shaping our culture.
The hardest example is fiction. Although fiction many times portrays thigns or situations that do not and will not exists, that does not mean we will not be affected by the underlying messages of it. There are some extreme cases of this, one being Nazi germany's propaganda machine during World War II. Propaganda is a good example because the actual information is aimed at changing our views and opinions. In reality, the truth is usually not so distinct, yet propaganda can be a very powerful tactic to use during times of war, etc. In a more subtle way, fiction allows us to ponder and realize values that have already been acknowledged. Movies such as Apocalypse Now allow us to "see" the horrors of war, and even modern movies, such as Martin Scorsese's the Departed, depict moral dilemmas and question our identity. Many works of fiction pose concepts and questions which shape our morality in life.
In obvious or subliminal ways, the media has an effect on how we live. Whetere it be through what we wear, or how we live, the media permeates our everyday lives.
Writing Like Kingsolver...
Intro: In class we are reading the Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. We were told to write a paragraph or so in the same style as her first words. This is my attempt:
The dirt-laced air bites your eyes like acid. The ground is bare, rocky, without a trace of fertility in it. The sky looms, infinite and blue, overhead. Your vision is compromised, tunneling in a single direction, peering, searching. The shoes crunch on the terrain as the others make their way towards you, slowly lining up. Metallic clicks of triggers on safety ping through the dense air. It becomes silent. People dig in, tense, ready.
The mind-shattering blow of the referee's whistle cracks the calm in half. Everyone is scrambling, jumping, diving as puffs of dirt fly. You must find cover behind a bunker or dare to be stung by the bees rocketing out of the guns of your opponents, 15 per second. The air is rife with paintballs as they explode, sending blood-like paint spraying on your face. The once statue-like bunkers, standing tall and strong, take the brunt of the force, weaving to and fro from the impact of the paintballs. The sound is so cacophonous as to be numbing - the screaming of metal gun bolts accompanied by an orchestra of screaming ammunition with a solo by a screaming player yelling expletives like noone else's business as he stomps off the field, freshly covered in the abstract art of his opponent.
10 minutes pass. You look at the bunker across from you and make a break for it.
10 feet seems like 100 arduous miles as you sprint. The end is near...and then...
The ground deceives you at the very last second, grabbing your ankle with it's imaginiary hand, dust clouds flying as you fight for traction. As you fall you see the bees once more, flying at you. Sting after sting comes as your opponent becomes painter, neon blue staining your hands, chest, face. The rocks on the ground punch you in the kidneys on impact and you are now officially dead.
---------------------
I used to love writing like Kingsolver's, but lately I've been leaning more towards the sparse, to-the-point writing of people like Nick Hornby. Kingsolver's descriptions are by no means pretencious, but I really do believe that writing laced with metaphors doesn't always work. Thankfully, the entire PB is not written in the fierce narrative of the first page.
The dirt-laced air bites your eyes like acid. The ground is bare, rocky, without a trace of fertility in it. The sky looms, infinite and blue, overhead. Your vision is compromised, tunneling in a single direction, peering, searching. The shoes crunch on the terrain as the others make their way towards you, slowly lining up. Metallic clicks of triggers on safety ping through the dense air. It becomes silent. People dig in, tense, ready.
The mind-shattering blow of the referee's whistle cracks the calm in half. Everyone is scrambling, jumping, diving as puffs of dirt fly. You must find cover behind a bunker or dare to be stung by the bees rocketing out of the guns of your opponents, 15 per second. The air is rife with paintballs as they explode, sending blood-like paint spraying on your face. The once statue-like bunkers, standing tall and strong, take the brunt of the force, weaving to and fro from the impact of the paintballs. The sound is so cacophonous as to be numbing - the screaming of metal gun bolts accompanied by an orchestra of screaming ammunition with a solo by a screaming player yelling expletives like noone else's business as he stomps off the field, freshly covered in the abstract art of his opponent.
10 minutes pass. You look at the bunker across from you and make a break for it.
10 feet seems like 100 arduous miles as you sprint. The end is near...and then...
The ground deceives you at the very last second, grabbing your ankle with it's imaginiary hand, dust clouds flying as you fight for traction. As you fall you see the bees once more, flying at you. Sting after sting comes as your opponent becomes painter, neon blue staining your hands, chest, face. The rocks on the ground punch you in the kidneys on impact and you are now officially dead.
---------------------
I used to love writing like Kingsolver's, but lately I've been leaning more towards the sparse, to-the-point writing of people like Nick Hornby. Kingsolver's descriptions are by no means pretencious, but I really do believe that writing laced with metaphors doesn't always work. Thankfully, the entire PB is not written in the fierce narrative of the first page.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Criticisms
I've heard a lot of things about these new blogs. I've heard people say that they love it, that it allows them a lot more freedom in how they write. But I've also heard people say that a journal is a lot better.
Well, we'll get back to this.
I don't know what it is about this blogging thing, but it has completely freed up my writing.
I'm no longer constrained by deadlines or rubrics, nor am I forced to complete sometimes seemingly arbitrary assignments.
For some strange reason, I write about the things that I would not write if I were to turn in a paper for english.
All the things my friends ostensibly do not care about, all the things that seem overly opinionated, all the things that I cannot rant about in the middle of math class - they are free to roam here.
Obviously, it's practically the same thing as turning in a paper or talking about it in class - people are reading my posts, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Watson has perused all of our sites as well.
Although our thoughts are more public than ever now, there's something about the net that makes it seem like we're anonymous.
Edit:
Remember how I said "We'll get back to that"?
Well, here we go.
One of the complaints that I've heard about the blog system is that they cannot personalize or doodle or anything on what they write, and that it's too public for what they are writing. Well, it seems like if we were doing purely introspective writing, a journal would be more appropriate. But the entire purpose of a blog is the share and connect with others, right? How would we use a journal in class? Swap books with others? A journal is fundamentally different than a blog.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of analyzing people's opinions is.
Well, I guess that's the point of a blog, isn't it?
Well, we'll get back to this.
I don't know what it is about this blogging thing, but it has completely freed up my writing.
I'm no longer constrained by deadlines or rubrics, nor am I forced to complete sometimes seemingly arbitrary assignments.
For some strange reason, I write about the things that I would not write if I were to turn in a paper for english.
All the things my friends ostensibly do not care about, all the things that seem overly opinionated, all the things that I cannot rant about in the middle of math class - they are free to roam here.
Obviously, it's practically the same thing as turning in a paper or talking about it in class - people are reading my posts, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Watson has perused all of our sites as well.
Although our thoughts are more public than ever now, there's something about the net that makes it seem like we're anonymous.
Edit:
Remember how I said "We'll get back to that"?
Well, here we go.
One of the complaints that I've heard about the blog system is that they cannot personalize or doodle or anything on what they write, and that it's too public for what they are writing. Well, it seems like if we were doing purely introspective writing, a journal would be more appropriate. But the entire purpose of a blog is the share and connect with others, right? How would we use a journal in class? Swap books with others? A journal is fundamentally different than a blog.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of analyzing people's opinions is.
Well, I guess that's the point of a blog, isn't it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
A summary
We're supposed to talk about all the posts we've made on our blogs. I'm not sure what to say, but I can tell you that my posts seem to have a general theme to them - how do we view the world around us?
Mainly I tend to revert back to politics and international crisises, mostly because it's the most absurd yet the most real thing that exists. People are dying in the Middle East, children are being exploited in China, and I'm living perfectly happy in Hawaii. If you think about it, and you realize that all humans are inherently born the same (ignoring our respective financial situations at time of birth), it's almost surreal to see what goes on around us. So much can change when we're under pressure - 'playing in the clutch', if you will.
So how should we live our lives? This is the important question here. I've realized, even more so than before, that the answer to this question is practically a puddle of grey matter. Should we risk ourselves by working with others or should we just strive to create the best life for ourselves in the short time we are alive? I'm not necessarily talking about making money here, but who is the focus? Do we make up the world together as a single entity, or is "our world" just how each of us perceive an arbitrary environment?
Ironically, while trying to answer our essential questions, I've managed to create more.
Mainly I tend to revert back to politics and international crisises, mostly because it's the most absurd yet the most real thing that exists. People are dying in the Middle East, children are being exploited in China, and I'm living perfectly happy in Hawaii. If you think about it, and you realize that all humans are inherently born the same (ignoring our respective financial situations at time of birth), it's almost surreal to see what goes on around us. So much can change when we're under pressure - 'playing in the clutch', if you will.
So how should we live our lives? This is the important question here. I've realized, even more so than before, that the answer to this question is practically a puddle of grey matter. Should we risk ourselves by working with others or should we just strive to create the best life for ourselves in the short time we are alive? I'm not necessarily talking about making money here, but who is the focus? Do we make up the world together as a single entity, or is "our world" just how each of us perceive an arbitrary environment?
Ironically, while trying to answer our essential questions, I've managed to create more.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
This is Reality:
I just read Colt's post about giving money to homeless folks on the street.
My morality, combined with my judgement, makes this a decently complicated situation. It doesn't even always apply to homeless people, though. I do remember a time when I was leaving after a movie with a friend at Ward, and a guy came up to me.
He told me he was just assigned to Schofield and that he needed 5 bucks to make his way there.
He wasn't in uniform.
What can you do in this situation? Yeah, I could've just lied, but aside from that...
I'm not sure what the threshold for my altruism is when in situations with strangers.
Sure, I'd take a bullet for a friend, but $5 dollars?
To a random guy who says he's military?
Not in uniform, no less?
I've been conned before. I gave money to a guy who insisted on needing money for food. Then I saw him buying booze with that same money 2 minutes later.
The fact of the matter is, generosity needs limits. Maybe it's because I'm a cynical bastard, but I'm not won over by overly optimistic feel-good situations. Like Colton, I'm not sure if giving money to a beggar makes me feel any better about anything. I'm pretty sure even if I had bought a 'genocide' shirt I would've rolled my eyes at anyone who told me I was "saving darfur". And, knowing me, I'm pretty sure I would not feel anything if I went into a slaughterhouse.
This isn't a very pretty example or answer to our essential question of "how should we live in this world?"
Take world peace. Logically, it should be possible. It should just be a simple matter of letting go of our preconceptions and losing some of the extreme prejudices that we apply to other people. So then why has the, for the lack of a better term, s*** hit the fan in the middle east? Why are the Palenstinians and Israelis even fighting? What's so difficult about a Palestinian state?
If only the answer was so easy.
I used to feel, in terms of world politics, that we should intervene to maintain some order in the Middle East.
Now I have moments where I feel that we should haul ass out of there and let that entire portion of the world systematically implode.
Right now, the United State's intervention process is basically a small, brittle plastic kayak.
The Middle East (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, etc.) is a Class-5 whitewater rapid system. Nice metaphor, right?
The US gov't is, apparently, showing evidence that Iran is supplying Shi'a groups in Iraq with explosive devices.
Why even bother? So what if we invaded Iran and made a mess of finding their WMD's? Apparently people are having a hard time pulling up similarities between this and Iraq.
As my friend Michael Minkin jokingly said whilst discussing Iran at open lab:
"We should just team up with Russia and nuke the crap out of everybody."
PS.
Speaking of reality, I was really...well, I'm not sure what the word is quite right now, but I was shocked to hear about Mr. Johnson's death. I feel that I should put this up here because I had him last year and he was a great teacher, but also a great person to just joke about with. I'm sure everyone has or has had a class where you watch the clock, hoping to get out. Well, Mr. Johnson was on the other side of the spectrum - I had a great time in bio. I'm not sure what's up with this year, but it's tragic that both Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Johnson have passed away. I really do hope that his wife and daughter will be alright. You always do hear about these things, about people dying while swimming and stuff, but you never expect it to happen to someone you know - hell, it's practically a cliche. And to think, I said hi to him on Friday and looked at the pictures in his office. Man.
RIP
My morality, combined with my judgement, makes this a decently complicated situation. It doesn't even always apply to homeless people, though. I do remember a time when I was leaving after a movie with a friend at Ward, and a guy came up to me.
He told me he was just assigned to Schofield and that he needed 5 bucks to make his way there.
He wasn't in uniform.
What can you do in this situation? Yeah, I could've just lied, but aside from that...
I'm not sure what the threshold for my altruism is when in situations with strangers.
Sure, I'd take a bullet for a friend, but $5 dollars?
To a random guy who says he's military?
Not in uniform, no less?
I've been conned before. I gave money to a guy who insisted on needing money for food. Then I saw him buying booze with that same money 2 minutes later.
The fact of the matter is, generosity needs limits. Maybe it's because I'm a cynical bastard, but I'm not won over by overly optimistic feel-good situations. Like Colton, I'm not sure if giving money to a beggar makes me feel any better about anything. I'm pretty sure even if I had bought a 'genocide' shirt I would've rolled my eyes at anyone who told me I was "saving darfur". And, knowing me, I'm pretty sure I would not feel anything if I went into a slaughterhouse.
This isn't a very pretty example or answer to our essential question of "how should we live in this world?"
Take world peace. Logically, it should be possible. It should just be a simple matter of letting go of our preconceptions and losing some of the extreme prejudices that we apply to other people. So then why has the, for the lack of a better term, s*** hit the fan in the middle east? Why are the Palenstinians and Israelis even fighting? What's so difficult about a Palestinian state?
If only the answer was so easy.
I used to feel, in terms of world politics, that we should intervene to maintain some order in the Middle East.
Now I have moments where I feel that we should haul ass out of there and let that entire portion of the world systematically implode.
Right now, the United State's intervention process is basically a small, brittle plastic kayak.
The Middle East (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, etc.) is a Class-5 whitewater rapid system. Nice metaphor, right?
The US gov't is, apparently, showing evidence that Iran is supplying Shi'a groups in Iraq with explosive devices.
Why even bother? So what if we invaded Iran and made a mess of finding their WMD's? Apparently people are having a hard time pulling up similarities between this and Iraq.
As my friend Michael Minkin jokingly said whilst discussing Iran at open lab:
"We should just team up with Russia and nuke the crap out of everybody."
PS.
Speaking of reality, I was really...well, I'm not sure what the word is quite right now, but I was shocked to hear about Mr. Johnson's death. I feel that I should put this up here because I had him last year and he was a great teacher, but also a great person to just joke about with. I'm sure everyone has or has had a class where you watch the clock, hoping to get out. Well, Mr. Johnson was on the other side of the spectrum - I had a great time in bio. I'm not sure what's up with this year, but it's tragic that both Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Johnson have passed away. I really do hope that his wife and daughter will be alright. You always do hear about these things, about people dying while swimming and stuff, but you never expect it to happen to someone you know - hell, it's practically a cliche. And to think, I said hi to him on Friday and looked at the pictures in his office. Man.
RIP
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
What I Believe:
I'm not completely sure as whether to post an actual draft of it or to outline it, but since we still have time I'm going to throw out my basic ideas.
I want to talk about my belief in art. I say this because art is one of those rare things that can show the true spirit of a person. Art cannot be judged, although people try - although there is a difference between the art of a 4 year old and Van Gogh, you cannot say that expressionism is better than abstraction in terms of quality. Art allows a person to portray his emotions in a tangible, honest form. There are not a lot of things that allows a person to do that.
I think I would elaborate on that for like, 3 minutes.
I want to talk about my belief in art. I say this because art is one of those rare things that can show the true spirit of a person. Art cannot be judged, although people try - although there is a difference between the art of a 4 year old and Van Gogh, you cannot say that expressionism is better than abstraction in terms of quality. Art allows a person to portray his emotions in a tangible, honest form. There are not a lot of things that allows a person to do that.
I think I would elaborate on that for like, 3 minutes.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Essential:
I've read other people's posts about their own essential questions and I decided that I want to create a more focused one for the question "...and how should we live in [the world]?"
I want to know, basically, how we should live in relation to other people.
I'm not talking about protecting the environment or anything else, I'm strictly talking about something like "how should we act towards the guy standing next to me on the bus?".
I thought of this because some of us stumbled onto the subject of racism and such. But there are a lot of situations where the idea of your fellow man coming into play. If you're on a rise of success, is it allowable to sacrifice some friendships or relationships to reach the top? Buddhist philosophy tells us that we can only find happiness in helping others, yet I'm sure some people would disagree - they would say to acheive true happiness, something has to give.
In this fast-paced world of cell phones and constant progress, it seems that we're a bit too caught up in our own selves to care about others sometimes. Think of the last time you really helped a stranger. I'm talking about direct help, not as in canned-food-drive sort of help.
It's hard, right?
What's the thing that keeps us from jumping up and getting napkins for the unfortunate person who spills their coffee? If your best friend did that, you'd obviously help, yet at the Starbucks not many people look up from their newspapers and iPods. Isn't it of human nature to want to help others? And it's not like we're being territorial here - there's no explicit aggression to the other people at Starbucks.
Any ideas as to why?
I want to know, basically, how we should live in relation to other people.
I'm not talking about protecting the environment or anything else, I'm strictly talking about something like "how should we act towards the guy standing next to me on the bus?".
I thought of this because some of us stumbled onto the subject of racism and such. But there are a lot of situations where the idea of your fellow man coming into play. If you're on a rise of success, is it allowable to sacrifice some friendships or relationships to reach the top? Buddhist philosophy tells us that we can only find happiness in helping others, yet I'm sure some people would disagree - they would say to acheive true happiness, something has to give.
In this fast-paced world of cell phones and constant progress, it seems that we're a bit too caught up in our own selves to care about others sometimes. Think of the last time you really helped a stranger. I'm talking about direct help, not as in canned-food-drive sort of help.
It's hard, right?
What's the thing that keeps us from jumping up and getting napkins for the unfortunate person who spills their coffee? If your best friend did that, you'd obviously help, yet at the Starbucks not many people look up from their newspapers and iPods. Isn't it of human nature to want to help others? And it's not like we're being territorial here - there's no explicit aggression to the other people at Starbucks.
Any ideas as to why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
