How we view and come to conclusions about situations and issues is based on what point of view we are seeing them. Whether we agree or disagree about an issue depends how they are portrayed to us. What is the best way to analyze an issue? How many points of view do we need to see before coming to a conclusion? Heart of Darkness has multiple levels of storytelling, giving us many sides of the story. But how do we know what to believe?
In Heart of Darkness, we see story telling from many people. First there is the author writing the book, and the narrator depicting everything. Then there is Marlow, who is telling the narrator a story. Within the story, there are even more people who tell stories. So, what is the real story anyways? Sometimes it is hard to tell what is even going on, because the characters don't always know themselves. So how should we see the story? Should we believe everything a character tells us?
In the media, things are most often portrayed to us one-sided. We see the newstations view, and that is really about it. We see the opposing sides to the situation sometimes. In news articles, not information is always available to us. We make decisions and judgements based on what we read. If we are lacking another side of the story, these decisions and judgements become biast.
What is the purpose of reading things, if all we are getting is one side? This is what makes Heart of Darkness so great. We see all of these levels and different sides of characters, events, and stories. The news today is so focused on the economics of their business. What will sell? Will people watch our show? These are the things they worry about, rather than putting out a solid, mulitiple level story.
We, as citizens of the world, deserve to see all sides of things before making a decision. Racism and hate both stem from lack of knowledge of other cultures. If we learned more about how different kinds of people feel, we would have greater knowledge and wisdom in general. Heart of Darkness has endless levels within it. Learning from this book is one way to gain wisdom. The more we analyze things, the better we understand them.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Metacognition: Learning with a Strain on Time
First semester at Glenbrook North was basically a semester of cramming as much information in my head as possible, and hoping that I could memorize it all. But, there were also times when I enjoyed learning. When the information wasn't forced on me and I had to figure it out by myself, was when I really learned.
Math, french, and science require you pay strict attention during class, take good notes, and copy everything the teacher has written on the board. With English, there is real, personal thinking involved. Last year, it was about finishing my work as quickly as possible. This year, it is about creating quality work that I like, as well getting it done efficiently.
I've noticed that whenever I have more options and free space to learn, I enjoy it more. With math and science, there is generally only one way to do things. But with English and writing, there are so many different sides to things. Composing essays, or even blogging. Sure, there are prompts and outlines of ways to write. But, there are ways to work around prompts. Your writing is your own.
I like this way of learning. When information is thrown at you and you have one day until the quiz, there is no real deep desire to learn. If a teacher gives you time to figure out things on your own, you can really grasp and soak in everything.
The only problem I see with my method of learning is the fear of it. One would think that less time to do an assignment would force me to do it right away. But for some reason, this makes me want to do it less and procrastinate even more. The stress starts when the due date is first given, and builds up every day that I don't have time to start it. I wish I had more time to learn.
And I'm sure every student in Academy can relate to this. We all have so much homework, so many activities, and not enough time to do it all. I love playing guitar and wish I had more time to do it. But, school comes first. I think teachers and students need to reach a better balance.
Math, french, and science require you pay strict attention during class, take good notes, and copy everything the teacher has written on the board. With English, there is real, personal thinking involved. Last year, it was about finishing my work as quickly as possible. This year, it is about creating quality work that I like, as well getting it done efficiently.
I've noticed that whenever I have more options and free space to learn, I enjoy it more. With math and science, there is generally only one way to do things. But with English and writing, there are so many different sides to things. Composing essays, or even blogging. Sure, there are prompts and outlines of ways to write. But, there are ways to work around prompts. Your writing is your own.
I like this way of learning. When information is thrown at you and you have one day until the quiz, there is no real deep desire to learn. If a teacher gives you time to figure out things on your own, you can really grasp and soak in everything.
The only problem I see with my method of learning is the fear of it. One would think that less time to do an assignment would force me to do it right away. But for some reason, this makes me want to do it less and procrastinate even more. The stress starts when the due date is first given, and builds up every day that I don't have time to start it. I wish I had more time to learn.
And I'm sure every student in Academy can relate to this. We all have so much homework, so many activities, and not enough time to do it all. I love playing guitar and wish I had more time to do it. But, school comes first. I think teachers and students need to reach a better balance.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Blogging Around
Luc Spiewak's iMedia blog post about a car bomb in Pakistan. He's not surprised at the destruction over there and thinks we should give up our efforts to help the east.
I can agree with you that this picture is both shocking and not shocking at the same time. There are plenty of bad things happening in the east. But sitting back and watching it happen is what we shouldn't be doing.
I disagree with you on the fact that we should "stay the hell out." What good has come from anyone letting things slide? We have pretty good peace in our country, so why can't we help others find the same? Yeah we spend too much money on others, and we should be helping our country instead. But, reconciling others problems will help everyone in the long run.
Chen's iMedia blog on Canon Rock. Basically, we all agree that combining old techniques with new makes a song great.
I have to agree with both Chen and Pat here. The great thing about music is that we have so many combinations and varieties available. Rock and classical? A perfect mix new and old. When an artist adds on to the old stuff and puts their own spin on things, magic happens.
For instance, the band Coheed and Cambria has this awesome mix of classical guitar, violin, and electric guitar. When these two combine, you hear how great it is together. Sure, classical guitar is beautiful enough on its own. But when you add the awesome, new age electric, it creates a surge of even more awesomeness. To sum it all up, music is godly, maybe in ways we don't even know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEsnX4utdyQ(Welcome Home-Coheed and Cambria)
Monday, November 16, 2009
iMedia: Transatlanticism and Tiny Vessels
Transatlanticism song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNqQC7R_Me4
Transatlanticism lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deathcabforcutie/transatlanticism.html
Tiny Vessels lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deathcabforcutie/tinyvessels.html
Tiny Vessels song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADa7n1fM12g
We've all heard of juxtapositions of ideas throughout movies and books. But what about through music? These two songs, Tiny Vessels and Transatlanticism, are juxtaposed in Death Cab for Cuties album, Transatlanticism. Tiny Vessels comes before Transatlanticism. The ending of Tiny Vessels fades into the beginning of Transatlanticism through the steady "footsteps."
Why did Death Cab for Cutie do this? Why does this bring interest, or extra layers to the meaning of the songs? We need to look at the lyrics of both songs.
Tiny Vessels is about a man letting go of the woman that he doesn't really love. "She is beautiful, but she don't mean a thing to me." As much as he wants it to work, he knows that it can't. Basically, hes over her. There are references to "Silver Lake" and "dark grey clouds."
Transatlanticism is about a man wanting to get closer to a woman. It seems they have been separated, whether it be in heart or literally by oceans. Once again, there are references to clouds and water. "The clouds above opened up and let it out;" "I thought it less like a lake and more like a moat." Instead of being too close the the woman, he needs to be closer(as he repeats TWELVE TIMES at the end of the song).
These two songs create an interesting scene for the listeners to think about. Was the lyricist feeling both of these songs at the same time? How can one want to be closer to someone, but at the same time feel too close? The blending of the two songs suggest they are similar. The idea here is that water can separate people(the references to moats) or pull them together(dark grey clouds).
Is it better to be far apart from the one you love, or to be too close to someone you only half love? Either way, there is still suffering. Sure, the songs are beautiful to listen to: slow and mesmerizing(especially Transatlanticism). But when you get down to the root meaning of the songs together, they make for a pretty depressing theme.
Why do we listen to depressing music in the first place? It doesn't make us feel better; if anything, it makes us feel worse. Is it because we can relate to it? Most of the people I know listen to music, and it isn't always happy. We go back to those sad feelings, over and over again. When we hear different pieces of music, we remember the bad times we've had(with people, instances, life in general). We all go through hard times, and need something to take our mind off the pain. But sad music increases the pain.
I think it is more important to acknowledge how we are feeling, then to just ignore it. Sad music makes us feel depressed, but if we can see our feelings, and look them in the face, maybe we can change them. These two songs put together side by side make us see the two sides of love. Each of us will probably be at both or one of those sides. Once we acknowledge they are there, we can learn from our feelings and move on to better places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNqQC7R_Me4
Transatlanticism lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deathcabforcutie/transatlanticism.html
Tiny Vessels lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deathcabforcutie/tinyvessels.html
Tiny Vessels song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADa7n1fM12g
We've all heard of juxtapositions of ideas throughout movies and books. But what about through music? These two songs, Tiny Vessels and Transatlanticism, are juxtaposed in Death Cab for Cuties album, Transatlanticism. Tiny Vessels comes before Transatlanticism. The ending of Tiny Vessels fades into the beginning of Transatlanticism through the steady "footsteps."
Why did Death Cab for Cutie do this? Why does this bring interest, or extra layers to the meaning of the songs? We need to look at the lyrics of both songs.
Tiny Vessels is about a man letting go of the woman that he doesn't really love. "She is beautiful, but she don't mean a thing to me." As much as he wants it to work, he knows that it can't. Basically, hes over her. There are references to "Silver Lake" and "dark grey clouds."
Transatlanticism is about a man wanting to get closer to a woman. It seems they have been separated, whether it be in heart or literally by oceans. Once again, there are references to clouds and water. "The clouds above opened up and let it out;" "I thought it less like a lake and more like a moat." Instead of being too close the the woman, he needs to be closer(as he repeats TWELVE TIMES at the end of the song).
These two songs create an interesting scene for the listeners to think about. Was the lyricist feeling both of these songs at the same time? How can one want to be closer to someone, but at the same time feel too close? The blending of the two songs suggest they are similar. The idea here is that water can separate people(the references to moats) or pull them together(dark grey clouds).
Is it better to be far apart from the one you love, or to be too close to someone you only half love? Either way, there is still suffering. Sure, the songs are beautiful to listen to: slow and mesmerizing(especially Transatlanticism). But when you get down to the root meaning of the songs together, they make for a pretty depressing theme.
Why do we listen to depressing music in the first place? It doesn't make us feel better; if anything, it makes us feel worse. Is it because we can relate to it? Most of the people I know listen to music, and it isn't always happy. We go back to those sad feelings, over and over again. When we hear different pieces of music, we remember the bad times we've had(with people, instances, life in general). We all go through hard times, and need something to take our mind off the pain. But sad music increases the pain.
I think it is more important to acknowledge how we are feeling, then to just ignore it. Sad music makes us feel depressed, but if we can see our feelings, and look them in the face, maybe we can change them. These two songs put together side by side make us see the two sides of love. Each of us will probably be at both or one of those sides. Once we acknowledge they are there, we can learn from our feelings and move on to better places.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Connection: Philosophy to Daily Life
Each day seems to morph into the next. Our lives all swirl together. We eat the same food, do the same activities, and talk about the same things. The world is almost on autopilot; our culture succumbs us. As depressing and boring as it sounds, this pretty much sums up how most of us live our lives. Is this the philosophy we want to be living by? After all of what we have learned in school about thinking about our lives, none of us ever really do it except when we are forced to by our teachers.
As we read Sophie's World, there was one thing I was unsure of.
Everything.
All of the philosophy we learned got me thinking about if my life matters. Well, does it? Honestly, I don't know. How can I apply the philosophy we learned in class if I don't even know how it applies to my life. This seems to be the case with most of what we learn in school. Will I really need to know how many isotopes Carbon has, or who conquered the Aztecs? The application of things seems to be what matters in life. We learn things in school so we can use them in "The Real World." But is school right on this one? As much as I think about it, I still don't know the answers. I can formulate opinions, the school can formulate opinions, the world can formulate opinions, but what are they worth?
So, why do we learn about philosophy in class? What use is it to us? I think it's better to accept that you don't know anything. Once we realize that fact, we can move on and enjoy life. But that also gets us back to the one question, why does it matter? Life is a huge, big, round circle that no one fully understands. Personally, this is completely frustrating. What does it matter if I clean my room? If I get a ticket for speeding? Sure, I will face consequences, and maybe my life will not be as great as it could. As Linkin Park would say, "In the end, it doesn't even matter." But in reality, we have no idea if it does or not.
As we read Sophie's World, there was one thing I was unsure of.
Everything.
All of the philosophy we learned got me thinking about if my life matters. Well, does it? Honestly, I don't know. How can I apply the philosophy we learned in class if I don't even know how it applies to my life. This seems to be the case with most of what we learn in school. Will I really need to know how many isotopes Carbon has, or who conquered the Aztecs? The application of things seems to be what matters in life. We learn things in school so we can use them in "The Real World." But is school right on this one? As much as I think about it, I still don't know the answers. I can formulate opinions, the school can formulate opinions, the world can formulate opinions, but what are they worth?
So, why do we learn about philosophy in class? What use is it to us? I think it's better to accept that you don't know anything. Once we realize that fact, we can move on and enjoy life. But that also gets us back to the one question, why does it matter? Life is a huge, big, round circle that no one fully understands. Personally, this is completely frustrating. What does it matter if I clean my room? If I get a ticket for speeding? Sure, I will face consequences, and maybe my life will not be as great as it could. As Linkin Park would say, "In the end, it doesn't even matter." But in reality, we have no idea if it does or not.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
360 Degrees: Musical Taste
What does it mean to have good taste in music? Music is one of the most subjective things since it differs from person to person. As we grow older, change our opinions, and learn new ideas, our music taste changes. If we hear something on the radio we like, our music knowledge is enhanced. Why do we like certain kinds of music? What is the appeal? I think the music we enjoy has to be related to what kind of person we are.
The first music I remember hearing is my mom singing a lullaby to me. This cannot be where my music taste is derived from. Once we start hearing music on the radio and we understand what the music means, we can begin to actually appreciate music. It seems to be outside influences that tell us what to like. Radio stations tell us their music is the best, so when we were younger, we believed them. Until we mature and can fully understand music, we cannot know exactly what we like. After we have heard different genres, artists, and songs, can we decide what is best.
One's music taste isn't always confined to one genre of music, although sometimes it is. Why do some people keep themselves to one type of music, and never stray away? I have a friend who is obsessed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Led Zepplin, and Pink Floyd. Now don't get me wrong, those bands are decent, and I love listening and playing to their songs. But I cannot imagine my world with just those bands. I seem to flip flop between classic rock, alternative, and even some pop. Does having a wider liking of music make you a better person, though? Because I like a variety of music, maybe I have a better perspective. Surely it is better to be open to different things. I have also been argued that you shouldn't force yourself to try new things, especially when you know you won't like it. Then again, how can anyone know if they like something unless they try it?
When I listen to the radio, I soon find a new song that I like. This means my perspective and taste is changing by the minute. Therefor, can we even define what our music taste is? If we are always changing, which is human nature after all, why are we trying to define ourselves? Humans need labels. It's the need for materialism stored deep inside of us. When someone asks what kind of music you like, maybe you list a few bands or the genre you most enjoy. When you do this, you are leaving out huge chunks of yourself. Each song you have listened to changed or motivated you in some way. Emotions stream from music. A sad song makes you depressed; a happy song makes you feel good.
Saying you have good taste in music is like saying you like pizza. Almost everyone likes pizza; its universal. Everyone thinks they have good taste in music. What I don't understand is how we can even begin to judge each others taste. We all love music, it doesn't really matter what type. Music is an expression of human feelings. When you listen to music, its you, the song, and your feelings. I'd like to think that my friends opinions on my music taste matters, but it really doesn't. If you love music, you'll eventually learn to appreciate all of it. Sure, you might never grow too fond of classic operas or heavy metal, but maybe someday you will see the beauty in both.
The first music I remember hearing is my mom singing a lullaby to me. This cannot be where my music taste is derived from. Once we start hearing music on the radio and we understand what the music means, we can begin to actually appreciate music. It seems to be outside influences that tell us what to like. Radio stations tell us their music is the best, so when we were younger, we believed them. Until we mature and can fully understand music, we cannot know exactly what we like. After we have heard different genres, artists, and songs, can we decide what is best.
One's music taste isn't always confined to one genre of music, although sometimes it is. Why do some people keep themselves to one type of music, and never stray away? I have a friend who is obsessed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Led Zepplin, and Pink Floyd. Now don't get me wrong, those bands are decent, and I love listening and playing to their songs. But I cannot imagine my world with just those bands. I seem to flip flop between classic rock, alternative, and even some pop. Does having a wider liking of music make you a better person, though? Because I like a variety of music, maybe I have a better perspective. Surely it is better to be open to different things. I have also been argued that you shouldn't force yourself to try new things, especially when you know you won't like it. Then again, how can anyone know if they like something unless they try it?
When I listen to the radio, I soon find a new song that I like. This means my perspective and taste is changing by the minute. Therefor, can we even define what our music taste is? If we are always changing, which is human nature after all, why are we trying to define ourselves? Humans need labels. It's the need for materialism stored deep inside of us. When someone asks what kind of music you like, maybe you list a few bands or the genre you most enjoy. When you do this, you are leaving out huge chunks of yourself. Each song you have listened to changed or motivated you in some way. Emotions stream from music. A sad song makes you depressed; a happy song makes you feel good.
Saying you have good taste in music is like saying you like pizza. Almost everyone likes pizza; its universal. Everyone thinks they have good taste in music. What I don't understand is how we can even begin to judge each others taste. We all love music, it doesn't really matter what type. Music is an expression of human feelings. When you listen to music, its you, the song, and your feelings. I'd like to think that my friends opinions on my music taste matters, but it really doesn't. If you love music, you'll eventually learn to appreciate all of it. Sure, you might never grow too fond of classic operas or heavy metal, but maybe someday you will see the beauty in both.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Metacognition
Looking back on my essay, I realize I followed the prompt and filled in all the blanks Mr. Allen asked of me. I reviewed my comma usage, added a few semi-colons here and there, and made sure my topic sentences flowed with the paragraphs.
But is that all that is required of me? Just following the rubric to earn points? As we have discussed in class, writing is about discovering. I learned through writing my essay that it feels good to get my thoughts out in an organized manner. Sure, I like following the rubric, using the guidelines to assist me through the essay. But, I think the rules for the essay should be guidelines, and not set rules.
Is writing ever set in stone anyways? If we are so confined to rules, limited with our topics, won't all of our essays soon morph together? Of course, there are many ideas throughout the text. We might all have different topics, but our structures are all the same. Then again, you can have complex thoughts portrayed in simple structures. Aren't different, unique structures part of what make great books, great books?
As much as I wanted to go outside the set rules for the essay, I knew I couldn't. After all, I am an Academy student and I do care about my grades. But I found trouble finding my own voice through this essay. If I were to go back, I would reassess my sentences and make sure it sounds more like me. My grade will be happy for following the structures, but my creative writing skills will not.
P.S. sorry for going a little outside the guidelines(definitely not as bad as Sean's though ;))
But is that all that is required of me? Just following the rubric to earn points? As we have discussed in class, writing is about discovering. I learned through writing my essay that it feels good to get my thoughts out in an organized manner. Sure, I like following the rubric, using the guidelines to assist me through the essay. But, I think the rules for the essay should be guidelines, and not set rules.
Is writing ever set in stone anyways? If we are so confined to rules, limited with our topics, won't all of our essays soon morph together? Of course, there are many ideas throughout the text. We might all have different topics, but our structures are all the same. Then again, you can have complex thoughts portrayed in simple structures. Aren't different, unique structures part of what make great books, great books?
As much as I wanted to go outside the set rules for the essay, I knew I couldn't. After all, I am an Academy student and I do care about my grades. But I found trouble finding my own voice through this essay. If I were to go back, I would reassess my sentences and make sure it sounds more like me. My grade will be happy for following the structures, but my creative writing skills will not.
P.S. sorry for going a little outside the guidelines(definitely not as bad as Sean's though ;))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)