Two controversial concepts, the realm of politicians and journalists alike. Opinion and fact are melded together, mutually-supporting, and essential to any interaction between two humans.
Fact-
Facts are what are in most cases the result of research, experimentation, and consensus-based experience. Although commonly considered "true," beyond doubt, or in other ways proved, the most important factor in determining the validity of a fact is the ability of that fact's evidential support to convince a majority of people of its truth.
Opinion-
Most people build opinions based around facts. These are the proclaimed and accepted realm of influence- from peers, media, and family alike. Opinions are allowed to change, and, although they might be built around "true" facts, their actual "truth" value is simply in the eyes of the beholder.
"Truth"-
Somewhere in between opinion and fact is the truth- what each of us holds to have relative staying power as far as correctness and perhaps relevancy to our lives. When we combine the two together, it helps us realize that all opinions, facts, and truths are relative to what we perceive and consequently believe. Humans can convince themselves of anything. Our peers can convince us of anything. What have you been convinced of?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Blogging Around
Dan made a post likening the treatment of Africans by Europeans in The Heart Of Darkness to that of factions on all three sides- American, Israeli, and Palestinian, of that conflict. I responded.
"I find your point interesting, but strongly disagree with your basis for comparison.
The way Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians treat and construct each other is very different from Africans and Europeans. Africans were made out to be the dark, mindless inhabitants of a place we need to bring the light too. While some aspects of our treatment of terrorists can be seen to be slightly similar, they are portrayed as a dangerous and capable enemy, ready and willing to directly threaten our way of life. While still try to bring our way of life to them, we realize that the leaders of these peoples, as well as moderate factions within Muslim states can be bargained and cooperated with, to help reach the goals of both sides- peace and prosperity.
To defend Israel directly- when Israel goes to war it deliberately avoids causing excess amounts of civilian casualties, a problem complicated by Hamas's use of civilians as shields. Saying that attempting to save lives in spite of war in this way is akin to the disposablity Africans were treated with is almost offensive.
More importantly, your comparison overlooks a fundamental difference between the conflict in the Heart of Darkness and that in Gaza and Israel today. Israelis and Palestinians coexist in the same territory. The mothers, wives, and children of the men fighting for their right to exist live in close proximity to the conflict. They fight to protect a way of life. In marked contrast, young men went to Africa in many cases for the sole purpose of exploitation for a profit. These fundamentally different motives reflect the fact that while Europeans happily took advantage of the lands they went to, those involved in the conflict in the Middle East only want stability- even if it is on different terms."
Jenna what ifed about the Matrix, wondering what it would be like to wake up like Neo did, and going as far as to suggest that we were in the Matrix, and the machines used the movie to trick us into thinking we weren't. I responded.
"Jenna,
Your what ifing is interesting, but I would respond, at least to your last thought, with a so what?
So what if we're in a matrix fantasyland?
So what if you can never really know who or what you could be or are?
So what if there are actually holes in you?
Well, I guess you might like to know. But let's say you couldn't ever know. Let's say your actual body is in a soupy machine cell being harvested for energy.
Does it matter?
The human body is pretty limited to just being able to process, understand, and experience what our senses take. We conjecture and dream a lot, but even that is just based around experiences we've already had. That means that if we're living in a dream world, our body behaves as if that dream world were real. Your body doesn't care. It's pretty easy to trick. Maybe your mind is the same?"
"I find your point interesting, but strongly disagree with your basis for comparison.
The way Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians treat and construct each other is very different from Africans and Europeans. Africans were made out to be the dark, mindless inhabitants of a place we need to bring the light too. While some aspects of our treatment of terrorists can be seen to be slightly similar, they are portrayed as a dangerous and capable enemy, ready and willing to directly threaten our way of life. While still try to bring our way of life to them, we realize that the leaders of these peoples, as well as moderate factions within Muslim states can be bargained and cooperated with, to help reach the goals of both sides- peace and prosperity.
To defend Israel directly- when Israel goes to war it deliberately avoids causing excess amounts of civilian casualties, a problem complicated by Hamas's use of civilians as shields. Saying that attempting to save lives in spite of war in this way is akin to the disposablity Africans were treated with is almost offensive.
More importantly, your comparison overlooks a fundamental difference between the conflict in the Heart of Darkness and that in Gaza and Israel today. Israelis and Palestinians coexist in the same territory. The mothers, wives, and children of the men fighting for their right to exist live in close proximity to the conflict. They fight to protect a way of life. In marked contrast, young men went to Africa in many cases for the sole purpose of exploitation for a profit. These fundamentally different motives reflect the fact that while Europeans happily took advantage of the lands they went to, those involved in the conflict in the Middle East only want stability- even if it is on different terms."
Jenna what ifed about the Matrix, wondering what it would be like to wake up like Neo did, and going as far as to suggest that we were in the Matrix, and the machines used the movie to trick us into thinking we weren't. I responded.
"Jenna,
Your what ifing is interesting, but I would respond, at least to your last thought, with a so what?
So what if we're in a matrix fantasyland?
So what if you can never really know who or what you could be or are?
So what if there are actually holes in you?
Well, I guess you might like to know. But let's say you couldn't ever know. Let's say your actual body is in a soupy machine cell being harvested for energy.
Does it matter?
The human body is pretty limited to just being able to process, understand, and experience what our senses take. We conjecture and dream a lot, but even that is just based around experiences we've already had. That means that if we're living in a dream world, our body behaves as if that dream world were real. Your body doesn't care. It's pretty easy to trick. Maybe your mind is the same?"
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Best of Week: Onion Skins
The best comment I heard this week was related to the short story Cathedral being read in class. In the story, the main character finds onion skins in a shopping bag he is using to undergo, little to his knowledge, a spiritual transformation. At this, someone mentioned the scene in Shrek http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9nJlXLF06k where ogres are compared to onions because of their layers.
This made a lot of sense in the context of the story, since it showed how even a pot-smoking fourty-something year old, who is also proudly unsophisticated, can in fact possess layered deeper qualities, that don't meet the eye, and might require some drawing out.
This made me have a much deeper appreciation for people around me. People who I find to be irritating, simplistic, apathetic, or too passionate might all in fact be quite different and understandable underneath their layers.
Although I never intentionally or maliciously have denied the existence of people's layers, the moment in class really but a nice ogre's face on the whole issue. This guy in the story, just like Shrek, have depths which might take a while to get to. Why, then, should I deny anyone I know that possibility?
This made a lot of sense in the context of the story, since it showed how even a pot-smoking fourty-something year old, who is also proudly unsophisticated, can in fact possess layered deeper qualities, that don't meet the eye, and might require some drawing out.
This made me have a much deeper appreciation for people around me. People who I find to be irritating, simplistic, apathetic, or too passionate might all in fact be quite different and understandable underneath their layers.
Although I never intentionally or maliciously have denied the existence of people's layers, the moment in class really but a nice ogre's face on the whole issue. This guy in the story, just like Shrek, have depths which might take a while to get to. Why, then, should I deny anyone I know that possibility?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
What if?: I was a doorframe
Being a doorframe seems like it would be a lot of fun. Get to stand there, watch things, but only have people stay under you when they're yelling to the outside, or there's an earthquake. In any case, the story Boys contains a door frame who witnesses the childhood, infancy, and coming of age, in and without a particular order.
I think similarly being able to monitor a life in these snap shots would be compelling but also tedious. How much can you really tell about someone by the way they enter a house? Isn't what happens once you've entered what really matters? The story would say no, but I would say yes. I prefer a chance to actually get to know someone, to see them through an action, instead of before and after. That way you can actually understand the way they work, instead of the way the did work, and the way they will work. A door frame is still a cool mechanism for a story, but we don't learn nearly as much as we can about how the people involved fundamentally change. Rather, we learn what has fundamentally changed about them.
I think similarly being able to monitor a life in these snap shots would be compelling but also tedious. How much can you really tell about someone by the way they enter a house? Isn't what happens once you've entered what really matters? The story would say no, but I would say yes. I prefer a chance to actually get to know someone, to see them through an action, instead of before and after. That way you can actually understand the way they work, instead of the way the did work, and the way they will work. A door frame is still a cool mechanism for a story, but we don't learn nearly as much as we can about how the people involved fundamentally change. Rather, we learn what has fundamentally changed about them.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Connection: Heart of Darkness and The Wizard of Oz
This comparison was made in class, how Marlow goes into Congo-Oz down the Yellow Brick River, but I thought direct parallels, as well as theme resolutions deserved some fleshing out.
Marlow starts his journey in Kansas-Brussels, in the comfort of family and friends, to depart, on an eye-opening journey, for the Congo. Here the two stories are slightly different, but very helpful to each other. Marlow makes his initial journey from a place of comfort, on a ship, while observing a distant/unknown land. Similarly, Dorthy is in her house when she's uplifted, but the journey is in fact much quicker, since her destination is clearly not of this world. Conrad is here making a statement the Wizard of Oz doesn't in forcing us to realize that these horrors are part of our world.
In the interest of time and space, I won't go through the entire book, but make a few other connections.
Kurtz as the wicked witch. This comparison actually makes a lot more sense if you've seen Wicked. (which, for better or worse I have) The two stories inform one another in building a true sense of how the villain's role is more of a fall from grace, and less of a chosen path. In both stories, the character on the journey confronts the villain simply to help free them from the heart of darkness, not to defeat them. (Dorothy unknowingly aiding an escape, and Marlow preventing a return). Dorothy obviously doesn't feel a spiritual obligation to carry on the memory of the witch, but the Heart of Darkness is less of the classic hero's tale than the Wizard of Oz to start with.
The Manager as the wizard. This one's a bit harder, but in both cases, the two are essentially reluctant and somewhat incompetent masters of worlds they take by circumstance, staying healthy and dropping in a hot air balloon, rather than by design or prowess. In the end, we see that in both cases actual leadership skills are lacking and pure lack allows each to survive.
In the end we see why the Heart of Darkness is called the Heart of Darkness, and not the Heart of Fuzzy Bunnies- it's dark. The side of human character and nature it reveals is something the Wizard of Oz, a classic hero's journey, could never touch on. Even if they borrow some characters.
Marlow starts his journey in Kansas-Brussels, in the comfort of family and friends, to depart, on an eye-opening journey, for the Congo. Here the two stories are slightly different, but very helpful to each other. Marlow makes his initial journey from a place of comfort, on a ship, while observing a distant/unknown land. Similarly, Dorthy is in her house when she's uplifted, but the journey is in fact much quicker, since her destination is clearly not of this world. Conrad is here making a statement the Wizard of Oz doesn't in forcing us to realize that these horrors are part of our world.
In the interest of time and space, I won't go through the entire book, but make a few other connections.
Kurtz as the wicked witch. This comparison actually makes a lot more sense if you've seen Wicked. (which, for better or worse I have) The two stories inform one another in building a true sense of how the villain's role is more of a fall from grace, and less of a chosen path. In both stories, the character on the journey confronts the villain simply to help free them from the heart of darkness, not to defeat them. (Dorothy unknowingly aiding an escape, and Marlow preventing a return). Dorothy obviously doesn't feel a spiritual obligation to carry on the memory of the witch, but the Heart of Darkness is less of the classic hero's tale than the Wizard of Oz to start with.
The Manager as the wizard. This one's a bit harder, but in both cases, the two are essentially reluctant and somewhat incompetent masters of worlds they take by circumstance, staying healthy and dropping in a hot air balloon, rather than by design or prowess. In the end, we see that in both cases actual leadership skills are lacking and pure lack allows each to survive.
In the end we see why the Heart of Darkness is called the Heart of Darkness, and not the Heart of Fuzzy Bunnies- it's dark. The side of human character and nature it reveals is something the Wizard of Oz, a classic hero's journey, could never touch on. Even if they borrow some characters.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Blogging Around
Kyle compared the sisters in King Lear to those in Cinderella, since they are both prohibitive and jealous of their sister's gifts. I responded.
If only there were a role from the step mother. How do the husbands/Edmund fit into the metaphor? Are the motivations of the two sets of characters in fact the same?
This seems awfully incomplete, but I do like the basis of siblings teaming up to take advantage of the sibling on the outside.
Brandon talked about how his favorite moment of the week was Mr. Allen's joke, because humor helps lighten serious situations, and make them more interesting. I sort of agreed.
I think the fact that you couldn't repeat either of the jokes you referenced within your blog post speaks to the reasons that teachers don't usually joke around with classes. Not only are they older, but their responsibility is to educate and enrich, and do so professionally, versus crack jokes.
I do like funny teachers, and I think humor can be a good tool in explanation as soon as providing relief, but there is a line.
If only there were a role from the step mother. How do the husbands/Edmund fit into the metaphor? Are the motivations of the two sets of characters in fact the same?
This seems awfully incomplete, but I do like the basis of siblings teaming up to take advantage of the sibling on the outside.
Brandon talked about how his favorite moment of the week was Mr. Allen's joke, because humor helps lighten serious situations, and make them more interesting. I sort of agreed.
I think the fact that you couldn't repeat either of the jokes you referenced within your blog post speaks to the reasons that teachers don't usually joke around with classes. Not only are they older, but their responsibility is to educate and enrich, and do so professionally, versus crack jokes.
I do like funny teachers, and I think humor can be a good tool in explanation as soon as providing relief, but there is a line.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Metacognition: Poetry
I recently wrote a poem for class. It was a fine poem reflecting on thoughts about a made up incident about something partially founded in reality with traces of a deeper meaning. Despite the poem's poignancy, I found, as Mr. Allen forewarned, the process to be very rewarding and interesting.
The process consisted of working through my work with Mr. Allen's guidance. Adjusting word usage, context, order, and meaning according to his advise, and my own sensibilities. Throughout, I tried to manage word efficiency and rhythm with the necessity of managing meaning. I did this by rewriting and rewriting phrases, as well as editing specific word order and location to maximize efficacy.
What I found surprising about my method of work was how, despite approaching the problem with a goal and rough idea of hwo to work through issues, my ability revise the poem came down to thinking, trying, and re-thinking individual phrases. Is there a better way?
The process consisted of working through my work with Mr. Allen's guidance. Adjusting word usage, context, order, and meaning according to his advise, and my own sensibilities. Throughout, I tried to manage word efficiency and rhythm with the necessity of managing meaning. I did this by rewriting and rewriting phrases, as well as editing specific word order and location to maximize efficacy.
What I found surprising about my method of work was how, despite approaching the problem with a goal and rough idea of hwo to work through issues, my ability revise the poem came down to thinking, trying, and re-thinking individual phrases. Is there a better way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)