Blogging Around

I first commented on Stephanie's post titled "Metacognition: Get Organizing (A Tribute to Aristotle)."

"Firstly, I'd like to say that you were very successful in covering all the different interesting aspects of your room. Your blog post really intrigued me, yet it was practical enough to be understood and applied to one's own organizational projects.  Personally, I was mostly surprised by the love you displayed for all of the things, from instruments to old projects or essays, in your room. It shows that you are a constructive and high-achieving person with a very well developed sense of strong work ethic and the rewards that come with it. 

As far as structure, you started with analyzing your psychology in regards to what degree of organization you prefer for your room to have, how that influenced your feelings, what you cleaned first and last, then finished with a particularly interesting quote that almost related back to your first few paragraphs. The revolution you made while explaining your project--by which I mean connecting your first and last paragraphs--was notable. In the first one, you explained how you believed your room was relatively in order but there was a lot of hidden clutter and that it was "agonizing" when life is too busy to organize your belongings "in the moment." In the last paragraph, you essentially delved into the dynamics of our thinking as pertaining to organization, and referred to an insightful quotation. In both, you believed in the strong implications of a well-organized workspace, but transitioned from essentially describing your personal feelings to achieving a state in which you understood them and were able to make specific connections between your situation and psychologically and philosophically intriguing ideas. Also, your reading a book in the middle was almost symbolic of the "enlightenment" you gained in the process (I'm aware it didn't shift your thinking too much but just to mention something). Finally, I thought it was interesting how your perspective and psychology about the organization of your room was pretty in order to start with, like your room itself, but as you progressed in your cleaning project, you really internalized the reality of your project and its implications. Your mind essentially, then, achieved a state of understanding and rather than feeling, "knowing" the dynamics of organization in the big scheme of things. This is not unlike the way that your room, through becoming more orderly and rid of "hidden clutter" became more unified and in solving the problem of unnecessary complexity, perhaps more simple and direct to perceive."

I then commented on my fellow classmate Elizabeth's blog titled "360 Degrees: Number of kids in a family."

"Elizabeth, your blog really opened up a new aspect of life to me. Before I read your blog, I was well aware of the duality centered around the fact that while lack of money does prevent many couples from having children, in some cultures it is the reason why couples choose to procreate. On one hand, parents don't have children because they don't want to provide a child with a life filled with struggle, but on the other hand many couples in the deepest of poverty try to have as many children as possible so that, upon growing up, these children can be helpful with domestic duties such as gathering food, and so the parents can have someone to care for them in their old age. However, after reading your blog, I became aware of the degree to which the former of your claim I mentioned (lack of money prevents couples from procreating) has very strong implications in society.

Offspring is no longer a sole joy resulting from communicated love between people, however it is purposely sought in order to raise children that will actively engage in society and continue lineage. Much more care is taken to the specifics of how children are raised at home, as there exist thousands of parenting books about how you can establish stronger bonds with your children and raise them to be healthy, happy, and successful adults. For many prospective parents, the increasing complexity of our expectations of our children (as you mentioned with postmodernism) makes them believe that they perhaps are not economically suited to raise a well-rounded child (ie, involved in athletics, music, has access to learning resources), and that is sometimes positive because it avoids having children plunge into a future of struggle and uncertainty. However, it also perhaps causes self-conscious parents to worry about whether they are capable or incapable parents, willing to persevere with the many implications of parenthood but doubtful about whether their child will enjoy the environment they are in, and be happy, and they fear the possibility of that not happening. It's pretty interesting how this is related to post-modernism, because lately there are more financial support programs, parenting classes, books, and psychologists or counselors than there were a couple hundred years ago. We have higher expectations for our children but that is met with increasing gentleness towards those who, because of money issues, learning problems, or a disability can not achieve this ideal image of a child in the 21st century. To sum up, I am on one hand supportive of the trend of our culture and yet I'm a little disappointed that economic problems and doubtfulness undermine the ability of certain families to have offspring."

Metacognition: Reorganizing my video collection

     If I could explain the dynamics of my thinking in a word, I would say ambiguity. That which I speak, that which I write, and that which I ponder are composed of two elements: instinctive intellect and achieved complex understanding. The battle between these two, as frustrating and mind-boggling as it can stretch, never ceases. When I’m conscious (psychologically) and trying to process a concept, on one hand I automatically attempt to wrap my head around it, my thoughts darting in numerous sequences, like puzzle pieces, trying to “click” together, and on the other hand, I try to climb the ladder of understanding step by step, starting simple and delving into more complex ideas.

     When either of these paths does not coincide with the direction of the other, whether I got to the top or not becomes unclear and confusing, lost in the haze of my coexisting methods of thought. Even when I’m unconsciously sleeping, that is I’m neither in a lucid dream nor am I aware that I’m dreaming, sometimes faces or concepts will be presented in ways that are visually ambiguous.

     As the place I spend at least 15 hours a day in, most of them consciously awake, my room is very representative of this mental ambiguity. The part of my room with my bed and dresser is usually clean, and in acting as the “focus” of the room because of its central position, creates an impression of a complex and yet neatly decorated and comfortable living space. However, when one would look in the direction of my desk and adjoined shelves, the stack of papers next to it, or the overflowing storage box under it, their initial impression of my room would be diametrically contradicted.

     My room, then, would not draw an entirely positive or negative reaction, rather a somewhat confused one. Even looking specifically at my desk, there are piles of school books, notebooks, papers, and writing utensils. The shelves are lined with novels, language workbooks, trophies, photos, and a mix of birthday and holiday cards. Most of the time, just by eyeing the disordered mess it’s impossible to tell whether the objects or books are from this year or last, the papers from Social Studies or Chemistry, or the trophies from first grade or eighth grade. My desk is essentially an accumulated collection of the past and the present, routinely cleaned but always retaining that ambiguous quality.

     More specifically, as time has progressed after I’ve graduated from middle school, strong visual indications of my past have become fewer and fewer. Where you would see a photo of me and my closest friends posing with our teacher Ms. Keefe after collaborating on a service project, now sits an authentic German cap from a field trip this year. My desk is constantly approaching a state of containing more of the present than the past, but that is outweighed by the fact that as I add more “present” material, the former present material becomes that of the “past”, and so on. As this happens, treasured objects from the deeper past are evidently overrun by current developments. And somewhat willingly, I might add, because with time I have become more apathetic to direct evidence of my past. 
     It haunts me, perhaps taunts me, because I tend to think life was so much happier and more promising back then. Objects from my past are like people from my past; I feel guilty facing them because I always think they had such high hopes for me, and I failed them. It's difficult to go many days without seeing my life from the perspective of my old self, with its disapproving stares and malevolent wishes. Sometimes I don't realize that the "old" good Tina was all that innocent, as there was a lot left for my "newer" personality to figure out. For example, I had a notable teacher from the past who committed hours upon hours trying to teach me how to prioritize and complete my work efficiently without perfectionism or organizational problems. She's probably sitting back now thinking she did a good thing for me, and it breaks my heart that I never really listened. The "old" Tina could not manage it, and because my current personality can't either, and that creates even more ambiguity because my brain is torn between trying to solve my problems realtime and waiting for myself to change, assuming they will change with some shift in maturity of my mind.
     Like my desk, it can be said that my brain is a mess of the past and present, but rather than material objects cluttered in its depths, it is a mix of memories. And not unlike my desk situation, as new impressions, sensations, reflections, and ideas fill it, the old memories are the first to go. The state of my desk and the state of my memories are in fact uniquely intertwined and when compared share a fundamental similarity. Like I said earlier, I’m apathetic towards objects from the past because they make me feel guilty. I’m guilty because of the bleakness about my current situation. And I feel it’s bleak because when compared with my memories the past, its much less happy and promising. So then it can be said that as objects towards which I am apathetic “disappear” from my disarrayed desk, I feel less and less apathetic about the past. As my memories fade and become less in-tact, I start to lose an accurate understanding of what actually happened. And losing an accurate understanding of what actually happened, feeling less apathetic about the past, and having your current unfavorable situation weighing you down are a recipe for what exactly? None other than distortion of my recollection of the past.

     It’s important, though, to distinguish that this isn’t forgetting a bad test grade that “poisoned” my past, or a time I was frustrated. This was a collapse of the ambiguous memory and general impression I have of my years in middle school, and the overhaul of whatever pieces were left behind. And, never to forget, the creation of a newly conceived, ideal image of how the past had been. An outlet from my current mess of life where I could dwell in the happiness of what I “thought” I used to have. The forged comfort at having lived a great life thus far.

     When my memories of my past first became distorted, it felt like I was finally facing my past. Little did I know, this unconscious shift in my thinking would have serious psychological implications. When ambiguously shifting between past and present, there is a larger chance that one will find refuge in what he perceives as the better of the two. Though my past wasn’t as pretty and nice as I’d imagined it, I began to blindly sink into my distorted memories. But I noticed that the deeper I sank, the more problematic my situation became, which was already bad in the first place and now left unattended worsened exponentially. This fueled the birth of a unique feeling in my head. I somehow wanted to experience the past again. I felt like what I had thought it was wasn’t real, and I wanted to reach over and touch it, so the memories would come back. Unearthing accurate memories might actually make me even more satisfied with how I’d lived my life, and I hoped that could help me move on. At this point, I’m still under the spell of my perfectly nice and pretty past.
     I first went to the photos. We have a large bin's worth of 900 individual photos, almost 10 filled albums, and around 400 digital pictures on the computer. There are photos ranging from my dad's parents' wedding in the mid '30s to Thanksgiving weekend of this year. I'm pretty well-acquainted with the content and nature of the photos, but for the purpose of giving an accurate sense of the deep past they don't serve well. And when you talk about people, sure you can get an impression about their personality or demeanor from their physical pose or the look in their eyes, but you can never press play and have them move in front of you or speak to you in their actual grace. After looking through a bulk of photos yet another time, I didn't feel any different than before...I just wished their would have been some videos out there of my childhood...so I could literally see myself and the world 10 years ago. That's when it hit me.
     I figured that the way to satisfy the part of me that wanted to experience the past again was through videos. It was perhaps the best way to relieve my apathy about the past, since just facing it mentally wasn't the most fulfilling thing. So, on I went seeking out the camera I hadn't touched in over a year and a half, and barely found it. The charging cable took me two hours to find, and the dusty container of videos, almost another hour. When I again held them in my hands, I had an overwhelming sensation of having dug up something you never thought you would have, and that made me eccentric. However, some negative feelings from the last time I'd held the objects in my hand started to flow to me, creating more ambiguity. But like a person with a choice between drinking expired plum juice (although it's their favorite) and freshly squeezed orange juice, I pressed the on button on the camera. I could almost feel the citrus flavor dancing on my tongue, and my eyes reflecting its unique sting...
     The first few videos I watched were not as flawless as my memories had portrayed them, or quite as frustrating as my doubts predicted. They were from my vacation to Serbia, Montenegro, and Croatia back in 2007. I had four to six of them, and they were all taped in my unique style of constant recording while walking or talking with others, as opposed to a multitude of cuts and short scenes. I had essentially tried to mimic the motion of my eyes the best I could. Even if I'd initially taken a few seconds to point something out, I'd return to it a minute later so as to compare it with another thing I'd seen, or simply because it intrigued me. Observing the dynamics of my video recording after several years, I found that while my the base of my mental structure had strengthened and become more complex overtime, the frame of my mental makeup itself had not drastically changed. Realizing that brought my view of the past more "down to earth", at which point I started to realize my view of the past was at least a little distorted.
     The conversations captured within the film I found to be very fascinating. A minimal exchange of casual words were captured in just a few seconds of film, and yet possess so much importance and meaning three years down the road. This is especially true for the long conversations and commentaries I taped during encounters with relatives or close family friends. What made the recordings special was that the European people were so focused and passionate about what they were describing that it didn't matter to them that a curious 12 year old was holding a camera in front of their face for a few hours a week. They were loose and composed, and what I would have seen as a "distraction" affected their behavior in no visible way. They spoke their mind, they did what they thought was right; every one I met was grounded in their beliefs and confident in their demeanor. Most had defining characters, were naturally decisive, and through living a life of learning and criticizing, learning more and criticizing, were very deep and seemingly "wise" people. But then I remembered about how my parents are like that too on the outside, but then at home when they speak amongst themselves you get to see the doubts, concerns, and fears rarely conveyed in public conversation. And if ever, done in a passionate way, assuming a position of strength over the weakness.
     This made me ponder the dynamics of my mind on an extended level. The people from Europe I'd met were mentally ambiguous, and so was I, but when it really mattered, like conversing with someone or making a decision, the strong part of them always overcame it. Ambiguity isn't something you can swim in...you have to climb out of the water eventually, no matter how cold it is outside. And the European people I met weren't necessarily afraid to step out of their comfort zone to achieve something, make an educated decision, strike a relationship with someone, or the like. There was some unifying base of confidence within them, composed of years of independence, deep thinking, criticizing, and experiences of successes and failures in their early lives. That "base" is precisely what defined them, and the ambiguity seemed to obscure their ability to make immediate clear-cut choices. However, this did not always result in bad choices or misjudged situations, rather it sometimes helped to have that dual voice mind to raise concern or doubt when something could be done slightly better.
     Realizing that it is essentially human nature to be ambiguous, but also that there should be a certain percentage of your thought that is devoted to it, was very significant for me. And oddly enough, the realization that one must not define themselves by ambiguity and rather have it be a factor of their personality, came from a collection of tapes that on the most basic of levels weren't defined by that quality, but had certain elements that certainly contained it. By this I mean that on a fundamental level, the videos only contained the absolute past and no elements of the present, unlike my memories had, and unlike my desk still does. However, I am more at peace with my desk situation now and not so apathetic about the past, because I have seen it in a truer light. It's understood that my past wasn't pretty like summer or as frozen as winter, but rather somewhere in between. Finally accepting that has enabled me to look past the ambiguity in myself, and work on developing a "base" for my personality.

iMedia: Claude Monet's Art

Claude Monet was born in 1840 in Paris, France. Like Leonardo Da Vinci, at the young age of 15, Monet became somewhat well-known for his caricatures. In 1858 he was introduced to outdoor painting by Eugene Boudin, and although he had become increasingly comfortable with indoor scenes, he left home a year later in pursuit of becoming a better landscape painter. He frequently travelled, tried to portray new landscapes, and experimented with different painting styles and color schemes. Due to his problematic financial situation at the time, it is said that he sometimes destroyed his own paintings, so that the creditors wouldn’t take them. Within the years that he was married to a woman named Camille, he produced some of his best paintings. However, at the time many artists did not praise his work—precisely because of the painting style he chose to use. He was an “impressionist”, which is a slightly more abstract-appearing type of painting in which portraying scenes was more based on perceptual understanding as opposed to conceptual understanding. In it, a painter, rather than painting scenes in an ideal manner, according to what they “should” look like, will not hesitate to paint nature as it is.

The belief that drove Claude Monet to be an impressionist was that nature should be artistically portrayed in its natural form. Some of the artists he painted with after leaving home probably influenced him in this respect, as he was a young painter at the time. Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Edgar Degas were the two skilled impressionist painters he became very close to when he was at the peak of his career. However, the public was very critical of the impressionist way of painting. Because most paintings at the time involved long, peaceful brush strokes, and often times realism, Monet’s almost choppy strokes and somewhat unclear paintings drew unpleasant reactions from the public, who claimed Monet’s pictures seemed “incomplete.” This is similar to how to the American public, in response to Elvis Presley's shift from gospel music to "Rock n' Roll", and his increasingly "risky" dance moves, did not want their children to be exposed to it in fear they might follow his behavioral example. However, in modern times, we both appreciate impressionist art, and let children of almost any age listen to Elvis' music. In a sense this "openness" of our postmodern world has allowed us to accept and reflect upon the talent of all artists, regardless of style, which has led us to be able to both analyze artistic pieces and derive meanings from them without an extremely biased perspective.

"Impression: Sunrise" by Claude Monet

Now that we have accepted impressionism as an art form, and have had the tools with which to delve deeper into artistic pieces, several of Monet's works have emerged as being the best examples of his impressionism. One of them is titled "Impression: Sunrise" an oil painting on canvas that he painted in 1872 (shown on left). As is evident, the brush stokes are not necessarily unified in direction--they originate from several different angles. Also, it is interesting to note that the trees look somewhat "scribbled in", and that at points it looks like globs of paint were carelessly distributed around certain areas (mainly the distant background). However, it can also be seen, how much the painting comes into focus with decreased distance. For example, the two people and the boat, and the ripples in the water around them, are in the most focus. This essentially directs our attention to that point in the painting. Also, right next to the boat is the reflection of the sun's rays over the water; a bright orange contrasting with the almost gloomy greens and blues of the water. In my opinion, the effect of the sun is very prominent in this painting. To me, it seems that the abstractness with which Monet painted the distant background is almost symbolic of the tiredness one feels upon waking up, the drowsiness at having the previous days' successes or failures still stamped in ones mind. It's not quite the night, and it's not quite the day, and as such can represent the change in consciousness that occurs when one wakes up, and the mental disorganization that can follow. The sun, however, represents the aspect of a "new day" in that respect; still not having risen, you can feel the potential for change it has.

Connection: King Lear and Thomas Gradgrind (Hard Times)

      In Shakespeare's novel King Lear, King Lear, on whom the story is based, undergoes polar character changes. Towards the beginning of the play, when he disowns Cordelia, he insists that she is ungrateful and worthless, attacking her role as a daughter as well as her untraditional honesty. The same "blindness"--or metaphoric inability to truly see the situation as it is--that leads him to banish Cordelia blocks him from seeing the dishonesty of his two other deceiving daughters. This blindness, more fatal with rage, and inability to self-actualize what is happening, comes at a great cost to the order of his land and its leaders. He never realizes the mistake he made until the stormy night he feels the wrath of Goneril and Regan's hostile betrayal, both in a familial and political sense. The fact that Cornwall and Goneril put his servant in stocks and subsequently refuse to offer the old man and his knights a place to stay, drives him into madness. 
      At that point in the story, Lear's rage overtakes him and his words and actions contradict those he demonstrated when he disowned Cordelia. His cognitive dissonance, that is to say the divide within him due to the opposing nature of his behavior, is what challenges his mind to the near point of insanity. This inner conflict is heightened when he realizes that even though he possesses a massive amount of anger at his two daughters, the limit of his power prevents him from challenging them on a high level, and earning anything from his frustration. His anger is "empty" and this changes the focus of his rage from an external level to an internal level, which plants within him the drive to come to terms with himself, although that is not relatively near. He eventually arrives at a deeper understanding of his mistakes, and acknowledgment of his "blindness", from his tragic experience. A higher level of respect is gained for Cordelia at this point in the story, as Lear realizes the value of Cordelia's humbleness, something she was naturally born with, enriched by...as opposed to what Lear could find only through the worst of betraying and tragic events.
      I find this almost polar character change within Lear to be very representative of that which occurs within Thomas Gradgrind, one of the main characters in Dickens' Hard Times. He is the founder of the education system in his small industrial town, and insists that the students solely use fact and reason to achieve understanding. His children, Louisa and Tom, are raised strictly through fact and reason and are prohibited from "fancy." This takes a toll on the children, as they grow up with social and in some cases mental problems; it is difficult for them to easily assimilate into society. Gradgrind, however, does not notice the negative effects of his fact-based teaching until his daughter comes to him in tears, because she had to marry a man she didn't love because of her father, and because she found it so difficult to communicate with others and be "normal" because of her upbringing. At this point in the story, Gradgrind actually questions his teaching philosophy--the same which he created the school system with, regulated it by, and lived life through. 
      In both King Lear and Hard Times, the main characters were in some way "blind" and ignorant to the flaws in their thoughts and actions. Part of the reason was that until something happened "close to home", they were never forced nor cared to criticize their ways. It also took a severing of emotional connection with one of their family members, and Lear and Gradgrind realizing that they were emotionally devastated, for them to change. In a sense, they were both very powerful, influential people--a king and the founder of an education system in an industrial town--but when they are faced with their very own weaknesses, it is at first difficult for them to accept the truth. It can be said that both had "cognitive dissonance", between their old ways and in some way when those old ways were successful, and between the new philosophies they had to adopt, and the absence of experience with those philosophies. In spite of that, when they did demolish the wall of ignorance blocking their view of reality, both became happier, stronger, and significantly wiser people.

360 Degrees: The Music of Today's Pop Culture

Mindfully or mindlessly turning on a popular radio station on any given day, it is inevitable that any bystanders of teenage or adolescent age will somehow emotionally, logically, or physically react to the music. There are teens who would immediately fiddle with the tuner until the soft cry of bow on string engulfed their buzzing brains with a wave of peace and calamity, and those who would seize the deep bass beats and fluctuating high notes of hip-hop and feel empowered. In our society there exist young people that are active, engaged listeners of the music of pop culture, indifferent, passive listeners, and still yet a branch of very unwilling, opposed listeners. At this point in our history, it seems that the majority of teenagers/adolescents are somewhere between active and passive listeners. Many of us hear the popular song’s lyrics, mentally process the message and meaning of the song, and sometimes act upon the final thoughts we arrive at, while a lot of us also hear the words and feel the song, but does not necessarily let the song tap into our rationale or thought processes.

To begin with, we have to ask ourselves what constitutes the music of our current pop culture. Hip hop and variations of disco beats, a mix of alternative and pop music, as well as a taste of rock here and there comprise the majority of popular songs among American adolescents.  With that in mind, to understand the origin and nature of the music of pop culture and its effect on our society, it’s necessary to understand the different purposes adolescents have for listening to the music. The active, “engaged” listener of the music of pop culture will mainly listen to hip-hop and occasionally a variation of disco/pop. They voluntarily do so, many times to release their positive or negative emotions, or to relieve stress. Often times they will listen to the music for hours on end to help cope with relationships, but the songs are often written with a tone that encourages “invincible youth” and having fun. This will appeal to some adolescents, and applies to many songs of the pop culture that don’t imply consequences of actions, and that demonstrate oversimplified thinking. The “passive” listener, in contrast, will note the melody and musical structure of the song, and might be emotionally affected by the lyrics, but will not end up taking away any idea or message from the song. And then at the bottom of the list sits the unwilling, opposed listener, who would never listen to the music of pop culture voluntarily and always has alternative views on popular music.

Why is it that there are people who will willingly listen to the Billboard Top 10 on any given day in their adolescent lives, and those who could care less for what artists like Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars are singing? Or even, why are there people who can take a well-developed message from a very unsophisticated song and apply it to their lives? Part of the reason has to do with standards and beliefs/upbringing, as well as social status in some cases. People who are social outcasts because of some sort of risky behavior they choose to partake in, or that are frequently in trouble at school, sometimes will resort to hip-hop and other popular music for emotional support. Certain songs seem to “scream at the world”, and dismiss the importance of authority, and this somehow appeals to them.

In addition, beliefs and standards will often dictate whether a person will solely accept popular music or fluctuate between popular music and their preferred type of music. In many popular social groups, there can be found “blind followers” who accept and take pleasure in what their group is doing, but that do not have the ability to digress from the social norm and do something unique or different that the group might not accept. These types of adolescents also tend to stay within the boundaries of the music that the group establishes and/or develops.

Still, many questions remain. Does intelligence, in any way, dictate musical choice? Sure, we might think there are not many perfect 5.0 students at the high school rhythmically shaking their heads to the latest hip-hop hit. It is thought that those who are intelligent and/or diligent workers are sophisticated, and thus have a sophisticated choice in music, choosing to listen to classical music or perhaps pop from the 20^th century. However, to whatever degree it may be true that sophisticated people  have the ability to digress from pop culture and encounter other musical pieces that are to their liking, can a low level of sophistication or a blind adherence to cultural norms then be considered unfavorable, or as having negative effects?

In one sense, a “low level of sophistication” implies immaturity, while in another, a voluntary choice to follow the trends of cultural. Immaturity, generally and musically, is not always a bad thing, as when an adolescent does mentally mature and begin to expand their range of music, activities, and ideas, they immediately realize what they had been missing, if anything.  A “blind adherence” to pop culture, either because of social norms and pressures or general indifference to the topic, can sometimes have negative effects. The fact that you are “blind” implies that you aren’t thinking for yourself and are not actively aware of where pop culture may be taking you. Maybe some may see it differently, but it is of my belief that many of the extreme ideas, stretched limits, tolerance, and outright “unruly behavior” of adolescents today is due in part to the influence of music. I’d like to think that there’s somebody out there among the high ranks that realizes where this music is taking us, and hopefully has a plan to stop the train of pop culture from derailing before it happens.

What I see in pop culture today almost grinds that hope into my mind. Teenagers that I have heard about within our school, upset with life and themselves, turn to music as an outlet, as an explanation for why their troubles are so deep. They are not wrong to do so; when any human is subject to pain or suffering, it is their natural instinct to somehow release their emotions. The problem starts, however, when in those same songs, hip-hop artists especially will sing about dismissing authority, doing whatever you want to do, forgetting about other people and their thoughts. These thoughts are not logical in any sense and purely fueled by anger.  This has brought me to ponder whether musical artists have a greater purpose (than selling millions of albums) for their songs in mind? If so, why are they not aware of how they are negatively impacting society? Maybe it is true that we need songs like theirs in the loop for people who feel similarly to the emotions expressed in songs, but then doesn’t the music business (specifically for popular hip hop music) turn into a place where artists can simply release their emotions, mix the beats and notes in a way that stresses the mood they want to establish, so a listener can come along and relate to those emotions?

I may have gotten a bit ahead of myself, but this to me seems like a return to primitive communication. How is it not fundamentally different than recording someone crying, selling it to millions of people, who can empathize with someone else who is also suffering? It makes me wonder why words were invented in the first place, and whether the oversimplification of ideas in songs, the shortening/abbreviation of words, and such are in fact an aspect of postmodernism. In fact, that seems to be rather plausible. As is evident, songs are becoming more and more simplified, the emotions conveyed more easily, and yet the different genres of music, purposes of artists, etc. are expanding, making the music business a more complex and diverse place.

Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay

      Perhaps the most prominent influence in my choice of theme for my essay was grounded in one of my fellow classmates' blogs. She wrote about the "cycle of power" occurring between Amir, Hassan, and Sohrab; while her unique insight involves a plot element we didn't discuss in class, it is thorough enough to enable one to deeply delve into the meaning of a story and perhaps derive several interpretations of major plot events. Up until that point, many of my enveloping ideas of the book were based on the themes and trends we had discussed in class. To read my classmates blog almost instigated, within my brain, the formation of a newfound purpose for writing my essay: I didn't want to simply create a viable thesis, support it with strong evidence, and demonstrate an adequate understanding of the book and writing technique, eventually arriving at a certain degree of satisfaction at having done so. I wanted to use the strong, viable thesis I had written to support an idea I was not initially entirely sure about, and one that would not be simple to defend. The writing, I hoped, would transform itself into a complex process, at the beginning of which was selecting a thesis it would take effort and time to craft into the essay, and at the end of which was feeling satisfied at having reached a unique perspective of the book as related to the focus of my thesis.

     Admittedly, it took me several discussions with Mr. Allen and a cumulative total of a few hours to unify my understanding of the quality of the thesis that was expected, and how I could generate a unique and yet reasonable claim. The original reason I had picked the theme of dreams for my essay was grounded in the fact that I often analyze my own dreams, and hold many theories about the metaphysical aspect of life and tendencies of the brain during sleep. What held me back, however, was that I soon discovered Hosseini's purpose of including the dreams was angled more toward implicitly sending a message about the affects of Amir's emotional baggage and subconscious desires; this as opposed to offering a layered explanation of the dream that would require readers of the book to understand the workings of the mind so that they could delve deeper into Amir's feelings.

      Throughout the actual physical writing of the essay, it was at points difficult to organize my thoughts. I had completed my evidence plan accordingly, but consistently felt that a piece of evidence needed to be sharpened and the analysis refined, so as to keep the claims relevant and maintain the perspective. Personally, I try to keep an open and flexible mindset during this process, because it is often here where I finally delve into the deeper meanings of certain plot events, and eventually arrive at a newfound understanding of the story. This was somewhat more difficult with The Kite Runner essay, for I kept seeking to include my newly discovered interpretations in my body paragraphs, while still having to verify whether they fit or worked as valid evidence for my thesis. Condensation of ideas and words was one of the more significant issues I faced while participating in this process.

      Also in the refinement process, I tend to add layers and more elaborate wording to the set of evidence I wish to present, often requiring me to go back and make sure I didn't distort the original perspective I had in mind. To control the massive amounts of new ideas that come to my mind while doing this, I will often add bullets under the paragraph I'm writing to actually put my thoughts on the table. Other times, I will add these new ideas to the paragraph-organizers I have created to assist me in prioritizing my thoughts; often new bits of evidence I come across, or a point of focus I wish to shift, will require me to reorganize and re-conceptualize the entire paragraph, so as to maintain the perspective.

      As a result of my thorough proofreading after each written sentence, I will sometimes craft the text so tightly that, if and when I realize I have distorted perspective or missed a large point, it  will become very mind boggling to reorder and reword everything I have written. Other times, I will proofread more for craft as opposed to content, and end up adding elaborate language and/or a thorough progression of ideas, which ends up working against my need to condense my writing.

      In totality, my writing is usually effective; I try to include varying language and sentence structure, as well as a range of ideas. However, my writing could always be more condensed from a high degree of elaboration and/or ideas. I am surprised that my writing is sometimes able to convey some of the deepest thoughts I have, but I am equally surprised when it isn't. Ideally, I would like to be more concise and direct, and not feel the need to over-elaborate or over-explain something, just write it as it is.

Blogging Around

First, I commented on Cordelia's "Best of the Week" piece about "Form is Content". She made interesting connections between that idea and other aspects of life, and through doing which helped her reader achieve a deeper understanding of that idea and how it is rooted in human expression and behavior.

"Cordelia,

I had never even mentally related the idea of "form is content" to definite theories based on reason, such as science, but the fact that this idea only applies to writing, art, music, and such, truly attests to the abstract nature of writing and the art of human communication.
The main goal of advertising, as you discussed in your blog, is to capture your emotions and attention for the duration of the commercial; they know that our memory is more persistent when we are under the influence of our feelings. This expresses the idea of "form is cognition", which fits right alongside the topic of your blog. I also see this concept in art and music; the same song played by an orchestra and by a band has very different emotional impacts on the audience. Similarly, the same song played by a middle school orchestra and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra will surely strike the audience in different ways.
In the end, your blog inspired me to think about how "form is content" attests to the abstract nature of human expression, on a very down-to-earth and realistic level. The first thought that came to my head was want and desire; when we want to ask someone to do what we know they would never agree to, we must use our "form" to manipulate the "content" and how the other person feels emotionally, or their "cognition". This can be seen in various politicians in the past, or better yet certain world leaders and dictators, who acquired followers through manipulating and deceiving their people into wanting what they wanted. With this it becomes evident that greed perhaps, for money or fame or both, has also been a driving force behind manipulating form."

Second, I commented on Elizabeth's blog, in which she cites a connection between the use of kites in the book and the cycle of power, a literary theme/concept.

"Elizabeth,

I read a lot of blogs last night, and this has to be among the most original. It presents an angle, a perception of the story buried deeply within Hosseini's craft and storyline. It makes the significance of the fictional part of the story more prominent, through uncovering the connection to the "cycle of power", a literary theme/concept that has been used in other works.

In your blog, before greed came into play, you described flying kites as an activity that bound Amir and Hassan, and symbolized both their individual and collective power. I also thought about how it symbolized the unification of Baba's two halves, the societally-accepted half, and the underprivileged half, who may not have had many personal traits in common, but shared Baba's blood. On page 359 it says, "I looked at Hassan, showing those two missing front teeth, sunlight slanting on his face. Baba's other half. The unentitled, underprivileged half. The half who had inherited what had been pure and noble in Baba", (359).

Towards the end of your blog, when opened up a new angle to the symbolism of the kite running at the end of the book, I was very surprised. I had simply seen that as a role reversal between the loyal and the dependent, as Amir's final gift to Hassan, and as Amir's happiness at finally having been able to come to terms with himself. However, seeing the kite running as being possible only because Amir restored his power through coming to terms with himself, and because Sohrab balanced out the power, is a very unique and deep understanding of the book. It represents a degree of closure barely visible among many intellectual individuals, and makes me feel more strongly about calling Hosseini a talented author, although there are a few missteps he took while writing the fictional memoir."

It Matters: Postmodernism

     Last week in class, we progressed from analyzing the literary aspects of The Kite Runner, such as form, content, and cognition, to readily connecting Hosseini's craft with the attributes of the "post-modern" shift in mindset, writing, and art. The core of our understanding of Postmodernism--to put a roof over the discussion--was rooted in the words "ambiguity" and "multiplicity", We talked about how, in a post-modern world--while we seem to see the beauty in simplicity, contrive its greater meaning, feel its weight--there is such a degree of complexity to our politics, economics, religion, art, and social structure that "no single person can understand or explain it entirely".

      We capped our discussion with the quote, "what is close is distant, what is distant is close", This quote directly relates to the "corruption of space", an important attribute of Postmodernism. It is important on a global level because, in a post-modern society, we essentially have the world at our fingertips. We're able to call or Skype someone on the other side of the globe, share photos with them on Flickr, or send them an instant chat message with the click of a button, opening up new opportunities for friendships. However, when it comes to having talked to or seen your best friend in person or even knowing how the neighbor two doors down is doing, we tend to be less persistent.

      In my opinion, Postmodernism matters because of this very "corruption of space" and duality about what is close and what is far. In many ways, the spread of the "mobile web" recently and even "wi-fi" a while ago have contributed to corrupt space. Whether you're in the kitchen, bedroom, restaurant down the street, or movie theater, you can still technically browse the web, check your email, take pictures, and so on. Time has extended many of these privileges outside of the house--before, you could only receive mail (not e-mail) at your home; check for a fact in the Encyclopedia, at home, and have a phone conversation with someone, at home. Now, however, we have phones that alert us when we have received mail, the ability to check and manage our bank accounts online, from almost anywhere (as opposed to paying bills by hand), verify any fact with Google on the mobile web, and make a regular or video call, from wherever. The complexity of these technological advancements has corrupted space through virtually giving us the ability to do anything from anywhere--the idea that you could be at a baseball game and have a video conference with your coworker about the meeting the next day, text your friend about their plans for the evening, or even buy a pair of shoes online--all with one device, at one time, at one place.

     This technological revolution discourages us, in one way or another, from personal methods of communication, like being in the physical presence of another person or even calling them. Our post-modern generation sees simplicity as being meaningful, as elemental in the big picture. So why bother with the call or visit, when you can send your friend a succinct, abbreviated message from your phone or laptop at your convenience, and have them reply at their's, With this fact it becomes evident that, while the corruption of space Postmodernism have been greatly advanced with the recent improvements in technology, the complexity of life Postmodernism created was essentially the driving force behind these improvements in the first place. 

      To give an example, students form a huge chunk of the global texters, emailers, and instant-messengers. These days there are a handful of students at each grade level who will play a sport for the school, play a club sport in the same season, and meanwhile be a dedicated musician or actor in a school play. They might have a club meeting for Project Earth, then a soccer game, and after possibly a LaCrosse practice or orchestra rehearsal all in one day. Given this multiplicity, they need a device with which they can let their parents know where they are, converse with their friends, and look up Spanish vocabulary for homework between their activities.

      Another important implication of Postmodernism and the corruption of space involves photo sharing, both online and through texts. The fact that I could be in the Carribean, take a picture, and text it to my friend in Illinois, having her receive it within minutes, shows how corrupted space is. I am supposed to be away from our society, on vacation to clear my mind, when instead I am sharing my space with the technological presence of my friend, so to speak. She may not be physically here with me, but if we video-chat, she can see, hear, and almost feel where I am, which corrupts her space too. This ability to share photos real-time, and have live video chats, almost adds a duality to my vacation--not only am I vacationing at this resort, sitting in front of the pool--but I am also splitting my location between a place to converse with my friend, and in one way or another, a theater. A theater, in the sense that I am talking to her live and presenting my location visually; her technological presence is with me, watching. 

      Overall, this concept of "corrupt space" can range from the simplicity of a video call, as opposed to the complexity of a letter, to the global political and economic trends of our post-modern world. The two can even connect, for example, in a presidential address broadcast via television--a seemingly simple idea, with a set of complex implications. Learning about the logistics of Postmodernism, through its duality of simplicity and complexity, has given us a new way of thinking about and a new perception of The Kite Runner. We notice the different genres of the book, the fragmentation, repetition--and are able to appreciate them, not only as elements of Hosseini's good craft and developed voice, but more importantly, as attributes of the post-modern times.

Best of the Week: Form is Cognition

     These last few weeks, we've focused a great deal on how the explicit and implicit styles in which an author explains a concept, event, or feeling can largely influence and contribute to the core of that concept, event, or feeling itself. In other words, we've picked apart the aspects of "Form is Content" and readily applied it to our reading of The Kite Runner.  The surface connection between form and content is explained, in literary terms, this way: "...in any actual work there can be no content that has not in some way been formed, and no purely empty form." In class, we've also talked about some of the ways form affects content--fragmented sentences, repetition, sensory details, tense and point of view.

     Hosseini's goal, through manipulation of form, is to strengthen our emotional commitment and connection with the book. While he writes the book with that one goal in mind, the affects of his unique form branch off in two directions; content, and deeper level, cognition. One example of this duality lies in the contrast between two passages, on pages 121 and 122. On page 121, Amir is panicking because he's barely able to breathe in the stuffy oil truck.         

     "PANIC. You open your mouth. Open it so wide your jaws creak. You order your lungs to draw air, NOW, you need air, need it NOW. But your airways ignore you. They collapse, tighten, squeeze...", (121). Here, the reader can almost feel the pain Amir does, the frightening reality the reader would never want to find himself in, but which keeps him reading. As we discussed in class, the fact that the novel shifts from past tense to present tense slows down the book, and entirely shifts the mood. The repetition of "now", "you", and "air" underscores Amir's frantic thoughts. Overall, all of the sensory details that are included in this passage do not simply build an emotional connection to the reader, but rather "engulf" the reader, for lack of better word.

     On page 122, however, Baba tells Amir to calm down and think of something "good. Something happy." As a result, the mood drastically changes.

     "A breeze stirs the grass and Hassan lets the spool roll. The kite spins, dips, steadies. Our twin shadows dance on the rippling grass. From somewhere over the low brick wall at the other end of the field, we hear laughter and the chirping of a water fountain", (122-23). The form Hosseini used to write this passage not only affects content but also cognition. As far as content, the sentences here seem to flow, and his thoughts roll along. The words, "breeze, roll, steadies, grass" symbolize the natural and carefree nature of the environment. Now, sitting in the musty oil truck, this fantasy settles in as a compilation of the happiest moments of his life--an oversimplification of his Afghan life instigated only by the horrid nature of the oil truck and recent hits to his emotional health. 

     This concept is very true in our society today--sometimes, we take our health, family, and life conditions for granted, but when disaster strikes, we really realize what we lost or could lose. Throughout our lives before the disaster or conflict, we may have been very unhappy, but when one aspect of our lives crumbles we view the past as golden, as wonderful and almost perfect. However, the superficial comfort the memories provide us with are only temporary; at one point we realize that life wasn't all that perfect, and is much less perfect with the onset of conflict. The only thing that can keep us moving is an acknowledgment of the past, the present, and the will and optimism to move forward. 

     In the back of our heads, our cognition recognizes this, and pushes us to read on and see whether Amir will face himself and move forward, given the innocence of America, or live in the past when faced with problems in the present, as is happening now. The way in which Hosseini clues us in on the inner workings of Amir's brain and his cognition, in turn touch our cognition, mentally connecting us to the story.

     Our connection through cognition also establishes an emotional connection with Amir. We have all been at a point in our lives when bad thing after bad thing happens, and we seek security in the arms of the past. We also may feel sorry for him, for the burden he must carry in his heart, that his "brother" moved away, and the fact that he has to flee his homeland. There might also be a bit of anger mixed in, as we feel he must face himself sooner or later, or at least summon the courage to survive what's happening to him, as opposed to ignoring the present and dwelling in the few happy times of his childhood.

An Inconvenient Truth: Distortion, Ignorance and Contradiction Within our Government

       "We did not ask for this fight." Obama said in a speech two Decembers ago. He explained later, "Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

     In this quote, Obama's words do have some degree of truth--but like all other speeches, they primarily target the emotions, using superfluous language to divert from the complexity of the situation and instead identify for the public who the good and bad guys are. However, as is evident, there is a lot of history left out of Obama's claim--history which many Americans sadly don't even know about. It is that history which the government and media work so diligently to cover-up, and if anything, create a narrative to justify. 

     Historically, the United States government supported the Mujahadeen resistance group in overthrowing the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan--not because they were concerned about the stability and prosperity of the country--but because they were in the midst of a cold war with the Soviets, simply using Afghanistan as a battlefield. To secure a victory against the soviets, the CIA financially supported, armed, and trained Mujahideen soldiers. The United States' support proved to be sufficient to force the soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan, but it came at a great cost--the blood of the soldiers and innocent Afghan citizens who were killed as a result of the billions of dollars of weaponry the US provided Afghanistan resistance groups with.

     In the years that came after, the Taliban was born as a faction of the Mujahideen resistance movement. Much of the weaponry that the United States had provided for the Mujahideen now ended up in the hands of the Taliban. With people, weapons, and money, they eventually rose to power, enforcing a fundamentalist Islamic government. 

     Back in Obama's quote, he says that the Taliban is a radical movement that "seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war." He didn't mention, however, was that it was our VERY weaponry that helped the Taliban in engulfing the region. It was our very support--though we were solely focused on the cold war--which grew the resistance movements, out of which the Taliban was eventually born. Had we not thrown billions of dollars into the conflict, the resistance groups would never have been able to secure a victory, and the issue of terrorism in our society would not be as prominent as it is today.

     This expresses an inconvenient truth--the origins of the conflict in Afghanistan don't point nearly as much to the Mujahideen as they do to us, but you will never hear any American politician voicing regret for that, or telling the story like it is. However, some words said by president Jimmy Carter in a late 90's interview give clue as to why the origin of the Taliban is very distorted throughout the government and media--not simply because of intentions to cover-up our early involvement, but pure ignorance. Carter's words in this 1998 interview: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

    In the interview, Carter spoke of a pre-9/11 world. He himself had yet to witness the disastrous effects the Taliban on our homeland--mainly the 9/11 attack--which former U.S. ally Osama Bin Laden was allegedly behind. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan now place in the top 10 countries for civilian deaths as a result of terrorist acts. Both countries are also rated "5" on the global terrorist indicator chart. And, because of the September 11th attacks and other linked events, the United States also ranks in the top 10 for civilian casualties as a result of terrorism. Though we have not felt the impacts of large-scale terrorism after 9/11, smaller acts of terrorism still linger and threaten the population. David Lightman of the Miami Herald says of terrorism in America, "Terrorism today is more likely to come as small-scale attacks, such as last November's shootings at Fort Hood military base in Texas, where a gunman killed 13 people, or the failed attempt May 1 to set off explosives in Times Square." All these factors show that the government who indirectly fueled the future growth of terrorism through billions of dollars worth of weapons, did not do so because of a slight miscalculation--they simply were ignorant, and perhaps blind to the catastrophic effects of what they did.

     Our government, thirty years later, has improved, but is not much different. Less than a month ago, just as Afghan president Hamid Karzai was under increasing pressure by the United States to free the government and society of corruption, two Afghan government officials linked to the CIA were arrested on corruption charges. Mohammed Zia Salehi, one of Karzai's top aides, is most prominent government figure accused of corruption. Another significant figure in the corruption investigation is Hamid Karzai's own brother, Ahmed Ali Karzai. Dan Farber of CBS World News writes about the president's brother, "Karzai has been on the CIA payroll according to U.S. officials, and has been accused of gaining power via the drug trade and making deals with tribal warlords and Taliban fighters."

     This news hit stands after over a year and a half of the Obama Administration reassuring the American public that they were working diligently with administrators to put an end to governmental corruption in Afghanistan. As early as March 27th, 2009, Obama remarked in a speech, "And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior..."

     Obama has been "helping" the Afghan government to eliminate corruption for almost two years now, while it has just become clear that high-up government officials are directly linked to the Taliban. New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti said of the recent corruption investigation, "The ties underscore doubts about how seriously the Obama administration intends to fight corruption here. The anticorruption drive, though strongly backed by the United States, is still vigorously debated inside the administration." So, just as we indirectly supported the Taliban years ago, we are providing troops for and financially supporting a government which is in fact linked to the people we are fighting, which is completely contradictory. We are feeding military power into the hands of government officials, who meanwhile are dealing money with the Taliban and making top dollar off of the drug trade. On top of that, Obama had stated he wished to eliminate the corruption which "causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." A year and a half later, it is the American people who, after enduring several years in a plunging economy, housing market, and job crisis, are realizing the emptiness of Obama's words and losing even more faith in our leaders. 

     In his speech on September 7th, 2001--just days before the terrorist attacks--George Bush articulated an important governmental concept. As the concept he outlined still proves to be completely true for Afghanistan, it can be applied just as easily to the United States--as was apparent fifteen years ago, when the Taliban rose to power in Afghanistan, and less than fifteen days ago, with the recent corruption investigation. 

     "Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader, " Bush assured the American people. "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."