Pre-Ap 10 The Step Ahead

Punctiation Remains An Art :)

2009-12-16T10:49:00.001-08:00

you’re born you live you die.

I Love, I Believe

2009-12-13T14:43:00.000-08:00

Decisions. So many of them. One leads to another. Is it the right decision? Am I making a mistake?

I feel I should do this, but others think it's wrong. I feel I am making the right decision. I will write what I feel.

Leaves of Grass

Poem Thirteen

"I behold the picturesque giant, and love him- and I do not stop there;

I go with the team also."

I love him. Just like I love the odorless atmosphere. I love him in the same way she loves the twenty something bathers. I love with passion, I love perfection. I love the unknown to me. I love tiny details.

I admire the expression of the oxen.

I believe in colors. I believe in purposes. I believe I am like the turkey-hen. "I am of old and young, of the foolish as much as the wise" (16) I am all nations, all genders, all ages. I am all. We are all.

I will always have myself. I will always have everything. I have everything without taking everything. "I breathe the air but have plenty after me, And am not stuck up, and am in my place (16).

There are many suns. Many suns I cannot see. I don't need to see them to believe they are there. I play music for the slain people. I believe in losing as much as I believe in winning. I believe in equality. The meal should be fairly distributed.

I do as I wish. I see myself in others. As I judge them, I judge myself.

I love myself. I am the most superior being. Who else can I pray to?

I accept reality. I understand things happen. I am not looking for an apology. "I see that the elementary laws never apologize (20).

I believe in the moment. So many things going on. I pay attention to everything. I believe in myself. I am what I am. You may notice me, you may not. I'll be satisfied either way.

There's no death. Time is eternal.

All Part Of Time

2009-12-10T04:16:00.000-08:00

Usually, when something happens in your life, you start to relate everything to it. My grandfather passed away last Sunday, so that's pretty much all I think about. It's so much information to process in so little time. I feel hypnotized. His death hasn't quite hit me yet, but I still feel his absence. As I'm thinking all of this, I'm reading Leaves of Grass. I know I have to focus. This poetry is so rich in content, it calls for my full attention. I stumble across a line: "What I know I like" (1), and then I realize that's what's been making me feel so empty.

Usually, the unknown is terrifying. When there's something in your life that has been there for a long time, regardless if it's good or bad, you will learn to like it.

A clear example of this is Clara Rojas. As she was being freed, she was hugging her abductors. Why would she hug the people who kidnapped her? It's now that I understand they became a big part of her life. They were what she knew and what she learned to like.

The same thing happens with my grandfather. I've lived with him for almost all my life and not having him around the house is something new to me. Something I obviously don't like.

Going back to Leaves of Grass, I really like how Whitman plays with time. First, he gives us the feeling that he is all knowing. He does so by using words like "shall" and "will be". "You shall possess the good of the earth and sun- (there are millions of suns left)" (2). Then, he mixes the past, present and future: "I have heard what the talkers were talking, the talk of the beginning and end; But I do not talk of the beginning or end" (3). When he says "beginning" he's referring to the past, as he talks about the "end", he's referring to the future and he himself is a clear example of the present. Pretty interesting. It gives the impression that the past, present and future are all the same. And coming to think of it, they are the same. Just as we in a sense, are the same too. The past, the present, the future, the ones who died, the ones who are still with us, they, we, are all part of time.

My Grandmother's Style

2009-12-03T13:25:00.000-08:00

A typical conversation with my grandmother goes like this:

"Hi grandma. How are you?"

Usually, when you ask people how they are, their response is no longer than 5 words. My grandmother takes this question pretty seriously. After thinking about it for some time, she'll answer something like:

"What can I tell you... I'm happy because I've been walking without a cane. But I do feel tired all the time. I've had a good week though. I saw my dear old friend Inesita. Inesita de Gonzalez. Poor Inesita, her husband Alberto is sick again. Do you want some cookies? I bought them yesterday. The cashier was so nice. Her name was Anita. Ohhh, I didn't tell you. Your cousin Anita is playing the flute. I never liked that instrument but I wasn’t going to tell her that...”

She will go on and on, jumping from one topic to the next. After some time, you will not understand how she's able to connect so many things together. By the time you two stop talking (if she stops talking, that is), you will not remember what she was going to tell you in the first place. I love my grandmother, but if you're willing to have a conversation with her, you have to prepare yourself for several hours of boredom.

A Simple Soul, is similar to my grandmother. It starts talking about Madame Aubain’s life. Then it starts describing the rooms in the house. Before you know it, you’re reading about how “Her father, who was a mason, was killed by falling from a scaffolding” (PDF).

The difference between my grandmother and A Simple Soul, is that Flaubert is able to link topics successfully. His links are strong and logical. In fact, they are so successful, they become our eyes and mind inside the novel. Through his words, we are able to visualize what's going on, and understand why things happen, thanks to the links he makes.

Confused?

Think about walking to class. As you do, you look around, focus on details, and notice things you hadn't seen before. Your mind starts making connections, remembering past experiences, identifying new things. One memory takes you to another. Before you know it, you've created a chain of anecdotes, feelings, and different topics.

We do this all the time. Flaubert does it in his novel. It's a very risky thing to do. The reader may get lost and bored the way I do with my grandmother. Instead, every change of topic is like a wake up sign. It makes us alert. It triggers curiosity.

Where will he take us next?

From Actor To Lawyer

2009-11-09T17:02:00.000-08:00

I've come to realize that jobs are easily stereotyped. I've always heard that when people don't know what they want, they study administration or go to law school. I've also heard that teaching is a job anyone can do. If you're a teacher or a lawyer or studied administration, don't take this personal. I'm just writing what I've seen and heard. The teacher thing really bothers me because both of my parents are teachers and from what I see, it's a tough job. Not many people could do it. Something really funny happened the other day. The members from my dad's side of the family are all lawyers, doctors and diplomats. We were in a family reunion and my aunt was talking about how my cousin was no longer with her boyfriend. We were all surprised because they had seriously been dating as far as I can remember. My mom asked her why they weren't together anymore and my aunt's response was something like this: "My daughter was going no where with that guy. She had just finished law school and he was a music teacher. Teacher?? What kind of job is that?" It was then when she realized my mom is a teacher. Then, everything was really awkward. As you can imagine, she tried fixing it by saying: "Oh, but you're a good teacher. You teach math which is hard, so you're okay." Whatever. There was no way she could fix it. Anyways, in chapter two of The Crying Of Lot 49, Oedipa meets Metzger, the lawyer. She thinks he's really good looking. So good looking, that "he had to be an actor" (PDF). He actually was an actor. "Some twenty-odd years ago, Metzger had been one of those child movie stars, preforming under the name of Baby Igor" (PDF). Everyone knows lawyers have to be very persuasive. They have to act confident and convince the judge they are right. Acting has a lot to do with this. I found a page on google, it looked like a course explaining what lawyers could learn from actors. (http://www.justice.org/resources/convenience_ACT.pdf) It's logo was: "all lawyers are actors or should be." One thing's for sure. Metzger would do really well in that course. After all, he was an actor and a lawyer.

Character Names

2009-11-05T18:32:00.000-08:00

I'm intrigued by this book. I'm not sure what the author wants us to think. Should we try and look for symbolic details? Or should we take the novel lightly instead? The book's pretty short but it's obvious it's dense in content. It's like an orange. It may be small, but the juice inside it is a great amount. (Pretty lame comparison, I know.) Anyways, what really caught my attention about this chapter were the names. we have: Oedipa Maas, Pierce Inverarity, Wendel Maas "Mucho"and Dr. Hilarius. These four characters' names are particular because they are associated with words or other characters we already know. From the one we can deduce the most is Oedipa. I'll be trying to analyze the rest of the characters as the story develops.

The Spider And The Human

2009-11-05T15:13:00.000-08:00

There once was a human and a spider. "Let's play a game," said the human. "Let's compete to see who the best inventor is." The human was very selfish and thought he was superior to the spider. "I'll play with one condition," replied the spider. "We'll decide who the best inventor is according to our genes." "Deal," said the human. He was sure he would win the game. "I'll start with something easy. I don't want to make the spider feel too bad," he thought. "I think I'm the greatest inventor here because my species figured out how to make fire." "Nice. But I think my genes are greater inventors because I don't need fire. My eyes are designed so I can see in the dark. I see you have glasses. According to that, you can't even see in daylight!" "Fine. Your eyes are better than mine. But what about my ability to hunt? My species has created amazing weapons. I can shoot a bird no matter how far away it is. As long as I see it with my eyes, I'll be able to hit it." "You poor human. We spiders have many effective ways of hunting too. We don't need a gun to hunt accurately. Some of us dig holes and cover them with dirt as traps. Others wait and catch bugs near by. There's also our web strategy which you're well aware of. Do you know how accurate we have to be? Do you know how fast bugs are? I believe in hunting, we aren't as bad as you think." "Yeah? Well try to beat this spider. We humans have created art masterpieces. We have amazing buildings, intelligent minds, and our kids go to school. I don't see you accomplishing any of these things." "First of all, my offspring don't need to go to school. Everything they need to know comes to them with time. Besides you're quite wrong. We spiders, are great in math, specially geometry. We spin delicate thread into webs; our greatest form of art. This is not only artistic and mathematic; we can move swiftly through the web and catch our food. I'm sorry human. I think I win." Idea from chapter thirteen of The Selfish Gene. Pages 238-9

Science And Religion's Role

2009-11-03T16:55:00.000-08:00

What is explained has to be described, but what is described doesn’t necessarily have to be explained. Everything we can explain is science. Religion describes the unexplainable.

Chart For Blog Entry Below

2009-11-03T16:33:00.001-08:00

Prisoner's Dilemma In The Dark Knight

2009-11-03T05:05:00.000-08:00

I'm really mad. The clip that I wanted to post from The Dark Knight doesn't have an embed address, so I can't post it. Anyways, you can go on youtube and search for "The Dark Knight ferry scene". It's one of the best parts of the movie if you ask me, and it's perfect to discuss the prisoner's dilemma present in chapter twelve. I copied Dawkins charts and made my own describing the prisoner's dilemma in The Dark Knight. The table is on the blog entry above. It doesn't look nice either way, does it? It's kind of a lose lose situation. But there are two more things to keep in mind. The first is proof. The Joker wants the prisoners to push the button, or vice versa. He wants to prove how humans will do anything to stay alive. Even if it means blowing other people up. In other words, he wants to prove people are selfish self-centered creatures capable of anything. The Joker is expecting any of the two to follow a nasty strategy to prove his theory. The second thing to keep in mind is guilt. This scene is great because it shows how the people and prisoners react. The people are trying to avoid guilt by thinking the prisoners deserve to die. The man with white hair in the prisoner's boat is trying to avoid guilt by giving the detonator to the prisoner. He's probably thinking, "that tough evil prisoner will do the dirty job for me. I'm not guilty if he does it." That tough evil prisoner is not so evil after all. Both ferries opt to cooperate and show the Joker he was wrong. They both follow the "Tit for Tat" strategy, where "both continue to cooperate until the end of the game" (p.210). This clip shows nice guys do finish first. According to Dawkins, a nice guy is "an individual that assists other members of its species at its own expense, to pass their genes on to the next generation" (p. 202). The whole gene thing isn't present in this situation, but it's more or less the same dilemma.

Nope. You Are Not Mom's Favorite

2009-10-31T12:34:00.000-07:00

Which Will Momma Choose?

2009-10-31T06:14:00.000-07:00

This is a quiz. I'm sure you're very excited. I'll give you a little help. These are a few things you need to know in order to do well. Remember PI is "defined as 'any investment by the parent in an individual offspring that increased the offsprings' chance of survival" (p.124). Another key thing to remember is the way the PI is measured. As Dawkins says:"when a child uses some of its mother's milk, the amount of milk consumed isn't measured in pints or calories, but in units of detriment to other children of the same mother" (p. 124). The last important thing to remember, is Dawkins' favorite statement: we are all survival machines. "Machines" meaning all our actions are programmed. Keeping these key points in mind, we can make the following assumption: there is no emotional relationship between a mother an it's child. The mother's interest lies only in helping the child survive.

Now that we have that clear, let me give you three different situations. You have to decide what the mother will do in each case.

Situation number one:

This is not invented.

In a tribe in the Amazons, when babies are born with any kind of defect, the parents:

a. keep it alive but live secluded from the tribe

b. throw the baby into the river

c. treat it as a normal baby

d. give it more PI to increase it's chances of survival

If you answered d, you are...

WRONG! The actual answer is b. Babies are thrown in the river when they are born with defects. A doctor told me this like five months ago. I hadn't read The Selfish Gene so I didn't understand how a mother could so such a thing. Now, I find it quite harsh but also logical. Why would a parent invest on a child who's chance of survival is low, and who won't be able to make his genes survive in the gene pool?

Situation number two:

There are two lion cubs. I'm not sure how age works in lions but let's pretend it's the same as in humans. The oldest cub is four, the youngest is two. They are playing around a dangerous zone, even though their mother told them not to. When the mother comes to check on them, she sees they are about to be crushed by a huge rock. She quickly heads towards them. Knowing she can only save one of them, she saves:

a. none

b. the youngest

c. the oldest

d. wants to save both and dies trying

The right answer is c. As it says on chapter eight, if the older one dies, the mother "stands to lose a higher proportion of her life's investment ... If she saves the little brother, she will have to invest some costly resources in him just to get him up to the age of his brother" (p.125).

Situation number three:

Worms have disappeared. Mother bird hasn't fed her babies in days. They are starving so they won't stop screaming. She knows that this attracts predators. She finally finds a worm. Heading back to the nest, she sees her four little birds screaming for food. She has made her decision. She gives the worm to:

a. the oldest

b. the youngest

c. the most patient

d. the loudest

The right answer is d. We can predict the mother will give the worm to the one that screams the most because this will make it shut up. The lower the noise, the lower the chances of a predator coming by.

All three situations showed up in chapter eight. I know most of us would do very different things as parents. The reason why our actions would be different is because they aren't programmed anymore. They don't need to be because the danger we face is very little.

For example, if a mother has three children to feed, she can decide to feed the patient one first and reward him because there is no predator on the lookout.

Humans are no longer programmed, survival machines. The truth is, some parents do have favorites. Usually, the favorite son or daughter is the one that brings less trouble to the parents. We may not be programmed machines, but it's for sure we're still selfish.

The Real Reason Why Men Want To Divorce

2009-10-15T17:42:00.000-07:00

About Today's Assembly

2009-10-15T11:59:00.000-07:00

She stopped. Let the words sink in, and continued.

A civil war, a baby, no husband.

She wants another chance.

The boy with no father has no second chance.

Two eyelids, no sound, a pale color.

The only truth she new, was the only path she could take.

Life Without A Purpose: The Smart Choice

2009-10-13T18:00:00.000-07:00

According to the first chapter of the book, "intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason of it's own existence" (p. 1). If this is true, then we are the only "intelligent" species in this world as we know it. We don't see dogs going to Pre-Ap English class learning about the QUESTions. But who knows. Maybe animals do believe there's a reason for their existence.

Let's suppose we're the only species that have questioned our existence. Was it the smartest thing to do? If we compare nature's system to ours, I'd say nature is wiser. It's system is flawless. There's no corruption and no violence unless it's necessary. We've been reading these books in class about finding the perfect world, detaching from material things and accepting death. Mother Nature already does all these things, and she doesn't need books to tell her what to do. When a lion catches a zebra, the rest of the herd moves along. They don't stop and weep for the lost life. Animals understand there's a food chain that consists of eating and eventually, getting eaten. They may not be conscious of all of this, but I'm starting to think it's better that way. Look at us. We understand we shouldn't attach to anything and we still do. Nature has created this amazing utopia, where things aren't good or bad. They just are. The best part of all, is that animals can't get bored of this "perfect life" because they're purpose in life is not to enjoy. The only purpose they know of is reproduction. Wouldn't life be much easier this way? Look at the examples in the book. A black gull can swallow a baby and not feel guilty afterwards. A female praying mantis can eat the male without hesitation. Animals don't suffer like humans do. They accept nature's course and act on an instinct of survival. You're probably disagreeing with me. Thinking animals don't suffer as we do, but they can't feel emotions we feel either. I ask you, what does that affect them? How can you miss something you never had?

If we had never questioned our reason of existence, we would have never developed many of the emotions we have right now. We wouldn't want to be happy, because we wouldn't understand it's meaning. Without happiness, there wouldn't be sadness, therefore, we'd live in a perfect state; not happy, but not sad either. We wouldn't miss what we wouldn't have. We'd just live to survive.

So, in the end, was finding the reason of our existence a smart choice?

Lucky, Or Not?

2009-10-10T20:26:00.000-07:00

So Candide, let me get this straight. You had a great life, until you kissed Lady Cunegonde. Then, the Baron kicked you out of his house. You were hungry, and luckily met two men who gave you food. But the men made you join the battle with the Bulgars. Luckily, you managed to escape. Then, you met a beggar who turned out to be Dr. Pangloss. He told you Cunegonde was dead. Then, there was an earthquake, and you and Pangloss were arrested. Pangloss was hanged, but luckily, they didn't kill you. They just tortured you to death (almost). Luckily, an old lady found you and gave you food and shelter. You were so lucky, that you found Lady Cunegonde. Then, you killed a man but luckily escaped with the old lady and Cunegonde. You arrived to Buenos Aires where a noble man fell in love with Cunegonde. Then, you had to escape because you had killed that man. Luckily, you found Cunegonde's brother. Then, you killed him! Luckily, you managed to escape. Trying to be nice, you killed two monkeys and saved two girls. But it turned out they were the girls' lovers and you and Cacambo were caught by Oreillons. They wanted to eat you two, because you were Jesuits. But it turns out that luckily, you were not Jesuits so you weren't killed.

I'm just wondering if you can be called lucky. Really bad things happen to you, but somehow, you manage to get past them. It's like Roy Sullivan. How unlucky do you have to be, to get struck by lighting seven times? But, how lucky was he to survive them all? At the end of chapter sixteen, you say, "if i had not been lucky enough to spit Lady Cunegonde's brother, I should infallibly have been eaten" (p. 72). Seriously Candide? If you hadn't killed Lady Cunegonde's brother, you wouldn't be there in the first place. After analyzing your life for some time, I came up with this: Your actions seem to follow the domino effect. You get into a problem, that leads you to another, and another, and another. You're unlucky to have all these problems. But hey, after all you've gone through, you're lucky to be alive. The only solution I see for your bad (or good) luck, is for the last domino to fall down.

I found this video that fits your life perfectly. The domino effect, I already explained. And the Yin Yang makes reference to the good and evil you do; to the good and bad luck you have.

The Satire Show

2009-10-10T07:35:00.000-07:00

Host: Good evening, ladies and gentleman! I'm your host Kevin and welcome to today's show: "Is this satire?" We have our two contestants here with us, Joy and Charles. How are you, Joy?

Joy: I'm doing great Kevin, thank you. A little bit nervous.

Host: Well, you have all the reasons to be. If Joy answers the questions right, she will take $200,000,000,000,009 home with her!

Now Charles, do you think you'll beat Joy and take the grand prize?

Charles: Well, yes Kevin. As a matter of fact I do. You see, Joy here is blonde. That automatically makes her stupid.

Host: I see your point Charles. Well, before we start playing, let me remind you there are three questions you have to answer. The first two questions are each worth $100,000,000,000,000. The last one is worth $ 9. Let's begin. The thirteenth chapter of the book Candide starts like this: "Having heard the old woman's story, the lovely Cunegonde began to pay all the respect due to a person of her rank and equality" (p.58). Now I expect you all have read Candide before.

Joy: I did Kevin. But, can you remind me what part of the story we are in?

Host: Sure thing. The old lady has just told Candide and Cunegonde she was, and has always been the daughter of a Pope.

Joy: Oh, yes. I remember now. This is...

Charles: Not satire because it never talks about a mythical woodland creature.

(Audience laughs)

Joy: You talk like a blonde yourself Charles. This is satire. It's ironic how the old lady's story suddenly makes Cunegonde respect her. So, yes Kevin. This is satire. If I may ad, the target here is aristocracy, for only respecting people who come from respected backgrounds.

Host: And you are right! Congratulations Joy! The next question. Later in that chapter, a wealthy nobleman asks Cunegonde to marry him. The reasons why he wants to marry her is because she is beautiful. The reasons why she thinks of marrying him is because he has money and a great mustache. Charles, do you want to try and answer this one correctly?

Charles: I'm sorry for my last answer. I thought you were asking something else. I think you need to get a new microphone or something because I can't hear you very well. That's why I didn't answer correctly, not because I didn't know. This is satire Kevin, because Lady Cunegonde is already married and she can't marry twice.

Host: Not quite Charles. Joy, any answers?

Joy: This is satire, but not because of what stupid Charles here said. It's absurd to marry someone because of their handsome mustaches. This part of the story is similar to fairy tales where they meet one day and marry the next. I'd say Voltaire's target is all those relationships based on convenience, wealth and looks.

Host: Correct again! Congratulations Joy! Now, for the last question worth $9. Joy, in chapter fourteen, the sergeant tells Candide and Cacambo the Colonel won't speak to them because "the Father Provincial, did not allow any Spaniard to open his mouth except in his presence, nor to stay more than three hours in the country" (p. 63). Is this satire?

Joy: Yes, it is. Voltaire is targeting religion, making fun of the Father Provincial and all those stupid conditions the church normally makes.

Host: You are right Joy! You won the $200,000,000,000,009. But wait, I just got a message from the director. He says there's one more question left. Who ever gets this one right will get all the money plus the other contestant's car. Now I ask you Charles. Candide is written by Voltaire. Is this satire?

Charles: No.

Host: You are correct! We have a new winner! Charles, you won the $200,000,000,000,009 and Joy's car! That's it for today folks! We hope you enjoyed.

Absurdity In Chapter Twelve

2009-10-07T19:58:00.000-07:00

Chapter twelve has many absurd things. It tells the tale of the old woman, and not no my surprise, she had been through some ridiculous events. She first talks about what happens to castrated children. ""I was born at Naples", he told me, "where they castrate two or three thousand children every year. Some of them die, some acquire a more beautiful voice than any woman has, and others become Prime Ministers"" (p 54). I understand why they would have a nicer voice than a woman's. We just learned in Biology that when there isn't production of testosterone, there can't be secondary sexual characteristics, such as deepening of voice or facial hair. The sentence follows with: "others become Prime Ministers". This is completely unexpected. It's sudden but hilarious at the same time. Voltaire finds a very amusing way to make fun of the Prime Ministers, by comparing their voice to a child's. Children's voices are mostly ignored, so we can deduce Voltaire makes fun of how Prime Ministers are ignored too.

The next absurdity in the book, is on page fifty-six: ""Cut just one buttock off each of these ladies", he said, "and that will provide you with a delicious meal; if you find you need more, you can have as much again in a few days time"". Killing the women for food alone is outraging. But cutting of one buttock from each of them is outraging and absurd. Remembering the old lady saying "I can hardly keep my seat with only one buttock"(p. 46), and now knowing why, makes me laugh a little. I'm amazed at Voltaire's creativity and ability to break the boundaries. The reason why the old lady has only one buttock would have never occurred to me.

The last absurd scene I found in this chapter was on the following page. We had already come across this before. The old lady says, "I have grown old (with only half a behind), in misery and shame, but I have never forgotten that I am the daughter of the Pope". The target is clearly the church. A Pope having a daughter? That's a terrible accusation. This sentence is a great example of satire. It's very ironic for a Pope to have a daughter, very absurd for the old lady to have one buttock, and a great target to the Catholic religion. Keeping in mind Voltaire was a leading philosopher and writer of the Illustration, his target to the Catholic Church fits his life perfectly.

Without a doubt, Voltaire is a satire master.

The New "So It Goes"

2009-10-04T05:49:00.000-07:00

There are things we can't understand. Why are innocent souls the victims of war? Why does death take young children's lives? All these painful events are unexplainable. We can't assure why they happen. We don't have the free will to decide what will and won't happen, but we can change our perspective on things. In Slaughterhouse-five, the Tralfamadorian's coped with death with their "so it goes". They understood we could live forever in the past. In Candide, we also find a way to cope with death. This time the philosopher isn't a two feet high, green looking creature. It's Pangloss, Candide's tutor. As stated in previous blogs, Pangloss strongly believes everything has a purpose of being: "legs are clearly intended for breeches, so we wear them. Stones were made for carving and building houses, and that is why my lord has the most beautiful house ... And since pigs were made to be eaten, we eat pork all year round" (p.20). When James, the Anabaptist falls into the sea, and Candide goes after him, Pangloss stops him "by proving that Lisbon harbour was made on purpose for this Anabaptist to drown there" (p.33). Pangloss' philosophy is somewhat different to the one of the Tralfamadorians. Pangloss simply resigns. I believe he's scared of failing. For example, if he had a relative with cancer, he would probably say: "cancer was made on purpose for my relative to get it." Instead of fighting against it, he would just accept it and move on.

I wonder what that would feel like. Knowing you could have fought against something and you didn't. What if everyone was like this? What if we all resigned to death? The thing is, we actually do, in some way. I know I'm about to contradict what I said earlier, but that's my mind right now; a web of contradicting ideas. We know there are people dying of hunger, people being killed and tortured. But the only thing we do is ask why these things happen. It would be nice to stop playing the victims and actually do something for a change. What if we did have the free will to decide what happened? But wait, if we did, we would be playing God, wouldn't we? I take that back. Here it is: we don't have the free will to decide who will fall in the sea, but we do have the free will to try and save that person. We do have the free will to decided how we solve problems. But we don't have the free will to decide who will get cancer, and who will die from it.

There is no such thing as absolute free will. It all depends. Since we don't have complete power, we have to bury our grief in phrases like "so it goes" or "that was it's purpose of being."

Free Will In Candide

2009-10-01T15:51:00.000-07:00

Vocab:

Gauntlet:

noun

a stout glove with a long loose wrist.

• historical an armored glove, as worn by a medieval knight.• the part of a glove covering the wrist.PHRASEStake up (or throw down) the gauntlet accept (or issue) a challenge. [ORIGIN: from the medieval custom of issuing a challenge by throwing one's gauntlet to the ground; whoever picked it up was deemed to have Flogging:

1 beat (someone) with a whip or stick as punishment or torture : the stolen horses will be returned and the thieves flogged | [as n. ] ( flogging) public floggings.• informal promote or talk about (something) repetitively or at excessive length : rather than flogging one idea to death, they should be a lightheartedpop group.2 Brit., informal sell or offer for sale : he made a fortune flogging beads to hippies. (Not very nice images on google of flogging) From Mac Dictionary

We've already read "Epictetus" and "The Road Not Taken", two different perspectives on free will. Epictetus assures you don't decide what path to follow, but you do decide how to live it. Robert Frost's poem talks about two roads we can choose from. These different views are affected by the authors' lives. Epictetus, being a slave, had no roads to choose from. Frost, on the other hand, had many paths he could take. Candide, has a little bit of both.

Free will is mentioned in Chapter two: "It was useless to declare his belief in Free Will, and say he wanted neither; he had to make his choice" (p. 24). The first thing that stands out, it that "free will" are capitalized. This gives these words a significant importance, suggesting free will is important not only in this chapter, but in the rest of the book. Candide has to decide whether "being flogged thirty-six times by the whole regiment, or having twelve bullets in his brain" (p.24). I find this quite absurd (ding! ding, satire!). Basically, Candide doesn't have the choice of being hurt or not, but he can choose how he'll be tortured. Humorously, Voltaire adds, "so, exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet thirty-six times and survived two floggings" (p.24). (Again, liberty is capitalized. Is that how it's usually written, or does Voltaire want to highlight it's importance?)

How ironic is it to have the liberty to choose between pain and death? Candide can choose between two paths, both terrible, but can't choose not taking a path at all. So, does he have free will? What would Epictetus say? What would Frost say?

Purpose: To Serve Man

2009-09-29T18:04:00.000-07:00

According to Pangloss, Candide's tutor, everything has a purpose: "He proved incontestably that there is no effect without a cause ... 'It is proved', he used to say, 'that things can not be other than what they are for since everything was made for a purpose , it follows that everything is made for the best purpose" (p.20). What follows are some absurd examples of why everything has a purpose. All the examples he gives serve men in some way:

"legs are clearly intended for breeches, so we wear them. Stones were made for carving and building houses, and that is why my lord has the most beautiful house ... And since pigs were made to be eaten, we eat pork all year round" (p.20).

I've come up with a conclusion: Humans are always trying to prove they are the better than other living things. Let's face it. We're proud of being the "dominant" species. We're proud we can talk, uses tools, feel, have a soul. We actually use all these traits to convince ourselves that we're better. Animals haven't evolved as we have. They aren't civilized, they haven't built empires, ruled countries, advanced in technology, therefore, we're superior.

This cocky feeling we have, leads us to believe everything was made to serve us. If everything was made for us, then I guess we can't feel guilty for ruining everything. After all, it's all ours isn't it?

"What If God Were Innocent?"

2009-09-26T05:35:00.000-07:00

When faced with pain, the first thing we do is find who to blame. People and superior beings are the most common targets. Sometimes it's easier to blame some sort of God because we can accuse it of anything and everything, and that God can't defend himself back. There are many times we simply don't understand why things happen. They catch us unprepared to handle a tough situation.

"Why, God? Why did this happen to me if I'm a good person?", some ask. We usually don't find an answer. This makes dealing with pain even harder.

Yesterday we had the pleasure to meet the Sri Lankan poet, Indran Amithanayagam. He read a poem from his book, "The Splintered Face: Tsunami Poems". Not only did he recite beautifully, an excerpt from his poem kept floating in my head for the rest of the day:

"but what if the ocean /were innocent, /the plate tectonics, /innocent, what if God/were innocent?" (Amithanayagam).

Listening to this made me shiver because, if the ocean, the plate tectonics and God are all innocent, then who's there to blame? I'm tired of listening to people saying, "God knows what he's doing", or, "everything happens for a reason". The first answer I find not aggravating comes from Epictetus' The Handbook. In the thirty-first section he mentions: "For in this way you will never blame the gods or accuse them of neglecting you. And this piety is impossible unless you detach the good and the bad from what is not up to us and attach it exclusively to what is up to us, because if you think that any of what is to up to us is good or bad, then when you fail to get what you want and fall into what you do not want, you will be bound to blame and hate those who cause this (Section 31)."

According to this, the best way to overcome pain and suffering, is by understanding there are things we can't control. We have to detach completely to what is not up to us, because that way, if something happens, we are not affected by it.

A logical answer, but at the same time, I don't agree with it. Detaching from the things that are not up to us includes understanding relatives will eventually die. Since we can't control death, and if we followed Epictetus' teachings, we would have to detach from those people, creating a more distant relationship.

What's the purpose of living if we have nothing to lose? We have to decide if happiness is worth the risk of losing it. If you decide to take the risk, I'm afraid there is no answer to why bad things will happen to you.

5 Steps To Becoming The Best Boyfriend/Girlfriend

2009-09-24T09:29:00.000-07:00

Make sure your partner doesn't know about your affairs: if no one knows, it didn't happen.
Say I love you 100 times a day.
If your about to break up, stop drop and roll.
Never hit your partner with a rock. Avoid all violence.
Love is enough for the relationship to work.

Open Letter To Robert Frost By Epictetus

2009-09-23T20:59:00.000-07:00

Mr. Robert Frost,

I read your poem "The Road Not Taken" and I believe we both agree that free will exists. The difference between you and I, is the life we were given. Your role in the play of life was the one of a Harvard student, who obtained immediate success in life. I, on the contrary, spent my youth as a slave. I later obtained my freedom and started teaching philosophy in Rome.

The conceptions we have of free will are quite different. I understand there are things that are up to us, and others that aren't. We should not spend time in the ones that are not up to us, because this will make us misfortunate beings. We don't decide what role to play in life but we do decide how well we play it. Free will consists of understanding what we can and can't control. Once you understand this, you may have the free will to decide how you act upon events.

You mention in your poem there are two roads we can take:


"TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both"

This disagrees with my philosophy. I believe choosing a road to walk in is not up to us. But we do have the free will to decide how we want to walk through the path we are given.

It is clear we have our differences when it comes to free will. You believe there is always a choice. According to your poem, the choices we make, lead us to new decisions:

"Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back."

As I said before, we approach things differently because of our different life styles. Your philosophy is valid for your life, and my philosophy is valid for the life I lived.

It's always refreshing to read a different point of view from my own. I encourage you to read my Handbook and tell me what you believe. I'll keep reading your works and writing you letters with my opinion.

Sincerely,

Epictetus

(Information about Frost and Epictetus' lives from wikipedia.)

Conclusion Of Analytic Essay

2009-09-23T09:04:00.001-07:00

We can now take a new position towards war. Slaughterhouse Five, shows us a different side than what we usually hear. We hear about the Frank Sinatras and John Waynes. The important thing is remembering Billy Pilgrims are also part of war.

Rules From Sections 11-20

2009-09-19T05:47:00.000-07:00

11. Nothing belongs to you.

"Never say, "I have lost it," but instead, "It was given back"" (PDF).

12. Tranquility has a price. Nothing is for free.

"It is better to die of hunger and distress than to live in the midst of plenty" (PDF).

13. You either are: in accordance with nature, or a materialistic person.

"Certainly it is not easy to be on guard both for one's choices to be in accord with nature and also for externals, and a person who concerns himself with one, will be bound to neglect the other" (PDF).

14. In order to obtain freedom, you have to avoid everything that is not up to you. If you want people to live forever, you are breaking rules one and eleven.

"You are foolish if you want your children and your wife and your friends to live forever, since you're wanting things to be up to you, that are not up to you, and things to be yours that are not yours" (PDF).

"Whoever wants to be free, therefore, let him not want or avoid anything that is up to others. Otherwise, he's a slave" (PDF).

15. Your behavior should be like the one in a banquet. Do not look for anything, but wait for it to come to you. When it does, don't keep it all to yourself. Do not go the easy way.

"Something is passed around and comes to you: reach out your hand politely and take some. It goes by: Do not hold it back. It has not arrived yet: do not stretch your desire towards it, but wait until it comes to you" (PDF).

"But if when things are set in front of you, do not take them but despise them (PDF).

16. When you see someone in grief, remind him: "What weighs down on this man is not what has happened to it (since it does not weigh down on someone else), but his judgment about it" (PDF).

Be ready to support them but do not grief for yourself.

17. What happens in you life, is not up to you. But you can choose how you handle it.

"Remember you are an actor in a play,which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it to be short, long if it wants it to be long" (PDF).

18. (I honestly don't know how to interpret this section. Any ideas, please comment.)

19. There can't be jealousy or envy in what is up to us. (e.g being the captain of the soccer team is not up to you, therefore there can be jealousy and envy. My opinion about this text is up to me, there can't be jealousy or envy within me.) Section nine-teen is reinforcing rules one, eleven and fourteen.

"You can be invincible if you do not enter any contest in which victory is not up to you" (PDF).

20. When a person is harmful to you, the person himself is not insulting. What's insulting is the judgment you have about what they are doing. Therefore, harm is in your own belief. (e.g if you are insulted by a homosexual, he himself is not insulting, the judgement you have about his situation is.)

Some Rules In The First Ten Sections

2009-09-17T20:27:00.000-07:00

1. Differ from what is up to you and what isn't:

“Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possetions, our reputations, nor our public offices or that is, whatever is not our own doing.” (PDF).

“Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions- in short, whatever is our own doing.” (PDF).

2. Don't have any desire or aversion:

"None of the things that are up to us which it would be good to desire, will be available to you" (PDF).

"So detach your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is against nature among the things that are up to us" (PDF).

3. Remember things break and people die:

"If you are fond of a jug say "I am fond of a jug!" For when it is broken, you will not be upset" (PDF).

"If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset" (PDF).

4. Remember what certain actions imply and try to keep your actions accord with nature:

"Oh well, I wanted not only this but also to keep my choices in accord with nature" (PDF).

5. Blame yourself before you blame others:

"What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgements about things."

"So when we are thwarted or upset or distressed, let us never blame someone else but rather ourselves" (PDF).

6. Only be joyful about your superiority:

What you should do: My hair is beautiful.

What you shouldn't do: My dog's hair is beautiful.

7. (Great metaphor) Set your priorities straight. Your duty goes first.

"If you are given a wife and a child instead of a vegetable and a shellfish, that will not hinder you; but if the captain calls, let all those things go and run to the boat without turning back (PDF). ( Captain referring to God?)

8. Do not expect things to happen in a certain way:

"Do not seek to have events as you want them to, but instead, want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well" (PDF).

9. Illness affects your body, not your choices:

"Lameness interferes with the limb, not with one's faculty of choice" (PDF).

10. If you were strong enough to go through your own birth, you have the capacity of going through any situation:

"At each thing that happens to you, remember to turn yourself and ask what capacity you have for dealing with it" (PDF).

"And if you become used to this, you will not be carried away by appearances" (PDF).

Things Break, People Die

2009-09-17T20:11:00.000-07:00

Section three is pretty short, but at the same time pretty deep. It's just reminding us to know what things are. You can't expect an object to be a person, and you can't expect a person to be eternal. Make sure you know objects can break and people can die, that way, if it happens, you already expected it, so it's not that difficult. Wanting things and people to last forever is very selfish. The reason why we're sad when people die is because they are no longer in our lives. "If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset" (PDF). The same happens with objects. If we manage to detach from certain desires and aversions, as section two mentioned, then when people or objects are gone, it's easier to get over it.

Now, one thing is saying all this, another is having to live it. I'm sure I wouldn't apply what I just wrote if I lost a valuable thing or person in my life.

New Vocabulary Word

2009-09-17T20:02:00.000-07:00

A new word I learned: aversion. It has showed up in several sections now.

Defenition: "Having a strong dislike of, or opposition to" (Apple Dictionary).

Example from text: “Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions- in short, whatever is our own doing.” (PDF).

Desires and aversions show up in sections one and two. It's important to know what they mean. Aversions are something common in my life and until now I didn't know how they were called.

I love this text.

What To Follow?

2009-09-17T19:22:00.000-07:00

Difference between desire and aversion:

"What a desire proposes is that you get what you desire and what an aversion proposes is that you not fall into what you are averse to" (PDF).

In other words, when you have a desire, you want it to come true. When you have an aversion, you don't want it.

If you don't get what you want, you are unfortunate. If you get what you don't want, you are misfortunate.

Confusing... The words tangle up. You have to be very careful to understand this concept, but it makes sense. I have the feeling that the whole t: "things that are up to you and things that aren't", will always be present. I think that's why it was in the first chapter.

Epictetus also mentions nature a lot. The second section talks about the natural course of things. Death and illness are aversions to us. We desire to live free from them, but they will eventually come: "So detach your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is against nature among the things that are up to us" (PDF). This is similar to the familiar saying: don't cry over spilled milk. You can't control the fact that the milk spilled. If you detach your aversion from the fact that it's already spilled, you can be unfortunate but not misfortunate.

Desires are normally just that, desires. There's no way to full-fill them. Therefore, it's better to not have have them.

Wait a second. I'm lost. This goes against everything we learn in school. Am I not suppose to desire anything? Let me go back to the whole "what is up to me" thing. For example, I want good grades:

It's something that's up to me and that I can control. But then it says, "none of the things that are up to us which it would be good to desire, will be available to you" (PDF). This is saying: either getting good grades is a bad desire, or it's not available. It's different from what we're taught but it's logical. If you don't look for anything, you won't be disappointed. Even though it makes sense, this idea can't survive in our world. We're taught that life's about taking opportunities and risks. The text encourages us not to follow desire but impulse. Today in ethics I was learning about not following impulses. This is a point in life when being critical is important. It's like deciding what news to believe, only here, I'm deciding what lesson I should apply in my life. I decide to apply this desire lesson in only the things I can't control. In other words, I decided to block aversions and only desire things that are up to me.

Way Too Deep

2009-09-17T19:04:00.000-07:00

This text is so deep, I don’t know what to write about in my blog. It seriously overwhelms me. I already did my blog for tonight but I feel like writing about the whole thing, and make charts about everything. What is said can be applied to daily life, which makes the reader feel comfortable. It's the only text I can think about that I've enjoyed reading on Sharepoint.

The way it is written is different to what we've been working on. In previous classes, we've talked about wordiness and making concise sentences. "The Handbook of Epictetus" has long sentences with powerful content. You have to read sentence by sentence, extracting as much as you can from it.

It's certainly a breath of fresh air to read something this deep that can apply to life.

Wise Words From Epictetus: Paying Attention To Appearances

2009-09-17T17:47:00.000-07:00

When faced with a hard appearance, say: "You are an appearance, and not at all the thing that has appearance." (PDF). Then, follow the charts below and decide if it is up to you or not. If it isn't, say to it: "You are nothing in relation to me" (PDF).

Charts:

Up to us	Not up to us	Proof
Opinion	Bodies	“Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions- in short, whatever is our own doing.” (PDF).
Impulses	Possessions	“Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possetions, our reputations, nor our public offices or that is, whatever is not our own doing.” (PDF).
Desires	Reputation	"The things that are not up to us are weak, enslaved, hindered, not our own." (PDF).
Aversions	Public offices
Whatever we decide to do.	Whatever we haven’t done
	Considered weak, hindered, enslaved, not our own.

If...	Examples	Effects	Proof
You think things naturally enslaved are for free.	Forests are naturally enslaved. Cutting them to grow crops creates negative effects.	Blame men and gods.	“If you think that things naturally enslaved are for free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, misrable and upset, and will blame both gods and men. (PDF).
You think things that aren’t your own are your own	Bee hives, for example. You suffer the concequences if you touch them.
You think only what’s yours is yours.	Your body, your mind.	No one will ever threaten or make it difficult for you.	“If you think only what’s yours is yours, and that what is not your own, is just as it is, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you, no one will ever hinder you, you will blame no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all” (PDF).
You think what’s not your own isn’t your own	Animals	You will not blame or accuse anyone, have no enemies or accuse anyone.
		Receive no harm.

Goals	Advice	What will happen	Proof
Receive no harm.	Not take them moderately. (Going to the extremes?)	You will be happy and free.	“As you aim for such great goals, remember that you must not undertake them by acting moderately, but must let some things go completely and postpone others for the time being.” (PDF).
You will not blame or accuse anyone, have no enemies or accuse anyone.	Must let things happen and postpone others.	You will be focused on: not receiving harm, not blaming or accusing anyone, and having no enemies that you probably won’t be able to achieve a public office and wealth, nor accomplish the other goals either.	“If you want both these goals and also to hold public office and to be rich, then you may perhaps not get even the latter, because you aim and the former too; and you certainly will fail to get the former, which are the only things that yield freedom and happiness.” (PDF).
No one will ever threaten or make it difficult for you.	Not to do it	You will not be happy nor free.
Prior goals+ holding public office and be rich

To write this blog I used the first section of the text. I had never read something so deep. From only seven sentences, I got all the information posted above. Amazing, isn't it?

Ice Cream Is To Noodle Soup, As Poo-tee-weet Is To The End Of War

2009-09-17T17:07:00.000-07:00

What's Wrong With This Picture?

2009-09-17T15:40:00.000-07:00

The princess sings a melodious tune.

The birds join with a "poo-tee-weet."

"What a wonderful day", she exclaims oh, so sweet.

The sun is up high, it's mid-afternoon.

Bunnies hopping here and there,

Music and laughter everyhwere.

The "poo-tee-weet" fits right in, doesn't it? But, what does "poo-tee-weet" have to do in the end of a war book? Where does it fit in the picture? Here we go again, finding irony even in the last word of the novel. Imagine the sight: "The Second World War in Europe was over. Billy and the rest wandered out onto the shady street. The trees were leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses." (PDF). And then, there's a bird saying "Poo-tee-weet?"

What does this "poo-tee-weet" mean? Outside of the novel, it's just a bird noise. In the story, it holds the whole point Vonnegut is trying to make.

After there's a war where people suffer and die, cities are destroyed, and lives are changed, birds remain the same. Having in mind the amount of irony Vonnegut uses, the poo-tee-weet is making fun of the situation. It's like the cold ice cream in the hot noodle soup. It simply isn't right.

In the beginning on the novel, Vonnegut says: "Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like 'Poo-tee-weet?'" (PDF). The question mark at the end gives the novel an inconclusive ending. It's like saying, "now what?"

Concluding, what Vonnegut is trying to get through, is that after war, everything changes except for birds. The "poo-tee-weet" is an ironic way of bringing joy to the quiet and sad image of war.

What Does Victory Bring?

2009-09-16T18:32:00.000-07:00

Great. We won the war. We only lost 80% of our soldiers, but it's okay because we won. There are families who lost their relatives, but I repeat, we won. Most of the survivors are in mental hospitals, but we came out victorious. We won. We're happy.

It simply doesn't work like that. War can't bring happiness. Wars are fought to bring peace and justice. Regardless who is victorious, lives will be spared and people will suffer. How can a country be happy after a victory when it has lost so many lives? Billy is happy after the war is over: "He was happy. He was warm. There was food in the wagon, and wine-and a camera, and a stamp collection, and a stuffed owl, and a mantel clock that ran on changes of barometric pressure." (PDF). Then, the animals make him cry: "When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn't cried about anything else in the war." (PDF).

Ironic, isn't it? He suffers, watches people die, is tortured, and the only thing that makes him cry, are some horses. This shows that even though he survived Dresden and came out victorious, he can't be fully happy about it. The coffin shaped wagon can represent that even tough they survived, people still died. If victory doesn't bring happiness, what does it bring? Why are wars fought, if no side will be happy in the end? They are fought because they have to be: "'It had to be done,' Rumfoord told Billy, speaking of the destruction of Dresden. 'I know,' said Billy. 'That's war.' 'I know. I'm not complaining.'" (PDF).

We were asked before if war was ever justifiable. I've always been an anti-war person myself, so my answer would immediately be a no. But some wars have changed things for good. The French Revolution is a great example. We can say it was victorious because it helped changed our system. In other words, as we learned last year from Confucius, wars are for the good (or bad) of the whole. The outcome of a war may bring satisfaction to a whole, but to an individual who lived it, it can bring pain. I always agreed that the good of the whole is better than the good of the individual, but I've changed my mind. In war, this doesn't apply. Differences can be solved by talking and discussing. Words are stronger weapons that guns. Ideas can bring both victory and happiness.

Great. We won the war. We didn't lose any of our people and we won. No family lost their relatives and I repeat, we won. We were all survivors and came out victorious. We won. We're happy. Can it work like that?

Time Heals All Wounds?

2009-09-15T17:29:00.000-07:00

Chapter 7 is very important because it shows a change in Billy. It shows that he's aware that the war has an effect in his daily life. He remembers an event without time traveling: "Billy thought hard about the effect the quartet had had on him, and then found an association with an experience he had had long ago. He did not travel in time to the experience." (PDF)

Billy's focus will probably always be on war. After his experiences there, it's normal everything will remind him of Dresden. But the fact that he doesn't time travel and still remembers, suggest Billy is healing from his war experience.

When there's a life changing experience in your life, you usually compare everything to it. It usually appears everywhere. With my grandpa's cancer, I see articles and commercials about cancer everywhere. They were probably there before, but I didn't link them to anything. The same happens with Billy. He wouldn't have linked the Febs with war if he hadn't been in it. Hearing the Febs, made "His mouth fill with the taste of lemonade, and his face became grotesque, as though he really were being stretched on the torture engine called the rack." (PDF)

Will Billy be able to live a normal life after the war? I believe that with time, he'll live without being terribly affected by the war, just as he's leaving the time traveling behind.

He Knew He Was Crashing

2009-09-15T16:53:00.000-07:00

In the beginning of chapter 7, Vonnegut tells us Billy knew the airplane was going to crash: "He knew he was going to crash, but he didn't want to make a fool of himself by saying so." (PDF)

"He didn't want to make a fool of himself by saying so." How crazy is that. If I knew I was going to be in an airplane crash, I would speak up. Why put my life and others in danger? Why does Billy keep quiet?

First Theory: Billy gives the impression that he doesn't want to live anymore. Until now, he has shown he doesn't care about the present or future. Ironically, he's the only one who survives: "His lips were working, and one of the golliwogs put his ear close to them to hear what might be his dying words. Billy thought the golliwog had something to do with the Second World War, and he whispered to him his address: 'Schlachthöf-funf.' " (PDF)

Second Theory:

BIlly simply learned death can't be taken seriously. After all, "so it goes." With death not being a big deal in life, there is no fear in riding a plane destined to crash.

Again, irony shows up. The person who takes death lightly and who knows the plane is going to crash, is the only one who survives.

A bigger question now arises. How does Billy know the plane will crash? This makes me wonder if his time travels are really true. How else could he know there would be an accident? Pure intuition?

Superior To Man

2009-09-15T15:42:00.000-07:00

Earlier this semester, we saw the episode of "The Twilight Series", "To Serve Man." On my blog, I talked about how men always think they're superior to other beings. The extraterrestrial creatures in the episode prove them wrong. The men are confident that these creatures want to work for them when they actually want to serve them as a dish. We see a resemblance between these creatures and the Tralfamadorians in Slaughterhouse Five.

In chapter five, the Tralfamadorians display Billy in a zoo, just as we do with animals. The guide in the zoo explains his behavior just as we do with other creatures: "He shaved and sprayed deodorant under his arms, while a zoo guide on a raised platform outside explained what Billy was doing-and why." (PDF) Irony is implied showing men as inferiors in comparison to other creatures. In both Slaughterhouse Five and "To Serve a Man", they make fun of humans feeling of superiority. In "To Serve Man", they use human language against them. In this chapter, the Tralfamadorians place Billy in a zoo. The whole idea of a zoo is having the power to cage another creature. At least Billy realizes the Tralfamadorians are in a sense, superior to him: "Somebody in the zoo crowd asked him through the lecturer what the most valuable thing he had learned on

Tralfamadore was so far, and Billy replied, 'How the inhabitants of a whole planet can live in peace I As you know, I am from a planet that has been engaged in senseless slaughter since the beginning of time." (PDF)

Now, not only can the Tralfamadorians compare to the creatures in "To Serve a Man". They are similar to the leavers. In Ishmael, we learned we (takers), have to start looking at leaver cultures as an example. The Tralfamadorians are also an example Billy recognizes he should follow.

It's great how Vonnegut transmits this in his irony and how he can make fun of his own race.

Things Just Are

2009-09-10T10:36:00.000-07:00

The one T.V channel I can't stand is Disney Channel. Paraphrasing an excerpt on My Ishmael, humans are stuck between two kinds. They are superior to animals but inferior to angels. At least that's what most humans think, including the creators of Disney Channel. Disney stories highlight humans as superiors. "In The Little Mermaid", Ariel wants to be human. "In The Lady and the Tramp", living with men is the best thing that could happen to a dog. In one way or the other, humans are practically worshipped. This is scary, considering we heard all these stories when we were little. It's similar to what they do in A Brave New World when they brainwash kids at young age.

A few years ago, Disney Channel released a new series with the name "Why Me." It's about a girl who questions every bad thing that happens to her, as if someone had chosen her on purpose. I've seen this show, (not proud of it) and I can tell you the things that happen to her happen to absolutely everybody. She's a typical 10 year old girl, embarrassed of her parents and bothered by her older sister. Then of course, as almost every person in this world, she feels self pity.

There's an addicting webpage, fmylife.com where people post bad things that have happened to them. Under the post, you can click on two tabs. Either, "I agree your life is sucks" or, "you totally deserve it". Contradicting the show "Why Me?", this webpage shows bad things can happen to everyone. It's not like the universe conspires against you and is dedicated to make your life miserable.

It's amazing how unlucky we think we are. Why me, why me, we often ask ourselves. When Billy Pilgrim is taken by the Tralfamadorians, he asks this. They respond:"Well, here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why." (PDF) Things happen just because. We're taught since a young age that things happen for a reason. For example, Lucy's parents might say: "You don't get cookies because you behaved badly." What if Lucy wasn't misbehaving? What if it was her sister? She'll automatically think, why me? These examples plus others shown by the media make self pity inevitable for us. We always think there's a reason why things happen.

"Why me? That is a very Earthling question to ask, Mr. Pilgrim. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is." (PDF)

The next time you ask yourself, why me?, just remember there is no why.

Escaping In Time

2009-09-10T09:58:00.000-07:00

We've all had moments where we wished to escape. Either at one in the morning, stuck doing an essay, or in class, taking a test we know nothing about. We've all felt that urge of stopping time and resting for a while. It would be great to take a nap and wake up knowing nothing has changed.

In a way, what Billy is doing when he's unstuck in time is basically daydreaming. We've all daydreamed before. The difference is we normally daydream of the future. Our imagination is the only one that can take us to wherever we want, whenever we want. If the present is too difficult to handle, the best solution is to fly to the future. We're not certain of what may happen, but at least we get to imagine it perfect.

Billy does the opposite. He goes back in time. Why go to the past when the future can be whatever you want it to be? Billy Pilgrim isn't hopeful about the future. Compared to the present, the past is paradise. He has given up on everything: "Billy had a framed prayer on his office wall which expressed his method for keeping going, even though he was unenthusiastic about living." (PDF)

Yesterday my science egg broke. I was really angry at myself. I had to take care of it for 2 weeks and it didn't even last 3 days. I was determined to get a high grade. I know this isn't possible anymore. Things like this happen all the time. Getting unsatisfying grades, losing soccer games, fighting with friends are just examples. The way I manage to leave these things behind is thinking how much they weigh in my life. I think, in 10 years, will my 10th grade biology egg project have any effect? Of course it won't. This helps me understand it's not a big deal. What's done is done. Billy can't do this. On his office, he has a frame that says: "GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN, AND WISDOM ALWAYS TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE." (PDF) After that, the narrator tells us: "Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present and the future." (PDF) I understand why he can't change the past and present, but the future may vary. This shows he completely gave up. He's practically not living. He's surviving. With no hope left in the future, all he can do is find shelter in the past.

On David Crystal

2009-09-09T05:22:00.000-07:00

On the blog, "On studying history/History", David Crystal states that fashion rules over correct grammar usage: "
For the past few years there's been a noticeable trend towards graphical simplicity - B.B.C. becoming BBC, and the like - and capitals have been affected."
As time passes, languages change. Words are left in the past, and new words are created. This creates confusion between generations. Older generations tend to blame new ones for corrupting the language. Hearing this from our grandparents makes us jump to conclusions that aren't correct. We get surprised when we see bad words in old books, thinking people didn't curse in that time. I remember the one time I heard my grandfather say a bad word. I asked him, "grandpa, how do you know that word?" He responded, "my generation practically created it." His parents and his grandparents probably knew that word too, and he probably fell in the same mistake I did.
Since language constantly changes with time, misunderstandings always arise. This is inevitable. After all, as David Crystal
says, "fashion always rules."

Rene Magritte: The Surrealist Belgian Artist

2009-09-07T06:05:00.001-07:00

This is not a pipe.

Afterlife Is To Tralfamadorians

2009-09-06T18:38:00.000-07:00

According to the atheist group in America, The Great Realization, 82% of Americans believe in afterlife. In last year's english course we were asked why bad things happened to good people. For some, this question is tied with believing in life after death.

You're probably wondering what afterlife has to do with Slaughterhouse-Five. I'm not focusing on the theory itself but on why people believe it.

Believing in heaven or hell makes death easier to handle. It's the same reason why there's God. Both things bring comfort and hope. Believing in afterlife is trusting there will be a judge trial at the end.

Accepting the fact that bad and unfair things happen is normal. There are people that believe being good will pay off and being bad will have consequences.

Focusing on some things we've seen in class so far, what if there was a utopia? Would the need of a God and an afterlife be necessary? I believe it wouldn't. God fills the space the system hasn't been able to fill. If people were satisfied with the justice system while they're alive, one after dying wouldn't be necessary.

Going back to Slaughterhouse-Five, the Tralfamadorians Billy creates in his head, are similar to our beliefs in life after death. These martian like creatures are his way to cope with the many deaths and difficult times he has experienced. Every time the story has to do with death, that sentence is followed by a: "so it goes". Billy learned this line from the Tralfamadorians: "I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is "so it goes." (PDF file) Sometimes, things are so hard to handle, that we have to create a fantasy that makes reality worth living. In Billy's case, death practically hunted him down. This is no surprise, considering the fact he was a preacher in the war. Many of the people he knew died, including his father. The Tralfamadorians provided support in death. " The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral". (PDF file)

With this new way of looking at death, Billy wasn't vulnerable to it anymore. It's like believing in heaven and hell. Believing we go somewhere better after we die is a comforting statement. Billy learned the past, present and future can be combined. And that the three of them are everlasting. "It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one

moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it

is gone forever." (PDF file)

Everyone has a different way of coping with things. Billy coped with death by following the Tralfamadorians' way of thinking. He created a reality different from everyone else's, and it's totally understandable. I believe in making your own reality, but it's a very coward thing to do. If we all create our own way of getting over difficult situations, then we no longer have to strive for a better life. We just have to create a new one. But, why give up? Why wait for justice after life if we can create it now?

Fear Of Time

2009-09-03T16:52:00.000-07:00

The reason why we fear time, is because with it, comes change. We're scared of forgetting past memories and events. We're afraid they might happen again, or afraid they might never come back. O'Hare's wife, Mary, tells our protagonist: "You were just babies in the war-like the ones upstairs!.. 'But you're not going to write it that way, are you... You'll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you'll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra

and John Wayne or some of those other glamorous, war-loving, dirty old men. And war will look just wonderful, so we'll have a lot more of them". (Slaughter House Five) In this case, Mary is afraid the past will be disturbed. No wonder the main character can't finish his book. As time passes, not only do his memories fade, his way of looking at things changes. It's not the same to live something at one age, and to write about it in another.

The past is easy to fear. Many fear death solely because they know they'll become part of the past, and in a few years, will be forgotten. Others, like me, fear what happens to the protagonist. With age, he starts forgetting important people and events in his life: "I have become an old fart with his memories and his Pall Malls, with his sons full grown". (Slaughter House Five) Forgetting the past implies you never lived it.

The problem with the present is knowing when it starts and when it ends. Sometimes, we think the past is the present, and get caught up in things that already happened. It can also go the other way around. Our future may become our present, making us live for the unreachable. The protagonist has a clear problem with living in the present. He brings up the Dresden war in several occasions. He also mentions a couple of things twice. At the beginning of chapter 1, he says, "One guy

I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his." (Slaughter House Five) Later on, he mentions: "... And then this one American foot soldier is arrested in the ruins for taking a teapot." (Slaughter House Five) Does the character emphasize on these particular things for any reason? Or, does he have trouble remembering what he has written and what he hasn't? It seems he's caught up in the past, and the reason is Dresden. He still thinks about the present though: "And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, how much was mine to keep." (Slaughter House Five)

The first chapter doesn't mention the future that much. I guess the future is so scary, we prefer to look behind us. It's easier to stick to what you know, than to adapt to new changes. The first chapter captures this perfectly with the pillar of salt example: "But she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human. She was turned to a pillar of salt. So it goes. People aren't supposed to look back. I'm certainly not going to do it anymore. I've finished my war book now." (Slaughter House Five) It looks like he's finally ready to live in the present. This books seems to be the end of his past.

Propaganda Of Fahrenheit 451

2009-09-02T06:59:00.001-07:00

One found on the internet:

Into The Lion's Mouth

2009-08-25T16:34:00.000-07:00

Without a doubt, the 50's brought great things. Of course, the legendary king of Rock & Roll, Elvis Presley is included. But, there's something I have to add to my list. That is, the Twilight Zone episodes.

Not only was the episode "To Serve A Man" really creepy and entertaining. It was also a great example of poetic justice.

In the beginning, it invited the public to "shake hands figuratively with a Christopher Columbus, from another galaxy and another time". Automatically, I made reference to history. If this creature from another world is Christopher Columbus, then that makes the men in the episode the indians. It fits perfectly.

For example, going back to the 1500's, when Hernan Cortes wanted to conquer the Aztec City, Tenochtitlan. He was viewed by Montezuma, the Aztec leader, as a God. This made him trust Cortes. Eventually, this lead to the fall of the Aztec empire. As the old refrain says, Montezuma practically walked into the lions’ mouth.

The same happens in the episode. One of the men asks:

"Are we to assume that there is no interior motive beyond this vast humanity you speak of?"

"The New Christopher Columbus" then responds they have no interest in them. On the contrary, they have devices men can use.

" We can show you, for example, how to add a very cheap nitrogen to the soil... We ask only that you trust us. Only that you simply trust us".

After the men decipher the title of the book, they lose common sense completely. Just as Montezuma did, they walk into the creatures’ mouth. That being practically literal.

The difference between the spanish conquering the indians and the creature getting hold of men, is that indians were misled by their lack of knowledge and their naive minds. The men in this episode were misled by their greed and sense of superiority. When the men read the title of the book (To Serve Man), they immedietly jump to a wrong conclusion. As the episode says, they go from “being the rulers of the planet, to an ingredient in someone’s soup”. The idea of being served by another creature blocked the possibility that instead of being served as kings, they could be served as food. After all, what goes around, comes around.

Translation Of Dante In Pentameter

2009-08-25T09:25:00.000-07:00

In front/ of me/ is the /hurting /city; A

In front/ of me/ I see/ the huge /eter/nal pain; B

In front/ of me/ people/ who give/ pity. A

God was /inspired/ by jus/tice, and/ not shame; B

It was/ the God/ who had/ crea/ted me; C

The God/ did it/ for love,/ and not/ for fame. B

Dante Translation

2009-08-25T09:05:00.001-07:00

In front of me I see the hurting city; A

In front of me I see the eternal pain; B

In front of me people who give me pity. A

God was inspired by justice, not shame; B

It was he who had created me; C

He did it for love, and not for fame. B

Digital Dante

2009-08-24T09:31:00.001-07:00

Hey,

Here's the webpage where I found the Digital Dante:

http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/new/comedy/index.html

Justice

2009-08-24T08:42:00.000-07:00

It IS A Butterfly

2009-08-22T14:18:00.000-07:00

We were looking at still art images in class and came across an image by Simon Renard De Saint-André. There was a discussion whether the creature on the flower was a butterfly or a spider. Mr. Tangen was sure it was a spider. I was sure it was a butterfly. I went home with the doubt in my head, looked it up in google and it turns out it IS a butterfly. The link might not work, but you can copy paste it to see my point. http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/renard/vanitas4.html Looking up "still life" in Wikipedia, I came across this- "... As for insects, the butterfly represents transformation and resurrection while the dragonfly symbolizes transience and the ant hard work and attention to the harvest.[28]" In my opinion, the butterfly could also represent change, or short life. This looks like a monarch butterfly who's lifespan, if lucky, is of about 9 months. If there are still any doubts, zoom in the image. The butterfly shape is very clear.

Aim Chat

2009-08-20T14:43:00.000-07:00

Antonia says: Hey Emilia.

Emilia says: Hey Antonia. How are you?

Antonia says: I'm great, thanks.

Emilia: So, what are you doing?

Antonia: The science homework. How about you?

Emilia: I'm doing the same thing. Hey, what are you doing tomorrow?

Antonia says: I don't know. Doesn't Sofia have a party?

Emilia: Oh yeah, I had forgotten.

Antonia: So let's go to the movies and then we can go to the party together.

Emilia: Sounds great. :) Hey did you see Eminem died?

Antonia: No way!

Emilia: Yeah, he was in a car crash.

Anotina: Wow. I can't believe it. Are you sure?

Emilia: I think. My sister was the one that told me. Let me check on google.

Antonia: O.K.

Emilia: Never mind. It looks like it was just a rumor.

Antonia: Oh, O.K. A lot of celebrities have died this year.

Emilia: Yeah I know...

Antonia: Hey I have to go, my sister needs the computer. :S I'll talk to you later!

Emilia: O.K. Bye!

what i did this summer

2009-08-20T11:28:00.000-07:00

this summer was actually pretty lame the first few weeks i stayed in bogota and read of course then i went to honda for the last time i used to have a house there but my grandfather decided to sell it we packed everything and left the day after it was really sad because i have a lot of childhood memories that took place there everything was chaos when we came back you couldnt even walk in my house because all the furniture from honda was there i spent most of my time at the hospital with my grandfather there my cousin and i watched the lord of the rings movies which were actually better than i expected one day my sister my cousins and i decided to go camping for a few days it was actually fun except the part that i fell asleep reading and two hours later when my cousin woke me up for lunch i discovered i could barely move i had never been so sunburned before the next days were terrible i couldnt sleep couldnt get out of bed to walk because the pain was terrible that was only for a few days though around that time my nephew came to stay for a few weeks and so did my aunt she brought me my laptop and ever since ive been using it for everything my brother also came to visit from spain a few weeks ago we had dinner with him the day before school started we hung out all day we had lunch and played guitar it was a great way to spen the last day of summer vacations i also went to buy shoes which was really exciting i was expecting more from these vacations i dont feel rested at all they were actually more intense than the last semseter of last year thats basically it at least i had enough time to finish the five books

Blogs Go Online Not On Paper

2009-08-19T17:50:00.000-07:00

More than 100 million blogs in eight years is crazy. If you’re either Mr. Tangen, or one of his 10th grade students that did the homework, you know what I’m talking about. If you randomly came across my Blog, you probably don’t. This is one of the points Sara Boxer makes in her writing.

Blogs are like inside jokes, if the joke’s with you, then you understand. If it’s not, you’re lost. Reading a blog and not knowing what it’s about, is like running in to the middle of a conversation.

Putting a bunch of blogs together to form a book? I didn’t think it was difficult, after all, you could just Google Blog search a specific topic and gather a bunch of blogs. Considering the fact I’ll be in the hospital for two more hours, I decided to give it a try. I wnt back to our old 9th grade blog page and tried to put some blogs together. I hope I don’t get in trouble for using some excerpts without permission. My attempt for putting blogs together is the one that follows.

Excerpts of blogs about Job:

From my blog entry:

Wisdom In Job

“Job is a mixture of many things, it talks about faith, temptation, fear, anger, many values and feelings humans experience everyday. The chapter I liked the most was 28, in which the translation talked about wisdom, and where to find it. It gave great examples, which made me realize we have a lot of wisdom. We know where to get gold, how to molt brass and how to make bread. Such simple things had to be discovered at one point, and I think that as soon as they were discovered, they were considered some great invention.”

Where does gold, molt brass and bread fit in with wisdom?

From Maria Jose Fabre’s blog entry:

Infinite Loss

“At the end of Job, God speaks to Job and explains how he can not be always dependent on his people’s misery, how he must not meddle with human business and manipulate fortune. God speaks how everything has cause, not necessary his. In opposition, Elie Wiesel leaves the interpretation of God personal and purely Eliezer’s.”

How is the Elie Wiesel relevant?

From Ethan Metzler’s blog entry:

Job’s Worth

The entire predicament, the cause of Job’s wealth and prosperity as well as his loss and suffering were a result of Job’s faith. He was as close to perfect as a man can get in God’s eyes and he was well off before the Satan intervened. After the catastrophes set against Job he almost lost all trust and faith in God. His friends unsuccessfully attempted to comfort and open his eyes to the truth. Eventually Elihu was the only one who could do so. Once Job opened his eyes, he begged forgiveness, promised redemption and understood the purpose of the test.

What test is he talking about?

It’s either impossible, or really difficult to make 2 blogs or more make sense. These blogs were all about the same topic, but contain many different ideas and analysis. Assuming you were in my class last year, we all knew this topic quite well. Imagine not knowing what Job is about. You wouldn’t understand absolutely anything.

Another problem with mixing blogs is the fact that they are all done for different reasons. Why do people blog? As Boxer mentions,

“Bloggers assume that if you're reading them, you're one of their friends, or at least in on the gossip, the joke, or the names they drop.”

I’m guessing some people write blogs because they lend a friendly ear. A blog is an open space to write whatever you feel like writing about. So what if no one reads it? So what if no one understands it? At least the sensation of being heard is there. As the writer says,

"Now that fame and links are one and the same, there are bloggers out there who will do practically anything—start rumors, tell lies, pick fights, create fake personas, and post embarrassing videos—to get noticed and linked to."

People need to think they're heard of. Of course, there are others who write blogs as assignments or as a hobby. The reason why you write a blog affects the way you write it. For example:

You're putting baseball blogs together. You come across 3 of them.

The first one is written by Tom. He's in college, studying to be a spokesman at sporting events.

The second blog you find is by Lauren. She dated a baseball player once and is desperate to show people how this sport ruins relationships.

The third one is by John, a fanatic baseball follower. His blog narrates games and talks about how incredible it is.

The topic's the same, but they are completely different. Not only would you find a difference in opinions, the reason why these people wrote the blog affect the way they did it.

I agree with Sara Boxer when she says writing an anthology of blogs is a "dreadful idea for a book". Blogs must be kept online and separate from each other. Making an anthology of blogs would generate confusion and would take part of the essence of blogs away. After all, blogs are best when kept online.