It's funny how much I relate to writers when I am not a writer myself. I see all these people plugging away for hours on end, honing their craft and where am I?
Restricted by my rules and the things I'm afraid of.
Perhaps it's my upbringing or my desire to help others. This quote, from Writing Life by Ellen Gilchrist was fascinating to me because I don't know if I could do this:
"For many years my desire to do my work and tell my stories was so intense I would have sacrificed anything to it. I begged forgiveness of the world but I would have continued with my work whether the world agreed to let me do it or not."
I understand the overwhelming desire to write, but to ignore the needs of others? To leave people behind? I suppose if they were okay to fend for themselves...
It's so selfish to do that but I do realize even now, there have been times I've done similar things. Perhaps I've done the same to a smaller scale, and it is true that it is impossible for one to be always giving and always working and living for the benefit of others. It's not sustainable (to use the current catchword).
Now don't get me wrong; I'm no saint. I've just pointed out that I've acted selfishly before and have left people hanging, much like Gilchrist has done in the name of her work. I suppose the difference is that I've never done that to that extent in the name of work. What does that say about my attitude toward work or my attitude toward my own self-development?
I think one of the most poignant lessons that I've learned but often have forgotten is that in order to help others, I must help myself. I must be at a place to be able to help others or else I won't be able to.
With that being said, I must go back to my paper and continue to write, rewrite, and rewrite again.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Leisure
We are a society that loves leisure.
To the point where we've forgotten that we need to work first in order to survive.
The fruit of our labor and the food, clothing, and shelter that come from that labor have been so far removed from each other that we are not alive when we work and we do not feel connected to the labor we do. The money we get is a means to play, even when we don't actually have the time to play.
Life is whittled away for short-term, meaningless pleasures that leave us feeling empty and a little older than before. Before we know it, we are no longer capable of learning, of growing, or of deriving truly meaningful encounters and experiences.
Are the games we play, the TV shows we watch, and all the little things we do to waste time really worth it?
But then, on the flip side, why should we feel so guilty doing the things that we enjoy?
Is it because we are not contributing to society or bettering ourselves?
If we seek out leisure that does not enhance our being, is there something wrong with that?
I think the issue is that in the end, as individuals, one is often left feeling worse than before by doing things that do not engage the mind or better oneself. It's always in retrospect that regret kicks in and one can be found saying,
"I had all the time in the world but I didn't..."
"I could have done .... instead of ...."
I suppose it goes back to the idea of carpe diem or the ever-so-ridiculous YOLO.
Claim the day as ours, looking into the future so that we look back without regrets.*
*It's so funny how this statement as well as carpe diem and YOLO become justifications to do dumb things. One may live as if one will die tomorrow, but the changes of that happening is low. So many people live to see another day. Therefore, one must necessarily live with the future in mind in all that one does.
Like duh.
To the point where we've forgotten that we need to work first in order to survive.
The fruit of our labor and the food, clothing, and shelter that come from that labor have been so far removed from each other that we are not alive when we work and we do not feel connected to the labor we do. The money we get is a means to play, even when we don't actually have the time to play.
Life is whittled away for short-term, meaningless pleasures that leave us feeling empty and a little older than before. Before we know it, we are no longer capable of learning, of growing, or of deriving truly meaningful encounters and experiences.
Are the games we play, the TV shows we watch, and all the little things we do to waste time really worth it?
But then, on the flip side, why should we feel so guilty doing the things that we enjoy?
Is it because we are not contributing to society or bettering ourselves?
If we seek out leisure that does not enhance our being, is there something wrong with that?
I think the issue is that in the end, as individuals, one is often left feeling worse than before by doing things that do not engage the mind or better oneself. It's always in retrospect that regret kicks in and one can be found saying,
"I had all the time in the world but I didn't..."
"I could have done .... instead of ...."
I suppose it goes back to the idea of carpe diem or the ever-so-ridiculous YOLO.
Claim the day as ours, looking into the future so that we look back without regrets.*
*It's so funny how this statement as well as carpe diem and YOLO become justifications to do dumb things. One may live as if one will die tomorrow, but the changes of that happening is low. So many people live to see another day. Therefore, one must necessarily live with the future in mind in all that one does.
Like duh.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Confused
So from what I understand about Mizzou, I agree with what happened as justifiable and I'm glad that the president had to step down. However, I'm really confused about what's going on at Yale.
If I'm translating the situation correctly, students want an apology (which escalated to a resignation) from two resident professors because the two professors were not only trying to create an intellectual community that questioned why rules about costumes had to come from an authoritarian figure, but also because they were trying to address the students' concerns about an email and create a dialogue about it? And the students were demanding that professors apologize for hurting their feelings. That doesn't make sense to me at all.
I don't understand how that created an unsafe space. Views can be challenged...? Why should one feel unsafe about a disagreement? Doesn't that speak to one's on insecurities as a person? If one cannot take the fact that someone is questioning who one is, doesn't that mean that one should learn to understand and accept one's own identity first? If someone questions my identity, I simply tell them who I am. They can think whatever they want about me; I'm still me and none of that will change. I don't understand how creating an intellectual space about why the school has to police costumes turns into a debate about race. I really don't.
I suppose if the premise is that the students respected the decision of the university to create the rules on what acceptable and unacceptable costumes are, the fact that a resident professor would even question that would be... outrageous? Even in the name of intellectual exploration? Even though the resident professor made it abundantly clear that she agreed that such costumes shouldn't be allowed? If college isn't a place to be able to express one's individuality and one's thoughts, regardless of what it is, then where can an independent mind learn to do such things?But the flip side also becomes this: should such "policing" (in this case, of costumes) be done by the students?
If students feel too young or immature (and accept themselves to be as such), then I suppose they could then accept the fact that some higher authority needs to make the rules for them. They want to avoid policing themselves/each other; thus, it is easier to have someone else (of authority) to do it for them so that they can avoid awkward confrontations. I'm guessing that's the mentality?
For some reason, it still doesn't seem to make sense. And if anything, it sounds somewhat selfish (I don't want to have to deal with it) and immature (I'll just have someone else do it for me).
Is this what the new generation considers to be a valuable quality for society? I suppose the later generation was (is?) all about questioning authority. For them, it is always this questioning: "who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do" and "I will do what I want, when I want, and however I want to do it."
The next generation wants it to be all about them. "I don't feel safe. I feel offended. You can't say that to me. Do you know who I am? I am marginalized, revere me!" (Okay, so revere is a bit of an extreme word but in some ways, it really isn't.)
I don't know. Let us see what comes of it.
The article that made me think of all this is below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Oh, and to add to that is a response from Yale's president and dean of Yale College:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/yale-leaders-re-affirm-their-commitment-to-diversity-and-debate/
I think the most insightful is the following:
"We also affirm Yale’s bedrock principle of the freedom to speak and be heard, without fear of intimidation, threats, or harm, and we renew our commitment to this freedom not as a special exception for unpopular or controversial ideas but for them especially."
Why do I feel sympathy for the professor, who is literally surrounded by students rather than the screaming girl who demands and literally screams at the professor to apologize. If I were the professor, I would feel the "fear of intimidation, threats, or harm." Especially being surrounded by students like that. In this particular case, I don't think it has anything to do with race. What I see are petulant, stressed out students venting their frustrations at a professor who is trying to help them.
For the video, see below:
There are other clips of him trying to reason with these students. He's trying to talk with them and I feel like all they see is this white man in a position of power trying to put them down when he's trying to create an open dialogue with them. It doesn't make sense to me.
If I'm translating the situation correctly, students want an apology (which escalated to a resignation) from two resident professors because the two professors were not only trying to create an intellectual community that questioned why rules about costumes had to come from an authoritarian figure, but also because they were trying to address the students' concerns about an email and create a dialogue about it? And the students were demanding that professors apologize for hurting their feelings. That doesn't make sense to me at all.
I don't understand how that created an unsafe space. Views can be challenged...? Why should one feel unsafe about a disagreement? Doesn't that speak to one's on insecurities as a person? If one cannot take the fact that someone is questioning who one is, doesn't that mean that one should learn to understand and accept one's own identity first? If someone questions my identity, I simply tell them who I am. They can think whatever they want about me; I'm still me and none of that will change. I don't understand how creating an intellectual space about why the school has to police costumes turns into a debate about race. I really don't.
I suppose if the premise is that the students respected the decision of the university to create the rules on what acceptable and unacceptable costumes are, the fact that a resident professor would even question that would be... outrageous? Even in the name of intellectual exploration? Even though the resident professor made it abundantly clear that she agreed that such costumes shouldn't be allowed? If college isn't a place to be able to express one's individuality and one's thoughts, regardless of what it is, then where can an independent mind learn to do such things?But the flip side also becomes this: should such "policing" (in this case, of costumes) be done by the students?
If students feel too young or immature (and accept themselves to be as such), then I suppose they could then accept the fact that some higher authority needs to make the rules for them. They want to avoid policing themselves/each other; thus, it is easier to have someone else (of authority) to do it for them so that they can avoid awkward confrontations. I'm guessing that's the mentality?
For some reason, it still doesn't seem to make sense. And if anything, it sounds somewhat selfish (I don't want to have to deal with it) and immature (I'll just have someone else do it for me).
Is this what the new generation considers to be a valuable quality for society? I suppose the later generation was (is?) all about questioning authority. For them, it is always this questioning: "who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do" and "I will do what I want, when I want, and however I want to do it."
The next generation wants it to be all about them. "I don't feel safe. I feel offended. You can't say that to me. Do you know who I am? I am marginalized, revere me!" (Okay, so revere is a bit of an extreme word but in some ways, it really isn't.)
I don't know. Let us see what comes of it.
The article that made me think of all this is below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Oh, and to add to that is a response from Yale's president and dean of Yale College:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/yale-leaders-re-affirm-their-commitment-to-diversity-and-debate/
I think the most insightful is the following:
"We also affirm Yale’s bedrock principle of the freedom to speak and be heard, without fear of intimidation, threats, or harm, and we renew our commitment to this freedom not as a special exception for unpopular or controversial ideas but for them especially."
Why do I feel sympathy for the professor, who is literally surrounded by students rather than the screaming girl who demands and literally screams at the professor to apologize. If I were the professor, I would feel the "fear of intimidation, threats, or harm." Especially being surrounded by students like that. In this particular case, I don't think it has anything to do with race. What I see are petulant, stressed out students venting their frustrations at a professor who is trying to help them.
For the video, see below:
There are other clips of him trying to reason with these students. He's trying to talk with them and I feel like all they see is this white man in a position of power trying to put them down when he's trying to create an open dialogue with them. It doesn't make sense to me.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Innovations in education
I feel like the shift in education is about engaging students in a way that helps them to learn. I think it's quite an ideal shift but I think that we've perhaps forgotten why students need to be engaged to begin with.
In some ways, I feel like what is taught in classrooms and how it applies to the outside world is so disconnected that students don't feel motivated to learn. They don't see the purpose of what they learn because they don't see how it can apply to their daily lives. I think that in showing the practical applications to learning, students will have at least a smidgen more of interest than thinking "this is something I have to do. I don't know why I have to do this, but I somehow should feel the importance of it." This abstraction of the importance of education discourages students because there's all this weight put on it, but when students ask why they have to learn chemistry, often times, teachers and parents have a hard time answering. To say it'll open up opportunities disregards the fact that long-term success seldom works on students. To the ambitious and the driven, such answers will suffice. However, the reasons given for education/learning are very much like the reasoning for working out. It focuses on the long term results: "you'll live longer"; "it's better for you in the long run"; "you'll eventually have a nicer body in the far away future after blood, sweat, and tears." However, often times the short-term gratification of not doing schoolwork will outweigh the long-term promise of success.
While I think there's quite a bit of good work being done out there to motivate and engage students, I think that perhaps the reason why we even have to start doing this should be examined.
In some ways, I feel like what is taught in classrooms and how it applies to the outside world is so disconnected that students don't feel motivated to learn. They don't see the purpose of what they learn because they don't see how it can apply to their daily lives. I think that in showing the practical applications to learning, students will have at least a smidgen more of interest than thinking "this is something I have to do. I don't know why I have to do this, but I somehow should feel the importance of it." This abstraction of the importance of education discourages students because there's all this weight put on it, but when students ask why they have to learn chemistry, often times, teachers and parents have a hard time answering. To say it'll open up opportunities disregards the fact that long-term success seldom works on students. To the ambitious and the driven, such answers will suffice. However, the reasons given for education/learning are very much like the reasoning for working out. It focuses on the long term results: "you'll live longer"; "it's better for you in the long run"; "you'll eventually have a nicer body in the far away future after blood, sweat, and tears." However, often times the short-term gratification of not doing schoolwork will outweigh the long-term promise of success.
While I think there's quite a bit of good work being done out there to motivate and engage students, I think that perhaps the reason why we even have to start doing this should be examined.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Justifying the humanities
Is the humanities really a luxury? The fact that we have the time or the "leisure" of critically exploring thought, is that something that we feel like we have to justify?
Why are the humanities important?
Behind the humanities is something soft and intangible. It is what drives civilization beyond the base. But can one really say that it is a luxury? But then again, isn't first-world civilization precisely that? We live in relative luxury, despite people having to work every day to get by. "Getting by" can still mean that we have food, shelter, running water, electricity, relative security, and, of course, an Internet connection.
Can we really get away with saying "it's important; you really can't see it"?
One of the best cases I've read on the defense for the humanities is that with the humanities, we would lose the ability to think critically. I think that by extension, because critical thinking is essential to survival, the humanities become essential.
Can the fight for equality, social justice, and all the problems of the world exist without the humanities? I would argue that the very movements that we go through stem from the thinking that is done in the humanities.
And yet...
Something about fighting for something intangible makes me uncomfortable. I feel like I'm grasping at straws, even if I know that they exist and they are important.
Society or perhaps the confines of my own mind has made me believe that somewhere and somehow, the things that I do and the things that I think are important to living are not "worth" it, that there is something fundamentally wrong with exploring the depth of nature, the mind, the human condition, the intellectual. Or whatever you want to call it. Or whatever you want to romanticize it to.
Whatever you may think "it" to be.
What is it that we do? What gives it meaning? What makes it important?
Does there have to be justification?
What is the use? Should there be a use? To say that it is simply an exercise of the rich is to forget that entire movements have been forged from these "idle" thoughts and explorations of the beautiful. Entire civilizations have changed and the very foundation of the way society works has been shaken.
And yet...
Perhaps I'm too stuck on the tangibly utilitarian. If the palpable output of the humanities is an argument that the people in the past have done things that were interesting or revolutionary during their time but means nothing during ours, then what of it?
I don't think I'll ever get a pretty answer out of this. But I still feel that there is merit and worth in exploring the humanities.
Why are the humanities important?
Behind the humanities is something soft and intangible. It is what drives civilization beyond the base. But can one really say that it is a luxury? But then again, isn't first-world civilization precisely that? We live in relative luxury, despite people having to work every day to get by. "Getting by" can still mean that we have food, shelter, running water, electricity, relative security, and, of course, an Internet connection.
Can we really get away with saying "it's important; you really can't see it"?
One of the best cases I've read on the defense for the humanities is that with the humanities, we would lose the ability to think critically. I think that by extension, because critical thinking is essential to survival, the humanities become essential.
Can the fight for equality, social justice, and all the problems of the world exist without the humanities? I would argue that the very movements that we go through stem from the thinking that is done in the humanities.
And yet...
Something about fighting for something intangible makes me uncomfortable. I feel like I'm grasping at straws, even if I know that they exist and they are important.
Society or perhaps the confines of my own mind has made me believe that somewhere and somehow, the things that I do and the things that I think are important to living are not "worth" it, that there is something fundamentally wrong with exploring the depth of nature, the mind, the human condition, the intellectual. Or whatever you want to call it. Or whatever you want to romanticize it to.
Whatever you may think "it" to be.
What is it that we do? What gives it meaning? What makes it important?
Does there have to be justification?
What is the use? Should there be a use? To say that it is simply an exercise of the rich is to forget that entire movements have been forged from these "idle" thoughts and explorations of the beautiful. Entire civilizations have changed and the very foundation of the way society works has been shaken.
And yet...
Perhaps I'm too stuck on the tangibly utilitarian. If the palpable output of the humanities is an argument that the people in the past have done things that were interesting or revolutionary during their time but means nothing during ours, then what of it?
I don't think I'll ever get a pretty answer out of this. But I still feel that there is merit and worth in exploring the humanities.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Pictures
We try to capture moments of our lives or moments of beauty through pictures and it is never enough. The image we capture becomes an object that is distant from what we felt at the moment. We forget that memory captures best what pictures cannot. The moment into memory becomes the experience again. By absorbing all of that single moment into the memory of our senses, we can recreate the beauty that we so fruitlessly try to capture in a still image.
Friday, October 2, 2015
The clutter of one's past
I scrapbook or try to.
I feel like I have some kind of inherent desire to hold onto the past. Perhaps to record it so as not to forget it, which I often do. However, this desire to save everything ends up taking up space and I guess I ended up with this thought:
We clutter up our lives with things of the past and with it comes all the accompanying burdens that occupy both physical and mental space.
Perhaps I need to let go of things or just learn to throw my shit away. Honestly now.
On a completely different note, I've been watching a lot of TV shows lately. I think perhaps I need human interaction. Oddly enough, watching TV in some odd way seems to satisfy this desire (if it indeed is something that I feel like I need. I've come to realize that it's an unfulfilling waste of time because it's incredibly passive. TV allows people to be social without the risk and trouble of having to actually be social and deal with the navigation required for such endeavors.
I should get out more.
I feel like I have some kind of inherent desire to hold onto the past. Perhaps to record it so as not to forget it, which I often do. However, this desire to save everything ends up taking up space and I guess I ended up with this thought:
We clutter up our lives with things of the past and with it comes all the accompanying burdens that occupy both physical and mental space.
Perhaps I need to let go of things or just learn to throw my shit away. Honestly now.
On a completely different note, I've been watching a lot of TV shows lately. I think perhaps I need human interaction. Oddly enough, watching TV in some odd way seems to satisfy this desire (if it indeed is something that I feel like I need. I've come to realize that it's an unfulfilling waste of time because it's incredibly passive. TV allows people to be social without the risk and trouble of having to actually be social and deal with the navigation required for such endeavors.
I should get out more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)