WOAAHHHHH WRITING CENTER!!!

I found my visit to the writing center EXTREMELY helpful! I went with absolutely nothing written, not because I am a "bad" student but simply because I was not 100% sure of where I was heading with my paper. When I left I would say I was 90% sure, the other 10% was my need to just organize all of my thoughts once I began writing. This is a problem of mine. What she did was to ask me questions specifically related to the essay question. This helped steer me onto the track I needed to be on. The questions were built on top of one another and my mind began to flow. I was able to pick up where she was going with her questions and brought up my own suggestions for what I could discuss in the essay. Within 30 minutes I had a nice list that we were both able to create on what I would discuss in my paper. I have to admit that I was a little excited because I viewed the essay as "easy" now. However, that feeling scared me a little because you never expect work to be easy in college; therefore I did second guess myself a little bit. I have not received my essay back as yet, so we will see. I might just pay another visit to the writing center...no I WILL pay the writing center another visit = )

The Reality Tests?

"Do we create what we observe through the act of our observation? (230)" Joshua Roebke

What we observe can be effected by the act of observation yes and no. To explain I will present a scenario. I decide I want to observe lions in their natural habitat. I position as close as possible to the family of lions. I observe the lions sniffing and pawing at my jeep, one even attempts jumps onto the jeep. Because of this I conclude that lions are curious creatures when a “foreigner" enters into their territory. This is a yes scenario. The “no” would occur if I planted some undetectable observation equipment into their habitat and observed them from somewhere else. Then I would watch a “foreigner” invade the lion’s territory and not come out. In this case I would conclude that lions are extremely territorial. This is VERY different from the conclusion that lions are curious creatures. So yes, the very act of observing can affect our observation in that we are creating what we observe. No, if the observer is aware of this possibility and takes precautions to make sure this does not happen.

The weakness in Roebke’s thesis was that I lost interest. The entire reading was him continuously telling the same situation of scientists trying to test whether or not realism is a part of Quantum Mechanics. This was my understanding of what the entire article was about. The very argument however makes no sense to me because you can’t really separate anything from reality.

"Faustian Economics" By: Wendell Berry

“The problem with us is not only prodigal extravagance but also an assumed limitlessness…..we have founded our present society upon delusional assumptions of limitlessness.” This is Berry’s central argument. Surrounding this argument is the reason as to how we came to this. The answer to this question how is because people believe that the American way of life is indestructible; there is always more. What this has led to, according to Berry, is greed and waste. We must have limits, or else humans will cease to exist. This I can agree with.

Berry did something very interesting that I truly admire. He referred to "Faustus" and artists who work with limits and used them to support his argument. Faustus was a highly intelligent man in his day whose thirst for knowledge turned into greed. His greed was so intense that he sold his soul to the devil, literally, in exchange for ultimate power and all of the knowledge in the world. The power and knowledge that he was given allowed him to be at home in one minute and in less than 30 seconds he was at the Vatican. However, even with all of that power Faustus became bored. In the end Faustus was taken to Hell when his "contract" was up.

Berry’s reference says that such “limitlessness,” does not make people happy and does not lead to any place good. Berry says that artists work with limits such as frames and time limits. Yet still artists manage to produce beautiful work within these limits. Thus, we can do the same because freedom itself comes with restrictions in order to fully experience the peace that comes with freedom.

In the end, Berry concludes that the only way to side step a Faustus ending is to perform like an artist in order to sustain our human existence. We need to “re-program” our way of living to incorporate the fact that resources and the environment we live in are NOT limitless. Real artists paint, write, draw, sing and dance as they please within the limits of time, paper and or a stage. We must stop thinking that freedom means the lack of or absence of restraints and, start thinking like real artists.

Painting Excess Waste

Excess wastes looks like the prissy women sitting in the restaurant. They order one meal and then if it is slightly cold they send it back. They snicker about how there is “no way they could eat that." The waiter brings them a warmer plate. However, they come to the realization that what they ordered has too many carbohydrates and they are on a "low-no carb diet." The stressed waiter returns to their table making sure he doesn’t show the faintest notion of his frustrated state. By the third time around the ladies take a few bites and then push their plates away. I sit across from these ladies and watch their barely eaten food taken up and carried away, to the garbage most likely, because they refused to carry their left-over food home. This is excess waste I see when I go out and it upsets me. What is wrong with getting a doggie bag?

On page 640 in the second paragraph, “To think well….the community value,” Bruffee states that in order to be successful thinkers we must learn to converse in order to generate thought. This can be done in what he calls a community that motivates thinking. I would probably say that these communities are similar to the kind of intellectual communities found on a college campus. However, one must be able to engage in a conversation in order to gain any knowledge to progress ones thinking. Another positive impact associated with engaging in a conversation is that each participant brings a challenge to the conversation. This challenge encourages further movement in thinking.

On page 641 in paragraphs 2-3, “If thought is internalized….in its external social medium,” Bruffee’s main argument is made clear. The argument is: Thought= internalized conversation and writing=thought made public. Thus, writing is the 2cd step in the cycle that encourages conversation which in turn expands thinking. This is a very interesting concept because it is true. Whether you are engaging in a verbal conversation or reading an author’s work, you are involved in a thought process. Once this thought process begins if the individual decides to write, he or she is regurgitating that thought. This then goes into circulation for others to read and converse about thus evoking continuous thought. This simply cannot be argued against because it is what we do everyday within the academic arena; we think about something, read about it, converse with fellow classmates about the reading and then write about what we think.

Derrida: "Fear of Writing"

Derrida sometimes fears his own thoughts because they are unconventional. I believe that this fear Derrida encounters is directly linked to his "thinking outside of the box." However, I believe the best writers and the best thinkers are those who overcome this fear and embrace their unique minds. He has already stated that he does not regret what he writes and therefore, he should not fear his own thoughts.

This fear, however, that Derrida has encounters is the reason why I believe he does entrust the written word with power more than just because words are powerful. It is because his thinking is unconventional. The unconventional nature of his thoughts can be misinterpreted. This goes back to the idea that language is a slippery vehicle and Jones’s description of language as an image. The painter can paint a meaningful picture in a way that sets him apart, but its interpretation varies with each viewer.

I am one of those people who when coming into the world of individualistic thinking and writing was taken back and fearful of the thoughts that entered my mind. However, I embraced these thoughts as my own and no longer cared whether or not they were unconventional. Because of this I do understand where Derrida is coming from. Yet still, I believe thinkers should take delight in their unique minds and take pride in what they think and most importantly understand the fragility of language.

Hass and Jones Poem

Hass believes that there is no accurate way to describe a tree. I found it difficult to extract the meaning behind what Hass was saying because of his use of words. Therefore, I did not get much out of this poem. However, this lack of clarity that I found is direct evidence of how sensitive words can be. They have the power to inspire and the power to confuse. Jones, on the other hand right away states that there is “no image like the image of language.” There is nothing that can compare to language because it is painted with one meaning in mind but can be interpreted in many ways. In the last portion of the poem James concludes that once you have an idea, if you let it go then you have lost it completely. The same notion applies to words; once they have been spoken they cannot be taken back.

Both of these poets perspective on making meaning of words correlate to the fact that language is a slippery vehicle. Language is essential to life because it allows for communication. The essence of language is words. However, words have multiple meanings and therefore can be taken out of context by the reader. Language is like a vehicle. We need to vehicles, or some kind of transportation to get around or else we would be stuck where we are. Or we could walk. Language allows us to communicate with each other just as vehicles give us mobility. If used properly language can help us get where we need to go. Language is a slippery vehicle because words have multiple meanings making language subject to miscommunication.