The significance of the Peach Blossom in the culture is that the Peach Blossom represents life and happiness. In the poem, I think it represents these things as well, but also represents the beauty of simplicity. I've realized in my own life that if I make more time for more important things, my life becomes much more simple rather than always worrying about big things in my life. Life is really about being happy with the little things.
My footprint for the Ecological Quiz was 4.92 Earths. I could lighten my footprint by buying more organic foods and using compost piles rather than a garbage disposal. I could not travel so much by car or plane, I could ride my bike and walk more places, especially when it is nicer weather outside.
In the selections from Walden reading, these were three quotes I found and related to.
1. "What people say you cannot do, you try and find that you can" (page 351). I really like this quote because when people tell you that you can't do something, it gives you even more motivation to prove them wrong and show them that you can do what they said you couldn't. I've realized this in my own life and it always turns out that I can do the things that people say I couldn't do. It makes me feel more accomplished too when I complete those tasks. I thank the people silently that said I couldn't something, because they were my motivation to complete that event.
2. "Some things are really necessaries of life in some circles, the most helpless and diseased, which in others are luxuries merely, and in others still are entirely unknown" (page. 352). This quote really got me thinking about how much we take for granted in the United States. We have so many freedoms and luxuries that so many other countries don't get to enjoy. Many cultures don't even know about the existence of such freedoms or technology that we have here today. It made me really grateful for everything I have and made me appreciate the simple things in life, as well as the bigger things I don't really even think about.
3. "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone" (page. 360). The reason I liked this quote so much was because it made me realize how many things we really don't need. Society and the media makes everyone think that we need all of the newest and most hi-tech things there are out there, but in reality, they just make our lives more complicated and more problematic. For example, everyone wants and iPhone, but the second you buy it, they come out with a newer "cooler" version of it, making you need to save up all your money all over again. We don't always need the newest thing out there, because if we try to simplify our lives rather than focus on trying to just get more "stuff," our lives will be much better off.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Week 4 Reflection
Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks
Page 385. The general point made by Edward Abbey in his
work Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the
National Parks is that we need to take better care of the national parks to
preserve their beauty. More
specifically, Abbey argues that the tourists that visit the parks need to be
more aware of how they are affecting the park depending on what they are doing
or how they are camping. He writes, “campgrounds
where I used to putter around reading three-day-old newspapers full of lies and
watermelon seeds have now been consolidated into one master campground that
looks, during the busy season, like a suburban village” (p. 387). In this passage, Abbey is suggesting that
most of the modern-day tourists are ruining the national parks with all their
motor vehicles and their way of camping when they come to visit the national
parks. In conclusions, it is Abbey’s
belief that if we don’t ban motor vehicles and paved roads from national parks,
they will be destroyed and future generations will not be able to enjoy them.
In my view, Abbey is right because
many of the modern-day tourists only do things in ways in which they are
comfortable. For example, I have been
camping many times in my life, but only once have I ever camped in a tent,
without flushable toilets and no electricity whatsoever. People only do what they feel comfortable
with. Although Abbey might object that his
idea might drive some people away from camping, I maintain that it would, but
only the people that were really against going without all of their high-tech
gadgets. Therefore, I conclude that we
do need to take better care of our national parks in whatever way possible so
that our posterity will be able to enjoy them.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Wildlife in American Culture
Page 372. The general point made by Aldo Leopold in his
work Wildlife in American Culture is
that modern society with all its new technology and inventions, is having a
very negative impact on the environment.
More specifically, Leopold suggests that society is continually
destroying parts of the environment when we really don’t need to. He writes, “the conquest of nature by machine
has led to much unnecessary destruction of resources” (p. 372). In this passage, Leopold is suggesting that
society as a whole can do a much better job with being aware of what we truly
need to take from the environment and what we need to preserve. In conclusion, it is Leopold’s belief that “we
shall achieve conservation when…the destructive use of land becomes unethical”
(p. 372).
In my view, Leopold is right because
we really could be better about preserving our natural resources to help save
the environment a little bit more. For
example, we use a lot of paper and water as a society. If everyone were to recycle every possible
thing they could and to try to take shorter showers, turn off the water while
brushing their teeth, and other things like that, it would help the environment
so much. Riding your bike would also
help a lot to reduce pollution of the air we breathe every day. Although Leopold might object that people don’t
care about the environment because of the current world we live in, I maintain
that everyone wants to help protect the earth we live on but they just aren’t sure how to
do that. Therefore, I conclude that if
there was more awareness put out there about the environment and how our
actions effect it, people would be better about doing things to help the
environment rather than cause more damage that what has already been done.
Introduction & Peach Blossom
Introduction
(Page 341). This passage was about how influential man
and civilization in general can be on nature.
This really made me start thinking about how although people are
separate from nature, we are a part of it just as much. We influence nature so much, and we need to
start taking better care of it. This
made me think of one of my favorite quotes, “We did not inherit the earth from
our parents, but we are borrowing it from our children.” I really like this quote because it makes me
want to take better care of the earth for my children. In this passage, the quote “their cultures
maintained a sense of nature as intimately connected with who we are” (p 342)
really made me think of how if our society was more connected to nature and had
it as a sense of how we became who we are today, we would want to take better
care of our earth.
Peach Blossom
(Page 344). This poem depicts a fisherman travelling down
a stream where he finds a cave. He goes into
the cave and discovers a small village of people who live simple and ordinary
lives, but are very happy. They had
“lost all connection with the outside world” (p. 344). I think that the moral of the story here, is
that everyone can be happy if they go looking for it. Being happy is achieved by simplifying your
life, in whatever way you see possible.
People in today’s society need to recognize this and not stress over the
little things in life. American culture
is probably one of the biggest cultures that need to simplify. A lot of other cultures in the East, like
places of Africa and India, lead very simple lives. They are much happier there because they are
more aware of themselves and the world around them. They feel connected to everything and are
happier because of it.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Reading Quiz #2
Reading
literature can help society better understand and connect to other
cultures. Mario Vargas Llosa writes, “we
share as human beings, what remains common in all of us under the broad range
of differences that separate us. Nothing
better protects human being against the stupidity of prejudice, racism,
religious or political sectarianism…that men and women of all nations and
places are essentially equal, and that only injustice sows among them
discrimination, fear, and exploitation” (p. 40). What he means by this is that every human
being, no matter what race, religion, gender, or culture, is all equal and that
one can only become connected to others of a different race, religion, etc. is
by reading literature. That is the only
possibly way one can become aware of the world around him.
On the other hand, Laura Bohannan thought
that everyone viewed the world as well as stories the same way no matter what
culture or religion. However, she also
proves the point that only through literature can society understand one
another by finding out that she is wrong about how she thinks of other cultures
once she tells a tribe in Africa the story of Hamlet by Shakespeare. At
the beginning of her story, she thinks “human nature is pretty much the same
the whole world over” (p. 29). She
realizes she is wrong by the end of telling her story because the African tribe
was so confused on so many different parts of the story. They didn’t view the story the same way she
did, like thinking that two years was much too long for a widow to mourn, or
that it is very acceptable for the brother to marry the deceased brother’s
wife. She realizes at the end that only
through reading literature and thinking about how other cultures might view the
world, stories, or poetry differently, that that is the only way the whole
world can be connected. Through
education of other cultures, religions, etc. and by reading can society
understand one another even through their differences.
An example that proves the point
that only through reading can people become connected is the example of how
differently the story of Cinderella
is viewed differently in the United States rather than in China. In Cinderella
in the United States, the Fairy Godmother is an actual person who grants wishes
to Cinderella. However, in China, the
Fairy Godmother is a coy fish who grants wishes to Cinderella. In China, the coy fish is a symbol of good
luck. If society didn’t have literature,
no one would be able to understand how cultures would view the exact same story
so differently. Because society has
literature though, everyone feels connected because each culture is trying to
understand the beliefs, ideas, and opinions of another culture in which they
are reading about.
These two articles, Shakespeare in the Bush by Laura
Bohannan and Why Literature? by Mario
Vargas Llosa, are connected because only through reading literature can the
whole world understand each other.
Without literature, nothing connects us to one another because everyone
is so different and unique. Each
culture, religion, political group, etc. will always have different opinions
and views on everything under the sun.
However, if everyone makes an effort to learn from literature and
understand the other person’s point of view, society will feel more connected
as a whole.
Through literature, people won’t feel as
alone as they did before reading. They
will feel they have a better understanding of another person’s culture because
of the literature they have read on that specific subject of that culture’s
beliefs. Through understanding other’s
culture, people become more aware of themselves and better understand
themselves because they have learned something new about someone else. Therefore, reading literature can help
society better understand and connect to cultures around the world, including
their own.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Education by Poetry
Page 48. The general point made by Robert Frost in his
work Education by Poetry is that you
can become close to poetry in only two different ways. More specifically, Frost suggests that these
ways are reading poetry or writing poetry, but only if you have such a desire
to do so. He writes, “ the person who
gets close enough to poetry, he is going to know more about the word belief
than anybody else knows, even in religion nowadays…every time a poem is written…it
is written not by cunning, but by belief” (page 50). In this passage, Frost is suggesting that
only by experiencing poetry, whether it be through reading or writing, but by
experiencing it is the only way we can come to know and understand poetry. In conclusion, it is Frost’s belief that
poetry can only be experienced and truly understood by reading or writing it.
In my view, Frost is right because
you can never really understand something, whether it be an experience or a
piece of text/poetry, unless you really go through the process of trying to
understand it, by reading about it or writing about it then truly thinking
about what you have just learned. For
example, you can’t really fully understand someone who went through The Great
Depression unless you either listen to them (reading) or you talk to them about
what they went through (writing).
Although Frost might object that everyone can understand poetry, I maintain
that everyone can if they really think about and try to have their own
interpretation and opinion of it. Have
ideas about the text of what they are reading.
Therefore, I conclude that poetry can be understood by anyone if they
just learn to have their own opinions and beliefs about what they are reading
or writing.
Why Literature?
Page 39. The general point made by Mario Vargas Llosa
in his work Why Literature? is that
society is becoming less and less free and more “soulless” because of how
little people are reading in the world today.
More specifically, Llosa argues that through literature, people feel
more connected to one another and to the earth through their experiences and
connection with the reading. He writes,
“we share as human beings, what remains common in all of us under the broad
range of differences that separate us.
Nothing better protects human being against the stupidity of prejudice,
racism, religious or political sectarianism…that men and women of all nations
and places are essentially equal, and that only injustice sows among them
discrimination, fear, and exploitation” (page 40). In this passage, Llosa is suggesting that
people are all connected and equal through literature; that is how we
understand one another and our feelings.
In conclusion, it is Llosa’s belief that if we do not continue to read
and promote literature in our everyday lives and the lives of others, we as a
society, will become desensitized to everything around us.
In
my view, Llosa is right because if literature did not exist, America wouldn’t be here
today. No one would have any type of a
connection with other people and try and understand what someone else is going
through without actually going through it themselves. For example, our government wouldn’t be as it
is now, and women and minority races would still be considered “unequal” to
white men. Although Llosa might object
that technology has helped society, I maintain that it really has helped
society but we must be careful with the way in which we use it. Therefore, I conclude that we need to be more
aware of the way in which we view literature within the world and how it
influences us.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Week 3 Reflection
How does the author's culture bias affect her argument?
In Shakespeare in the Bush, the author's culture bias affects her argument in the way that she cannot successfully convey the meaning of her story to the African people. She just assumes they know everything and that they will see everything the same way she sees it. However, because of the different cultures, the African people see it very differently than the author, so she cannot fully convey the meaning of the story to them because they do not see the story the same way she does.
Breughel's Icarus:
In Shakespeare in the Bush, the author's culture bias affects her argument in the way that she cannot successfully convey the meaning of her story to the African people. She just assumes they know everything and that they will see everything the same way she sees it. However, because of the different cultures, the African people see it very differently than the author, so she cannot fully convey the meaning of the story to them because they do not see the story the same way she does.
Breughel's Icarus:
1.
Subject:
The Old Masters
2.
Found:
Second line of poem
3.
Order:
Incorrect
4.
Trying
to say: The Old Masters were never wrong about suffering.
5.
Auden’s
argument: “The Old Masters were never wrong about suffering.”
6.
How
he makes the argument: He begins very general and he moves more and more
specific until he is pointing to very specific examples within the painting.
7.
Does
he provide evidence: Yes, The Old Masters knew how to paint pain and suffering,
meaning they “understood it’s human position.”
8.
Title
meaning: Museum of the Beautiful Arts
9.
Who
are the “Old Masters”: Davincci, Michael Angelo, etc.
10.
Why
is it capitalized: Because it is a
specific group of people.
11.
How
you can find out more: by doing research and going to art museums to dig deeper
on those artists and their paintings.
12.
How
Auden moves through his argument: He goes from very general to very specific
and ends up using the painting in his poem and using it as a detailed example.
13.
Breughel’s
Icarus: a painting that depicts how the world still goes on even through the
suffering of others.
14.
Thesis: I agree
with some parts of the thesis and disagree with it in other aspects. I agree because a lot of the time, people
around the world simply turn their heads or try and stay “blissfully ignorant”
about other suffering. For instance, all
Americans know there is a war going on in Iraq, but little actually know the
full impact it is having on the troops and their families. Many don’t know just how bad it is and what
our soldiers are going through, simply because it is easier to turn our heads
and act like everything is fine. On the
other hand, I disagree with his thesis because there have been many times in
the world where some type of natural disaster has occurred and America and
various other countries with the proper resources have come to help the country
that has been affected by whatever disaster has occurred. Therefore, I agree and disagree with his
thesis because people can be very willing to help others, but people can also
be willing to stay ignorant of the suffering of the rest of the world.
15.
Auden
could come from a different country and therefore would have many different
experiences than the rest of us, thus causing his opinion to be the way it is.
16.
His
living in Europe in the 1930’s definitely affected his views about human
suffering and how people responded to it.
This was during WWII and many people in Europe turned their heads to
what was going on with the Jews. He
noticed that no one, except for very few, that would actually help those in
need at the time.
17.
I
think Auden feels like The Old Masters knew how to display their pain and
suffering in the world around them through their paintings.
18.
The
Old Masters were looked very highly upon by not only Auden, but other writers,
painters, and various artists as well.
19.
The
Old Masters were looked very highly upon because people can relate to them
through their suffering and The Old Masters paintings.
20.
Auden
is affected by being in a museum because he feels more inspired there by being
around all those other paintings.
21.
Because
the boy is drowning in the water and everyone is going on with their business
like absolutely nothing is wrong.
22.
Yes,
there are similarities that were going on in history that could make the Old
Masters and Auden see things similarly.
Wars were going on at both these times, making the artists see things
similarly.
23.
The
wars were about very different things, and each artist might have had a
different view point about the war specifically.
24.
Each
painting has a distinct story that can be “read” by anyone, but everyone has
very different interpretations of each painting.
25.
We’re
expected to see a “museum of beautiful arts” from the title.
26.
We
see a painting that depicts physical and emotional human suffering that can
either be ignored or helped by others.
27.
The
painting wants you to see happiness, sunshine, and contentedness. What is hard to notice however, is the legs
flailing in the water right by the ship.
The painting wants to make it hard for you to notice the suffering of
the little boy drowning.
28.
Icarus
is the boy drowning in the water by the ship.
29.
He
is so small because the world tries to make it seem like one little person is
so unnoticeable when it comes to suffering.
One person is nothing compared to the rest of the world.
30.
The
people in the painting are ignoring him and going about their business and
trying not to notice him.
31.
He
said that people do not respond to human suffering. They ignore it, which is
what is going on in the painting.
32.
Auden’s
interpretation is a good one. It makes sense and there is evidence to back it
up.
33.
Breughel’s
historical and cultural context informed his art because off the myths and
stories that were a big part of the culture at the time.
34.
I
think Breughel’s interpretation of the story is correct.
35.
We
would need to find the original source.
36. The story makes
it seem like everyone cared and was sad about the boy dying, rather than in the
painting, Auden makes it seem like absolutely no one cares.
37.
Ovid’s
point of view is so different because of the time period he came from.
38.
What
was happening in the first century was that there were a lot of different
emperors reigning over Rome.
39.
That
might have affected his story telling because maybe every time Rome lost an
emperor, the whole country was sad about it.
Maybe Ovid thought that whenever any one individual person died,
everyone was sad about that one person.
40.
I
think that the painting is more correct by the way of saying people are
ignorant when it comes to the loss of the life of others.
41.
I
feel sad and frustrated that so many people are blissfully ignorant of the
lives of others, especially when they are fighting for our country, but even if
they’re not, they are still a human being and every life is valuable.
42.
It
confuses me and angers me why people act the way they do. I know I act like that sometimes, but most
people like it that way and don’t want to change and become aware of the lives
of others around them.
43.
I
would respond to Auden and tell him that he was correct in his assumptions then
and still is today.
44.
I
assume that both the writer and painter know what they are talking about and
have specific reasons and evidence for believing the things they do and for
having the opinions they have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
