My freshman year I have been to the Writing Center a total of about 5 times even though not all the visits were "official." I definitely found the Writing Center useful because to me, any help at all is beneficial to my writing. Since I procrastinate like most people, I would go the day before a paper is due to look for help. Outlining and starting my papers is usually where I have the most trouble anyway. Once I get started, I'm fine. I went for the Twelfth Night paper because I was really confused with what exactly I was supposed to be writing about. My tutor was some type of drama major (I don't know what kind exactly) so he actually had prior knowledge to the play since Twelfth Night was the play Hofstra was doing. That was really helpful because I didn't have to explain the whole plot of the play. He helped me figure out which sonnet worked best with my thesis and also helped decipher the Shakespearean language that I always find so complicated. After that, he helped me tie the sonnet together with a character from the play. I was able to use that as support for my argument.
I didn't exactly change anything in my essays. When I went to the Writing Center, I went for help to start my paper so all I really had was the assignment paper.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Quantum physics? I signed up for the wrong course.
Roebke's article gave me a huge headache because of the amount of thinking it forced me to do. My physics class in high school barely touched on quantum physics, and now it's being thrown at me like a huge rock in my writing studies course...weird.
From the small amount of information I actually understood, I think Roebke does believe that "we create what we observe through the act of our observations," and so do I. At one point in the article he mentions that the human body is a barely adequate measuring tool, which is very true in a number of ways. Our eyes can only see a very limited amount of light waves on the electromagnetic spectrum. The limited amount of light we are able to pick up is called visible light (ROYGBIV). X-rays, ultraviolet rays, infrared, and radio waves are all impossible to be seen with the naked human eye. Even though these waves are invisible to us, they are still there.
Just like our inability to see light waves we cannot see Roebke's constantly moving atoms. Why? Because it all happens too fast and all at once. His article is basically saying in very complicated terms that there is a lot more out there that we don't know about or can even imagine. Our bodies however, are not physically capable of experiencing them. The reality we perceive is really just a thin paper backdrop, which, when ripped down reveals infinite possibilities.
I think Roebke's complicated writing could be both a strength and a weakness depending on how you look at it. It has already been determined from last class that no one really has a clue about quantum physics. Since most of us lack both knowledge and interest on the subject, we are ready to believe anything Roebke writes with confidence. In reality Roebke could actually know nothing about quantum physics and is just a really good liar (this probably isn't the case otherwise it wouldn't be published in a book and we wouldn't be reading about it). This would be a strength on Roebke's part. The reader's inexperience on the subject of quantum physics strengthens his argument. There is no room for questioning because we are just trying to figure out what it is he wrote in the first place. This is also a weakness from the reader's perspective. What good is reading something that is too complicated to understand? Why even bother trying to figure out an argument if you are not up to par with the level of thinking in the article?
From the small amount of information I actually understood, I think Roebke does believe that "we create what we observe through the act of our observations," and so do I. At one point in the article he mentions that the human body is a barely adequate measuring tool, which is very true in a number of ways. Our eyes can only see a very limited amount of light waves on the electromagnetic spectrum. The limited amount of light we are able to pick up is called visible light (ROYGBIV). X-rays, ultraviolet rays, infrared, and radio waves are all impossible to be seen with the naked human eye. Even though these waves are invisible to us, they are still there.
Just like our inability to see light waves we cannot see Roebke's constantly moving atoms. Why? Because it all happens too fast and all at once. His article is basically saying in very complicated terms that there is a lot more out there that we don't know about or can even imagine. Our bodies however, are not physically capable of experiencing them. The reality we perceive is really just a thin paper backdrop, which, when ripped down reveals infinite possibilities.
I think Roebke's complicated writing could be both a strength and a weakness depending on how you look at it. It has already been determined from last class that no one really has a clue about quantum physics. Since most of us lack both knowledge and interest on the subject, we are ready to believe anything Roebke writes with confidence. In reality Roebke could actually know nothing about quantum physics and is just a really good liar (this probably isn't the case otherwise it wouldn't be published in a book and we wouldn't be reading about it). This would be a strength on Roebke's part. The reader's inexperience on the subject of quantum physics strengthens his argument. There is no room for questioning because we are just trying to figure out what it is he wrote in the first place. This is also a weakness from the reader's perspective. What good is reading something that is too complicated to understand? Why even bother trying to figure out an argument if you are not up to par with the level of thinking in the article?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bruffee
Bruffee believes strongly in his theory of "collaborative learning." He believes that the way to knowledge and a better understanding of things is to communicate with other people. On page 6 he states "Human thought is consummately social: social in its origins, social in its functions, social in its form, social in its applications." He believes the best way to learn is through conversation. He provides an example with the medical students diagnosing a patient. Instead of the head doctor asking each individual to diagnose the patient, she asked them to form a group diagnosis. The medical students learned quicker and easier through the group method. We also do collaborative learning in class all the time. We get into groups to discuss readings, papers, Twelfth Night, and various other assignments. Most of the time we are all working together and each bringing our own unique knowledge to the table.
I liked how Bruffee used the "blind leading the blind" argument to actually support his thesis about knowledge. If knowledge is something you can see, then it is the blind leading the blind. However, to Bruffee, knowledge is not something to be seen, it's something to be spoken or heard. It is not learned by sight but by conversation. I find it interesting that he believes collaborative learning isn't only the best way to learn, but the best way to teach. He brings in the example of the peer tutors and tutees. Both the tutor and the tutee need to bring their own specific knowledge in order to help each other. I think the whole article is fairly interesting because of the way he sees knowledge. It is better to learn in groups than to learn individually.
I liked how Bruffee used the "blind leading the blind" argument to actually support his thesis about knowledge. If knowledge is something you can see, then it is the blind leading the blind. However, to Bruffee, knowledge is not something to be seen, it's something to be spoken or heard. It is not learned by sight but by conversation. I find it interesting that he believes collaborative learning isn't only the best way to learn, but the best way to teach. He brings in the example of the peer tutors and tutees. Both the tutor and the tutee need to bring their own specific knowledge in order to help each other. I think the whole article is fairly interesting because of the way he sees knowledge. It is better to learn in groups than to learn individually.
Waste
Waste is only eating the white meat on the chicken and leaving all the dark meat. You only want the white meat because it looks pretty and tastes delicious. The dark meat however, doesn't look that appetizing. Even though the dark parts are greyish-brown, there is not wrong with it. It's perfectly fine and probably tastes almost exactly the same. In fact, it probably has more flavor than the white meat. So instead of being able to get two meals out of a the chicken, you can only get one. All the dark meat, or so called "waste," is left behind to rot. Just because something isn't aesthetically pleasing, or not as good, doesn't mean it should be ignored or not used. This is waste in a sense. Save the dark meat!
Trees & Coconut Rum
In Robert Hass' poem, I believe he does struggle with the limits of language. In one part in the poem he mentions the "limits to saying." He uses the different types of trees as examples of this. The aspen is "doing something in the wind." Something can be anything. The tree's actions in the poem are limited because of the limit on words used to describe it. In reality, the motion of the trees is unlimited.
Like Hass, Rodney Jones also struggles with making meaning. In the poem the speaker has this solid idea, this coconut filled with milk and rum. It's there in his hands. As he slowly dumps its contents into the ocean, his once solid idea disappears. There is nothing left to hold on to or even describe. The idea is lost and there is no getting it back. There is no longer anything to make meaning out of.
Like Hass, Rodney Jones also struggles with making meaning. In the poem the speaker has this solid idea, this coconut filled with milk and rum. It's there in his hands. As he slowly dumps its contents into the ocean, his once solid idea disappears. There is nothing left to hold on to or even describe. The idea is lost and there is no getting it back. There is no longer anything to make meaning out of.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Faustian Economics
This guy uses the words "limitlessness" and "limitless" way too many times its annoying. I couldn't even concentrate on reading because every other word was limitlessness or limitless. Anywayyy...
Berry clearly doesn't think too highly of the lifestyle of Americans. He gives numerous examples of how Americans waste almost everything and the only thing they care about is themselves. He pretty much starts off the article with "the real names of global warming are Waste and Greed." He gets his opinion right out there so there is absolutely NO confusion on what he believes. One of the examples he uses to support his claim of waste and greed is the remaining resources of coal. Americans are not yet considering new methods for fuel because the current coal supply is enough to last another 100 years. Americans seem to be fine with this and Berry asks "why?" Humans have been alive for thousands of years so why are we content with only another 100? It is because there is too much of a profit to be made on coal. Why would you stop something if its making you a millionaire? That is how people see it, not that sooner or later we aren't going to have any more coal so we better find an alternative now.
Berry goes on to argue that humans have a sense of limitlessness. Even though all humans have this feeling, it is not true. Berry states that people have to realize that everything actually does have a limit. We don't get more coal, we don't get another planet to harvest, and we don't get more time added onto our lives. This is what people need to realize and embrace. He then goes on to talk about how artists, not scientists are the ones who understand limits. They work in bounds in which no matter how big a painting or work of art, it is always confined to a frame or border. He believes we need to look to the arts, not science in order to understand our limits.
Berry clearly doesn't think too highly of the lifestyle of Americans. He gives numerous examples of how Americans waste almost everything and the only thing they care about is themselves. He pretty much starts off the article with "the real names of global warming are Waste and Greed." He gets his opinion right out there so there is absolutely NO confusion on what he believes. One of the examples he uses to support his claim of waste and greed is the remaining resources of coal. Americans are not yet considering new methods for fuel because the current coal supply is enough to last another 100 years. Americans seem to be fine with this and Berry asks "why?" Humans have been alive for thousands of years so why are we content with only another 100? It is because there is too much of a profit to be made on coal. Why would you stop something if its making you a millionaire? That is how people see it, not that sooner or later we aren't going to have any more coal so we better find an alternative now.
Berry goes on to argue that humans have a sense of limitlessness. Even though all humans have this feeling, it is not true. Berry states that people have to realize that everything actually does have a limit. We don't get more coal, we don't get another planet to harvest, and we don't get more time added onto our lives. This is what people need to realize and embrace. He then goes on to talk about how artists, not scientists are the ones who understand limits. They work in bounds in which no matter how big a painting or work of art, it is always confined to a frame or border. He believes we need to look to the arts, not science in order to understand our limits.
Derrida
I thought the video on Derrida was very interesting. What he was saying seemed kind of backwards at first but it actually did make sense. He said that when he was awake, he was more unconscious than when he was asleep. His mind was so busy with writing and expressing himself that he had no time to think about the consequences or effects of what he was writing. When he was about to go to sleep, and his mind wasn't busy, he was thinking about the effects of his writing. I think his fears are legitimate and it's probably what a lot of authors think about when they criticize other people's work or ideas.
I have personally never experienced anxiety about the power of what I write. I have experienced anxiety while writing, but never about the power. The reason for this is probably because the things I write aren't really that powerful. I don't think I have anything to be anxious about in the paper I just wrote about OCD for psychology. It's not what I would call powerful and I'm not really worried about how it affects other people since the only person who will read it is my psych teacher.
I think there are a number of things that could motivate such a fear. For example, lets pretend Derrida was an American citizen in the 1960's. Maybe he decided to write an article criticizing the American government and the way they do things. He would instantly be considered a communist and probably shunned by most of America. Sometimes when a majority is criticized or spoken out against, it can have bad consequences for the person speaking out.
I think Derrida does have respect for the power of the written word. He knows that certain things he writes may have the power to upset or even infuriate people. The battle with his subconscious shows his awareness of this.
I have personally never experienced anxiety about the power of what I write. I have experienced anxiety while writing, but never about the power. The reason for this is probably because the things I write aren't really that powerful. I don't think I have anything to be anxious about in the paper I just wrote about OCD for psychology. It's not what I would call powerful and I'm not really worried about how it affects other people since the only person who will read it is my psych teacher.
I think there are a number of things that could motivate such a fear. For example, lets pretend Derrida was an American citizen in the 1960's. Maybe he decided to write an article criticizing the American government and the way they do things. He would instantly be considered a communist and probably shunned by most of America. Sometimes when a majority is criticized or spoken out against, it can have bad consequences for the person speaking out.
I think Derrida does have respect for the power of the written word. He knows that certain things he writes may have the power to upset or even infuriate people. The battle with his subconscious shows his awareness of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
