1. "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.
Paraphrase: The Antartic is the Earth's largest source of coolness. Its cold water migrates north and merges with the hot tropical water, which helps to cool both our water and the atmosphere. Unfortunately, humans are now starting to damage this delicate system.
2. The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.
Paraphrase: The early nineteenth century was the time where unruliness ruled America, police men didn't know how to enforce the law, people drank even though it was illegal, jazz became hugely populars and great musicians, such as Bix Beiderbecke and Count Basie, became the idols of the kids in America. More than anything, women began wearing short hair and revealing skirts, the biggest sign that America was changing its traditional way of life.
3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.
Paraphrase: Most of the many hundreds bicycling accidents every year, half of which kill school-age children, are caused by injuries to the head which could be avoided if people wore helmets. There has even been a study that proved that helmets reduce the risk of your head being hurt by more than three fourths . In an accident, the helmets absorbs most of the impact, and softens the blow to your head.
4. Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.
Paraphrase: The painter Henri Matisse is excellent at making people feel as they´re close to what they see being painted due to his incredible realism. His famous ¨The Casbah Gate¨is a great example of this. His use of color and texture makes you feel like you're at the scene of the painting.
5. While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.
Paraphrase: Though the Sears Tower is known as one of the best-designed skyscraper that has yet to be built, architects are still trying to make bigger buildings. Yet people wonder how tall it is possible to build a building. Architect Robert Sobel insists that it could be possible to build a skyscraper a couple of hundred of stories tall, and engineer William LeMessurier has already designed a building two times as tall as the Sears Tower.
jueves, 15 de noviembre de 2007
martes, 13 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 4-6
These Books are basically divided into two parts: where Confucius discusses his ideals and the Way of Good, and examples of good and bad people.
Here are some quotations I liked:
"The Master said, 'People are true to type with regard to what sort of mistakes they make. Observe closely the sort of mistakes a person makes-then you will know his character.'"
The literal meaning of this would be that if someone breaks his back because he tripped over the stairs when he was trying to throw his friend a birthday party, you should like him. If someone breaks his back trying to get into his least favorite teacher's house so that he can murder her, you should probably stay away from that kid.
However, I think that it means you should look at why people make mistakes. If someone gets a bad grade because he was lazy, then that person is not Good. However, if someone burns to death in his house because his father told him not to go out, and he was being filial, that's good.
"The Master said, 'People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up their words.'"
Which means, "Practice what you preach."
I agree with this statement. I hate it when people go on and on about how doing this is bad, then they proceed to do it themselves. It's hypocrisy. A good example of that would be the old Jacobean priests, such as Andrewes. When the Black Plague hit England, he went on and on about how you wouldn't get sick of you were good, because God wouldn't punish you, and so Andrewes wasn't afraid. However, as soon as the disease hit his parish he left town, the imprisoned someone who'd dared to comment upon that fact. He had said something, but behaved in a contradictory way. All those other priests, too, preached the word of God and said that corruption and sin is bad, and you should live a spare life, yet they took bribes and engaged in adultery and had tons of luxuries. They, quite literally, did not practice what they preached.
There are a couple of stories that basically go this way:
Zhoug: Is [insert name] Good?
Master: I dunno.
Zhoug: He did [insert good deed] and [insert good deed]?
Master: He is pure, but I have no clue of he's Good. Why does he deserve to be good?
So how does he judge who's Good and who's not? Does he base what he thinks upon his everyday life, not just a couple of Good deeds?
He also stresses the importance of being a gentleman ("The Master said to Zixia, 'Be a gentlemanly ru. Do not be a petty ru.'" 6.13). A gentleman is someone who follows the Way of being Good, which is to do certain things, the biggest example being Be a Good Son. He actually writes down a set of rules for sons (4.18-4.21).
He also says there's a difference between being wise and being Good.
"Fan Chi asked about wisdom.
The Master said, 'Working to ensure social harmony among the common people, respecting the ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a difference-this might be called wisdom.'
He then asked about Goodness.
The Master said, 'One who is Good sees as his first priorities the hardship of self-cultivation, and only after thinks about results or rewards. Yes, this is what we might call Goodness.'" (6:22)
But if you think about it, it's the same thing. Being wise is trying to improve a place, and therefor the people in that place, so that everyone is more respectful and lives better lives. Being Good is improving yourself (and what does he mean, "Only after thinks about results and rewards"? If you're working to improve yourself, then you're doing so with the plan of the result being that you'll be a better person. And while this is a very noble cause, you're still, in a way, thinking of the results when you're doing it), so that you'll be a better person by the end, and thus will improve society. Being wise is just doing that on a larger scale, so I would argue the wisdom is better than Goodness, because it is less self-centered. You don't just improve yourself then say, "Oh, I'm done. There is nothing else I can do." Whereas being wise is saying, "Well, I'm done with myself. But that's not enough; I need to work on other people as well." Or maybe being wise is just being nosy, and that's not Good.
Here are some quotations I liked:
"The Master said, 'People are true to type with regard to what sort of mistakes they make. Observe closely the sort of mistakes a person makes-then you will know his character.'"
The literal meaning of this would be that if someone breaks his back because he tripped over the stairs when he was trying to throw his friend a birthday party, you should like him. If someone breaks his back trying to get into his least favorite teacher's house so that he can murder her, you should probably stay away from that kid.
However, I think that it means you should look at why people make mistakes. If someone gets a bad grade because he was lazy, then that person is not Good. However, if someone burns to death in his house because his father told him not to go out, and he was being filial, that's good.
"The Master said, 'People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up their words.'"
Which means, "Practice what you preach."
I agree with this statement. I hate it when people go on and on about how doing this is bad, then they proceed to do it themselves. It's hypocrisy. A good example of that would be the old Jacobean priests, such as Andrewes. When the Black Plague hit England, he went on and on about how you wouldn't get sick of you were good, because God wouldn't punish you, and so Andrewes wasn't afraid. However, as soon as the disease hit his parish he left town, the imprisoned someone who'd dared to comment upon that fact. He had said something, but behaved in a contradictory way. All those other priests, too, preached the word of God and said that corruption and sin is bad, and you should live a spare life, yet they took bribes and engaged in adultery and had tons of luxuries. They, quite literally, did not practice what they preached.
There are a couple of stories that basically go this way:
Zhoug: Is [insert name] Good?
Master: I dunno.
Zhoug: He did [insert good deed] and [insert good deed]?
Master: He is pure, but I have no clue of he's Good. Why does he deserve to be good?
So how does he judge who's Good and who's not? Does he base what he thinks upon his everyday life, not just a couple of Good deeds?
He also stresses the importance of being a gentleman ("The Master said to Zixia, 'Be a gentlemanly ru. Do not be a petty ru.'" 6.13). A gentleman is someone who follows the Way of being Good, which is to do certain things, the biggest example being Be a Good Son. He actually writes down a set of rules for sons (4.18-4.21).
He also says there's a difference between being wise and being Good.
"Fan Chi asked about wisdom.
The Master said, 'Working to ensure social harmony among the common people, respecting the ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a difference-this might be called wisdom.'
He then asked about Goodness.
The Master said, 'One who is Good sees as his first priorities the hardship of self-cultivation, and only after thinks about results or rewards. Yes, this is what we might call Goodness.'" (6:22)
But if you think about it, it's the same thing. Being wise is trying to improve a place, and therefor the people in that place, so that everyone is more respectful and lives better lives. Being Good is improving yourself (and what does he mean, "Only after thinks about results and rewards"? If you're working to improve yourself, then you're doing so with the plan of the result being that you'll be a better person. And while this is a very noble cause, you're still, in a way, thinking of the results when you're doing it), so that you'll be a better person by the end, and thus will improve society. Being wise is just doing that on a larger scale, so I would argue the wisdom is better than Goodness, because it is less self-centered. You don't just improve yourself then say, "Oh, I'm done. There is nothing else I can do." Whereas being wise is saying, "Well, I'm done with myself. But that's not enough; I need to work on other people as well." Or maybe being wise is just being nosy, and that's not Good.
lunes, 12 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 1-3
These Books are basically just little codes of conduct, written and devised by Confucius.
In the first Book, he really emphasizes filial conduct, which is basically respect for your elders,and being a good younger brother (I assume that it can also be meant as being a good younger sister). It also means being courteous, refined, respectful, restrained, and deferential (1.10) to everyone around you.
I think this is really good advice. Nowadays people (or at least teenagers, which is worse since that's not "respect for your elders") tend to be loud, insolent, exuberant, and very selfish/self-centered. I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. I've noticed these things in myself too; everyone behaves like that. Yet the world would probably an much more pleasant and respectful place if everyone behaved like that (although hearing, "after you," "no, after you," "I insist, after you," "no, please, after you," might get old pretty quickly).Especially considering that this example was used when an official visited another state, which could prevent a lot of silly fights by not offending anyone (if you would like an example I suggest you read about President Evo Morales of Bolivia's relationships with the American ambassador of Bolivia).
Book Two also speaks about how behaving in a good manner can improve relationships between countries. At one point it talks about how people were asking why Confucius wasn't a government official, and he replied that being filial exerted an influence over others who worked for the government, so what need was there for him to join?
The Book Three talks about how it's useless to have rituals if you do them just for show, and it doesn't matter how elaborate they are, in fact, the simpler, the better (I'm assuming he's talking about religious rituals).
I also agree with this. There are many people who do things not because they mean them, but because they want people to think well of them for doing them, such as donating a large sum of money to a charity you couldn't care less about just to have it say on the news the next day "Senator X gave three billion dollars to the charity Vote For Me! yesterday. Isn't he kind? By the way, he's running for President." Or also movie stars' publicity stunts, such as adopting orphans from third world countries, so that they can look so kind and generous. These actions don't have any meaning behind them. Senator X isn't a better person because of what he did. His motivations were selfish (which refers to Book One). It is much better for Average Joe to give away a hundred hard-earned dollars to a charity because he genuinely feels that that charity is a worthy cause, than for Ronald Mump to givea million dollars of his five billion dollar inheritance to that very same charity because he wants people to like him. I believe that is what Confucius means.
Also, I wonder what the Odes are. Confucius says that "The Odes number several hundred, and yet can be judged with a single phrase, "Oh, they will not lead you astray." (2.2)
Who wrote them? What are they about?
In the first Book, he really emphasizes filial conduct, which is basically respect for your elders,and being a good younger brother (I assume that it can also be meant as being a good younger sister). It also means being courteous, refined, respectful, restrained, and deferential (1.10) to everyone around you.
I think this is really good advice. Nowadays people (or at least teenagers, which is worse since that's not "respect for your elders") tend to be loud, insolent, exuberant, and very selfish/self-centered. I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. I've noticed these things in myself too; everyone behaves like that. Yet the world would probably an much more pleasant and respectful place if everyone behaved like that (although hearing, "after you," "no, after you," "I insist, after you," "no, please, after you," might get old pretty quickly).Especially considering that this example was used when an official visited another state, which could prevent a lot of silly fights by not offending anyone (if you would like an example I suggest you read about President Evo Morales of Bolivia's relationships with the American ambassador of Bolivia).
Book Two also speaks about how behaving in a good manner can improve relationships between countries. At one point it talks about how people were asking why Confucius wasn't a government official, and he replied that being filial exerted an influence over others who worked for the government, so what need was there for him to join?
The Book Three talks about how it's useless to have rituals if you do them just for show, and it doesn't matter how elaborate they are, in fact, the simpler, the better (I'm assuming he's talking about religious rituals).
I also agree with this. There are many people who do things not because they mean them, but because they want people to think well of them for doing them, such as donating a large sum of money to a charity you couldn't care less about just to have it say on the news the next day "Senator X gave three billion dollars to the charity Vote For Me! yesterday. Isn't he kind? By the way, he's running for President." Or also movie stars' publicity stunts, such as adopting orphans from third world countries, so that they can look so kind and generous. These actions don't have any meaning behind them. Senator X isn't a better person because of what he did. His motivations were selfish (which refers to Book One). It is much better for Average Joe to give away a hundred hard-earned dollars to a charity because he genuinely feels that that charity is a worthy cause, than for Ronald Mump to givea million dollars of his five billion dollar inheritance to that very same charity because he wants people to like him. I believe that is what Confucius means.
Also, I wonder what the Odes are. Confucius says that "The Odes number several hundred, and yet can be judged with a single phrase, "Oh, they will not lead you astray." (2.2)
Who wrote them? What are they about?
miércoles, 7 de noviembre de 2007
Sources for Persuasive Speech
Here is are my sources for the persuasive speech:
Primary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2223823.stm
Secondary:
http://www.hfgf.org/statistics.pdf
Tertiary:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=orphans
Primary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2223823.stm
Secondary:
http://www.hfgf.org/statistics.pdf
Tertiary:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=orphans
martes, 6 de noviembre de 2007
The Book of Job: Chapters 37-42
Job claims he knows too much about God, such as the reason why men fear him:
"Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." (37:24)
This is also subtly claiming that Job knows more than God about people who are wise or idiotic, and that he understands God.
Then God appears and tells him the numerous reason why He is wiser and more knowledgeable than Job ("Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" 38:2, it then goes on to explain all the things that God did and saw while Job's Great-Great-times a thousand Grandmother still wasn't born), and asks him what right he has to judge God's decisions and motives.
Job is humbled, and agrees he had no right to speak:
"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore I have uttered that I understood not; things to wonderful for me, which I knew not." (42:3)
God forgives him, though He gets mad at his three friends, and makes him twice as rich as before, with lots of kids, thousands of camels, sheep, oxen, and she asses, as well as the renewed respect of his neighbors.
One thing that intrigued me about the appearance of God was how similar it was to the myths. In them, a human would always be presumptuous and claim to be equal to/as good at something than some god or another. That god would always show up and prove him/her wrong. The difference is that the humans were rarely ever forgiven in the myths, much less made very wealthy once they realized that they were wrong, yet that's what God did.
Also. we were talking about the "God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh," part of Exodus a couple days ago. I also wondered about that at first, but then I interpreted it in two ways.
Maybe it was just the idea of God that hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. God didn't do anything personally, the Pharaoh just thought about God and he became annoyed.
Or else God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he could show all the Hebrew people how powerful he was, so that they would obey him.
At least that's how I saw it.
"Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." (37:24)
This is also subtly claiming that Job knows more than God about people who are wise or idiotic, and that he understands God.
Then God appears and tells him the numerous reason why He is wiser and more knowledgeable than Job ("Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" 38:2, it then goes on to explain all the things that God did and saw while Job's Great-Great-times a thousand Grandmother still wasn't born), and asks him what right he has to judge God's decisions and motives.
Job is humbled, and agrees he had no right to speak:
"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore I have uttered that I understood not; things to wonderful for me, which I knew not." (42:3)
God forgives him, though He gets mad at his three friends, and makes him twice as rich as before, with lots of kids, thousands of camels, sheep, oxen, and she asses, as well as the renewed respect of his neighbors.
One thing that intrigued me about the appearance of God was how similar it was to the myths. In them, a human would always be presumptuous and claim to be equal to/as good at something than some god or another. That god would always show up and prove him/her wrong. The difference is that the humans were rarely ever forgiven in the myths, much less made very wealthy once they realized that they were wrong, yet that's what God did.
Also. we were talking about the "God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh," part of Exodus a couple days ago. I also wondered about that at first, but then I interpreted it in two ways.
Maybe it was just the idea of God that hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. God didn't do anything personally, the Pharaoh just thought about God and he became annoyed.
Or else God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he could show all the Hebrew people how powerful he was, so that they would obey him.
At least that's how I saw it.
lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2007
The Book of Job: Chapters 11-36
About Friday's class: I changed my mind. I now believe that the Architect is like the Pharaoh. Actually, I believed it by the end of the class, but I was arguing because I didn't want to be proven wrong.
I didn't like The Matrix that much. I just found Morpheus incredibly annoying, with his arrogant little smile, and I thought the writers should have been more creative with the names they gave their characters/places/boats. I just found the movie a bit pretentious. Of course, maybe it has the right to be pretentious. Many of our great geniuses have been extremely arrogant (ex: Picasso), and that was okay because they proved they had the right to indulge in a bit of self-worship. So maybe, if I watched the whole Matrix Trilogy, I would say it's genius and it has the right to be affected. I'll only find out if I watch all the movies.
This is a continuation of the conversation between Job and his four friends. Job has gotten over his suicidal phase and now he's merely very depressed.
They discuss many things, and though again I found their phraseology a bit confusing, I managed to gather this much:
Job's friends tell him that he must have sinned to be punished this way, because God would not punish him this way without any reason:
"The heaven shall reveal his iniquity; and the earth shall rise up against him." (20:27)
This is one Job is denying that he did anything wrong, and his (very unsympathetic) friends say that though they do not know what he did, God does, and He is punishing him.
Job maintains that he never did anything (although not once does he curse God), and that he would like to defend himself before God:
"I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments," (23:4)
He also talks about the fact that he used to be respected, but now the people who bowed to him cursed him.
"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." (30:1)
Then someone called Elihu speaks up, and he said all of them were wrong. God is just, and he punishes and forgives easily. None of them should claim to understand him.
I didn't like The Matrix that much. I just found Morpheus incredibly annoying, with his arrogant little smile, and I thought the writers should have been more creative with the names they gave their characters/places/boats. I just found the movie a bit pretentious. Of course, maybe it has the right to be pretentious. Many of our great geniuses have been extremely arrogant (ex: Picasso), and that was okay because they proved they had the right to indulge in a bit of self-worship. So maybe, if I watched the whole Matrix Trilogy, I would say it's genius and it has the right to be affected. I'll only find out if I watch all the movies.
This is a continuation of the conversation between Job and his four friends. Job has gotten over his suicidal phase and now he's merely very depressed.
They discuss many things, and though again I found their phraseology a bit confusing, I managed to gather this much:
Job's friends tell him that he must have sinned to be punished this way, because God would not punish him this way without any reason:
"The heaven shall reveal his iniquity; and the earth shall rise up against him." (20:27)
This is one Job is denying that he did anything wrong, and his (very unsympathetic) friends say that though they do not know what he did, God does, and He is punishing him.
Job maintains that he never did anything (although not once does he curse God), and that he would like to defend himself before God:
"I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments," (23:4)
He also talks about the fact that he used to be respected, but now the people who bowed to him cursed him.
"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." (30:1)
Then someone called Elihu speaks up, and he said all of them were wrong. God is just, and he punishes and forgives easily. None of them should claim to understand him.
jueves, 1 de noviembre de 2007
The Book of Job: Chapters 6-11
This is a continuation of what I read yesterday in the first chapter. I don't really know what to say about this. It records a conversation between Job and someone called Bildad the Shuhite (and who is he???? And where did he come from???? And what is he doing there???).
I don't completely understand what they're telling each other, but it seems important. They seem to be discussing why man can't be as great as God, but they do so in such a complicated fashion, using so many similes and metaphors, that I just don't get what they're trying to say.
Well, that's not true. I get the individual metaphors/similes just fine, but when they put them all together, add their archaic way of speaking, and mix, and I'm left staring at the book with befuddlement.
However, I understand that Job is feeling suicidal and is begging God to kill him. His friends are telling him that he should not speak so, that God has the right to try him.
Well, there's not much more I can say. I'll try reading it again tomorrow and post something more profound...
I don't completely understand what they're telling each other, but it seems important. They seem to be discussing why man can't be as great as God, but they do so in such a complicated fashion, using so many similes and metaphors, that I just don't get what they're trying to say.
Well, that's not true. I get the individual metaphors/similes just fine, but when they put them all together, add their archaic way of speaking, and mix, and I'm left staring at the book with befuddlement.
However, I understand that Job is feeling suicidal and is begging God to kill him. His friends are telling him that he should not speak so, that God has the right to try him.
Well, there's not much more I can say. I'll try reading it again tomorrow and post something more profound...
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)