Filed under: Uncategorized
Sarah Grenier
Ms. Robinson
AP Lang and Comp
4/10/2008
Blurring the Gender Lines: What It Does Not Say About Sexual Preference
Her hair was on fire- the day before, just three inches from her scalp, her flaming red locks had been severed. Many compliments ensued after that fateful hair cut. Some called her a “comely pixie” and others said she was simply “brave,” but the one poignant comment that she remembered most was “short-haired girls are dikes.” That girl was me. So what is a dike? It is an offensive word that refers to a lesbian who acts and dresses like a man, thus the stereotype that all women who look like men are lesbians. But although many heterosexual and homosexual women have the same hairstyle, they may not have the same sexual preference- claiming otherwise would be a false analogy fallacy. Regardless of the illogical foundation of this stereotype, many people believe it.
Like all other deep seated opinions, there was a beginning: the view that it is sinful or unnatural for women to have short hair stems all the way from Biblical times. Take the Corinthian passage 11: 3-16 for example: “…But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and same as if her head were shaved…” Of course, there are many interpretations of this passage, including one that suggests why nuns cover their heads, but the most common understanding asserts that the covering mentioned means hair and the “head” the women dishonors is both her husband and God (McDaniel). People who live by the Bible’s literal meaning have stressed the common interpretation of this passage to their Christian congregations. Just think- in the U.S. alone, Christians make up 77% of the population (Keysar, 2001). With the holy word in mind, it is no doubt that many believe a boyish coiffure is a stigma for women. Fortunately, the stigma is losing prominence as women retaliate against conventional beauty.
Within the past century, high culture and popular culture have been battling to assert what hair length is acceptable for heterosexual women. The lengthy-haired standard most often prevails because of society’s emphasis on gender- and its differences. For example, famous literary works (popular culture) have attempted to instill in our minds what stands for feminism and beauty. One book that is read in most high school English classes particularly illustrates this point: The Scarlett Letter. In it, Hester Prynne’s long, flowing hair was a symbol of youth, fertility, and confidence. Although this image was controversial at the time because the Puritans were a bunch of prudes, the symbol seems like a transgression to many today because it builds staunch correlations in teenage minds between beauty and long hair, as does A Farewell to Arms and Their Eyes Were Watching God. White Oleander, in contrast, has a heterosexual protagonist who cuts off her hair because it hides her loveliness; many of these books became movies and are influencing their audiences at the author’s dispense, but guess which ones are most commonly read?
Furthermore, in regards to hair length and sexuality, fashionistas and the social elite continuously attempt to set new beauty standards on top of old ones. For example, it was vogue to bob your hair in the 1920’s regardless of sexual preferences; even Twiggy and Edie Sedgwick of the 1960’s sported pixies, attempting to assert that you could be both feminine and straight with short hair. Contemporarily, high class actresses, models, and singers like Elisha Cuthbert, Agyness Deyn, Halle Berry, and Annie Lennox are rocking short hair to defy conventional beauty standards (hence the return of the pixie) and remain unwavering in their sexual preferences. Likewise in India, it is a part of their culture for upper-class women to have shorter hair because it needs more upkeep than longer hairstyles; therefore, it exemplifies one’s wealth. The battle never stops: sometimes the masses accept shorter lengths with open arms and sometimes they shun it with cold hearts.
Despite a time period or popular fashion, there incessantly remains evidence of why most men are inclined to conclude that a woman is a dyke because she has short hair- it comes from psychology. Pheromones exist on humans’ skin and in their hair: “smelling male and female pheromones activates the human brain in a sex differentiated manner” (Salvic). Since pheromones are not profuse on a woman with shorter hair, men are not often attracted to them because sometimes there is nothing to stimulate their brain functions. Furthermore, a fair amount of men are often intimidated by women with shorter hair: intimidation leads to a “fight of flight” response, hence the tactic of calling a woman a dyke. In the end, most men conclude that they could not be attracted to a “boyish” woman, which may be true due to a lack of pheromones, but this does not mean those women are forced into homosexual relationships. It means we just have to find the right kind of partner.
In essence, short hair was seen as a stigma in Biblical times and in the following centuries because it was associated with lesbianism, thus the stereotype that short haired women are homosexuals. Starting in the 19th century America with the Feminist movement, women began to defy this stereotype by bobbing their hair, professing that it stood for freedom, confidence, and sexuality. Since then, the style has been on an acceptance and rejection rollercoaster; however, men respond to women in correlation with pheromones -not fads- and are inclined to call intimidating short haired women dykes due to psychological reasons. Yet, to say that because straight women and lesbian women share one characteristic they should share another –sexual preference- is illogical. So I assert this stereotype busted- in other words (those of Anna Paker), “women are feminine no matter how boyish they dress, how much makeup they wear, or how short their hair is. And hey, there’s even room for feminine homosexuals, we call them lipstick lesbians.” (Parker).
Filed under: Uncategorized
http://recriminations.wordpress.com/
Filed under: Uncategorized
A Tool in Politics: Syntax
The nation was attacked: Pearl Harbor- along with man other Pacific territories- had been unexpectedly and ruthlessly bombed by the Japanese. Franklin Roosevelt, the nation’s leader in foreign affairs, needed to console the nation with honesty and plans of action. By only using words, the president gave hope to his citizens while employing syntactical elements. He mastered loose and periodic sentences to engage the audience at the most opportune times. Parallelism, although it was barely used reveals Roosevelt’s worries. Meanwhile, sentence variation intrigues the audience and promotes comprehension.
In “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation”, Roosevelt employs loose and periodic sentences to keep the reader involved. Periodic sentences, as in the following quote, create anticipation within the first few paragraphs by not admitting imperative facts until the end: “And while this reply stated it seemed useless… it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.” It also makes Roosevelt seem hesitant to say the worst; and therefore, puts him on an emotional level with his audience. The periodic sentences also make him appear deliberate and solid when he says, “the American people…will win through to absolute victory”: this is something a nation needs in a time of crisis. The loose sentences allow the president to go over the details of the attacks without tension and urgency. Furthermore, loose sentences as in paragraphs three and four allow the audience to swallow the bitter news previously stated in the speech.
Moreover, parallelism is utilized in Roosevelt’s speech to draw attention to his worries. The first example of parallelism, “Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam…And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island,” allows the listeners to absorb the list of violent attacks in a clear manner. Roosevelt is also being economical with his words because it is a short speech. When he says, “There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger,” he is attempting to expose the similarities in all of these attacks so as to unite us in defeating the miscreant.
Lastly, sentence variation keeps the reader in-tune and vigilant. Short sentences such as, “Hostilities exist” emphasize the bluntness with which Roosevelt is responding to Japan. Longer sentences allow the influx of details: details ensure the reader that the government is aware and informed. Readers and listeners also are strayed from boredom by varying sentence lengths. For example, when one comes across, “The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves,” they become startled and alert. This allows them to comprehend the longer sentence to ensue.
In essence, Roosevelt employs wise syntactical elements to engage his reader, appear emotionally connected and solid, and emphasize his plans. Loose and periodic sentences, parallelism, and sentence variation were a few of the choices used in “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation.” Like most great politicians, President Roosevelt knew how to exploit one of a politician’s most valuable tools: syntax.
Filed under: Uncategorized
A Tool in Politics: Syntax
The nation was attacked: Pearl Harbor- along with man other Pacific territories- had been unexpectedly and ruthlessly bombed by the Japanese. Franklin Roosevelt, the nation’s leader in foreign affairs, needed to console the nation with honesty and plans of action. By only using words, the president gave hope to his citizens while employing syntactical elements. He mastered loose and periodic sentences to engage the audience at the most opportune times. Parallelism, although it was barely used reveals Roosevelt’s worries. Meanwhile, sentence variation glues the audience and content together.
In Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation, Roosevelt employs loose and periodic sentences to keep the reader involved. Periodic sentences create anticipation within the first few paragraphs. It also makes Roosevelt seem hesitant to say the worst; and therefore, puts him on an emotional level with his audience. The periodic sentences also make him appear deliberate and solid: something a nation needs in a time of crisis. The loose sentences allow the president to go over the details of the attacks without tension and urgency. Furthermore, loose sentences as in paragraphs three and four allow the audience to swallow the bitter news previously stated in the speech.
Moreover, parallelism is utilized in Roosevelt’s speech to draw attention to his worries. The first example of parallelism, “Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam…And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island,” allows the listeners to absorb the list of violent attacks in a clear manner. Roosevelt is also being economical with his words because it is a short speech. He is also attempting to expose the similarities in all of these attacks so as to unite us in defeating the miscreant.
Lastly, sentence variation does wonders for the audience and the content. Short sentences such as, “Hostilities exist” emphasize the bluntness with which Roosevelt is responding to Japan. Longer sentences allow the influx of details: details ensure the reader that the government is aware and informed. Readers and listeners also are strayed from boredom by varying sentence lengths. For example, when one comes across a shorter sentence, they become startled and alert. This allows them to comprehend the longer sentence to ensue.
In essence, Roosevelt employs wise syntactical elements to engage his reader, appear emotionally connected and solid, and emphasize his plans. Loose and periodic sentences, parallelism, and sentence variation were a few of the choices used in Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation. Like most great politicians, President Roosevelt knew how to exploit one of a politician’s most valuable tools: syntax.
Promlems: underlining the title of the speech and note putting it in quotation marks, not enough examples, and vague words.
Learned: speeches are in quotations, lots of examples to PROVE point, and vague words make me seem like I am attacking the subject in a superfical manner.
Future Plans: use quotations, use examples left and right, be straight foward.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Diction
Latinate vs. Anglo saxon
The humble man came to the trashcan: he bent over and puked up the mix of chocolates stolen from the neighborhood duck. After the unwelcomed scene, the man was tired.
The unconceited man approached the trashan: he leaned over and regurgitated the assortment of chocolates stolen from the neighborhood flat-billed waterfowl. After the unwelcomed scene, the man was wearisome.
Explanation
The first sentence could be found in any elementary level text because it uses simple anglo saxon diction: puke, mix, and tired. Yet the second one takes a larger lexion or memory bank to understand. The occasion, audience, and purpose would determine which type of diction to use.
Figurative Language
|
Page 43, “…us got tuh incorporate lak every other town. Us got tuh incorporate, and us got tuh have uh mayor..” Page 44, “Unh hunh, it is uh little dark right long heah.” Page 45, “And when Ah touch de match tuh dat lampwick let de light penetrate inside of yuh, and let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.” Page 49, “Whut make her keep her head tied up lak some ole’ ‘oman round de store? Nobody couldn’t git me tuh tie no rag on mah head if Ah had hair lak dat.” Anaphora, Verbal Irony, Allusion, Symbol
|
Filed under: Uncategorized
Imagine
According to Webster’s Dictionary, war is defined as “a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.” Now if one scrutinized that definition to the bones or stretched it from here to Hong Kong, it turns into a broad term used for armed conflict. Those arms can be various weapons like guns, bombs, knives, libel, manipulation, or weapons of mass destruction; and therefore, I have grounds to evaluate two armed conflicts, the War on Terror and that of The Crucible, to make you question the logic behind any war- leaving politics aside. The shockingly numerous similarities include the covering of motives, the knowledge of the few, and the extremes of religion.
Unmistakably, persons with power often veil their unpopular motives with shocking accusations. For instance in both The Crucible and the War on Terror, prime players have been exposed. George W. Bush claimed the government had evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, but some swear this was just a cover for trying to reign on an abundant oil supply. George himself said, “It is clear our nation is reliant upon foreign oil,” and it is his job to keep the nation supplied with necessities. Others believe he wanted to conclude his father’s work. Similarly, Abigail’s motives were uncovered to the audience by her cousin Betty, “You drank a charm to kill John Proctor’s wife!” (13). To prevent the town from grasping this imperative detail, she led the girls to scream witchcraft at the top of their lungs. This proves a war is never one-reasoned. It is the afflicted who have to decide if the reasons are credible.
Furthermore, it is the afflicted’s duty to question the ones who claim to be knowledgeable about the circumstances in any clash. In both the play and the war, people declare to have information unknown to others that can facilitate in the process of correcting inconsistencies. Hale was said to be a “specialist whose unique knowledge,” (18) had at last been summoned; when in fact, he had been deceived upon his arrival. At other times in The Crucible, the accused deceitfully revealed false information that captivated the insular town; in the mean time, the girls’ necks were spared. Our government, who is represented by George W. Bush, asserted that our intelligence agencies had enough evidence of supreme weapons to initiate a war. The U.S. is looking for them: today. The U.S. government also guarantees that the reconstruction period in Iraq is going to be a superb start for the defeat of terror; when in fact, the Jihad’s (Holy War declared by Extreme-Islamic Factions) perseverance will not decay with only a gun at its head- ask any member of al-Qaeda member- we just do not need statistics to prove that.
Generally speaking, any extreme form of religion is dangerous to its surroundings. Americans have this sewn into our history because of the persecution throughout Europe in the centuries preceding the 18th, which, ironically birthed Puritanism (Salem’s religion) out of the Anglican Church. The Jewish know it because they have never had an origin to claim because of persecution everywhere. The Pagans know this because Christianity has denounced them as the Devil’s advocates since the day it was born even though it absorbed their symbols and holidays. Yet, the Muslims remain some what unaware, although Islam’s two factions loathe each other enough to kill. Each conflict- that of The Crucible and the War on Terror- have an underlying hue of drastic religion. My point is this; the Puritans’ thoughts were so inane they supposed “that the virgin forest was the Devil’s last preserve, his home base and the Citadel of his final stand.” (7). The Muslims of the Holy War are equally as madcap with their beliefs, here, explained by Wikipedia, “the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam…imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.” Radical religious beliefs are the cause of many, many wars and they manipulate the mind to make the constituents of mankind look black or white; holy or evil.
In essence, the minute differences and the shocking similarities of theses two armed conflicts make the line between fiction and nonfiction blurry. Wars are immeasurably more intricate than have been spelled out here, but, it seems to have logically neutralized certain reasons for war except politics, which abstractly, is only special name for the physiology and sociology of animals (one nation is attempting to be the alpha male, and the others have to submit or fight back). With these thoughts being absorbed by your gray matter, I leave you with a quote from John Lennon explicating my purpose, “Imagine there’s no countries/ It isn’t hard to do / Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too/ Imagine all the people / Living life in peace.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
Thoughts worth Thinking
What came first, the thought or the person? On the surface this seems fairly simple: the person was first because he or she generated the thought. Yet upon further contemplation, the outlook is that the person was thought of before he or she was born. Some others believe that a deity thought of the human race before fashioning it. Moreover, there is a view that we live in a hologram of higher light vibrations which include the person and the thought!
So, to accurately understand people’s relationships with their thoughts, we must embed in our subconscious programming that, “Your thoughts do not think you, you think your thoughts” (Danes). This appears self-evident; even so, hasn’t the majority said or heard someone say, “I can’t stop thinking about it!”? Ralph Waldo Emerson had an opinion on the matter: “Your own mind is a sacred enclosure into which nothing harmful can enter except by your permission” (Hicks). Humans can control what they think, and-in turn- utilize the power of thought. The masses believe that everything external is reality and they are just living in it. Contrary to the accepted beliefs of the majority, thoughts are able to affect reality and may be exceptionally beneficial to one’s physical and spiritual health if utilized; this is profoundly supported by numerous religions and scientific experiments.
Concrete evidence verifying thoughts have power is in the realm of quantum physics, the study of the relationship between energy quanta and matter. It claims the universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information because of the discovery of electrons and nuclei “popping in and out of existence” (What). This means the make-up of our world is identical to millions of thoughts. Electrons and nuclei have the ability to transcend dimensions because dimensions are not fixed according to numerous experiments. Subatomic particles’ ability to not be fixed in dimensions allows them to act as waves of possibilities. In What the #$*! Do We Know?, Dr. Amit Goswami stated, “When you are looking, it’s a particle; and when you are not, it’s a wave of possibilities.” Humans can influence which of those possibilities the particles collapse on by being an observer; however, the observer already has preconceptions of what reality is. Anais Nin wisely said, “We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are” (Hicks). Preconceptions limit our ability to manipulate those possibilities.
One example of preconceptions in action was a staged mock stabbing by Mrs. Lee, a psychology teacher at Cape Fear Community College The next day when the two students involved in the stabbing were in class unharmed, questions were burning. Mrs. Lee queried what the knife looked like; there were many differing descriptions. “I swear I saw a black-handled switchblade knife,” claimed Jake Kenneke, a freshman at CFCC. In truth, the culprit pulled out a banana that would release the fake-blood inside the victim’s shirt. Trying to explain the incident, Jake stated, “since the banana confused my brain, for lack of a better word, it tried to protect me by replacing the banana with something that made sense” (Kenneke).
In order to comprehend what happened, the class reviewed excerpts and interpretations of On Quantum Theories of the Mind by Henry Strapp. The following interpretation was the most lucid and helpful:
Strapp’s central thesis is that the synapses in your brain are so small that quantum effects are significant. This means that there is quantum uncertainty about whether a neuron will fire or not- and this degree of freedom that nature has allows for the interaction of mind on matter (Higo).
This means the capability to see what was happening, erroneously or not, depended solely on the brain’s unpredictable reaction; our subconscious minds are left to analyze and file information like the banana. In order to get a hold of the power that our local conscious and subconscious have, we must first surpass the conditioned awareness that permits preconceptions. One way humans may do this is through remote viewing, which has been taught to classes in California and Europe; it has also been monitored in controlled experiments for decades.
Remote viewing experiments provide repeatable statistics that we can tap into nonlocal (nonlocality is if particles communicate faster than light) knowledge blocked from ordinary perception by “habit, conditioning, and cultural trance” (Targ). In a remote viewing session, a receiver attempts to obtain information about a foreign object or image by solely using mental capabilities. Remote viewing does not provide a scientific explanation of this physic ability, but the controlled experiments make the outcome undeniable. One skeptical CIA agent who was considering funding renewal applications for the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) wanted personal experience to support SRI’s remote viewing data.
The agent went to their location and did numerous general remote viewing sessions; however, to really prove that remote viewing was a completely natural capability, she demanded to do a session unaided. She was taped alone in a controlled laboratory with a tape recorder, paper, and pencil. The SRI team went to a location chosen randomly by an electronic random-number generator: the merry-go-round at Riconada Park. The agent was supposed to describe the location of the team. After thirty minutes, they returned to find “the door was still taped shut and Dr. P was hunched over in the corner of the room” (Targ). Her hands were over her ears in case of subliminal clues coming from any hidden speakers. In Figure 1 are images of the actual location and Dr. P’s drawings.
Fig. 1. In Limitless Mind, the drawings of the agent vs. pictures of the SRI team.
Remote viewing sessions like this provide credible experiences that allow us to believe we have a mental capabilities taken for granted. What allows for those capabilities is the coexistence of a consciousness and unconsciousness made of “higher light vibration that holds all knowledge and information” (Targ).
Numerous religions support an idea of something omniscient: Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism. Each uses words like God or Braham in place of a universal unconsciousness in order to relate to the masses. Even so, they offer ways by thought to reunite the soul and deity. In Buddhism, the unity of the personal consciousness and universal unconsciousness is referred to as Dzogchen, or the “Great Perfection” (Khenpo). When Buddhists surrender to naked awareness and thereby surpass the collective unconsciousness coined by Carl Jung, they ultimately acknowledge Dzogchen. That is enlightenment. Buddhism teaches its followers to utilize the power of thought in meditation, yoga, and fasting.
Likewise, Hinduism teaches the dual conception of Brahman and Atman. Brahman is the universal unconsciousness which sprouts Atman- individual consciousness- in humans. Practices that aid Hindus to their spiritual goals are similar to Buddhists’: reciting scriptures, meditating, chanting mantras, and singing hymns. Furthermore, Christianity teaches that we are a part of a greater entity: “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (Holy Bible, Luke 17:21). Preachers ask their churches to pray daily, commune, give back to the community, and never sin; this, they say, will bring them back to God. Could God be a higher level of loving awareness?
In addition, Christianity also teaches the importance of believing- which applies thought power- before anything in reality may manifest. Jesus Christ even said, “Therefore I say unto you, what things so ever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them and ye shall have them” (Holy Bible, Mark 11:24). In other words, believe it and you will see it. Believing first is applicable to every aspect of life even if you are not religious.
An example of believing firmly- too firmly- is hypochondria when people perpetually believe they are sick and are showing symptoms of serious illness despite reassurance from numerous doctors (Rathus). Each year billions of dollars go to unnecessary medical tests and treatments to try to ease the worries of hypochondriacs. Likewise, specific and social phobias interfere with daily lives by going beyond a patient’s control causing job loss, stress, weakened immune systems, and depression. The point is that these anxieties spring from nothing logical or tangible; only their thoughts and beliefs create their circumstance.
Negatively and positively, mentally and physically, the power of thought affects reality even if you are not aware. Two illustrations of thoughts affecting reality are pessimism and optimism. Pessimism is the tendency to emphasize adverse conditions or to expect the worse-case scenario. Negative subconscious programming, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease are long term effects of pessimism proved by studies on Minnesotans; low self esteem, sleep loss, stress, weakened immune systems, and increased blood pressure are short term troubles that plague the health of a pessimist. On the other hand, optimism correlates with strong self esteem and an all around better health that increases the longevity of life (Scott). This was proven in an experiment done on ninety-nine Harvard students at the ripe age of twenty-five. The ones who were optimistic when they were younger ended up being “significantly healthier at ages 45 and 60 than those who were pessimists” (Scott).
In comparison to thoughts disturbing or benefiting your health, Masura Emoto has successfully monitored the mind’s direct affect on water particles. Remembering what Henry Strapp said about the ability for mind to influence matter, note that we are seventy-percent water (Strong). Emoto applies only one stimulus to water molecules like prayers, music, or just pieces of tape with excerpts on them. After applying the stimulus in a controlled lab he freezes the water to catch what the molecules look like. “Good” stimuli, like a blessing or Mozart’s Symphony No. 9, make the water crystal form a quasi-snowflake, extremely intricate and gorgeous. Stimulus such as, “You make me sick, I want to kill you,” make the water molecules form the shape of a human body and scattered droplets. It makes you wonder: “If thoughts can do that to water, imagine what we can do to ourselves” (What).
Trustworthy evidence spells out thoughts have power, taken for granted; we can use the power of thought to benefit ourselves and many others. Being aware and in control of your thoughts allows for a sense of intuition that Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers possessed. They first believed in a possibility to perfect an unprecedented invention. These thoughts planted a seed for a physical action that has changed our lives today. Another way to help ourselves with thought is by focusing on a goal. Affirmations are a daily inter-dialogue of your goals repeated over and over. It helps manifest in reality your desires by helping you focus and hardwire actions to your subconscious.
Moreover, there are ways to use the power of thought in a psychic way to aid yourself and humanity. Locating missing persons or simply car keys is an extremely beneficial talent if you render it. Pat Price was a man with such talent who worked for the FBI in California. His most publicized save was of Patricia Hearst: he was given her case file and asked, “where is she?” Pat sat down thinking for a minute and then provided the exact description of the culprit’s house that kidnapped her (Targ). Not everyone can do this talent under pressure confidently; nevertheless, locating psychically is a useful talent. Furthermore, patients who are skeptical of the medicine world are turning to psychics for diagnosis. Some even ask their doctors to contact the physics for them. Even baffled doctors call credible psychics – which are no more than people who tap into the universal unconscious- and ask over the phone to diagnose patients with a sixty three percent success rate (Targ).
In essence, thoughts affect reality although the majority of people believe otherwise. Quantum Physics, remote viewing, and Masura Emoto’s studies provide scientific evidence that proves thought can influence matter and natural psychic capabilities exist. Religions have been teaching this for decades and have been coining the separate consciousnesses different terms, but no matter what it is called, local consciousness and universal unconsciousness provide nonlocal information! The natural power of thought seems unrealistic to a degree, but think of it this way, “it is the ‘instinct’ in humanity that creates the ability that we call telepathy, clairvoyance, psychic abilities, etc. We have forgotten how to rely on our basic instincts, which is intuition, because of our reliance on ego-consciousness” (Targ).
Filed under: Uncategorized
Missing: P.L.U.R. between Mother Nature and Humanity (Last Seen in the 60’s)
The day is a sleepy, Carolina one on this end of the sound; my foodless picnic is planted in a spared grove of trees overlooking the salty habitat. The sun perches in a sky, kin to the Blue Man Group, while scorching the enemy dock into a pale pulp. A crisp chorus resonates from trees above me, and the frame of olive grasses around the brackish water emanates a rhythmic lapping. Kissing the water’s coat is an inconsistent hue from an obnoxious metallic object drowning one beside it: a modest brown reflected from the arched being to my left. Its hearty trunk bends backwards and raises its arms to celestial heavens above pleading for light hoarded by the neighboring pines. Branches flex and mock our inventions, much like our abodes that cannot withstand a teeny hurricane. Life gathers on these symbolic branches and at its grandmotherly feet; the roots mellow the dark-chocolate soil with fables. Weaved into the mound of earth that the tree vacates are sprightly lime shoots and numerous insects which unintentionally crack beneath my feet.
Shadows and light softly rest upon each limb accentuating every wrinkle and fold. Each nub and scab on the surface of pinched skin is a memory of an unborn or defunct branch in its epoch. The tree meticulously ages like Lady Liberty because of the faded green scales that hinder youthful red bark underneath. Observing that I could be unmercifully swallowed by the tree’s trunk alone, I know this tree has been here longer than my family. It has seen all the predictable changes on this island from when it began to be tactlessly developed in the late 1960′s to today. Now the doom of this tree is dictated by an enterprise that ironically feeds my mouth. Yet, it sits righteously and glances tenderly at me through its cool shade which makes this suffocating heat bearable.
The pungent waft of decaying matter on the sound’s bottom flourishes in my nostrils and causes me to come face to face with the northeast wind. A nervous humming of an engine becomes distinct in the vicinity; a boy, ignorant of my realm, has acquired consent to take his boat out for a spin and is getting a thrill that Jesus must have had as he walked on water. Consequently, he ruined my serene sphere. Racket of the nearby bridge was taking liberty to rush in now: road-rage and rubber against asphalt. Meanwhile, a feeling as if I’ve impacted on concrete causes me to acknowledge my front-row and center seat on the runway. But, as swiftly as the wind carried the tart dins to my inner ear, they are muted. The tree with sour-green apple leaves was once again my focal point.
This tree is oddly asking me to question the esteem of my peachy life: we think we are smarter, but who lives longer? Who lives symbiotically with other species? Who perpetually has a place to call home and tenants to call friends? Who not afraid of storms or a shifting island? Who is at peace with Mother Nature? This tree is an elder to nearly the entire population; according to custom, it deserves my reverence, your reverence, and the reverence of all. We cannot make it a childish puppet to satiate our needs.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Sarah Grenier
Ms. Robinson
Hon English III
12/5/2007
Key to the Kingdom: Hemmingway’s Nonessentials to a Happy Life
What makes each hectic day more valuable than the preceding ones? Is it triumph? Is it love? Is it the American Dream? In George Peele’s poem “A Farewell to Arms,” he establishes his three constituents to a prosperous and satiating life: “Duty, faith, love, are roots, and ever green.” Ernest Hemmingway ironically adopts the same title, A Farewell to Arms, for his book to exploit duty, faith, and love as superficial transient elements of life. Duty is demeaned by situational irony; faith is bashed by characterization and figurative language. Drastically, a motif, a symbol, and indirect characterization unmercifully flay love.
In comparison to his brutality against love, Hemmingway almost weakly degrades duty because of the blind following the word often invokes. Frederic Henry, the protagonist in A Farewell to Arms, is American but he is taken as a German in disguise and “ordered to be shot” (224). This situational irony undermines an axiom that duty to a country is honorable and glorious; because, the officers who rightfully earn their status are tactlessly taken for granted. This irony reflects Hemmingway’s belief that duty is an unrealistic, ambiguous term, due to the abstract definition, that causes many unnecessary deaths. Soldiers’ duty is also abused by those who “make money out of it” from the war is softly whispered in the expensively furnished studies of presidents (51). One is able to credit this interpretation because of the cynical tone taken on by soldiers when discussing the war and the just abandonment of duty to the Italian Army by Bonello and Frederic Henry.
Religion and faith, which shape a plurality of the world’s population, are audaciously mocked by the characterization of their proxy, the priest, and a simple yet bold metaphor employed by Catherine Berkley. The “small, brown-faced, and embarrassed” priest is taunted due to this love of God and the speculation of masturbation (68); “Five against one!” (15). Hemmingway mocks the stand-in for religion to imply that practices of the faithful are unnatural and inane, like the Saint Anthony necklace that does not protect Frederic against immediate hazards. Direct and indirect characterization expounds on the priest’s personality to create a shy and awkward portrait; these unfavorable attributes continue to demean God’s message of faithful duty by calling his devotees pathetic. Furthermore, Catherine claims “you are my religion” when speaking to her husband, Frederic (116). By use of this metaphor, faith condescends to a frivolous notion other than its usual serious and holy context. These literary devices bring faith and religion off of their gold pedestal and place them on the examination table while the human-psyche sharpens its scalpel.
Lastly, Hemmingway utilizes a metaphor, a symbol, and characterization, and calamity to rape love of plausible recognition. For example, the narrator metaphorically dubs love a game, specifically bridge, which challenges the accepted opinion that love should not be played with. Also, rain, which symbolizes peril in the book, frequently develops a gloomy atmosphere around Catherine and Frederic’s relationship. It haunts the duo in numerous settings: the mountains, the hospital, and even on the boat to Switzerland. The symbol alludes to the misfortune or problem to ensue. Furthermore, depicting Catherine as a detached, subservient woman to her quasi-husband is undeniably quixotic in a love-bound relationship; giving her this person makes their love superficial as she acts like a Stepford wife.
The final crack of the whip resonates through the climax and the unemotional resolution; Hemmingway implies that love perpetually ends in calamity with this line, “And this is the price you paid for sleeping together. This is what people got for loving each other” (320). Notice the arrangement of “sleeping together” mentioned before “loving each other” that subtly hints at their respective importance. In addition, the entire conversation between the desensitized Frederic and the doctor after Catherine died shows no devotion to Catherine, their child, or their love. These examples imply that love is a bad joke which Hemmingway experience first-hand while in the Italian Army.
In essence, duty, faith, and love are not the constituents to a gratifying life according to Hemmingway who explains himself through a fictional allegory of this own experiences. He employs numerous literary devices in realistic situations to credit his beliefs contrary to George Peele’s. One of the few mentions of anything palatable in life states, “Good whiskey was very pleasant. It was one of the pleasant parts of life” (310). Maybe the only essential ever accepted by Hemmingway was a bottle.
Filed under: Uncategorized
On this page is my exceedingly toxic “experimentation” of journal entries that allow me to create my own examples of whatever-we-were-taught-that-morning.
9/6
During this lab we were to explore the depths of parallelism that were inscribed into numerous famous speeches like Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Patrick Henry’s speech to the Virginia Convention. I especially liked this piece because it reflected a social twist in my life that I abstractly exploited.
In Honor of Jlacy’s “Perpetual Light”
My light shines. My boca smiles. My thoughts are free. My body is healthy. Their light is dim. Their boca frowns. Their thoughts are clouded. Their body is sickly. I want my light to perpetuate; and, I therefore have to rid myself of each nostalgic thought. They want their light to shine brighter; they don’t know that life isn’t truly like that. I’ve tried evoking reason. I’ve tried scrutinizing to no avail. I’ve tried screaming and crying. Their one true friend was never there. I will imbibe knowledge; they will imbibe loss. I must go my own path with friends that care.
9/11
Here the class was to incorporate a euphemism, a less offensive synonym, into our writing by some means. The pace and the odd setting made this entry worth retelling.
You’ve just turned seven and you’ve stumbled across an unfamiliar word: guillotine. Upon asking your parents, your mother says they remove things from people there. You say, “Like scabs?”
“Yes, darling.”
Your father says, “That’s where the decapitate people.”
You say, “Like this kind of head?” pointing to your grey matter.
“Yes, darling.”
Appalling! Your entire world has been turned upside down! You can’t breath. Pulse, elevating; room, spinning; legs, weakening. Your entire vocabulary has been jeopardized!
How long has this lying been going on? Entire vocabulary lessons misconstrued!
This all started because this person has yet to learn what a euphemism is. Removing and decapitating are negative and neutral on the spectrum of connotations.
Sept 24th
This journal was inspired by some question about truth, and of course, I strayed from the original topic… Even so, someone read it and advised I put it on here because he believed it reeked of Sarah. This reflects my nihilistic state and the shape of my lips. It is a wonderful rant.
Freedom Isn’t Free
Honestly, I don’t believe there is a thing called absolute freedom. It doesn’t exist in our world, why? Because we are humans who need to be governed and controlled. In a sense we have degrees of freedom. Like in America, we are “free” compared to those citizens of China who are under communist rule. Our price for this degree of freedom is many American lives, many atrocious opinions of foreigners, and many years of decadence. We should change the slogan to, “Freedom isn’t real.” It’s an illusion created to invoke patriotism in American. Only propaganda.
10/2
The use of synesthesia!!! Oh, it is one of my favorite things we’ve been taught because it truly embellishes your writing. The example that makes me scream the loudest is when “he bought a coat in the colour of C sharp minor.” It was also an entry to capture a moment in time where you feel “at one” with nature like the romantics did.
Behind me a gelid lime vibrated from the cielo. In front, it was the demanding color of sables. I stood on the beach in the tart month of December. The shimmering wind whisped sharp strands of hair across my face and above the musky dark pool a rod highlighted the sky with its omnipotence. To further deafen my self-awareness, I sprinted across the sprightly arena that jumped at my shins pleading to bond. I submerged myself into that glacial world and was forever preserved in that infinity.
11/9
We learned the precise definition of personification this day and were asked to create an example. There was good and bad. I liked it because poems rock my socks off.
The child waits and plots in its mind
To trip you from behind.
Even glancing side to side,
You’ll be lost to the ditches and your riches
From the bait
So get to the gate!
And all the while that smirking little kid
Will be warm and hid.
His mother will say, “Fear, dinner!”
He could make you a sinner.
