Rise Of Nationalism

Hey guys, this is Cristy.
Just thought i'd open some discussion on Neoclassicism. One of the influences of the neoclassic age was the rise of nationalism. In european history we read Voltaire's opinion on patriotism and how one should aspire to be a "citizen of the world" because "to wish for one's country's greatness is to wish harm to one's neighbors". I don't think we would find many people who would fit voltaire's description of "a citizen of the world" because we all have predjidice and biases that sway our allegiance towards our "fatherland" or another.
Nationalist influence can be found in about every piece of writing in the Neoclassic packet as I'm sure we'll discuss in class. It was confusing to learn last year, in more depth the reasons for america's revolution. Before, I had believed that the reasons to revolt were overwhelmingly just. I didn't imagine that the colonies had any choice but to revolt! Last year as I learned more, the subject suddenly became debatable. In reality, the taxes that are so abominably described to us when we are in elementary school were actually not very high. All other Brittish citizens were paying much much higher taxes. I'm not saying we shouldn't have revolted or that it was wrong, but I felt like my education has been slanted to make me believe the revolution was just and unpreventable. Does Nationalism really result in more hurt like Voltaire believes or does the good outweigh the bad? Does nationalism divide more than it unites? Maybe Voltaire is right, that Nationalism is based on something that doesn't exist. I think that Nationalism in a way is a necessary evil/good because without it we would not be able to see a "bigger picture" and we would just live as an individual on the Earth, and look after our own private interests. But if nationalism didnt exist maybe we wouldn't go to war over things we have in the past.
I think Nationalism is a part of human nature, that we want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. Still, I was suprised to read U.S. nationalism in the writings of Phillis Wheatley who was abducted from Africa and sold as a slave.

The Irrationality of Rationalistic Thought

Hey everyone, it's Stephanie.
This weekend, I read over our class notes on Deism. The people who believed in Deism thought that the universe was explainable; still a mystery, but able to be deciphered through rationalism. If the universe could be explained rationally, wouldn’t God have to be rational, since the sole existance of the world likewise proves the existence of God? This confuses me a little; if God (and for some, Christ) is supposed to be divine and omniscient, why does he need rationalism?
Also, did Deists take the Bible as the ‘word of God’? The Bible is comprised of spiritually derived manifestations from God; doesn’t that contradict rationalism and logic?
If Deists believed man was perfectable, and could so ‘make himself perfect’ through logical progression of thought and proving of hypotheses, did they require preists, or attendence at mass at all? If not, who or what kept Deism alive for the time being? What if you believed that you had, in fact, reasoned out the existance of God and the universe by means of rational thought. What then, was your faith, your religion, if your religion was explained by man?Does that mean man is on the same level as God? Then where is the Great Chain of Being?
Sorry about all of the questions, but I’m interested to hear everyone’s thoughts.

Puritan practice

Hey, it's Erin. This is from John Winthrop's "Modell of Christian Charity"

God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind as in all times some must be rich, some poor; some high and eminent in power and dignity, others mean and in subjection. First, to hold conformity with rest of His works, ... Secondly, that He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of His spirit, ... Thirdly, that every man might have need of other, ... All men thus (by divine providence) ranked into two sorts, rich and poor, under the first are comprehended all such as are able to live comfortably by their own means duly improved, and all others are poor, according to the former distribution. There are two rules whereby we are to walk, one toward another; justice and mercy. ... There is likewise a double law by which we are regulated in our conversation, one towards another; in both the former respects, the law of nature and the law of grace, or the moral law of the Gospel. (1) For the persons, we are a company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ; (2) the care of the public must oversway all private respects by which not only conscience but mere civil policy doth bind us; (3) the end is to improve our lives to do more service to the Lord, the comfort and increase of the body of Christ whereof we are members; (4) for the means whereby this must be effected, they are twofold: a conformity with the work and the end we aim at. ... Thus stands the cause between God and us: we are entered into covenant with Him for this work; we have taken out a commission, the Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles, ... if we shall neglect the observation of these articles ... the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us. ... Therefore, let us choose life, that we, and our seed may live; by obeying. His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity.

Car Commercials and Existance

Hello all, it's Paige.
I had a Merchant's of Cool flashback a few days ago while watching TV with my sister. My sister and I were zoning out as a car commercial came on, and my sister mentioned how it was interesting how usually car commericals have great music in the background. The Flaming Lip's alternative rock song "Do You Realize" was blasting during what appeared to be a SUV feature. We came to the conclusion that a lot of commercials these days use music to munipulate us, and that the car commercial was trying to make it appear as if automatically a person would be in touch with alternative music if they were to only buy the corporation's car. I don't know if any of you have heard the lyrics to this particular Flaming Lip's song:
"Do You Realize - that you have the most beautiful face
Do You Realize - we're floating in space -Do You Realize - that happiness makes you cry
Do You Realize - that everyone you know someday will die
And instead of saying all of your goodbyes
- let them knowYou realize that life goes fast
it's hard to make the good things last
You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round"

It just made me sad to think that these words that put a lot of perspective on life for me could be twisted around to promote a machine that hurts the environment, and deepens our dependence on oil. I guess it all goes back to what Hayakawa taught us about how words can be used in different ways, and they can unique in their usuage and existance because they can mean completely difference things depending on the audience.

This post is going to be a little different...

I've been thinking a lot about what Mr. Lazarow had to say the Wednesday before Thanksgiving break. I remember thinking to myself the entire time that it was the most depressing speech I had ever heard. I even shared my thoughts with Grace, and she responded by saying that it was truly inspiring. I guess we were both right.

I feel that grades are completely useless. In that sense, the speech was inspiring, for it completely backed the truth that grades are an empty honor. However, I felt that I fit completely into what Mr. Lazarow was describing- a student driven by grades and not learning. For me, it was a kind of reality check. Entering high school freshman year, I knew that I'd have to work hard to get the A's that I had earned in middle school. But the learning aspect never even occurred to me. As Sophomore year passed and I entered Junior year, this became even more of a reality, because everyone around me was saying how Junior year "makes or breaks" your ability to get into a top-notch college. But, as Mr. Lazarow said (and as I have heard and previously ignored countless times), all undergraduate education is more or less equal, from Harvard to BCC.

In addition, the grade aspect of high school is emphasized by the school, driving competitiveness among students and even a false atmosphere in learning. While most of my friends could be considered "intelligent" and fall in the 10% of our Junior class (as well as my competitors for college), I feel that the grading system causes me (and them as well) to even encourage forgoing friendship for the "elusive 'A.'" On another note, how can receiving a grade be indicative of what has been learned? If I simply have a photographic memory, then would that not allow me to memorize the myriad of major dates of European history and processes of biology? Not to seem like a sycophant, but I feel that our English class is one of the few classes that the grade does point to how much we have taken away from the experience. After all, it is technically a college-level course, and it is not expected that we get amazing grades on everything. Besides this class, however, only a few choice classes stand out in their ability to actually teach me anything at all (for me, biology).

The most unfortunate thing about it all is that it cannot be stopped anytime soon. We have all experienced or seen those hellish demons called "helicopter parents," who hover around their children and, for lack of a better word, force them to do well in school. For what? So they can get into an Ivy-League institution, make money, and be happy. All three of which do not follow by any twisted logic. My only hope is that we try to learn in all that we do: make LEARNING the priority and make the GRADE the product that follows from our learning.

Anne Bradstreet and Predestination

Hi, it's Jasmine.

Anne Bradstreet's writing is definitely easier to understand than Edward Taylor's, but some sections of her poems still confuse me.

In "Prologue [to her book]", she emphasized the importance of knowing one's position and duty on earth by stating,
A Bartas (French poet she admired) can do what a Bartas will,
But simple I according to my skill.

I thought this meant that Bradstreet thought each person should "strive not above what strength hath got" (as stated by Taylor in one of his poems), because humans don't have the strength to fight against what is destined by God. She again emphasizes this when she writes, Let Greeks be Greeks, and Women what they are. I felt like she contradicted herself, because she had written earlier that she did not want to conform to the notion of what a woman should be like - one that has a needle, not a pen, in her hand. But wasn't people's belief that women should be inferior to men destined by God?

Also, in "Verses upon the Burning of our House," she wrote that she cried out to God, asking for help, when she saw the fire. Why would she plead to God for help if she thought that the fire was predestined? She could pray, but nothing would happen. In Taylor's "Upon a Wasp Chilled With Cold," we learned although the wasp reaches out to the sun, the sun merely does what it always does - prayer has no effect.

I guess what really confuses me is predestination. Do you think Bradstreet started to doubt it, but felt like she was being disloyal to God? I feel like Bradstreet often started to doubt God's plan, but always caught herself and reaffirmed her loyalty to him ("He knows it is the best for thee and me"). Since Puritans were taught to believe in predestination from a very young age, did that mean that they didn't see anything as unjust or unfair (since everything was determined by God)? Were they taught not to regret anything they did because their actions had been predestined? Did humans have any free will?

Taylor and Bradstreet similarities:

Hey, its Amy.
I think it's interesting how both Bradstreet and Taylor show examples of modesty and relation to the audience in their poems. Taylor, as we discussed in class, put himself close to the same level as those he was preaching to. "Lord, clear my misted sight that I may hence view Thy divinity..." In the second stanza of "Upon a Wasp Chilled with Cold) Taylor uses "I" to show that he, too, has no way of knowing if he is one of the elite who are predestined to go to heaven. He, too, is in search of enlightenment and relates to the problems that everyone in Puritan society faces. We see another example of this as he writes, "Till I enravished climb into the Godhead on this ladder do, where all my pipes inspired upraise and heavenly music furred with praise." The demonstrations of some modesty allow him to become closer to his audience and their issues.

Bradstreet accomplishes similar things as in her prologue to her book she summarizes that there are many areas open to criticism in her work and that she is not a poet; she simply wrote her thoughts and didn't edit to make sure that they were gramatically correct or pleasant for the reader. This idea of modesty and her view that her work is nowhere near perfect is evident in the first stanza as she writes, "To sing of Wars, of Captains, and of Kings, Of Cities founded, Common-wealths begun, for my mean pen are too superior things; or how they all, or each their dates have run, let Poets and Historians set these forth. My obscure lines shall not so dim their worth." The use of words such as mean and obscure show her thoughts that her poems are not even close to the superiority of the work of true poets and historians. This humbling also brings Bradstreet closer to her audience as it did for Taylor, showing that she is not just an author, but she is just another citizen who can relate to everyone's problems and issues.

Although Taylor's work was meant for public ears, and Bradstreets poems were thoughts that were not formed for the purpose of being published, the ability of both authors to find ways to relate to the audience is what makes these works of Puritan literature such interesting and insightful documents.

Games People Play

Hey this is Cristy D.
I just thought of one story which I think relates to the witchhunt hysteria. I apologize to anyone who I have already told this story. It happened several years ago, but the memory of it still frustrates me. It also reminds me that although we are living in the 20th century with modern technology and science we are not safe from being controlled by unreasonable hysteria.

I was at a birthday sleep-over. There were a lot of girls and no one was going to sleep. During the middle of the night, I came up from the basement to find a group of girls surrounding one girl who seemed to be muttering in her sleep. As I came over and asked what was up they all shhhhhhed me and told me the girl "Molly" was in a "trance". Apparantly, she thought she was the "real" Princess Anastasia and she was about to be kidnapped. The surrounding girls were whispering instructions to her to try and save her. They asked her questions like "what do you see?". When Molly replied that she saw a man in a black coat coming towards her. The girls would say "okay, now turn around and walk quickly away and then start running" Molly would reply "I'm running away but now he is chasing me!" By this point I was rolling my eyes, obviously Molly was just pretending. As I attempted to laugh over it all, the group of girls started to get angry with me, even scolding me "Stop laughing! You'll wake her up!" "No, this is real!" "She's really in a trance!" I realized that unlike myself, no one thought that Molly was pretending. It took me a while to accept this. Although it wasn't full-out hysteria, it was just as consuming and devoid of reason. It was a very unique experience that now allows me to better understand how the village people got caught up in the witchhunts. I dont believe it is simply a matter of greed, or of mercury poisoning. I think that supernatural topics are irresistable to many people. We all enjoy watching magic tricks and some of us believe in ghosts.

One of the reasons I believe this continued so long was because the girls thought it was exciting. Molly obviously was enjoying her power over her audience and kept the game going. (we are still accusing classmates of being "witches" for its entertainment value)
I was later exiled to the basement when I ended up waking up Molly who probably heard me. Because I refused to play "the game" I was left out. Molly would wake up "confused" and asking "what happened?". The girls would rush to explain the story Molly had JUST created and then work to put her back into a "trance". I left the game frustrated and annoyed but realized I could not convince anyone that Molly was pretending. This scared me then and still scares me today. The will of the majority is hard to change and is usually not open to discussion.

When I look back at it, I again begin to doubt if all those girls really believed that Molly was experiencing a parallel universe experience. If they did not, then why did they keep playing the game? Girls were saying how they were "getting freaked out" and "wouldn't be able to sleep" which shows how the "game" got out of control.

So I just thought I'd put my story out there, and see if anyone had any similar experiences, or had any ideas why this "game" kept going the entire night? ( I doubt everyone had mercury poisoning)
some other modern examples I can think of are the War of the Worlds broadcast and how scared people get after watching ghost movies. Its like Mr. Lazarow said, unless someone is undecided, if they are on the fence, we can never really change their mind. It is a scary thought. Why do we all have to be so stubborn? (then are we all already decided on our beliefs on superstitious topics?)

ps. the next morning "Molly" declared she had just been "kidding"

Puritan Literature: Can Someone Please Help Me Analyze The Code?

Hello fellow pupils. It's Ashley

So, I'm curious. How are we all getting along with our Puritan literature? There have been some excellent class discussions. People have made really insightful points (at least when they remember to actually read the packet.) Unfortunately, I'm having a bit of difficulty "decoding" the messages. When I analyze poetry, I try to look for examples of imagery, diction (i.e. word choice), what the dramatic situation is (who is speaking / to whom they are speaking), and syntax. It's harder for me to study these poems and such because they're written in old English; I don't know if they are purposefully using this flowery, figurative language or if that's just how they spoke back then! When Taylor writes,
"We'll Nightingaile sing like / When pearcht on high / In Glories Cage, the glory, bright / And thankfully / For Joy"
I thought he was referencing the Puritan society - the "city upon a hill"- because they are perched on high, above all other nations, for everyone to see their example of morality and righteousness. Their society is a cage in that the inhabitants are secure within their town - the Puritan citizens have found the right path and do not want to be led astray (i.e. be released from the cage.) They are content to be there and remain there. They sing thankfully and for joy that they are safe within the confines of the cage.
I had no idea that he was referring to the cage as heaven! Is that the right answer? Is there only one right answer?

Do our names influence what we like?

Hi, it's Jasmine.

I know we're not really talking about Hayakawa in class right now, but I found an interesting article in Newsweek.

Our names subconsciously affect our lives, according to some scientists. For example, baseball batters whose names begin with K are more likely to strike out (since there is a 'K' in 'strike'), based on statistics compiled from 1913 to the present. Another study revealed that business school students whose names began with C or D earned worse grades than those whose names began with A or B. This phenomena is called the "name-letter preference."

We've talked about the power of words (especially names) before. Our names are part of our identity - do they also affect our actions and desires without our realizing it?

What do you think? Am I more likely to like jam, Jell-O, or J-Crew because my name starts with a J? Or do you think these scientists are trying to make connections that don't really exist?

History

Wow, it's been a very long time since my last post! Something that's been nagging at me for quite some time (as we have discussed in class) is the topic of history in general. I am very confused as to what history itself is. To ask any high schooler or person one may pass in the street, history is the collection of actions, events, and people in the past- something immutable, over-and-done-with. However, reading William Bradford's writings from the Puritan literature packet, my thoughts of history have changed. As was stated earlier in the year, there can be no absolute "reality" because life is comparable to the view of a spectator at a game- no one experiences the same events. History, then, is what we call 'the past.' We judge one document of history to be 'factual' and 'correct' by comparing them to other documents written at the same time. For all we know, how can we know that all the documents written about these subjects are incorrect? Now, it is quite apparent that some events in history did indeed occur, such as World War II. We have radio feeds, pictures, and the millions of accounts of survivors. But what about an event such as the Battle of Hastings, for which we have only ancient texts and pieces of art?

In addition, history is simply not the collection of events that occurred in the past. It also, as I recently discovered, covers all parts of the mindset, culture, and people of the time period. Indeed, one may read extensively on the subject of the Salem witch hunts, but one has only gained a full understanding of the period when the psychology of the people involved (according to records) has been explored. One may find the reasoning behind many of these actions. Relating this back to what we have done in class, many events of the colonial days of America in New England (Puritans) relate back to the anxiety and fear of the settlers. They did not know whether or not, according to their specific religion, they would be accepted in Heaven for eternal salvation. Leading such a life, which goes without saying, can only be called stressful. What does everyone else think? Is history purely subjective or purely objective? Is it a mix? What else can history include?

Hey, it's Amy.
I was thinking about our "traitor hunt" tomorrow. I think it relates really well to the Salem witch trials. We're not experiencing mass hysteria or anything, but like the citizens in Salem, we all want to find the witch. We know that there's a witch out there somewhere and we just have to see who doesn't fit in. However, if someone forgets one of the laws, the rest of us will most likely become suspicious. It's a competition to see if we can pick the witch out among the "pupils" and it's better to be safe than sorry. We don't have the same motivation as seen throughout history as we are not concerned about our protection or the safety of the nation against intruders, but in the end we want to accomplish similar goals.

Safety or Rights?

Hey, it's Erin.
With any sort of "witchhunt", there seems to be certain characteristics displayed. One such is fear, that both motivates and suppresses opposition. But what that fear leads to is people sacrificing their rights in order for safety from some unknown enemy. For example, what went on in most of the McCarthy hearings technically would be illegal (I guess that's the word). But McCarthy was right in that there were spies in the government. The problem was how he went about finding them and prosecuting them. That leads to an important question, is it alright to work outside of the law in order to punish criminals (or so-called criminals)? Because allowing that, even once, creates a precedent for the future. Some people say that terrorism right now can be likened to McCarthyism and some think that the Patriot Act is a form of it. Obviously, true terrorists are dangerous and we would all to feel safe. But does that make it okay for the government to possibly spy on people? Restrict their ability to buy guns or board planes? The problem is there is no set profile for a terrorist, like there was none for a witch in "The Crucible". So what's more important?

Terrorist Witch Hunt

The witch hunt that seemed to get everyone excited today was about terrorism and racial profiling. All witch hunts seem to be motivated by fear, especially about something that is nonexistent or exaggerated. I feel that the danger presented by terrorism is somewhat exaggerated in American society. I once read that, based on past attacks, an average American has about a one in eighty thousand chance of being killed in a terrorist act. We feel a little more threatened than we actually are, which can result in distrust or hatred of people associated with terrorism, namely Middle Eastern Muslims. Only a diminutive group of radical Muslims actually participate in the violent acts, yet some feel that no Muslims can be trusted. There is nothing inherently wrong with Islam or Muslim people.

At the same time however, you can't say that a sixty year old grandma is just as likely to be a terrorist as a middle-aged Muslim man. I agree that statistics can be misleading and that you can never use past events to predict the future with absolute certainty. However, this does not mean that we must ignore past events completely. I have absolutely nothing against Islam itself. I have a friend who is Muslim, and I do not support racial profiling. I'm simply saying that there is a pattern that we see in regards to the ethnic and religious background of terrorists that should not be ignored for the sake of political correctness.

Mccarthyism- Join or Die

Hey, it's Amy.
When I was researching Mccarthyism and the Red Scare, I began to relate it to George Orwell's novel 1984. The novel describes the life of Winston who refuses to believe the lies of the dictatorship of England under the reign of the omnipresent "Big Brother." Anyway, in both societies, mccarthy's and Orwell's, it's a do or die situation. There is no possibility of rebellion because if someone steps out of line, in both cases the government eliminates them. Mccarthy punished people associated with the New Deal and who he suspected had any communist ties while Big Brother knocked anyone who knew too much or didn't follow the policies right out of existence.

Fear is a huge strategy to keep up a form of government or a political idea because no one can rebel because they'll be alone. This fear also unifies the public and the ideas soon become realities. Like in Hayakawa where he describes when he was at the train station and people where suspicious of him because he was Japanese. If you hear something enough times, it begins to become the truth.

The Red Scare

I have been intrigued by communist theology and its effects on history since I first learned about it freshman year in History class. I am interested in communism because it is an ideal government, but human nature always gets in the way. I am also fascinated by the propaganda used against communism.

While I was researching the Red Scare this weekend I learned that the Cincinnati Reds baseball team changed "Reds" to "Redlegs" to avoid association with communism. The name was not changed back to just "Reds" until 1961. This bit of information started to make me think about how the Red Square affected American life and language.

My mother was born in 1950, and my father in 1952. The Red Square was a large part of their childhood. They had "duck and cover" drills in school, much like we have lockdown drills today. They dreaded foreign invasion and nuclear holocaust. Imagine coming of age during all of that. Much of what they have gone through reminds me of our current position in "The War on Terror."

My parents often use the phrase "Nuke it" when in lieu of "Microwave it." When I was younger I just thought my parents had a peculiar and embarrassing way of speaking, not realizing that the reference to nuclear bombs was due to the Red Scare. Once, when I was with my mother in Atlantic City, we found ourselves encircled by three ironically placed restaurants: Red Square, Cuba Libre, and P.F. Chang's. When I pointed out the peculiarity my mother laughed and said something like, "That's weird. The USSR, Cuba, and Red China all in row?" I was a little put off by her use of "Red China." Why couldn't she have just said "China" like a normal person would have? It was as if she had slipped back into another time in American history. I then realized she had grown up during the Red Scare and had probably heard China referred to as "Red China" incessantly.

The effects of the Red Square are still felt in America today. Haven't we all felt the negative connatation that comes with the word "communist?" Through Hayakawa I'm sure we can all realize that being a communist is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a label for people who believe a certain theory of government should be used.

100% More Real Fruit

I have not blogged in a very long time, and I regret that. Blogging gives me that ‘coffee-house intellectual’ feeling. I’ve decided to break my blogging dry spell, and I’m sure everyone is rejoicing.

In more relevant news, the other day I was enjoying a tasty package of Fig Newtons at lunch. I’ve never really considered any cookie healthy, but I have always placed Fig Newtons in a category of their own on the ‘cookie standard’. They aren’t healthy but they aren’t as unhealthy as deep fried Oreos (which are delicious I might add).

While I ate, I noticed that on the side of the wrapper there was a large green box with stark white lettering that read “Now made with 100% more real fruit”. That simple statement on the side of a cookie package may have confused me more than anything I have ever come across in my entire academic career. More real? More real than what? What is ‘less real fruit’ then?

I know we’ve moved on from semantics, but I couldn’t pass this little nugget of information up. At first I thought that I wasn’t reading it correctly and that perhaps someone else would understand it better. I passed the package to the 7 other people that sit with me at lunch, and no one could produce a substantial ‘translation’ for the statement. If anyone who reads this can decode the meaning of the statement please feel free to enlighten me and my lunch mates (including you Mr. Laz).

The thing that really struck me after I realized that the statement made no sense was how many people would buy Fig Newtons because of that label? I eat Fig Newtons because my dad eats them, and my dad eats them because he ate them as a kid. But did my dad’s mom see them in the store and say ‘oh 100% more real fruit, I’ll get this for my kids’ or did a friend tell her about how delish they were? Or perhaps she had them at a friend’s house and asked for the brand name.

My conclusion to all of this is that advertising does not need to reach everyone; in fact I believe it is only intended for the few people who are willing (or gullible enough) to buy a product based on labels. Companies trust in word of mouth, and the habitual use of something throughout generations to propel their product more than merely the advertising. It’s almost as if it is a chain reaction. So, if people were to not have ‘brand loyalty’ or discuss the products they used with others, would advertisers have to work harder? I feel that the answer to that is yes.

Once again I’m sorry for going back on a topic that we seem to have beaten to death or discussed ‘ad nauseum’ (haha vocab), but I just love my Fig Newtons so much.

Identity Crisis

Hey everyone. It's Ashley

So how did your "identity experiments" turn out? Was it difficult to stay in character? Did any of your friends, teachers, or classmates notice your change in personality? SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCES! We will probably discuss this in class, but I think it is important that we share on the blog as well. Sometimes it's easier to express yourself in writing.

Well, I'm dieing to share how my day went. In case you didn't notice, I was a "germophob." I even had my own germ-killing-kit. I carried disinfectant wipes, kleenexes, purel, oust air sanitizer, and a lint roller. I avoided human contact as much as possible; I wouldn't hug my friends, open doors for other peole (germy door handles) or even sit down at my desk before I had disinfected it.

My friends definitely noticed my change in behavior and questioned it, but they accepted my explanation: "I know mono is going around and I can't afford to miss three weeks of school." (To really make my character believable I needed to change my behavior patterns as well as my speech - Language and Thought in Action!) Some of my friends even thought that my extra-caution was a good idea and asked that I wipe down their desks as well. Other classmates (people I wasn't as friendly with) gave me dirty looks and teased my mercilessly. It was extremly difficult to not break from character. I wanted desperatly to tell them that it was all just an act. I guess this is just the sacrifice you're supposed to make for your art. I completly sympathize with Pirandello's characters, because I realized today how difficult it is to not be able to break from your "script".

Now, the real questions. If it was difficult for you to be somebody else, does that mean that you have a compulsive desire to be accepted by your peers? In the end, we all just want to be validated but how far are we willing to go (or not go) to achieve this validation? If your friends noticed your giant mood swing today and said something, was it because they care about you or because they care about a certain version of you. WHAT DO YOU THINK??

Everyone is a Character

Hey, it's Amy.

Ok, watch out b/c this might get confusing! I started talking about this in class. So in the play 6 Characters, the characters argue that they are more real than the actual actors because they remain the same throughout their existence. However, to the audience the actors are also characters in a play and are therefore just as real as the original characters, are they not?

We are all in a sense characters in our own plays. We are constantly on the stage of life as we perform in each others' lives. I play various roles in everybody's lives from friend to daughter to student. The characters in the play do this as well as they influence the lives of the actors and director. Although they claim that they remain static, we see them as they interact with the other characters in the play.

We too influence lives around us, just like the characters. Is there really any difference in reality between the two of us? One just has a different method of expressing occurences than the other. How do we measure reality? I think that we are all characters in a way and that we have similar levels of reality in relationship to what is around us. I hope this makes sense! :P

You look like a...

Hey, it's Sarah.

I hate it when someone says, "You look like a Sally, Annie, Kathy,..." In my mind, I'm the foremost Sarah. I think of myself as the pattern of Sarah's. When you here your name, don't you think of yourself? Other people here your name, and they might not think of you. If they know a person like you who has a different name, they will inevitably say the dreaded phrase. Personally, I think my name fits, but there's no collective labeling for proper names. Unlike a stapler, which must look and act like a stapler to have a collective label of stapler, names aren't given to people based on what they look like or how they act - most of the time. I realize there are nicknames such as Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, and Sneezy, but a formal name is given at birth when virtually nothing is known about the infant. A parent doesn't know how this child will grow up. Names are the perfect example for a word never meaning the same thing twice because there are never two people who are exactly the same.
I hope I got at least some of my point across.

Thoughts on Reality, Schizophrenia, Fantacism, Schrodinger's cat, Six Characters,...

As one reads Six Characters, several interesting questions about reality emerge in my head. What is reality? Who are we to define reality? Is our reality any more real than another reality? ...
In Six Characters, the actors repeatedly insist that the story that the characters tell is a story and nothing more. On the other hand, the characters insist that their story is reality and that it is really going on. The starkest example of this is the end of Act Three, when the little boy kills himself. To the characters, his death is complete and utter reality, but to the actors, it is simply all an act. One actor even says something along the lines of that the boy is not really dead only dead in the story. The question that arises is that in the context of the play, is the reality of the characters any less "real" that that of the players?
Another idea that arose in my head is the idea of psychological disorders. If anyone has seen A Beautiful Mind, it seems very clear to viewer in the first half of the movie that Nash's imagination is very real. For my part, I actually believed that Dr. Rosen was a Soviet until later in the movie (I didn't read the summary of the movie). The point is that is John Nash's reality any less than our reality. His brain and senses are telling him that there is a person there that is talking to him and interacting with him, so how is he wrong? In a sense Schizophrenia is a frightening disease because his reality does not correspond to our reality.
One more idea that emerged in my head is the idea of religious fanatacism. Fanatics believe that there way is the only right way and that there can be no other way. To me, this indicates an almost different reality. Fanatics of all religions regularly believe that God actively intervenes in daily life and speaks with them. In fact, this idea not only appears with fanatics - the last five presidents have all claimed that they have had a personal encounter with Jesus. We may (or may not) ridicule such notions as exaggerations, but if their reality is different that ours, who's right - are we both?
A final question that emerged while I read is, "What is reality?" From a quantum physicist's point of view, reality is a superimposition of infininte of possibilities or universes (think Schrodinger's cat). A religious person may say God. Who defines reality? Who are we to tell others that our reality is more "real" than other reality? Is reality language, a world of words? If so, since Hayakawa wisely shows us that language is nothing but our way of symbolizing reality, what is the reality that we are symbolizing? We take reality for granted and in my opinion, often abuse the notion of reality. I'm interested to hear other thoughts on these musings.

The Crucible Non-sense

Hey, This is Cristy D.
At first I was curious about how the crucible would relate to what we had been talking about with Hayakawa, but I immediately began to see several connections. First of all the salem witch trials were all based upon the word of a group of girls who accused people of worshipping the devil and causing problems in the village. This quickly became a "non-sense" argument because the people were fighting over intensional meanings. They at one point referred to the crimes as "invisible" because no one could see them happening except the "witch" and the "victim". Because no senses could percieve the actual objects involved (the devil, the curse, etc.)it was a non-sense argument. (Like hayakawa says, angels have no extensional meaning because we can't see, touch, or hear them). Disagremments over intensional meanings, or non-sense objects can go on forever whereas an arguement over something with extensional value can be proven and the argument can end more easily. (-The floor is 15 feet long. - No, it isnt -Well measure it and find out!!!) In history class, we learn how not long after the Salem witch trials, the Enlightment began in the 18th century. People began to turn away from mystical evidence and more division between relgion and law could be seen than before. I am thankful that mystical evidence is no longer accepted because otherwise it would always be someone's word against another's.

This book made me think a lot about how important words are to our freedom under the law. After all, the job of the Supreme court is to INTERPRET the constitution and laws as they understand the words to mean. Because words can mean something completely different to another person; laws can be overturned when another judge comes into the court. Even our founding fathers had no absolute meaning for every part of the constitution. Hamilton and Jefferson for example were constantly bickering even after the constitution had been written. If the words had an absolute meaning they could have just referred to the document to solve their problems. The constitution is a living document because it is always being interpreted differently and of course can be expanded. however, it still preserves certain rights that can not be overlooked. In the crucible trials it seemed they made everything up as they went.

Back to the book....While I read The Crucible I became increasingly frustrated with the faults of Judge Danforth and the others who persisted in believing the girls without any real proof and taking their non-sense words to have extensional meaning. The idea that innocent people can be punished for things we can neither see nor touch is terrifying. Because it is a play we must extract from dialogue the plot and intensions of characters. In a way, this makes a play more interesting (or at least more interactive) than a book because the reader has more control over what is actually happening. The words stand on their own, apart from you, me and even from Arthur Miller.

Reality?

Hey it's Erin. I'm not going to lie - the more I think about how the characters are more real, truer, than the actors, I get confused. How can something that's created be more real than reality? Is what Pirandello's saying true for everyone, or just for actors (because I could understand that a little better because an actor is always portraying someone else that they are not, and always portraying different people)?

The father says, "we have no reality outside of this illusion" and I was thinking, "wait, reality and illusion are opposites." What does that mean, that because they have no other reality, then what they have now is reality? Is it just an illusion because they're characters, an illusion like acting? But what the father says to the director ("don't you think that tomorrow... what you are feeling now as well, your reality for today... might also seem an illusion?") made me think about a theory mentioned in the E-prime article and in "The New Doublespeak". The Sapir-Whorf theory says that language affects our view of the world, of reality. It is a guide to social reality. William Lutz, author of the book, says that language reflects a person's reality as they see it. The way the characters talk and interact reveal their view of things, their reality. And it is so much clear to see in the play because the characters are one-sided, static, less complex than an individual.

Thinking back to one of the many questions I asked before, I think that people can accept something that's created as reality (think lies). Social reality (what is real to a society) can be divergent from reality. What is accepted as true can actually be false.

Acting- An Illusion

Hey guys, it's Amy Z!
In the play I agree with Ian that it's intersting how the characters compare illusions and reality. Also, it caught my interest when a character said that acting is not necessarily portraying the feelings of the character, but the actor's interpretation of the reactions to a scene. Everyone experiences different reactions and emotions in various situations and no one has the same experiences as another. It is impossible to mimic exactly what a character is going through. In the play the director and actors mention that in every representation of a play, the scriptor or the actor brings a part of their individual style into the performance.

I think that this also relates to how sometimes teachers say that a quote means a certain thing or this is symbolism that means this. Each work can be perceived in numerous ways and only the author could know the meaning of a phrase or idea. The most we can do is make a guess based on what we know from our environment or our personal education or experiences (which varies for everyone). It's like Mr. L's analogy, no one sees the same game. No one sees the same exact meaning in a certain idea. We all have our individual translations.

First Reactions to 'SCSA (Six Characters in Search of an Author)'

If you're anything like me, then you begrudgingly opened your copy of Eight Modern Plays a few days ago to read some oddly-titled play you had been assigned- "Six Characters in Search of an Author." Fortunately, right from the beginning I knew this play was a little different than anything I had read before. As soon as the Characters stepped into the action of play, it made me curious as to what would happen next; and what I read did not disappoint me.

Overall, I see 'SCSA' as fundamentally different that many other plays (which often seem to mock reality with their caricatures of characters and drawn-out plots). But what I really enjoyed, in essence, about Pirandello's play is the concept of illusion versus reality and that the static, one-sided Characters were juxtaposed next to the 'unreal' Actors. Of course, we know that each Character symbolized one emotion throughout the play and proved himself or herself incapable of expressing something different than that which they would normally express. As the play tells us, the Father is locked in a state of remorse, the Mother has grief, the Stepdaughter is vindictive, and the Son has disdain for his family and stepfamily. And then there is the issue of the non-speaking mysterious Boy and Girl characters. These Characters help to demonstrate that what is real to us is an illusion. Everything is constantly changing: it is one of the most basic yet complex parts of our world. For the Characters, however, reality does exist and is self-explanatory: nothing about them ever changes. The Hayakawa principle that the "universe is in a perpetual state of flux" does not hold true for them; the opposite is true because every aspect of their existence has been laid out by their author. They are obligated to follow what the author has written: they simply cannot have 'free will' like any being of our reality is entitled to.

I had my doubts, though. For how could a character, just a figment of one author's imagination, be truer than any existing being? A revelation dawned on me as the Father pointed out that "'...it's [reality] fixed- like this- this is it! -forever. It's terrible, this unchanging reality...'" (248). What we may see as physically tangible does not exist in the traditional view: it is not static like the world of the characters; it is always changing.

How does everyone else feel about the play? Do you agree with what Pirandello says? What about the characters? Do you think the Girl and the Boy are really dead, or were they never alive?

Kleenex

Hey, it's Sarah.

I was riding in the car today, and the street should have been named, "Dealer Road" because for about a mile, it was dealership, after dealership, after dealership... Anyway, one dealership had an enormous sign that read, "PRE-OWNED." Car salesmen, especially used car salesmen, are masters of language. They insist on calling cars "pre-owned." This is so widely known that in the media car salesmen are almost always portrayed in a negative way, so, without fully knowing it, people are aware that words can portray a certain feeling and that other people manipulate language to make sure that feeling is felt. I applaud these car salesmen; they know that "used" has negative connotations. I think of used Kleenex. How disgusting is that image! I certainly do not want to use someone else's snot-covered tissue. Maybe the media should leave car salesmen alone. After all, the media twists words around, too. Everything comes back to language... Anyway, does anyone else think what car salesmen do is just normal and that they should be left alone?

Doublespeak

Hey, it's Erin. I've been reading "Doublespeak" by William Lutz (which is a really interesting book), where he looks at doublespeak in the law, business/economics, and government/politics. For the most part, I've known and understood what he says (I mean, if you think of doublespeak, you're going to expect it in politics). But when it came to the chapter about doublespeak in the law, I was a little surprised by what I discovered. It was sort of like one of those things that you know deep-down, but never expected it to be so far-reaching or extensive. Lutz goes over cases of how police search the wrong place by accident, find criminal things, and are able to use that in court even though the search was illegal, without a warrant. It's called an "honest mistake". Or another such mistake, when a prosecutor uses a forced confession from the witness, but the sentence stands. Lutz pointed out that those "honest mistakes" are always made by the police or the prosecution, never the defendant or their attornies, which is an example of doublespeak. How do you know if it was a "mistake"? Or even "honest"? But what I really have a hard time grasping is how blatant doublespeak can be. Do people really believe that nobody will pick that up? That by changing the word nobody else will know? I guess they do because they get away with it (you know, why change what works?).

Sometimes though I find doublespeak hilarious. Calling lies "terminological inexactitudes" or "political credibility problems" and liars "sufferers from fictitious disorder syndrome" makes me laugh. I've played a game like that once, the titles to Christmas carols are placed in big, complicated words and you need to figure out which song it is. It's funny. We always think that people who use big words are smart, but all that the people with "political credibility problems" just use them as a mask, so they sound like they are saying something intelligent, when really they are saying nothing at all in terms of intellectual value.

Has anyone else had such a "shock" revelation in their books? Or was it just something you knew before?

Vocab Unit 2 exercises

As usual, do all the UTW exercises except #1.

Skip the analogies section.

In ETL, do Part I (words for professionals), Part II (portmanteau words) and Part IV (Expanding Your Word Power)

Don't forget to look at the sample semantics exercises I posted yesterday. And WORK ON YOUR BOOK REVIEW!

See you in class--

LAZ

A Movie About Brainwashing Through Advertising-Josie and the Pussycats

Ok, this is Amy Z.
I really hope you read my blog, whoever you may be, even though it is about Josie and the Pussy Cats. I was flicking through channels on Saturday and it immediately caught my attention when a woman told a government official that her company was advertising to kids through music. (btw-I would not really recommend this movie unless we can watch it in AP English-doubt it) Anyway, so the company starts bands with hidden advertising in their music so that kids don't know that they're being brainwashed, but at the end of the song they want to buy the next cd and the products mentioned. It is such a crazy movie. If a band ever gets to close to figuring out what the company is putting into the music, they kill them off (they give examples such as Elvis overdosing or a singing group crashing in a plane into the side of a mountain).

It's funny since in class we were talking about how advertising influences us and can brainwash the young. Even the singers are influenced. Each supports a different store or company. Josie represents Revlon w/ a logo carpet and matching wall paper. Another's room is Target explosion w/ the red bullseyes everywhere and even a stuffed target dog. The third represents McDonalds and her shower has a golden arches border and french fry and hamburger man sponges are on the floor of the shower. The movie illustrates how after listening to so many advertisments, we begin to become influenced by what we see.

In the end the moral is that we should all decide what we like by ourselves. Everyone who was brainwashed becomes magically normal again and the main point is decide for yourself and don't get caught up in the propaganda (b/c of course every movie needs a moral in the end). We should definitely watch it in AP English. Actually, maybe we shouldn't.

Easier Than E-prime??

I was just thinking about the E-Prime discussion in class today and how hard it would be to actually take steps towards totally eliminating "to be" from human vocabulary.
My view is that instead of eliminating "to be" and using E-Prime words, why don't we just keep "to be" in our vocabulary the way it is now but just explain what "to be" actually means. Someone mentioned that any sort of movement would have to start with very young children and this is true. My view is that we should teach them how to say "to be" like we always have but explain to them that although you're saying "be" it's not an equals sign. It's merely an agreement based on past experiences and observations. Ex: Don't to remind yourself to say "This flower appears to be blue" as opposed to "This flower is blue" in front of your kids. Tell them that "This flower is blue...but by is I mean....bla bla bla." Instead of using E-Prime we should merely help each other understand better what we actually mean when we say some form of "to be." What do you think?

Sample semantics questions

Analyze the following statements, based on your understanding of Hayakawa's concepts:


1. "Environmental crimes are not like organized crimes or drugs. There you have bad people doing bad things. With environmental crimes, you have decent people doing bad things."

2. “The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes—danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” (Adolf Hitler)

3. MOSCOW—The former Soviet Union’s chief cartographer acknowledge Friday that for the last 50 year the Soviet Union had deliberately falsified virtually all public maps of the country, misplacing rivers and streets, distorting boundaries and omitting geographical features, on orders of the secret police. . .The apparent purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations.

4. Cats are creatures that meow. Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. Therefore, Tabby, Cinders and Fluff meow.

5. “I have a great new recipe for trail mix—two scoops of Reese’s Pieces to one scoop of Peanut M&Ms. The kids love it. You know it’s nutritional because it’s trail mix.” (comedian Roseanne Barr)

**You may post your analyses, or do them in writing and bring them with you to class***

LAZ

Hello fellow internet users, it's Paige.

During history class a young scholar (who shall remain nameless) brought up a statistic concerning Roosevelt's "New Deal." He said "Unemployment was doubled during this period of American History." At which point another young man claimed that "Statistics show that unemployment was cut in half." I felt compelled to changing into my Mr. Laz costume that I carry in my back pack and inform them that you can truly find a statistic to support whatever your argument is. Their facts were complete opposites for the same topic, shows just how irrelevant most statistics are.

On another note, during class discussions in recent days we have talked a bit about how "is" can be used to represent opinions that cannot be argued. Well I agree that if we can avoid using such a word with such strong connotations, it can benefit language and how it impacts society. However, how can we expect society as a whole to change the words it is build upon. Perhaps we as a class after this year can avoid using "is" as frequently, but what about the rest of civilization? Are we the choosen ones to start an anti-ism rebellion, or should we just accept "is" as a word and leave it at that?

The Link, As Promised

Sorry this is so late--this morning, I thought today would be a perfectly normal day...shows just how much I know about predicting the future!

The article is called "Towards Understanding E-Prime," originally written by author Robert Anton Wilson:

http://nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

It's not very long, although it is a bit complicated--those who see this post, do your best.

See you tomorrow morning--

LAZ

Cynicism Towards Advertisers

As a result of watching "Merchants of Cool", but mostly from our class discussions, I have come to view all advertisements in a different light. After I began to believe that corporate marketers are never concerned with the well-being of their audience and every ad is intended to maximize profit, some important corollaries followed. When something seems too good to be true, it is always too good to be true. When an advertiser talks about valuing the customer, they really only value the customer's money. In short, I have become extremely skeptic of any promises that marketers make.

This newfound cynicism applies to every advertisement that I see or hear. It is almost an automatic reaction to question the real motives of each commercial I see. Sometimes, the manipulation of language is almost obnoxiously evident . While listening to a baseball game on the radio today, I heard an ad that said, "If you want to be a real Yankees fan, then you have to open up a Bank of America Yankees Rewards Checking Account." The logic is so obviously flawed that it makes me wonder how ignorant the marketers think we are. Another ad I've seen for Stella Artois (an expensive Belgian beer) reads, "Perfection has its price." The snob appeal is unashamedly blatant. Other ads are much more subtle, and these tend to be somewhat frustrating. Although I know from the beginning that the advertisers are trying to manipulate me, I can't discern exactly how they're doing it. Even so, I think that it is beneficial to the consumer to be aware of the advertiser's intentions and to make decisions accordingly.

Reverse Psycho

Hey guys, it's Amy Z.
Ok, so this is my fourth effort (no joke) trying to post. Ok, so with the Sprite commercials, the company made fun of advertising in order to create effective advertising. Does this technique work? Does seeing our ideas and thoughts on screen make us sway towards one side or company because we feel like they understand what we are thinking? The students in the video were pretty upset when they found out what Sprite was up to. I am so used to commercials now, as Ben said earlier this week, that I don't even care what they put in them. Some people watch the Superbowl just for the commercials (kind of crazy).

Anyway, I was thinking about student government elections and how a student's posters last year relate to the Sprite commercials and how they used reverse psychology. His posters said things like "I'm just doing this for college applications!" and last year it made me wonder if it would be effective enough to persuade the student body to vote for him. I thought it was kind of crazy, but we know that some people do participate in clubs just for college. He was getting into the minds of the student body, but I think he was too open with the opinions of others. His approach was interesting, since most people assume that the candidates do it for college (no one in my homeroom knows what they actually do in student gov). Is reverse psychology really an effective method in most cases, or does it begin to peeve people once they figure out the true intentions behind the words? Do we have to be constantly exposed to this reverse method in order for it to be effective (the posters were probably up for only a couple of days)?

Where is the line?

As I was thinking about the "Merchants of Cool" and advertising in general (as everyone else in our class is hopefully doing...), I wondered when advertisements went from innocuous to dangerous. Reading Jasmine's post, it's true that not all advertising is BAD. If you like a certain product, then you will continue to be loyal to that brand for the brand's content alone. This also goes for the opposite: if you despise a certain product (for me, fast food) then you will refrain from purchasing that product no matter how effective the advertisements are at convincing others to buy it (like the Wendy's ad...haha).

But to ask again, where is the line? I believe that an advertisement truly becomes dangerous when the audience is not aware that they are being marketed to. This is especially true of subliminal messages, which are supposed to affect the subconscious mind. Now, of course actions have been taken in the US and around the world to curb the usage of subliminal messaging, but in its heyday it was certainly true that one was not completely in control of one's thoughts. Since advertisers cannot use subliminal messaging, they often use more sneaky techniques which aren't quite subliminal but certain show up on the radar. For example, the infamous Sprite is blatantly advertising a "sublymonal" (yes it's spelled wrong for a reason) messaging technique in its nonsensical commercials. If you've seen these bizarre commercials then you know that the stereotypical types of these messages- such as rapid flashes of images- are used; but they are slow enough so that we can consciously perceive them. What is Sprite trying to say? Is it trying to convince customers that they're so smart they can detect subliminal messages? We cannot answer this question- only the cunning marketing executives can. But I still don't drink Sprite.

By the way, I found some interesting links related to subliminal messaging:

http://www.umich.edu/~onebook/pages/tablepages/uses.html#sh
http://www.poleshift.org/sublim/ntro/How_To_See.html (this one is kind of funny but creepy...)

Marketing: Good or Evil?

Hi, it's Jasmine.

Some of you seemed blown away by "Merchants of Cool". In my opinion, the documentary just reinforced what I already knew. We've been exposed to advertisements for our whole lives, so I think by now, we all know that we cannot always trust them. We often make fun of ads that are make exaggerated claims, but at the same time, we know that they're biased - that's a huge part of what an ad is. So, if "Merchants of Cool" was a shock to you, if it made you feel like you've been lied to your whole life, why was it such a revelation?

For me, marketing isn't evil. It's simply a part of our lives that will always be there. Although we can't avoid advertisements, we always have a choice - companies have no way of forcing us to buy their products. Like I said in a previous post, life without advertisements would be woefully empty. Although people complain about the hidden advertising on MTV, they still enjoy watching it because it's entertainment. We complain about the amount of commercials on TV, but why do we still sit there and watch them? Once again, it entertains us - commercials can be pretty interesting and funny. Also, I remember in class, we talked about Disney - stating that it pretends to be something that it isn't. It doesn't matter much to me that Disney doesn't live up to its family-friendly reputation. The truth is, Disney produces many good TV shows and movies that aren't always rated G. I think that the actual product matters more than what the product is "supposed" to be. After all, according to Hayakawa, nothing is "supposed" to be anything - everything is based on our individual perception.

So, who thinks that advertisements are evil? Or good? Or somewhere in between?

Let's Just All Pretend

Hey, it's Sarah.

In Language in Thought and Action, Hayakawa describes an instance at a train station. It was during WWII, and being Japanese, Hayakawa was eyed a little suspiciously. He then starts a conversation with a man to feel more comfortable and to make everyone else more comfortable. He describes that language is a tool to let people know you're like them (or not like them in other cases).

I have been reading East of Eden for a few weeks. Lee, a Chinese immigrant working as a servant in late 19th century/early 20th century California, is well-versed and educated, yet he speaks in broken English to convey an image. Lee says it's an expected image; it makes people more comfortable for Lee to talk in barely understandable English because we, humans, like the familiar.

Don't words and language allow us to pretend? Lee is pretending to be an ignorant man. Also, a new "craze" has swept across the nation; white teens from middle-class and wealthy suburbs have adopted some slang that is "ghetto fabulous." Aren't they also pretending to be something they're not? Language has the capability to deceive (yes, I do realize that no one actually believes these teens are from inner-cities or in gangs). Don't we sometimes hide behind words? We let them represent us completely, not necessarily the words but the way they are said or delivered. What does everyone else believe? In a way, I sometimes just get fed up with the heavy traffic of words and the way we manipulate words to convey an image.

What Do We REALLY Like?

Wow, the blog is so alive! I love it! Although I had a lot of catch-up reading to do before I could put in my own two cents. Hopefully I’m not repeating too much of what anyone else has mentioned, I have managed to skim just about everyone’s but you can never be too sure…

So we’ve been watching the video “Merchants of Cool”. I wasn’t here when we started it, but today we saw a segment about the Insane Clown Posse (is that the proper name for it? I know it had something to do with clowns…). The Insane Clown Posse is supposedly an underground, individualistic, unmarketable, ‘stick it to the man’ kind of group.

But what I don’t understand is, do the people actually enjoy the music, or do they just want to be ‘different’? Even though the corporate world is not marketing bands such as the I.C.P., it is still influencing the choices that the supposedly ‘individualistic’ people make. Do people that listen to bands like the I.C.P. really dislike Britney Spears’ music, or just the fact that she is mainstream? What if the rolls were reversed and the I.C.P. was mainstream and Britney Spears was an underground fad? Even though people that listen to the I.C.P. think that they are not bending to the whim of the marketers, they are. Their decisions are still based upon what the marketers decide to package for the masses. It is safe to assume that whatever the advertisers decide to make mainstream, the 'indie' people will do the opposite.

Being influenced by advertisers is unavoidable, whether you purchase their product or not. And if that is the case, how do we know what music we really enjoy listening to? Or what clothes we really like?

In closing, I have one last thing to share, and it has to do with my wonderful mother. My mother is a mature, stay at home mom. She’s the sensible, structured, matriarch that runs a well-organized home. However, in recent years it has become apparent that my mother has a soft spot for rappers such as 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, and Eminem. Even though the lyrics are often times crass and derogatory towards women, my mom doesn’t seem to mind. These rappers are targeting a younger, much different demographic; yet they have managed to obtain a white mother of two who lives in an affluent community as a fan. This I believe is a perfect example of an exception to the rule.

The Evasive Midriff

The video we have been watching in class, The Merchants of Cool, discussed how the media portrays teenage girls and how teenage girls are marketed. Teenage girls are depicted as mere sexual objects that will do just about anything to gain the acceptance of their peers or the attention of the opposite sex. Throughout history women have been viewed as weak, inferior beings who need men to save them from their own futility. Men are praised for their sexual prowess, yet women are supposed to stay chaste. We are constantly being sent the message: "Women are here only to please men. Buy them and you can get them to do whatever you want." This so-called “double standard” can be found in language as well.

We might not always think about it, but language can be truly abusive to women. About two years ago I read a book called Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation by Leora Tanenbaum. The book was a study on why girls are subjected to sexual labels and how those words have shaped society. On the first page of the book there are four lists of words; one each for terms used negatively to express sexually active men and women, and one each for words used positively to express sexually active men and women. There are only two words to describe women positively: hot and sexy. Men, however, have a good quantity of positive terms, such as stud, player, Casanova, and ladies’ man. When it comes to negative terms, men only have womanizer, wolf, and “can’t keep it in his pants.” Women, on the other hand, have a myriad of negative terms to describe them. There are almost thirty terms on the list, including slut, whore, tramp, hooker, and floozy. Even the term “feminist” has been turned into a negative connotation, or could be seen as one of Hayakawa’s words with built-in judgments.

The saddest part of this is that men aren’t the only culprits. This is so deeply embedded deep into our culture that women identify themselves with these terms. Much of the name calling comes from other females. I’ll even admit to partaking in it. We see another girl as an outsider or as competition and she's automatically a slut. Detrimental words are used to illustrate women in all forms of the media and in our own personal conversations. In The Merchants of Cool a band called Insane Clown Posse was featured. It was stated that their lyrics were demeaning to women, but there were women there to support them at their concert. How can we mistreat ourselves this way? Our music, magazines, movies, and television programs continually degrade women. Recently, when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hoes” (among other racial remarks) there was an outcry from Americans disgusted by the verbal abuse women face from the media. The commotion to remove these words from our vocabulary was sadly short-lived. Everybody realized there was a problem, but no one wanted to own up to it.

If we ever expect to have equality between the sexes, how can we use these words? How could we ever expect to receive respect from men if we are relentlessly devaluing ourselves? There will never be an end to this unless we stop buying into these stereotypes. If we are so disgusted by the scantily clad, blonde popstar crawling around lasciviously on stage, why do we in turn idolize her?

Is it possible to escape advertisements?

Hi everyone, it's Jasmine. I've been thinking about the "Merchants of Cool" video we've been watching in class, and I thought about the role of advertising in our lives. I realized that it's necessary and inevitable - there's no way to escape it. I feel like life without commercials or brands would feel strangely empty.

Even "Merchants of Cool" itself was a collection of advertisements - in warning us of the dangerous relationship between companies and teens, it actually promoted those companies' brands. Even if we tried to avoid the world of marketing, we couldn't. If I wore a plain T-shirt instead of one that had a brand name sprawled across it, I would still be advertising for that particular style. Also, somebody might like my shirt and ask me where I got it - and in answering, I would be advertising for a store or a brand. In a more extreme case, even an empty room is not completely free of advertisements. Although unlikely, a person could step into that room and admire the type of paint on the walls or the shape of the room, which might influence him to buy the paint or hire the architect that designed the room.

There's absolutely no way to hide from ads. Since we can't escape the media, we have to understand it and be aware that we live in a world where somebody is always trying to sell something. What do you think? How do you think our inability to hide from commercials affects our lives?

Different Names for the Same Thing

Hello everyone! I had an interesting experience the other day, and I wanted to share it with all of you:

I was babysitting for a mother who had to leave for work early last Saturday morning. When I arrived at 7:00 AM, the children had just woken up and wanted breakfast. I was willing to make anything (being the excellent chef that I am, I can whip up cereal, bagels, oatmeal, or eggs) but the youngest child, Paige, refused to eat anything. She was wailing that she was hungry, but she didn’t want to eat what we had in the house! I was forced to become creative. (As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.) I told her I would make “Cowgirl Sticks.” (Strange name I know, but she has an obsession with horses. I hoped the name would catch her attention.) What are Cowgirl Sticks, you ask? Why, nothing more than toast with butter and jam simply cut into three pieces, but she LOVED them. She ate six cowgirl sticks.

My point is that we can use different names for the same thing to create the desired affect. I could have told Paige I was giving her toast, but she wouldn’t have eaten it. I cut the bread differently and call the pieces “Cowgirl Sticks” and suddenly she wouldn’t stop eating.

Now, after having watched the “Merchants of Cool” video in class, we realize what power marketers have over us. Just like I influenced Paige to eat the toast, marketers are also able to influence what we do, what we say, and what we buy because they recognize the power of words. Companies like McDonald’s want to sell their product, so rather than advertise their latest creation containing 810 calories and 55 grams of fat as “The Artery Clogger” they instead they call it “Big Xtra.” These are both different names for the same thing, but one makes the sandwich sound a lot more appealing. If I’m really hungry, I want to eat the "Big Xtra" because it sounds like it will satisfy my hunger. In reality, the only thing this sandwich could satisfy is my upchuck reflex.

I’m curious to know what everyone else thinks about the video. I remember we discussed it in class, but only a few people shared their thoughts. So what do you all think – do we buy the brand and label, or do we concern ourselves more with the quality of the product?

Debate

One of my all-time favorite high school classes is debate. In this one class, students from all grade levels join to discuss current events, opinions, stereotypes and an endless assortment of topics from the morals of beauty pageants to the price of bananas. It struck me in class today how wonderful it was that we all saw words and objects in a different way. Each student brings a unique viewpoint and manner of speech that is always interesting to hear.

In debate we make speeches and ask questions to persuade the majority of the class to either pass or fail a bill, deciding if it will become law. I believe Hayakawa would have a field day sitting in our debate class and studying how the students use language in so many of the ways he mentioned, all at once.

In debate, language is your greatest weapon. The words you use are crucial in making your point. I am now even more aware of the signifigance of words that are "loaded" or carry a lot of excess bagagge. A word with heavy negative connotations can destroy a speaker if it is not used correctly. A good debater always has an amazing speech which is of course made up of words. Their speech is specifically manufactured to fit the audience type depending on whether it is for the elderly, teachers, or rebellious teenagers. As a debater I am constantly slanting everything that comes out of my mouth in order to persuade people that my view is the correct one. As debaters, we try to sound intelligent with statistics and data so people put trust in our judgment. However, a few simple questions from an opposing viewpoint, can quickly destroy a candidate who is attempting to persuade an audience. An intriguing question can make a speaker look ignorant, foolish, or cruel. A speaker will also lose a debate if he/she appears to be very predjidice or one-sided, which is very ironic because that is exactly what each debate speaker is...predjidiced! Instead, debaters must sound as objective as possible to lure the audience in, while in reality their every word is dripping with bias.
I remember reading how Hayakawa said that one important way, we differ from animals is our ability to express opinions that aren't always our own. Like the example of a yankees fan who can wear a phillies cap or when someone says "I'm hungry" but they are not actually hungry. This struck me as a very deep truth that I had not paid much attention to before. In debate I myself have made persuasive speeches pushing issues in the opposite direction of my personal feelings.

My opinion is constantly changing in that class as I learn new ideas from others. I also learn new ways to exploit language to become a better debater. I think that Debate class is one of the main ways I connect to Hayakawa's teachings everyday.

Witnesses

Throughout the day today, something that Mr. Lazarow said kept ringing in my mind. It was along the lines of, "If110,000 people are watching a game, then everyone sees a different game since no one sits in the same seat, sees the same things, etc." It's hard to think of our conception of the world as completely unique to each individual. But I wondered- how trustworthy is the justice system in its capacity to judge a person or group? We have all heard "Innocent until proven guilty," but how can one be judged guilty or innocent? Surely, we can use DNA and such evidence that so-and-so committed some crime, but what about witnesses? Each witness observes something completely different; how can be sure that what they're stating is what actually occurred?

Beyond Ch. 8

If you're like me, you finished the first eight chapters of Language in Thought and Action, then quickly closed the book without even a glance at the title of the next chapter. It is, after all, a dense and time-consuming read. A few days ago, I picked up the book and flipped through some unexplored pages near the end of the book. The chapter I read was "The Empty Eye", which deals mostly with television. I think that I enjoy TV more than the average American, which is saying something. Especially since my exposure to DVR and torrents, I have increasingly immersed myself in a variety of shows. For not the first time, Hayakawa's principles were relevant to my experiences.

One thing that was immediately clear to me was the relationship between the first and second parts of the the book. Several times, I saw how a principle from the first eight chapters related to television. For example, the idea of how much we trust each other's reports was evident when Hayakawa pointed out how much people believe what they see on TV. Later in "The Empty Eye", Hayakawa further developed the idea of how rare it is to see both positive and negative aspects of a character, and how a truly skillful author develops both sides. When I read that originally, I thought of how J.K. Rowling developed Dumbledore's character in the last Harry Potter book. The same idea applies to TV as well. Hayakawa talks about old western shows with an obvious divide between good and evil that could not be crossed. The good were always good, and the evil were always evil. While today's programs may be more sophisticated, many of them nevertheless only show one side of the characters. How many times do you see Jack Bauer having traitorous thoughts or making the wrong decision during a mission? On the other hand, shows like "House" do a better job of demonstrating that no one is perfect. The main character is a brilliant doctor who applies his skills to save lives, but he is often cantankerous and rude. I agree with the author in that good writers explore both the positive and negative aspects of their characters.

There is so much more to be found in the second half of the book. Has anyone else read further and found something interesting?

The Jumble of Languages

Seeing as how my brother is enrolled in a Japanese class in college, it is not easy to evade his frequent culture and language "reports." On one occasion, I actually paid attention and learned that the three "alphabets" of Japanese- kanji, hiragana, and katakana- are quite unique from an English-speaker's perspective, besides the utilization of a different set of symbols for words. In fact, one of them, katakana, is used almost exclusively in the communication of foreign words, such as 'America' or 'television.' I found it fascinating to compare the use of foreign words in our language to those of Japanese. What I realized is that our foreign vocabulary is extremely limited and serves only a handful of functions.

It seems to me that the only reason why we, as English speakers, use foreign words is to express a very specific thought or to sound "fancy." Turning to 'Seinfeld' again, in one episode George is dating a woman who always refers to paper mache as "papier maché" (literally meaning 'mashed paper' in French). I don't want to get too off topic, but the gist of this example is that her usage of a foreign words greatly annoyed George. When we use these terms, we often sound very pretentious; why is that? Why is it that the English language is so "close-minded" when it comes to using foreign words? Are there any other languages that do this?

Not sure what to call this

Hey, it's Erin. A few nights ago I was flicking channels and saw a few minutes of Nancy Grace. I don't know if anybody else saw this but the story at that particular time was of a child (I think a two year old boy) who had died from being left in a car in the heat for 8 hours. The caption at the bottom read something like mom leaves child to die in hot car. Now, certain words just jump out at you "leaves... to die" and from them you can draw only one conclusion: it was a purposeful action and the mother had essentially murdered her child.

I didn't get the whole story, so I can't know if it was purposeful or accidental, but the phrasing causes you to think one way. Like I said, maybe that's true, but what struck me at that particular point in time was that within five seconds, I had not only factual information, but a verdict, a conclusion as well. It reminded me of what Hayakawa said of words with built-in judgments, that they "communicate simultaneously a fact and a judgment on that fact" (p.48). Or in chapter 3, about slanting, he says that "even if explicit judgments are kept out of one's writingm implied judgments wil get in". So I'm wondering, is there true impartiality (everytime I think of impartiality I think of the movie "12 Angry Men" - about a jury because probably not many of you have seen it, but anyway impartiality is necessary when one is a member of the jury.)? I'm just interested to get everyone's thoughts.

Can one language be better than another?

Hi everyone, this is Arka.

Many times I have heard from a teacher of Hinduism that Sanskrit, the Latin of India, is a perfect language. Even its correct (non-anglicized version) of its name, Samskritam means, "that which is perfectly formed." Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for most teachers of religion, but can one language actually be better than another from a linguistic standpoint? In Language, Hayakawa talks about how language is the most refined form of symbolism, and it is true that there can be various levels of symbolism. For example, this blog is probably much less symbolic than writing from someone like Shakespeare. However, can an entire language be, "less symbolic" than another language. Even among students in the high school there is always a joking competition that Spanish is better than French or Latin beats all, etc, but in reality can this be true? Muslim proponents of Arabic claim that Arabic is the highest language as the Qu'ran is written in it, while the Catholic Church hold that Latin Mass is the correct way. While the reasons for supporting a language can be varied, such as cultural and historical, from a purely linguistic standpoint, can one language trump another?

Personally, I feel that one language can be more symbolic and better linguistically than another. For example, Sanskirt is most definitely more symbolic that many of the other languages in India. However, I could be completely wrong, and am interested to hear what other people have to say.

False Maps

As I was going through the passage written about the parallels between symbols and maps (pages 19-21), it occurred to me that false maps are everywhere we turn. As Hayakawa writes, "Some of the follies we commit because of false maps in our heads are so commonplace that we do not even think of them as remarkable...All such [superstitious] people are living in verbal worlds that bear little, if any, resemblance to the extensional world." (page 21)

The reason this passages strikes me in such an odd way is because it seems that we all live according to false maps. Isn't it true that we all have assumptions and superstitions (from the subtle to the obvious)? We have already established that any word can never have the same meaning twice, and that every individual has his or her own "personal dictionary." Then there is no general reality in this sense because everyone sees things quite differently. So how can someone be regarded as living according to a false map? Perhaps regarding something as "false map" in another may be indicative of a "false map" in ourselves. But to quote George Costanza of Seinfeld, "It's not a lie if you believe it."

TIME

Hey, it's Sarah.

I was perusing TIME today, and I came across a very interesting article. "Words Don't Mean What They Mean," the article, is actually an excerpt from a new book The Stuff of Thought. The article (and the book I'm guessing) describes how "words might alter a certain degree of familiarity" (TIME, 9/17/07, p.53). Each conversation is subtle in meaning and calculated, so the relationships we have are not disturbed.

"Words let us say the things we want to say and also things we could be better off not having said. They let us know the things we need to know, and also things we wish we didn't. Language is a window into human nature, but it is also a fistula, an open wound through which we're exposed to an infectious world. It's not surprising that we sheath our words in politeness and innuendo and other forms of doublespeak" (TIME, 9/17/07, p.53).

It definitely touches upon some of the topics discussed in Language in Thought and Action. I recommend that you guys read it, too. If you have a subscription to TIME, look in the September 27th issue. If you don't, try the website or just ask me to bring the magazine to class.

Abstractions

Hi it's Allison.
While discussing abstractions, Hayakawa mentioned that "The test of abstractions is whether they are referable to lower levels" (Hayakawa 93). He gave the example that those wishing to discuss civil rights in Wisconsin should know everything there is to know about civil rights from the national statutes to the behavior of police officers.
I found Hayakawa's thoughts on this quite interesting. I mulled it over and thought about what would happen if this was applied to representatives discussing a resolution at the United Nations. If the men and women representing their countries were debating about what plan of action to take in regards to the current issue in Darfur, would that mean that they would need to be informed about every crime against the people being committed to even discuss the issue? Would they need to be well versed on the history of the conflict? Would they need to have been to the places where these horrible things are being done and seen the crimes being committed to draft a plan to put an end to the violence? Is it even likely that one would have access to all of that information? If the delegates don't know all about the conflict, do they even have the jurisdiction to come up with a solution?

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words, he would not bother trying to say it in music." - Gustav Mahler

Hello everyone, this is Stephanie.
Hayakawa writes of “noise for noise’s sake”, presymbolic expression, and human tone of voice. In that same key, so to speak, music (in any culture) waxes and wanes in perpetual fluctuation based off of the human emotions. Personally, I consider music to be a language of emotional and psychological expression. If you listen to the song “Iris” by the Goo Goo Dolls, you might say that the combination of the lead singer’s desperate tone and the violins is quite ‘powerful’, without any directives indicating so at all; likewise, Yo-yo Ma’s vivacious duets with violins in the piece IB may sound ‘light’ and ‘playful’, when no mention of liveliness was ever portrayed in written or spoken language. Therefore, I believe music is a form of presymbolic expression; the implications of words (if words are at all utilized in the piece) are irrelevant to the meaning articulated behind the notes. I’m curious to know what everyone else thinks on this topic.

This is Paige.

I have been having trouble wrapping my brain around certain aspects of Hayakawa's book. For example in chapter one he states, "Human fitness to survive requires the ability to talk, write, listen, and read in ways that increase the chances for you and fellow members or the species to survive together." But what does that convey about people who choose to live life in solitude, or for that matter, those who are illiterate? Is achievement solely for those of us who take part in the norms of language in society?

In chapter two we learn more of maps and their connections and territories but on page 21 I became puzzled. “We can manufacture at will, with language, “maps” that have no reference to the extensional world. Here again no harm will be done unless someone makes the mistake of regarding such “maps” as representing real territories.” Is it always so wrong to live in a non-extensional mindset? Do people who choose this way of life deserve to be thrown into an asylum and prodded by questions? Is it only a mistake because that is how the majority of society views such thinking?

Further on in the book “slanting” is discussed and seems to have a negative connotation at first, but isn’t it just another method that we use to express opinions? Later on it is suggested that “slanting” shouldn’t be completely avoided, but what other methods of expressing are beliefs can be used to avoid becoming overly judgmental? Or is slanting not that judgmental, is it just a way of being blatantly honest?

I interpret what Hayakawa says about opinions, as they can never be completely regarded as fact. My question is what role do warnings play in this philosophy? Recently I read the book “Night” and I recall a man coming to Eliezer’s village to warn them of the horrors that were approaching. However the people viewed his opinions as madness. By not accepting opinions as fact are we dooming ourselves a trustless society, or are we protecting ourselves from ignorance?

Hayakawa, when writing about contexts concludes, “Few people ask by what authority the writers of dictionaries and grammars say what they say.” I am severely fascinated by this because often times at the high school I get frustrated about why I am being taught certain things, and who decided the methods on which education should be transferred. It is my understanding that a large part of how we learn is acceptance, but more and more as the decades pass people question less and accept too much. I we don’t stop to reexamine what is being taught, we could eventually loose our rights of expression and be thrown into a 1984 style of living.
I found myself taking, “Language in Thought and Action” as complete truth and didn’t question Hayakawa’s opinions. However I believe we should read other authors’ (or just other people in general) views on Hayakawa’s principles to take into account variation of opinions. In a way perhaps that is what we, as a class, are doing.

Some Questions

Hello again everyone, it's Erin.
I'm posting this time not to put down my thoughts (although I might later), but to pose some questions. Hayakawa's book is about language. How is are these principles (or aren't) relevant to us in our daily lives? Even though we've read this book, will we use some of his principles when we speak, listen to others talk, or read? Just how much concern does the average person have about the use of language? Will we be changed (probably not drastically, but some change) by reading this book? How effective was that change (if you did change)?

Feel free to add more questions if you'd like.

Symbols and Polyglots

As I was spending idle minutes searching through the vast stores of knowledge on Google.com (I've been trying to avoid Wikipedia...), I came across a very fascinating person who reminded me of Hayakawa's writing: Ziad Fazah. Born in Liberia, Fazah has, in under 60 years, been able to master 58 languages. A true polyglot, Mr. Fazah made me contemplate the vast amounts of words, alphabets, and tones used in the myriad of world languages. For me, French and English are too much to handle! In Language in Thought and Action, we learn that words are symbols (like a map is to the region it covers), and therefore not the actual objects. As for Fazah, I am immensely interested to know whether he, and any other speakers of more than one language, relates the corresponding word in multiple languages to the same object they stand for. When I think about it, what I took away at first from reading Language applied only to English. Now I am starting to see that these rules that he lays out are true of any language that is both spoken and written. I'm curious as to what everyone thinks on these issues.

Give and Take

Hey, it's Sarah K.
Language in Action, the original version of Hayakawa's text, was written in "response to the dangers of propaganda" (Hayakawa xi). By reading the text, the reader is suppose to be more aware of biased language. Hayakawa focuses on what is said, how it is said, and why it is said (i.e. reports, directives). The book, in a way, is a tool to help filter through biased speech and writing. As humans, however, aren't we naturally biased? Don't we listen and receive information with just as must bias as when we give information? Everyone has a unique voice, so doesn't everyone also have a unique ear and hear something completely different than a person sitting right next to him did? Is it possible to be biased in one respect and not the other? Or is there a balance of biasness between giving and receiving information? In which way is it worse to be biased?

Okay, I know there are a lot of questions, but here's one more: if I gave my answers to the questions, would it, in a way, be a report to help you form your opinions or would it corrupt your answers?

Meanings v. Connotations

Hi everyone, it's Erin.
As I've been reading Hayakawa, there are certain things that really stick in my brain and this one's been churning around for a while. I'd really like to know what other people think. In the first chapter (p. 11) Hayakawa talks about a man who would like to name his child Albert but, because he knew one who committed sucicide, would not. It made me laugh because I could see myself doing the same thing.

Hayakawa states that the reason he acts the way he does is because of certain assumptions about language related to reality. Maybe it's almost in a way confusing "the symbol with the thing symbolized." But I don't think that that is the whole reason. I think (I know for myself) that it's not because the man thinks that his son will committ suicide because he's named Albert (if you think about it, that child will have his own thoughts, feelings, decisions, and personality that will be very different from the previous Albert). Perhaps the reason the man hesistants is because of the connotation of the name for him. No one would name his or her child a name that upsets or worries (really if you think about it, there are some names, historically, that today nobody is named after). The negative connotation that the man now has for that name keeps him for naming his son Albert. I think it has to do with what Hayakawa mentions in chapter 4, intensional meanings ("what is suggested inside one's head"), as opposed to extensional meanings (being in this case the person himself).

In a way, I am starting to believe that the connotation of a word is just as important as the actual definition. When people write or speak (writing especially), they often need to choose a word with not only the right meaning, but the right way of feeling (in a sense). The word needs to evoke the feelings that the speaker/writer wishes to be evoked in order for the speech/paper to be effective. Some words have negative connotations and when you're trying to communicate a point, the connotation is important, so that you are completely understood.

Does anyone else feel that way, that connotations are just as important as definitions?