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?