March Blog: I hope you can follow this train of thought. I tried my best.

             On the internet, in church, on TV, in school, from our friends, and from countless other sources we are constantly told what humans are.  On any given day, one could hear that humans are either incredibly clever animals, or not animals at all; incredibly selfish and ridden with errors, or perfect products of evolution.  Mostly, we hear how wretched, filthy, and monstrous we are.  However, putting aside the argument of which characteristics best fit the members of the species, Homo sapiens, one intriguing detail must be taken into consideration. All of the generalizations, characterizations, and analyses of humans come from humans themselves.  In other words, our judgments are interior to ourselves, and we are therefore downright critical of ourselves.  Why are we so critical of ourselves?  And how does this criticism play  a role in the fate of our species?  Although the exact reason for our rampant criticism may never be pinpointed, the issue itself proves to be one of intrigue that demonstrates itself not just in out everyday lives, but in literature as well. 
            In The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson demonstrates how humans judge themselves, by revealing the attitudes and reactions of humans towards the many sides of an individual.  Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde’s character in the novel obviously affects many other people through the course of the story; Dr. Jekyll is kind and respectable and has a positive impact on others, while Mr. Hyde is savage and uncontrollable, and negatively impacts others.  Other human beings regard Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde independent of each other, as they are in oblivion to the actual circumstances.  They criticize Hyde's actions, while hypocritically praising Jekyll's.  Perhaps, if they were to regard the man/men in any other way they might not be able to wrap their heads around the matter, which could prove detrimental to their health and survivability.  We later find this to be exactly the case, when Mr. Lanyon becomes fully aware of the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde’s situation.  By witnessing the event which confirmed the peculiarity of Dr. Jekyll’s transformation into Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lanyon receives a shock that devastates his health, and ultimately kills him. 
            The hypocrisy of humans criticizing themselves, humans being varied in their criticisms of themselves, and humans criticizing individuals of their own species for possessing a characteristic that is perhaps applicable to all humans (having more than one “side”), may seem worthy of criticism.  Criticism implies negativity, but perhaps the basis for this criticism isn’t really negative all.  Perhaps criticism is just a defense mechanism, which protects us from the same fate as Mr. Lanyon.  By pointing out what is wrong with ourselves and other member humans, we are advocating for the change of that which we criticize (which stems from an unacceptance of that which is being criticized).  This is beneficial because we then do not have to accept that which we cannot wrap our heads around (and the things that we cannot wrap our heads around like hypocrisy, having more than one side, etc. are characteristics of humans which are unavoidable).  Criticism is therefore a complicated, yet essential method for survival as it allows us to decline to accept those inevitable aspects of life, which true comprehension of might kill us.    

February Blog: Wolfie's Got A Point, Just Not A Very Conclusive One

            The idea that genius and money are inseparably connected is one that might induce immediate contradictory reactions.  Just like many people, I am also made uncomfortable by the notion that people, if poor, cannot demonstrate genius.  It seems that our gut instinct in today’s society is to respond to this idea saying, “There is no correlation; anyone can be anything regardless of their wealth (or lack thereof)!”  But if we really take a close gander at things, we might find that more wealthy people tend to be more prominent artists, writers, and scholars.  We also might look at life and conclude that the “demonstration of genius” is more readily found in those who do not have to fight and give their all just for basic survival (and we all know what a crucial role wealth plays in basic survival).  But what does this prove, and what is genius, anyway?...

            In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf uses similar evidence to argue that money and genius are connected, or at least with regards to women and fiction.  Woolf discusses how historically, a lack of money and privacy have prevented women from writing with genius.  According to Woolf, for women to not be slavishly dependent on men, and therefore to have genius, several requirements must be met; one of them being possessing money.  In my opinion, Woolf is certainly in the right saying that without money, historically, women produce less publicly known literary works of “genius,” and that money can certainly be a helpful medium for genius to flourish. This is due to the fact that it is money which makes it much easier to secure the basic necessities of life and publish work and make it known.  However, this in no way means that money is required to have genius.  One can only infer from the influence of money on writing that it is a heavy determining factor in the development of the display and demonstration of genius, but certainly not the actual possession of genius.  After all, who says that you even have to prove your genius-ness to actually be one? 

            But what exactly does it mean to say that genius and money are connected?  Woolf has proved her point in the case of women and writing, but what about all other forms that genius can take?  And honestly, what qualifies as genius?  How is it measured?  Who decides how it is measured?  Can survival be a demonstration of genius in and of itself?  In a world where most of the wealth is concentrated in the small upper classes, does that mean that there are substantially less geniuses in the lower class?  What is genius?!?!?!

            These questions that arise from the idea that genius and money are inseparably connected stem from the fact that “genius” is a relative term.  Therefore, any manner of interpreting it must be relative as well.  This means openness to the interpretation of the idea that genius and money are inseparably connected.  It is my personal opinion that genius can blossom more and be more evident because of money, but genius can certainly prosper without any money at all (it just may go more unnoticed).  Any correlation between genius and money just proves that the two elements are as connected as every other element in our super-connected spider web of a world (just not inseparably).  All parts of life can affect any other part, so of course money may have some influence on genius, but not definitively.  Additionally, because we are all different, and more than one person can be a genius, it is safe to say that genius may come out, or be demonstrated in an unlimited amount of ways.  Therefore, genius cannot be limited to one type, making it influenced by, but not determined by money.  




Additional Note: Done by the original due date.  Yeah.

El Blog Mensual Para El Mes De Enero

For the exclusive content of this blog, the word possession will lose its negative connotation and the definition of the word “aspect” will be altered to mean that which can be inferred from the following paragraph:

There exist many aspects of life that beg for a part of our being.  These aspects can suck up our love, motivate our actions, reflect our passions, and basically characterize who we are because these aspects are distinct for each and every distinct individual.  Such “aspects,” as I will refer to them, can be one’s self, a loved one, being a mother, being successful, the covetous satisfaction of attaining power, or anything, really.  It is important to know that aspects may clash and compete for parts of ourselves. 

In The Awakening, there is an apparent rule for how certain aspects ought to possess the beings of certain individuals.  For example, it is clear to me that in Edna’s society, those human beings who are bechanced with the physical attributes that distinguish them from men (aka women) are expected to a point to be possessed principally by the aspect of being a mother.  It is for this reason that Chopin’s writing career was obliterated by the publication of her novel, The Awakening.  For in this novel, the societal norm of a woman being overwhelmingly influenced and defined by motherhood (which parallels the society Chopin lived in) is shattered by the protagonist.  Through the eyes of Edna’s society, her being succumbs to the competition within for dominance of aspects other than motherhood.  Edna would give up the “unessential” for the aspect of motherhood, but she would not give up the aspect of her spiritual freedom, or herself, for the aspect of motherhood (an aspect defined by selflessly benefiting one’s direct descendants).  Edna’s naturally overpowering aspect of self is therefore in competition with the aspect of motherhood, which applies to her as she is a female that has successfully reproduced (successful in this context meaning that the kids are not dead).  Given that Edna’s self requires possession of an overwhelmingly major part of her being, it seems that something has got to go..       

In the real world, as demonstrated in real locations such as Nottingham, PA, people like yours truly (aka moi) also experience this aspectual competition.  I am not completely defined by my love for bovines.  That which is me, or my being, is defined by various things in addition, like passion for adventure, the ability to drive other individuals insane, and innate egoistic desire.  This mixture and combination of aspects is my signature elixir, and is unique to me only.  However, in places 'round the world, there are standards for how certain beings should be possessed by their aspects.  This translates as an alteration in an otherwise natural blend of individualized “aspect dominance.”An expectation which repeats itself in the majority of societies for men would be being possessed principally by the aspect of physical dominance and assertion.  Any time there is a societal restriction or standard for “aspect dominance”, all aspects within are even more intricately wound in a web of competition.  This causes those aspects relating to societal inclusion and acceptance to influence the other aspects’ shared possession of a being.  A human’s uniqueness is compromised by any extra-personal influence, such as societal expectations.    

Basically, I mean to say this:

1.       I have yet to meet anyone whose life is completely defined by one sole aspect.  Our passions, likes, desires, etc. make up who we are.

2.       Edna could not be a part of a society with aspect restriction AND preserve her own individual blend of aspects.  So she let the sea consume her naked body and set her non-conforming spirit freee. 

3.      Societal restriction in today’s world can compromise a person’s individuality.

4.      Number 3 blows.       

A Response and Connection to Something A Smart Guy Named James Wrote in the 90's

I would like to begin by stating that by reaching the second page of The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I had already outlined an entire “mini thesis-paper” about certain inconsistencies of Cultural Relativism, and its dangers within such a global world as our own.  It would be pointless to say then, that I was both delighted and disappointed at finishing the third page of the article: delighted to find that this Mr. James Rachels had stricken such a chord with me, and disappointed that an idea I was leading myself on to believe as “avant-garde” and “groundbreaking” was not going to impress the masses of devoted readers to my monthly blog quite as much as I had thought.  Either way, there is still ample material in my outline to inspire a decent amount of words that reflect an issue, and connection to society, in relation to The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.

I tell you people, I tell you that we live in an increasingly global world.  If you were not previously aware of this, I offer my deep condolences for not offering a spoiler alert.  In this global world, if societies cannot survive or function without certain aspects of human life, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism cleverly shows us that those societies that continue to exist must value these aspects.  When the lines between different societies blur, and cultural classification becomes more common, there arises the necessity to have common judgment for the participants in globalization.  How do you figure that out?  That is the issue. 

  Before we set in stone the rules for governing the world, let us consider what one man, James Rachels, has to say about an important feature of determining regulations; ethics.  The Challenge of Cultural Relativism stresses the fact that the underlying motives of varying customs and traditions turn out to be universal with some exceptions.  This article discusses the importance of these common moral codes among humans.  Humans, that from a relative view point, are innately not all that varied.  However, this article also warns of the dangers of assuming that all human preferences are based on some absolute rational standard.  Also, customs are many times cultural products; resulting from specific conditions and environments.  These are important to consider when contemplating international regulation (which is really just the grandchild of moral code and ethics).

     In order to promote order and civility (an aspect valued by most cultures because without it, they do not survive), in the new culture which is the world culture, international regulation and judgment must be specific enough to demote chaos, and yet general enough to suffice for the varying cultural conditions that persist.  We must take into consideration what can be learned from Cultural Relativism.  That is, with an open mind, those values which are common to the merging cultures of the world must take precedence.  Personally, I believe that deciding international regulations, like War Conventions and Human Rights, must also support humans and society as whole, not just certain individuals.

            Connections, associations, and differences between cultures are three elements that reign supreme in the world of International Relations, and ultimately, “Inter-individual Relations.”  As I plan to devote most of my life’s work to this field, it is important to me to understand the role Cultural Relativism plays [here].  Determining moral constants is a pretty beneficial next step, I would say. 

As of December 31, 2011 for me, it all boils down to this; that underneath it all Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens (for the most part).   And understanding is the first step to life where emotions are fully felt out, there is freedom to take advantage of that which is commonly felt as “good”, and happiness, peace, and prosperity dominate the masses.  We’re gettin’ there.  

It turns out that some of our biggest differences highlight our underlying similarities.

.....If only time and the schedule of my AP English class could have allowed me to read Things Fall Apart on my recent trip to West Africa (instead of Wuthering Heights, but we won't get into that one).  What an interesting coincidence that would have been!  The events of this novel by African native author, Chinua Achebe, take place in the Igbo village of Umuofia, in Nigeria.  Coincidentally, I happened to be within walking distance from Nigeria at many points throughout my trip, and many of the societal structures, beliefs, and cultural practices that I experienced firsthand were similar to those reflected in Things Fall Apart.  One example of a common belief was the belief in animism.....   

 In many ways, I think it is safe to say that animism is not very relevant to the life of the average resident of south-western Pennsylvania.  To my knowledge, evil spirits and demons do not control how we do business and conduct our lives.  However, as Achebe shows us in his novel Things Fall Apart, all over West Africa and especially in the regions in and around Nigeria, the fear of demons, evil spirits, and other possible non-human entities affects almost every West African either directly or indirectly.  This factor, the belief in animism, is yet another difference between West African culture, and American culture.

        Achebe, in his novel, very clearly demonstrates how the avoidance of unfavorable interactions with evil spirits by people of the Ibo tribe is deeply woven into the fabric of this African society and the cultural practices of the people.  In chapter five, we see how when Ekwefi is inside the hut, and a voice calls out her name, she responds with, “Is that me?”  Her people practice this response when there is uncertainty regarding the caller’s identity, as the caller may be an evil spirit.  Therefore, to thwart any bad intentions of the evil spirit, they respond by questioning their own identity.  A more elaborate practice to stop what is known to the Ibo as “ogbanje” (An evil spirit that deliberately plagues a certain family) is followed.  They believe that this evil spirit purposely invades the womb of a mother and causes her children to die repeatedly in order to provoke family despair.  They stop this by cutting and mutilating the dead children to harm the spirit that possessed it, or by finding the evil spirit’s “Iyi-Uwa.”  Igbo culture is very careful to combat the effects of evil spirits.  Although their medicine and belief systems would seem strange to any outsider, it is for the well-being of their people.

        Similarly, the people of the Fulani tribe of West Africa are affected by this fear of spirits.  Fulani parents are infamous for being apathetic towards their first-borns.  If a Fulani parent sees their first-born child reach for a hot coal to touch it, the parent will not stop the child.  It becomes the responsibility of the other villagers to teach the child these things.  Although this may seem careless and irresponsible, the motivation behind this action really does have the well-being of the first born in mind.  The parents, loving their children as they do, know that the evil spirits would love nothing more than to target the first-born children (because they are so valuable in Fulani society).  Therefore, the Fulani parents act like their first-born are not even their children at all to fool the evil spirits into not singling out that child for harm.  Parents also adorn all of their children with certain bracelets and waist bands called amulets to ward off evil spirits.  The Fulani also care deeply for their animals and protect them too against evil spirits by spitting in every opening of the animal’s body to fend off spirits.  At night certain animals commonly associated with evil spirits, like snakes, assume different names so that the evil spirits do not know what the Fulani are referring to.  For example, at night, a snake may be called a “winding stick," instead of a serpent, or snake.  Just like the actions of the Ibo, at first look these precautionary actions may seem straight up weird.

        Frequently, in my opinion, humans are baffled by the actions of other humans.  However, if we could look deeper into the actions of others, whether they be from another culture, or just have another way of thinking, we would gain a better understanding of those actions, and more often than not, identify with their reasoning, as humans as a whole tend to have similar desires.  Do mothers and parents want the best for their children, and for their loved ones?  Do we as humans have an aversion towards that which could do us or the people that we love harm?  Does this change drastically depending on whether or not you live in an African village, are an animist, or speak a different language?  It's possible to learn about, and gain a new respect for other people when we understand them more completely.    

Samuel Mason Monthly Connection October

                Last month, as I did my blog on a fairly sensitive, serious subject, I decided this month’s blog could relate to a more open and creative topic.  What happens when those being ridiculed through satire realize that they are the focus of the satire?  Do those being criticized understand their apparent flaws, strive to change, are confused, in denial, or just outraged?  In The Importance of Being Earnest nobody bursts onto the scene at the end of the play and informs the characters they are the being used to portray the corrupt morals of upper class Victorian society.  In this specific case, surely Oscar Wilde could not have been the only one to criticize the upper class Victorian society.  But did any radical changes occur in Victorian virtues and values because of these?  With this in mind, I question the effectiveness of satire, and the real motives behind those who write satires.

                It is assumed that the object of satire is to possibly bring about an improvement to a behavior, but is this always the case?  I think it is safe to say that it is certainly not.  Satire in my opinion is the equivalent of making fun of someone behind their back, with the supposed intention that the information will eventually trickle down to them.  Sometimes the “offenders” in the eyes of the satire writers may live in oblivion and never realize for a moment that they are being criticized.  If this information were however to arrive to the consciousness of the “offenders”, I believe that they would respond with retaliation, or denial.  It’s embarrassing to have the importance or seriousness of your customs, beliefs, or actions analyzed to find fault for everyone to see. 

In real life, people well aware of being the “butt” of satire don’t tend to respond lovingly.  This month, after reading The Importance of Being Earnest, I realized how many times a day I hear someone use shortened versions of just what Oscar Wilde used in his play.  Just because somebody doesn’t write and publish their mockery of other people’s actions, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have satirical elements.  Simply making fun of people can incorporate reducing the seriousness of importance of a belief or subject through imitation.  Ridiculing ideas or people can either result as being considered “burn,” or a “flop.”  I believe sometimes teenagers like me subconsciously differentiate between the two depending on the quality of the satirical approach to the mockery.  A successful “satire” can cause a person to realize their flaws or illogical beliefs, and invoke feelings of saltiness in them.  But I for one have never heard of a success story.   

I personally believe that if one truly wants to improve behavior, than satire is not the best choice for going about this.  Unfortunately in many cases, teenagers don’t even have these ends in mind.  They make fun of each other with mini satires not for effectiveness in changing their world for the better, but for the fun and pleasure they get through doing it.  Ultimately I believe satire benefits the giver more than the receiver.

September Monthly Connection

Minding Our Business

This month’s blog, my first blog, is inspired by Beowulf, the one small piece of literature that I actually have read and examined in this class.  My inspiration comes from the first half of this classic poem.

We clearly see in the poem that strong relationships between nations or peoples can be beneficial and costly.  When the Danes are distressed, Beowulf gathers fourteen Geat men to be warriors (with the support of the elders and people of their nation, Geatland) and goes to the aid of Hrothgar, the Danish King, in his distress.  Their work and heroism, especially Beowulf’s, ended the carnage spread by Grendel, and Grendel’s mother, but at a cost.  This raises the question of whether or not nations should “mind their own business” or help each other when in need.  I personally believe the benefits of people working together and helping each other when in need outweigh greatly any costs. Despite my opinion I am going to analyze BOTH sides of the argument and relate them to Beowulf, and current situations in our world.

The victory against Grendel did have negative connotations.  For example, Grendel’s defeat greatly angered Grendel’s mother, who came to attack at Heorot.  Fortunately for the Danes, Beowulf defeated Grendel’s mother as well.  However, potentially, Grendel’s mother could have retaliated with greater force and created even more problems for the Danes AND the Geats (now that they involved themselves).  There were also Geat deaths, and great damage done to the Mead hall.  I believe though that the benefits of creating peace for an entire nation and saving many more lives than were lost outweigh the negative connotations.  In addition to creating peace for the Danes, a special bond is forged between the Geats and the Danes now.   I would think that if the Geats are ever in trouble now, the Danes would surely come to their help!

In the real world, Geatland can kind of be compared to the United States.  We are famous for going into other countries and helping them when we infer that they need our help, and that is exactly what some Geat people did.  Needless to say, it was very beneficial to the nation being helped; as they could not end the reign of terror caused by Grendel unilaterally.  But with Beowulf’s help, the fighting against Grendel’s reign of terror became multilateral and Grendel was defeated.  After the September 11^th terrorist attacks, NATO countries came right to America’s aid in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, and major Al Qaeda leaders were defeated more quickly. 

With this said, the presence of a foreign country inside another nation is not always welcome.  One of Al Qaeda’s main motives for attacks against the United States is to expel American soldiers from the Middle East.  This contrary reception to help is similar to Unferth’s reaction to Beowulf’s presence in Heorot.  Unferth challenges Beowulf’s ability to resolve the problem at hand.  Now at this point many would argue that a nation’s “not minding their own business” is too intrusive and inappropriate.  This is where I would argue that it is the fashion with which we “intrude” that makes all the difference.  Beowulf could have responded disrespectfully to Unferth’s “discordant note”, but instead he corrects Unferth in his statement, reiterates and proves his capability of resolving the problem.  Now I am not saying that the United States has every right to have a military presence in the Middle East, but if it is realistically beneficial and accepted by the nation receiving the help, the presence is justified.  In the case of the Geats and Danes, the Danes, save Unferth, happily accepted the Geat aid. 

Another issue that comes to mind when dealing with foreign help is dependency.  I think in the real world, we should be careful as to how we help each other out. Imagine if the Geats never have another problem but the Danes do, over and over again.  What are they going to do if the Geats can’t help and who are they going to constantly rely on?  This reminds me of how Western aid is administered in Africa.  The aid helps the Africans immensely and provides the opportunity for basic survival, but after the aid is gone, the Africans can have even more problems than before.  While some western relief organizations are in Africa, they help in “western” ways, and not “African” ways.  This leads to problems, as Africans think like Africans and westerners think like westerners. The Africans later cannot sustain themselves in the new environment the westerners created.  Western aid, in my opinion, should be administered in a way that when the westerners leave, the Africans can pick up where it was left off at and continue independently.    

In conclusion, I firmly believe that as humans with problems, we have the responsibility to help each other out as we can. Not one person, nation, or people group has all the capacity it needs to combat all of their problems.  However, together, we can solve anything.  We just need to be careful how we help each other, and if we know we will make the problem worse, we really probably shouldn’t step in.