Cast
Professor Heineken- Old professor in his 50’s. Has white hair and is about 5’ 7” tall.
Alex Packard- Alex is known for his absurd arguments and is very opinionated. He is about 6’ 9” tall, has an athletic look, and brown hair.
Daniel Stern- Daniel is a mediocre debater; he is about 5’11” tall, has a dark appearance, black hair, and has glasses.
Josh Guinness- Josh has blond hair, blue eyes; he is a jock, and has a strong upper body appearance. He is respected for his football talents and is always trying to be the class clown.
Act I
Scene 1
Setting: The college auditorium was lit with a fine yellow glow. It’s dark outside the windows, so dark that night would say it has blessed the moon by concealing its identity. In the front of the auditorium stands a middle aged professor. In front of him sits many college students, girls and boys alike. There is a faint old spice smell in the room.
Professor: Derived from ancient culture, the Bible was written at more than one point in time. It was believed to be the work that of many writers, and it spoke of battles and wars that had been fought for many years. To this day, we have no solid evidence that these battles have occurred, but in many ways, some still believe. Many years ago a stone was found that was believed to foretell a battle between the ancient gods. Zeus and Hades had fought until every person that lay in their wake was killed, and they were the only two left. The first time that Zeus cleverly slipped into the underworld, he was caught, and was sent to the prison of the Devils. Today-----.
(Bell rings and all of the students pick up their book bags and prepare to exit the college auditorium)
Professor: Wait just a second, your reading is on pages 105 to 221, and be prepared for a quiz on the six foundations of life. You must know these six foundations thoroughly, and be prepared orally for this, there maybe an oral quiz. Let me remind you that this is only the beginning, and you will surmise much more information about the ancient wars than I have given already. Please. Don’t forget your books, and bring your utensils. Once again, be prepared, and have a safe night. Don’t forget to recycle!
(Students flee the auditorium. The professor walks over to his desk. He picks up his brief case and spills his coffee accidentally onto his uncorrected papers.)
The Professor: [wipes his hands, picks up the coffee cup, and walks over to the sink. He then thoroughly washes out the cup so that it looks clean enough to satisfying his need to be able to recycle.] Things went well today. I am curious to see how they go tomorrow. Maybe I will find the one person who truly cares about my teachings!
(Curtains Close)
Act II
Scene I
Setting: it’s 6:45 in the mourning. The auditorium is filled with laughter, as Professor Heineken walks in. Suddenly the laughter stops, and there is this serious tension arousing the students of the auditorium. The professor sets his briefcase on his desk that sits 5 feet from the first student. He then turns towards the chalkboard, starts to chisel with his hands faint pleasure, and he writes, “If believing is seeing, and seeing is believing, how did we even get this far?” A hand is raised. The Professor starts to turn around to face class.
Alex, quickly pulls his hand back down, “Professor, Professor, as your former predecessor, I believe that you should quit this job!”
Professor Heineken: Boy, what are you thinking? You don’t even know your proper English to be in college. Your vocabulary shows your wits. Shut up and keep to yourself unless spoken to otherwise.
(Two second chatter erupts through the auditorium and then is quickly quieted.)
Alex: Yes sir.
Professor Heineken, reaches over to his desk and picks up his coffee, tastes it, and then he points over to a young man: As I have said, you all will be quizzed today on the six foundations of life. Daniel Stern, you shall state and describe the first foundation our society is based on.
Daniel: The mind is tainted if led to believe I possess such an answer. Perhaps per say, maybe, it is that we humans base our society on industrialization?
Professor Heineken: Go On, complete it, you can.
Daniel: I do not know.
Professor Heineken: Of course you do. Didn’t you study?
Daniel: I did, but it must have slipped my mind.
Professor Heineken: Ok, Josh Guinness, what are the six foundations of life?
Josh: The need for industrialization, the need to make war, the need to—(Looks at his arm searching for the other four foundations)
Professor Heineken: Don’t bother, child, you will not figure it out. At least you got the first two. I do not respect you writing the answers on your bare arms. Luckily today this oral quiz will not count against you, it will raise your grade though.
Daniel: Let me try, I think I can get it.
Alex: No, let me answer the question.
Other Students, collectively, No, don’t let them answer it. Let us, let us answer it, because we know the answer.
Professor Heineken: Ok well it sounds like the majority of you all of a sudden want to answer this question. Perhaps you know the answer. Why do you now choose to speak?
Alex: We have no choice; we see your face, it is getting older and older by the day. We cannot keep you waiting. All of this talk about god. You want to see god?
[The students get up like drones]
Well you will. Oh, to mention one more foundation of life: Destruction.
Professor Heineken, shocked, faints to the ground, clenches his head; his skin is getting older and older, his hair whiter and whiter: Stop this, stop this now. You are taking everything I have taught far too literal. That’s the problem. Everyday people take life’s teachings far too literal. Not that they shouldn’t.
The Students [collectively]: We cannot stop. One life must come to an end. You told us that yourself. The third foundation of life; death leads to new upbringings which lead to other----------.
(The curtain closes)
31 December 2008
Is it possible to fathom the removal of stereotypes in a society while keeping sustainability of a collective intellect?
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” The implementation of this philosophy into an everyday situation seems like it would be an easy task. One could even think of it as an ignorant viewpoint of the world however to do so would be a slap in the face to the very idea that it stands for. Every day we are faced with challenging new events, for the purpose of this essay we will use the first day of honors class. When meeting new people, even before ever speaking with these people, it is easiest and most common to categorize them into a cliché of sorts.
To do so could prove to be wrong; to attach a stereotype to a fellow student from the beginning could prove to be a disastrous social decision. If you are wrong in this categorization and assume things then it is not productive to your social progress. How can we evade this mindset and focus on collectively building a collaborative structure of intellect? To approach this problem can only be done through the dissection of the fabric of society, evaluating this social construct, and possible ways of the implementation of a new way of living.
This sounds like a daunting task and maybe it is not even possible to fathom such an existence but let’s try for a moment. In our country, there is a system known as capitalism that promotes the idea of the American dream. This American dream provides a promoted structure of existence that is not only portrayed as complete happiness but allows for concrete sustainability for capitalism. This promoted structure of life is a fabric of society that is itself an accepted and quested stereotype. This stereotype is only a small piece of the social construct pie instituted not only in capitalism but in any form of government (except for anarchy).
Evaluating whether or not stereotypes are a good or bad use of language is just as hard a task because there is really no way to base their purpose against an alternative. I could say that they are a form of control instituted by the cyclic capitalistic system that is our government and another could say that they are our way of relating to the millions of human beings on this planet. How else can we connect or deal with the existence of other people if we are unable to categorize someone from first glance as well as not read a book by its cover, how else do we connect with other people? Would that require that we get to know every single person on a level that is personal so that they no longer fit into a stereotype but their own place in existence? This is not possible for me to conceive of.
The alternative to a life of categorisation or stereotypes would be a system that is said to be complete and utter chaos. How can there be any control whatsoever over a populace, when there is no way to group people and those groups into bigger groups? That is the prime concern for a system that wishes to maintain a certain control over its people and the only alternative that I could think of would be total anarchy. Socialism promotes a silent social construct and communism is a concrete construct and both rely on some sort of control. In anarchy, where would be the point? I mean, if the world was perfect wouldn’t it be a complete anarchy in the best sense? Everyone would live together and it would be sort of like living a dream, but that would never happen as there is always that one person who feels like they need to have power to feel better and would do anything to reach that pinnacle.
To do so could prove to be wrong; to attach a stereotype to a fellow student from the beginning could prove to be a disastrous social decision. If you are wrong in this categorization and assume things then it is not productive to your social progress. How can we evade this mindset and focus on collectively building a collaborative structure of intellect? To approach this problem can only be done through the dissection of the fabric of society, evaluating this social construct, and possible ways of the implementation of a new way of living.
This sounds like a daunting task and maybe it is not even possible to fathom such an existence but let’s try for a moment. In our country, there is a system known as capitalism that promotes the idea of the American dream. This American dream provides a promoted structure of existence that is not only portrayed as complete happiness but allows for concrete sustainability for capitalism. This promoted structure of life is a fabric of society that is itself an accepted and quested stereotype. This stereotype is only a small piece of the social construct pie instituted not only in capitalism but in any form of government (except for anarchy).
Evaluating whether or not stereotypes are a good or bad use of language is just as hard a task because there is really no way to base their purpose against an alternative. I could say that they are a form of control instituted by the cyclic capitalistic system that is our government and another could say that they are our way of relating to the millions of human beings on this planet. How else can we connect or deal with the existence of other people if we are unable to categorize someone from first glance as well as not read a book by its cover, how else do we connect with other people? Would that require that we get to know every single person on a level that is personal so that they no longer fit into a stereotype but their own place in existence? This is not possible for me to conceive of.
The alternative to a life of categorisation or stereotypes would be a system that is said to be complete and utter chaos. How can there be any control whatsoever over a populace, when there is no way to group people and those groups into bigger groups? That is the prime concern for a system that wishes to maintain a certain control over its people and the only alternative that I could think of would be total anarchy. Socialism promotes a silent social construct and communism is a concrete construct and both rely on some sort of control. In anarchy, where would be the point? I mean, if the world was perfect wouldn’t it be a complete anarchy in the best sense? Everyone would live together and it would be sort of like living a dream, but that would never happen as there is always that one person who feels like they need to have power to feel better and would do anything to reach that pinnacle.
10 December 2008
Chemical Pollution Is Destroying Masculinity
"A host of common chemicals is feminizing males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people. Many have been identified as 'endocrine disruptors' or gender-benders because they interfere with hormones. Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia, and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls as boys, which may offer a clue to the mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys. It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminized genitals. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone. And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per milliliter of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years." --Slashdot
Isn't that rediculous? I guess polygamy will be on the menu in 10 years. How does this help my single friends? It doesn't --- the guys who get all of the girls now have the legal remedy to have all of those girls. I wouldn't like it anyways and I couldn't imagine why any one guy would want multiple wifes. You can only have sex so many times, and then the rest of the time you get bickering x (number of wives) which would be the majority of the time. haha
Isn't that rediculous? I guess polygamy will be on the menu in 10 years. How does this help my single friends? It doesn't --- the guys who get all of the girls now have the legal remedy to have all of those girls. I wouldn't like it anyways and I couldn't imagine why any one guy would want multiple wifes. You can only have sex so many times, and then the rest of the time you get bickering x (number of wives) which would be the majority of the time. haha
Bentley Roommates--- Like No Other
I have to say, after completing my first two years of college and coming to Bentley, there is definetly a variety of roommates. My roommates at UMaine were all about getting their homework done first and party second. So far, my roommates at Bentley are a completely different group of people. One of my roommates never leaves his room except for classes. I try to interact with him but he doesn't want to meet other people. My other two roommates are the intellectual polar opposites of each other. One likes to do his work and his clearly smart while the other only wants to party and shows no intelligence whatsoever. It seems that most people here cherish that Friday or Saturday where they get drunk out of their mind. It's really too bad thatI see as many ambulances as I do and then of course all of the people that continue to binge drink. It's disgusting.
06 December 2008
Wearing 'almost homeless' sign, ex-executive seeks work
This is really crazy. In 2008, 1.9 million jobs have been lost. In November, 533,000 jobs alone were lost.
What is happening to our economy? Clearly something is wrong. Capitalism has all of this hype to live up to. It seems to me that its ostracizing its own by taking advantage of free trade.
Where do we go next?
What is happening to our economy? Clearly something is wrong. Capitalism has all of this hype to live up to. It seems to me that its ostracizing its own by taking advantage of free trade.
Where do we go next?
05 December 2008
Faith and Reason as a Yin-Yang
Let great powers and wisdom behold a cauldron of truth and virtue, which will enable all of us to bring about controversial change. It is through empirical knowledge that we can allow our society to change but only if we choose to embrace these changes. Cleary history has show that in order to do so there is harmony between faith and reason. This harmony can be thought so because there is a symbiotic relationship between the two. With a yin-yang relationship, this harmony can be truly imagined however it’s not a pure yin-yang, but an adaptation of sorts. Faith clearly has the smaller proportion of our yin-yang and reason has a much more dominate presence, as it is bigger.
The boundary that separates the two makes up for this disproportionate circle and clearly separates the two into their parts while combining together for the whole. It takes one person to be able to differentiate the two to be able to effectively combine them and utilize them. If this is not done correctly it can lead to death and there is no point in trying if one doesn’t understand these pieces. To do so would leave one at such a great disadvantage and fortunately in the case of Copernicus the combination proved to be a successful mix. While Copernicus had the correct balance, it took a person like Francis Bacon to break down this balance into its parts. In order to be successful one has to allow faith its place and not completely overrun this balance with reason. We must understand our surroundings as they may have a different balance of this faith and reason.
The symbiotic relationship between the two must be understood so that truth persists and maintains its power at the epicenter of social existence. The two of these presuppositions together allow for our race to grow, change, and create an existence for man that allows for the best possible choices from these changes.
In order to understand our surroundings we must understand the symbiotic relationship between faith and reason in our surroundings. Chronologically, Copernicus realized their proportions that comprised this relationship. He came up with an evolutionary idea, that at the time, faith was an important part of his surrounding. There can’t be any instance of hostility directed towards shrinking faith, as it seemed to reach it’s desired mass. To publish his ideas he approached this case with careful demeanor, which allowed for a circumvention of any hostility on his behalf while allowing for this evolutionary thought to occur. He said, “For even in this very remote corner of the earth where I live you are considered the highest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and astronomy too.”(Crowe 107) If he was to create an imbalance of faith he would be giving up all the efforts in his work as it could easily be disregarded or burned.
As Sir Francis Bacon says, a wise man will make more opportunities than he finds. Faith seemed to outweigh reason during the time of Copernicus; it needed to be embraced in works that could be thought of as challenging its supremacy. To allow for controversial change, one could allow for a reduction of faith, which has the ability to diminish its power entirely over time, and if done without care could diminish your own existence. The better choice in bringing about change is to allow for the creation of this symbiotic relationship as Francis Bacon did in The Great Atlantis. Religion like a cape lays blinds our view true view of our symbiotic relationship, which allows both faith and reason to coexist, but can be seen as deceitful.
As this cape allows the people to master various powers and allow them to control environmental tendencies such as the wind like in the case of the New Atlantis, it is not an ethical way to approach the issue at hand. It is completely untruthful like the instance where the captain and his people end up on the island; they were asked whether or not they were Christians. “We were,” they answered, “fearing the less, because of the cross we had seen in the subscription.” (Weinberger 40) Clearly the captain was aware of the growing possibility that some of his crew were not religious. This gave them a cape like that previously mentioned which is a very deceitful choice. The captain fears that if he were say they were not Christians, to lie, that he could not get help.
It is from this fear that we need to use faith and reason to guide us to truth. True knowledge is only achieved when this relationship is recognized in its surroundings. For the greater good of the race, it is our responsibility, which if we know something, and feel a certain thought is true then we can’t let things get in the way of it. According to Bacon, we see that the two can coexist however irrational the cape over our yin-yang is. You can’t explain faith by any empirical means, and in the case of The New Atlantis this cape allowed for controversial change to occur.
The symbiotic relationship between faith and reason is tremendously important to preservation of truth. This truth, if you will, must be evaluated so it can be inducted into the realm on knowledge. To evaluate it, one must first decide its role in the relationship between faith and reason. In the case of Copernicus, he revolutionized European reason on page 126, saying, “Lastly, it will be realized that the sun occupies the center of the Universe,” which could not be achieved without careful evaluation.
This idea seemed at first a remarkable but false concept. However, Copernicus goes into great detail discussing the elongation of the moon, and that the idea of the sun rotating around the Earth is impossible. He goes into great detail and delivers great abundance of reasoning to support his conclusion. He evaluated the circumstances given and allowed for his idea to become truth and later become common knowledge. Likewise, Francis Bacon would do the same. It can be thought that he supports the symbiotic relationship where faith and reason go hand in hand however there needs to be consistency else there is a barrier to truth.
On page 11 of The Great Instauration, Bacon says, “knowledge being as water, which will not rise above the level from which it fell.” The barrier to truth is when this relationship is not present. In a situation where either completes outweighs it other. Truth must be at center of social existence and correctly adapt as knowledge. He says, “and for it’s value and utility it must be plainly avowed that wisdom which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like a boyhood of knowledge.” (Weinberger 8) In other words, our current amount of knowledge is still being developed. We are still children in the sense that our knowledge is growing slowly due to the correct imbalance of faith and reason. We need to truly understand the concepts about how the correct relationship works and how it affects truth and us. This can only be achieved when reason is a bigger than yang and the part that separates the two is bigger to clearly depict they are indeed different quantities.
It is truth thought that brings out real change. We need to experiment in order to derive this true thought into real change. Experimentation is used as a supporting factor in understanding the relationship. In order to explain this relationship to another, one has to be able to reason with it and make sure it’s logical. Then once that realization has occurred then it can be adapted and it’s representation of truth is not covered underneath the deceitful cloak that once hid our symbiotic relationship’s true quantities that represented the balance.
History has shown us that there are instances in which the yin-yang relationship has become completely violated.
This is an instance where faith has completely broken its boundary with reason and fused the two together. This act allows for supremacy of one idea that may pervade truth and for this to happen is not beneficial to the human race. However, with the correct understanding of our environment and our collective belief that truth is highest of value, our yin-yang remains constant and brings good harmony. In the case of faith consisting of the bigger area of our symbiotic relation, this overpowering is only as great as we allow it to be. Copernicus revolutionized the world with his ideas and he had the support to back up his conclusion while pleasing the given circumstances.
Francis Bacon changed the world in that he realized the importance that we need to experiment with our surroundings and be able to reason with them and make a logical opinion that leads to helping the human race in more ways than one. Fallacy brings us all down, and through the truth we are able to overcome as a race and as an individual. Through these new understandings we were able to grow out of that boyhood of knowledge and to persevere on through adulthood. The major point of the two works is to propel human society into a higher understanding of the relationship between faith and reason.
Collectively, when understood they can allow for many beneficial opportunities to arise. In the eyes of Bacon, it was not for more power but for the human ability when this relationship was taken to full advantage. Through his idea on faith and reason, the symbiotic relationship that glues together the two, and the help of Copernicus to be the first one to understand this, light has shed on the truth and brought about a real foundation for change.
The boundary that separates the two makes up for this disproportionate circle and clearly separates the two into their parts while combining together for the whole. It takes one person to be able to differentiate the two to be able to effectively combine them and utilize them. If this is not done correctly it can lead to death and there is no point in trying if one doesn’t understand these pieces. To do so would leave one at such a great disadvantage and fortunately in the case of Copernicus the combination proved to be a successful mix. While Copernicus had the correct balance, it took a person like Francis Bacon to break down this balance into its parts. In order to be successful one has to allow faith its place and not completely overrun this balance with reason. We must understand our surroundings as they may have a different balance of this faith and reason.
The symbiotic relationship between the two must be understood so that truth persists and maintains its power at the epicenter of social existence. The two of these presuppositions together allow for our race to grow, change, and create an existence for man that allows for the best possible choices from these changes.
In order to understand our surroundings we must understand the symbiotic relationship between faith and reason in our surroundings. Chronologically, Copernicus realized their proportions that comprised this relationship. He came up with an evolutionary idea, that at the time, faith was an important part of his surrounding. There can’t be any instance of hostility directed towards shrinking faith, as it seemed to reach it’s desired mass. To publish his ideas he approached this case with careful demeanor, which allowed for a circumvention of any hostility on his behalf while allowing for this evolutionary thought to occur. He said, “For even in this very remote corner of the earth where I live you are considered the highest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and astronomy too.”(Crowe 107) If he was to create an imbalance of faith he would be giving up all the efforts in his work as it could easily be disregarded or burned.
As Sir Francis Bacon says, a wise man will make more opportunities than he finds. Faith seemed to outweigh reason during the time of Copernicus; it needed to be embraced in works that could be thought of as challenging its supremacy. To allow for controversial change, one could allow for a reduction of faith, which has the ability to diminish its power entirely over time, and if done without care could diminish your own existence. The better choice in bringing about change is to allow for the creation of this symbiotic relationship as Francis Bacon did in The Great Atlantis. Religion like a cape lays blinds our view true view of our symbiotic relationship, which allows both faith and reason to coexist, but can be seen as deceitful.
As this cape allows the people to master various powers and allow them to control environmental tendencies such as the wind like in the case of the New Atlantis, it is not an ethical way to approach the issue at hand. It is completely untruthful like the instance where the captain and his people end up on the island; they were asked whether or not they were Christians. “We were,” they answered, “fearing the less, because of the cross we had seen in the subscription.” (Weinberger 40) Clearly the captain was aware of the growing possibility that some of his crew were not religious. This gave them a cape like that previously mentioned which is a very deceitful choice. The captain fears that if he were say they were not Christians, to lie, that he could not get help.
It is from this fear that we need to use faith and reason to guide us to truth. True knowledge is only achieved when this relationship is recognized in its surroundings. For the greater good of the race, it is our responsibility, which if we know something, and feel a certain thought is true then we can’t let things get in the way of it. According to Bacon, we see that the two can coexist however irrational the cape over our yin-yang is. You can’t explain faith by any empirical means, and in the case of The New Atlantis this cape allowed for controversial change to occur.
The symbiotic relationship between faith and reason is tremendously important to preservation of truth. This truth, if you will, must be evaluated so it can be inducted into the realm on knowledge. To evaluate it, one must first decide its role in the relationship between faith and reason. In the case of Copernicus, he revolutionized European reason on page 126, saying, “Lastly, it will be realized that the sun occupies the center of the Universe,” which could not be achieved without careful evaluation.
This idea seemed at first a remarkable but false concept. However, Copernicus goes into great detail discussing the elongation of the moon, and that the idea of the sun rotating around the Earth is impossible. He goes into great detail and delivers great abundance of reasoning to support his conclusion. He evaluated the circumstances given and allowed for his idea to become truth and later become common knowledge. Likewise, Francis Bacon would do the same. It can be thought that he supports the symbiotic relationship where faith and reason go hand in hand however there needs to be consistency else there is a barrier to truth.
On page 11 of The Great Instauration, Bacon says, “knowledge being as water, which will not rise above the level from which it fell.” The barrier to truth is when this relationship is not present. In a situation where either completes outweighs it other. Truth must be at center of social existence and correctly adapt as knowledge. He says, “and for it’s value and utility it must be plainly avowed that wisdom which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like a boyhood of knowledge.” (Weinberger 8) In other words, our current amount of knowledge is still being developed. We are still children in the sense that our knowledge is growing slowly due to the correct imbalance of faith and reason. We need to truly understand the concepts about how the correct relationship works and how it affects truth and us. This can only be achieved when reason is a bigger than yang and the part that separates the two is bigger to clearly depict they are indeed different quantities.
It is truth thought that brings out real change. We need to experiment in order to derive this true thought into real change. Experimentation is used as a supporting factor in understanding the relationship. In order to explain this relationship to another, one has to be able to reason with it and make sure it’s logical. Then once that realization has occurred then it can be adapted and it’s representation of truth is not covered underneath the deceitful cloak that once hid our symbiotic relationship’s true quantities that represented the balance.
History has shown us that there are instances in which the yin-yang relationship has become completely violated.
This is an instance where faith has completely broken its boundary with reason and fused the two together. This act allows for supremacy of one idea that may pervade truth and for this to happen is not beneficial to the human race. However, with the correct understanding of our environment and our collective belief that truth is highest of value, our yin-yang remains constant and brings good harmony. In the case of faith consisting of the bigger area of our symbiotic relation, this overpowering is only as great as we allow it to be. Copernicus revolutionized the world with his ideas and he had the support to back up his conclusion while pleasing the given circumstances.
Francis Bacon changed the world in that he realized the importance that we need to experiment with our surroundings and be able to reason with them and make a logical opinion that leads to helping the human race in more ways than one. Fallacy brings us all down, and through the truth we are able to overcome as a race and as an individual. Through these new understandings we were able to grow out of that boyhood of knowledge and to persevere on through adulthood. The major point of the two works is to propel human society into a higher understanding of the relationship between faith and reason.
Collectively, when understood they can allow for many beneficial opportunities to arise. In the eyes of Bacon, it was not for more power but for the human ability when this relationship was taken to full advantage. Through his idea on faith and reason, the symbiotic relationship that glues together the two, and the help of Copernicus to be the first one to understand this, light has shed on the truth and brought about a real foundation for change.
Franz Kafka: The Metamorphosis
Franz Kafka’s interpretation of language and its influences on our culture, I feel, led to the creation of The Metamorphosis. At the very core of the story, we have a human being that has it’s appearance changed, and therefore becomes different. At first the all of the family with the exception of the sister were quick to give up on the main character but over time they moved on and completely ignored him. This can be thought of as the same case with Du Bois, but to an extreme, whereas he appears no longer human at all to the family, instead of just being different by color. Gregor’s ultimate inability to be a successful person is because of his perceived difference is just an illusion produced by the system of constant exploitation, as he is no longer able to communicate the language of the society.
There are so many different levels to understanding the alienation that has occurred in this story. At the very basic level, we understand that something is telling Gregor's family what they should value as a human life. They know its Gregor, but show no compassion to him, because his physical well-being doesn't match their ideal human appearance. Even though Gregor slaved away at his alienating job so that his father could wash lots of dishes and read newspapers, his physical transformation goes against the idea of the stereotypical ideal of the nuclear family. Gregor's inability to cope with his change led for him to take his own life.
Language represents the key idea, as proposed by Nietzsche, to the education and manipulation to and by society to maintain a constant control over its people. The underlying theme is the controlling society is not a product of it’s whole, but a product of certain people which maintain power through capitalism as a tool for continued power and wealth. The language itself is the communication of accepted truths, established by society, governed by a constant system of exploitation known as capitalism in this case of these aforementioned text. The restriction of power from those who are deemed unworthy by the controlling few are really the means to which we are able to overcome certain boundaries in most scenarios.
Usually when people notice that something is wrong, if they are at a disadvantage to this system, they are more likely to promote a way of change so this disadvantage goes away. Nietzsche sets us up with the idea that language can be used in a series of ways. Who is to say that we all have the same interpretations of words that produce a given stimuli? Where can the interpretations be manipulated to the advantage of someone or something that wishes to exploit it? I am not arguing that language is a bad thing, but the means through which is can be used allow for people to be taken advantage of. Black people and the Gregor are two great examples of where language can be used as the means to exploit those who are different. Language communicates the idea that black people are inferior to white people or that since Gregor looks like a bug, he is a bug.
To conclude, through the various examples it can be seen that through language, birth is given to a political system that feeds on the ability for language to be manipulated. Stereotypes act as steroids for the growth of this system, and then create extrinsic values in people whom abide by this system. It really is impossible for some to imagine a life without stereotypes. Where does the need to be able to relate to a mass group of people get satisfied? Why should that even matter? In that case, capitalism is a system that allows for many veils, the first of which to be pointed out by Du Bois.
There are so many different levels to understanding the alienation that has occurred in this story. At the very basic level, we understand that something is telling Gregor's family what they should value as a human life. They know its Gregor, but show no compassion to him, because his physical well-being doesn't match their ideal human appearance. Even though Gregor slaved away at his alienating job so that his father could wash lots of dishes and read newspapers, his physical transformation goes against the idea of the stereotypical ideal of the nuclear family. Gregor's inability to cope with his change led for him to take his own life.
Language represents the key idea, as proposed by Nietzsche, to the education and manipulation to and by society to maintain a constant control over its people. The underlying theme is the controlling society is not a product of it’s whole, but a product of certain people which maintain power through capitalism as a tool for continued power and wealth. The language itself is the communication of accepted truths, established by society, governed by a constant system of exploitation known as capitalism in this case of these aforementioned text. The restriction of power from those who are deemed unworthy by the controlling few are really the means to which we are able to overcome certain boundaries in most scenarios.
Usually when people notice that something is wrong, if they are at a disadvantage to this system, they are more likely to promote a way of change so this disadvantage goes away. Nietzsche sets us up with the idea that language can be used in a series of ways. Who is to say that we all have the same interpretations of words that produce a given stimuli? Where can the interpretations be manipulated to the advantage of someone or something that wishes to exploit it? I am not arguing that language is a bad thing, but the means through which is can be used allow for people to be taken advantage of. Black people and the Gregor are two great examples of where language can be used as the means to exploit those who are different. Language communicates the idea that black people are inferior to white people or that since Gregor looks like a bug, he is a bug.
To conclude, through the various examples it can be seen that through language, birth is given to a political system that feeds on the ability for language to be manipulated. Stereotypes act as steroids for the growth of this system, and then create extrinsic values in people whom abide by this system. It really is impossible for some to imagine a life without stereotypes. Where does the need to be able to relate to a mass group of people get satisfied? Why should that even matter? In that case, capitalism is a system that allows for many veils, the first of which to be pointed out by Du Bois.
DNA: Epoch of Good Science
In James D. Watson's The Double Helix we are presented with a seemingly well written story about his discovery of DNA. While the book just presents us with a look into a period of Dr. Watson's life, there is something that should be established to an even high degree than mentioned in the book. This work, from the mind of Watson, starts with a problem and leads to a solution through various mechanical steps and it did seem like they happened to get lucky. The discovery of DNA has opened up so many possibilities in the areas of science and allows us to understand the way the body works not only for humans for but for all species of organisms. Where do you draw the line between good science and bad science? Once this line is defined, where exactly does DNA and The Double Helix get categorized? The line that separates the two, is not clearly defined and is open to interpretation. What I am going to prove in this essay is that DNA is a good science. It is the epoch of good science. The Double Helix however is bad science which will be contrasted to DNA in my definition of the line. How I plan to go about this is to define what I categorize to be good and bad science then to differentiate between DNA and The Double Helix.
To barrow a quote from Albert Einstein, “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.” With this at the basis of my categorization, to differentiate between good and bad science cannot be done due to final outcomes. If this were the case, then science would be completely bad because just about anything could be used for negative intentions. An example of this is the nuclear bomb. The process that was taken to get to this creation was no doubt a difficult task that was accomplished through careful observations with tools that extended the power of our human senses. The point of a good science is to attempt to explain something that is considered a complex phenomena in terms of composition, is honest, and is achieved through selfless means. Bad science is on the opposite side of the spectrum. To barrow a term from Richard Feynman, bad science is a “cargo cult science,” which he defines as pseudo of being scientific but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.” (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman) I like this definition of bad science because it makes complete sense to me. A scientist who is in it for the fame only has the means to only promote himself, cannot be objective, or honest.
The separation between good science and bad science makes categorizing DNA and The Double Helix simple. DNA was not not discovered by one person, but by multiple people the first being Friedrich Miescher. It didn't stop with him but was developed upon by many other people, and later became conceptualized. The Double Helix is bad science. It's inception was only for the purpose of one creating fame from jealousy and not because it is one's duty. James Watson had no integrity, was not honest, and was a fame seeker. When I say that DNA is the epoch of good science, it was the greatest theorization whose possibilities to this day are still being tested. The branch that is The Double Helix off DNA is bad science. They have two different orientations, they have two different births, and they have two different meanings. DNA came from careful observations and experiments and is objective. The Double Helix goes off in its own direction, arrived from a different commonplace, and is the direct categorization of bad science. The remaining question is what exactly do we do with bad science? The best part about science is that the good always outweighs the bad.
To barrow a quote from Albert Einstein, “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.” With this at the basis of my categorization, to differentiate between good and bad science cannot be done due to final outcomes. If this were the case, then science would be completely bad because just about anything could be used for negative intentions. An example of this is the nuclear bomb. The process that was taken to get to this creation was no doubt a difficult task that was accomplished through careful observations with tools that extended the power of our human senses. The point of a good science is to attempt to explain something that is considered a complex phenomena in terms of composition, is honest, and is achieved through selfless means. Bad science is on the opposite side of the spectrum. To barrow a term from Richard Feynman, bad science is a “cargo cult science,” which he defines as pseudo of being scientific but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.” (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman) I like this definition of bad science because it makes complete sense to me. A scientist who is in it for the fame only has the means to only promote himself, cannot be objective, or honest.
The separation between good science and bad science makes categorizing DNA and The Double Helix simple. DNA was not not discovered by one person, but by multiple people the first being Friedrich Miescher. It didn't stop with him but was developed upon by many other people, and later became conceptualized. The Double Helix is bad science. It's inception was only for the purpose of one creating fame from jealousy and not because it is one's duty. James Watson had no integrity, was not honest, and was a fame seeker. When I say that DNA is the epoch of good science, it was the greatest theorization whose possibilities to this day are still being tested. The branch that is The Double Helix off DNA is bad science. They have two different orientations, they have two different births, and they have two different meanings. DNA came from careful observations and experiments and is objective. The Double Helix goes off in its own direction, arrived from a different commonplace, and is the direct categorization of bad science. The remaining question is what exactly do we do with bad science? The best part about science is that the good always outweighs the bad.
What does it mean to be American?
“To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships.” The best part about the way of government in our country is the endless possibilities (or so we are told) that every single American has. Great Expectations is a prime example of this opportunity that I speak of. However for Du Bois, this was an unavailable opportunity. He was able to recognize this aspect early on in his life but not experience its blessing but feel the pain the system can inflict. While reading this text I could not help but ask myself, why did this happen? How could this happen? The sad realization is that this pain or exploitation is cyclic in occurrence throughout American history.
What does it really mean for us to be American some could say? What really differentiates me from John Doe and why is there not a consistent form of equality in this country during the era of Du Bois or even today? I think to myself that I am proud to be American but when I read about the truth put by a man who was exploited by our system a part of me feels lost. History as we know tends to repeat itself, first it started off with discrimination towards Native Americans, and then the new target becomes African Americans. All of this information gathered from various readings and in depth views into our past seems to only ignite this fire within me that feels that over and over the constant theme of capitalism is exploitation. We exploited the Indians out of their land.
With the African Americans comes a similar story of exploitation which is what I plan to go more in depth with now. The first round of exploitation starts with the induction of African Americans into a system of slavery. To fuel the capitalist machine they are subject to labor, they produce an item or service and are not paid for the labor they invested. This accounts for a huge increase in flow in money to the slave master who does not exchange fixed labor returns such as monetary compensation but offers exchange for this labor in the form than housing, clothing, and food. It is basically no cost to the master to have extra slaves because the cost is so minute to the gain and this realization is what made capitalism so strong. Slavery is a strong component to speedy production but there is a certain point where the worker should not be exploited further and that is a point when capitalism comes to a halt because of political dilemma.
In the time of American history and what Du Bois started off conveying was the civil war. The way this part is conveyed is that the North needed more soldiers to fight off the South so they offered emancipation to African Americans to help end the war so that capitalism can go on as usual. It was a change in common feeling at the time but the way Du Bois sets the mood for this it feels like this was just another ghost-like manipulation and exploitation. It is to the “benefit” of the North to offer this opportunity however we see that this was not clearly thought out before enacted because after the civil war ended there was still turmoil being felt by African Americans. What the capitalist machine thought would ease the worker that was being exploited was this opportunity for so called freedom. However this was not so simple as thought. So the government created a group to help alleviate this stress.
Now back to the essential question I ask and to make it more clear: How does a system that is based off of a so called exploitation differentiate between who to exploit whether it is by race, religion, or sexuality? It seems to me that capitalism is such an elaborate system that it has many security precautions in place to make minor substitutions for the general populace and in situations of increased duress has the ability the completely adapt. So what really makes us human? Could it be that we do have a set of predefined characteristics that do make us all alike and that our ideology or the ideology of the leading group chooses a new target to exploit and then absorb into the populace? I wouldn't like to think so however that is the big thing that hit me when reading this text. When Du Bois says, “what is Truth? Nay, but that men know so little of men.” I feel that Du Bois came to this conclusion on capitalism later on in his life and that is probably why he was a self proclaimed socialist.
What does it really mean for us to be American some could say? What really differentiates me from John Doe and why is there not a consistent form of equality in this country during the era of Du Bois or even today? I think to myself that I am proud to be American but when I read about the truth put by a man who was exploited by our system a part of me feels lost. History as we know tends to repeat itself, first it started off with discrimination towards Native Americans, and then the new target becomes African Americans. All of this information gathered from various readings and in depth views into our past seems to only ignite this fire within me that feels that over and over the constant theme of capitalism is exploitation. We exploited the Indians out of their land.
With the African Americans comes a similar story of exploitation which is what I plan to go more in depth with now. The first round of exploitation starts with the induction of African Americans into a system of slavery. To fuel the capitalist machine they are subject to labor, they produce an item or service and are not paid for the labor they invested. This accounts for a huge increase in flow in money to the slave master who does not exchange fixed labor returns such as monetary compensation but offers exchange for this labor in the form than housing, clothing, and food. It is basically no cost to the master to have extra slaves because the cost is so minute to the gain and this realization is what made capitalism so strong. Slavery is a strong component to speedy production but there is a certain point where the worker should not be exploited further and that is a point when capitalism comes to a halt because of political dilemma.
In the time of American history and what Du Bois started off conveying was the civil war. The way this part is conveyed is that the North needed more soldiers to fight off the South so they offered emancipation to African Americans to help end the war so that capitalism can go on as usual. It was a change in common feeling at the time but the way Du Bois sets the mood for this it feels like this was just another ghost-like manipulation and exploitation. It is to the “benefit” of the North to offer this opportunity however we see that this was not clearly thought out before enacted because after the civil war ended there was still turmoil being felt by African Americans. What the capitalist machine thought would ease the worker that was being exploited was this opportunity for so called freedom. However this was not so simple as thought. So the government created a group to help alleviate this stress.
Now back to the essential question I ask and to make it more clear: How does a system that is based off of a so called exploitation differentiate between who to exploit whether it is by race, religion, or sexuality? It seems to me that capitalism is such an elaborate system that it has many security precautions in place to make minor substitutions for the general populace and in situations of increased duress has the ability the completely adapt. So what really makes us human? Could it be that we do have a set of predefined characteristics that do make us all alike and that our ideology or the ideology of the leading group chooses a new target to exploit and then absorb into the populace? I wouldn't like to think so however that is the big thing that hit me when reading this text. When Du Bois says, “what is Truth? Nay, but that men know so little of men.” I feel that Du Bois came to this conclusion on capitalism later on in his life and that is probably why he was a self proclaimed socialist.
Science as good or bad.
According to Albert Einstein, “The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.” (Calaprice 240) If the purpose of science is to provide us with “empirical facts,” or what I would say truths, how do we categorize sciences into either good or bad deductions? There must be some sort of criteria that is logically deduced for the sake of structure in a society. This demand can be seen a society such as ours which requires the use of technology manifested through scientific improvements. The evaluation of the methods used to derive scientific improvement to categorize these sciences as either good or bad is most important to our society. It must follow certain rules or ethics so that it not only is communicated efficiently so that everyone may understand it but also must have been through means considered ethical. Where exactly do you draw a line between good or bad science? The purpose of this essay is to draw a line between good and bad science. I plan to contrast the motives of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring to James D. Watsons The Double Helix as the basis for the definition of the line that splits the science into good or bad. To define science as good or bad, you must evaluate both the process used for the creation of this science and the motives behind the scientist. The motive is the most important distinguishing factor for this definition because the goal of a person’s action derives its purpose. The purpose is our understanding of why a problem is being solved and the basis that this problem was addressed. To determine if something is good or bad it requires that these qualities are objective, and to introduce emotion (as with a motive) is counterproductive to the goal of good objective science.
Sir Francis Bacon said, “The cause and root of nearly all evils in the sciences is this — that while we falsely admire and extol the powers of the human mind we neglect to seek for its true helps.” (Bacon 34) The differentiation to bad science lies within the scientist inner conflict or struggle to achieve this science. In James D. Watson's The Double Helix we are presented with a seemingly well written story about his discovery of DNA. This work, from the mind of Watson, starts with a problem and leads to a solution through various mechanical steps. The purpose behind this is blatantly obvious in this book. From the very beginning of the book you can tell that this was not a race for the science itself but a race to promote Watson’s own career. To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein, “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.” (Calaprice 241) With this at the basis of my categorization, to differentiate between good and bad science cannot be done due to final outcomes. If this were the case, then science would be completely bad because just about anything could be used for negative intentions. An example of this is the nuclear bomb. The process that was taken to get to this creation was no doubt a difficult task that was accomplished through careful observations with tools that extended the power of our human senses. In the case of the search for the structure of DNA, the motive to find it defines the bad science within it. This was no journey for the sake on science on the behalf Watson but a personal journey to make him known. According to Watson, it was luck that they were the first ones to figure out the structure. From his accounts in the book, it was through the work of other people that he was able to deduce his own findings. James D. Watson was quoted on a PBS documentary titled “DNA” as saying, “If we don't play god, who will?” This quote remarks on the type of character that he is. His motive for researching the structure of DNA is ultimately why The Double Helix should be considered bad science.
In Silent Spring Rachel Carson delivers a powerful line, “We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the salmon runs dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims. We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we sprayed the robins directly but because the poison traveled, step by step, through the now familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of the visible world around us.” (Carson 277) The point of a good science is to attempt to explain something that is considered complex phenomena in terms of composition, is honest, and is achieved through selfless means. Rachel Carson took a series of steps to get to this conclusion. Her motive is very clear. The way she approached delivering her discoveries was through bits and pieces and her research was good because it followed the guidelines as previously mentioned. Bad science is on the opposite side of the spectrum. To barrow a term from Richard Feynman, bad science is a “cargo cult science,” which he defines as pseudo of being scientific but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.” (Feynman 341) A scientist who is in it for the fame only has the means to only promote himself, cannot be objective, or honest. Rachel Carson is in this to make a change in the way the world currently worked. She was trying to stop something that was going to hurt us as a developed nation in the long run. She was not doing this simply for fame but to fix a real problem that affects everyone else. This is a prime example of good science.
The separation between good science and bad science makes categorizing Silent Spring and The Double Helix simple. Rachel Carson’s motive behind Silent Spring was to spread awareness of what we were doing to our environment. She wasn’t doing this to make a dime or for fame. She was not the first person to suggest that pesticides are ruining the environment and is silently killing off animals. She was exposing the power of DDT because its introduction into use was dishonest. Her research was through empirical means. Her motives were pure and selfless. This would categorize Silent Spring as good science. The Double Helix is bad science. Its inception was only for the purpose of one creating fame from jealousy and not because it is one's duty to improve upon science for the sake of science. James Watson had no integrity, was not honest, and was a fame seeker. It would be easy to confuse The Double Helix with the discovery of DNA. DNA is the epoch of good science; it was the greatest theorization whose possibilities to this day are still being tested. The branch that is The Double Helix off DNA is bad science. They have two different orientations, they have two different births, and they have two different meanings. DNA came from careful observations and experiments and is objective. The Double Helix goes off in its own direction, arrived from a different commonplace, and is the direct categorization of bad science.
The line that contrasts good from bad science is a black and white definition. The way it has been outlined is not really open to interpretation, but has been laid out in a concrete manner. The importance of categorizing science into good or bad is that the bad is what hurts the improvement of science. It institutes behavior that is not considered ethical so therefore should not be accepted as ethical. I find that it’s a lot easier to categorize things as a good science. To even embark on a journey to contrast the two has been a complete mind breaker. Bad science is most likely the child behavior created by competition in an environment that promotes this competition as a way of alienation. If people worked together (which they do) not for the sake of themselves for every single other person then this world would be a better place. Einstein is a prime example of this. He didn’t seek fame but sought after the truth. This is the intellectual hunger that is absent in the case of Dr. Watson. This lack of strive for the solution should be within every single scientist. People should not become a scientist for the money, that’s why we have businesses. Scientist should strive to create good science as that promotes the creation of an honest, objective, and concrete truth.
WORKS CITED
Calaprice, Alice . The New Quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Feynman, Richard, and Ralph Leighton. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1985.
Bacon, Francis. Francis Bacon: The New Organon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Watson, James D. The Double Helix. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1996.
"Part 5 of DNA." DNA. DNA. James D. Watson. PBS, United States. February 2004.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mufflin Company, 2002.
Sir Francis Bacon said, “The cause and root of nearly all evils in the sciences is this — that while we falsely admire and extol the powers of the human mind we neglect to seek for its true helps.” (Bacon 34) The differentiation to bad science lies within the scientist inner conflict or struggle to achieve this science. In James D. Watson's The Double Helix we are presented with a seemingly well written story about his discovery of DNA. This work, from the mind of Watson, starts with a problem and leads to a solution through various mechanical steps. The purpose behind this is blatantly obvious in this book. From the very beginning of the book you can tell that this was not a race for the science itself but a race to promote Watson’s own career. To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein, “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.” (Calaprice 241) With this at the basis of my categorization, to differentiate between good and bad science cannot be done due to final outcomes. If this were the case, then science would be completely bad because just about anything could be used for negative intentions. An example of this is the nuclear bomb. The process that was taken to get to this creation was no doubt a difficult task that was accomplished through careful observations with tools that extended the power of our human senses. In the case of the search for the structure of DNA, the motive to find it defines the bad science within it. This was no journey for the sake on science on the behalf Watson but a personal journey to make him known. According to Watson, it was luck that they were the first ones to figure out the structure. From his accounts in the book, it was through the work of other people that he was able to deduce his own findings. James D. Watson was quoted on a PBS documentary titled “DNA” as saying, “If we don't play god, who will?” This quote remarks on the type of character that he is. His motive for researching the structure of DNA is ultimately why The Double Helix should be considered bad science.
In Silent Spring Rachel Carson delivers a powerful line, “We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the salmon runs dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims. We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we sprayed the robins directly but because the poison traveled, step by step, through the now familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of the visible world around us.” (Carson 277) The point of a good science is to attempt to explain something that is considered complex phenomena in terms of composition, is honest, and is achieved through selfless means. Rachel Carson took a series of steps to get to this conclusion. Her motive is very clear. The way she approached delivering her discoveries was through bits and pieces and her research was good because it followed the guidelines as previously mentioned. Bad science is on the opposite side of the spectrum. To barrow a term from Richard Feynman, bad science is a “cargo cult science,” which he defines as pseudo of being scientific but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.” (Feynman 341) A scientist who is in it for the fame only has the means to only promote himself, cannot be objective, or honest. Rachel Carson is in this to make a change in the way the world currently worked. She was trying to stop something that was going to hurt us as a developed nation in the long run. She was not doing this simply for fame but to fix a real problem that affects everyone else. This is a prime example of good science.
The separation between good science and bad science makes categorizing Silent Spring and The Double Helix simple. Rachel Carson’s motive behind Silent Spring was to spread awareness of what we were doing to our environment. She wasn’t doing this to make a dime or for fame. She was not the first person to suggest that pesticides are ruining the environment and is silently killing off animals. She was exposing the power of DDT because its introduction into use was dishonest. Her research was through empirical means. Her motives were pure and selfless. This would categorize Silent Spring as good science. The Double Helix is bad science. Its inception was only for the purpose of one creating fame from jealousy and not because it is one's duty to improve upon science for the sake of science. James Watson had no integrity, was not honest, and was a fame seeker. It would be easy to confuse The Double Helix with the discovery of DNA. DNA is the epoch of good science; it was the greatest theorization whose possibilities to this day are still being tested. The branch that is The Double Helix off DNA is bad science. They have two different orientations, they have two different births, and they have two different meanings. DNA came from careful observations and experiments and is objective. The Double Helix goes off in its own direction, arrived from a different commonplace, and is the direct categorization of bad science.
The line that contrasts good from bad science is a black and white definition. The way it has been outlined is not really open to interpretation, but has been laid out in a concrete manner. The importance of categorizing science into good or bad is that the bad is what hurts the improvement of science. It institutes behavior that is not considered ethical so therefore should not be accepted as ethical. I find that it’s a lot easier to categorize things as a good science. To even embark on a journey to contrast the two has been a complete mind breaker. Bad science is most likely the child behavior created by competition in an environment that promotes this competition as a way of alienation. If people worked together (which they do) not for the sake of themselves for every single other person then this world would be a better place. Einstein is a prime example of this. He didn’t seek fame but sought after the truth. This is the intellectual hunger that is absent in the case of Dr. Watson. This lack of strive for the solution should be within every single scientist. People should not become a scientist for the money, that’s why we have businesses. Scientist should strive to create good science as that promotes the creation of an honest, objective, and concrete truth.
WORKS CITED
Calaprice, Alice . The New Quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Feynman, Richard, and Ralph Leighton. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1985.
Bacon, Francis. Francis Bacon: The New Organon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Watson, James D. The Double Helix. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1996.
"Part 5 of DNA." DNA. DNA. James D. Watson. PBS, United States. February 2004.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mufflin Company, 2002.
GameStop Policy
You know what really grinds my gears? The policy that GameStop has with returning certain items.
I bought Call of Duty 5 but after playing it for a few hours I think it was a waste of my money. If I would have just torrented the game, I could have saved myself the money. It's not like there are demos available to try these games out. The gaming industry wonders why piracy is so rampant, but they neglect that PC Gamers are not stupid. We like to know what we are getting for our money and since there is no demo then how else are we supposed to get it?
Well I made the mistake of buying CoD5 because CoD4 was so great. I tried to bring it back to GameStop but they have a no return policy on PC games. This is rediculous. If I buy something then I should be able to return it within a reasonable amount of time for atleast store credit. This is why people simply pirate before they buy it.
I bought Call of Duty 5 but after playing it for a few hours I think it was a waste of my money. If I would have just torrented the game, I could have saved myself the money. It's not like there are demos available to try these games out. The gaming industry wonders why piracy is so rampant, but they neglect that PC Gamers are not stupid. We like to know what we are getting for our money and since there is no demo then how else are we supposed to get it?
Well I made the mistake of buying CoD5 because CoD4 was so great. I tried to bring it back to GameStop but they have a no return policy on PC games. This is rediculous. If I buy something then I should be able to return it within a reasonable amount of time for atleast store credit. This is why people simply pirate before they buy it.
G Speak
Is it just me or are all the things we see in movies that seem futuristic are not so futuristic? If you have seen the Minority Report before then you will recognize this neat device.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXVNDz9ZabU
I could see this as being a big advantage to businesses or the government but not something the everyday consumer would need.
What are your thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXVNDz9ZabU
I could see this as being a big advantage to businesses or the government but not something the everyday consumer would need.
What are your thoughts?
What are your favorite quotations?
A new hobby of mine is finding powerful quotes. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
As Martin Luther king said, "You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism."-Martin Luther King, Jr. * Speech to his staff, Frogmore, S.C. (November, 14, 1966
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." -Jules
“A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the metaphysics of books.” -Walt Whitman“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” - Friedrich Nietzsche"
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." Nietzsche
"Yet, taught by time, my heart has learned to glow For other's good, and melt at other's woe." - The Odyssey
"They can because they think they can." - Virgil
"Give me odorous at sunrise a garden of beautiful flowers where I can walk undisturbed." - Walt Whitman
"Oh while I live, to be the ruler of life, not a slave, to meet life as a powerful conqueror, and nothing exterior to me will ever take command of me." - Walt Whitman
As you can see, I am a fan of Walt Whitman. There is just a freshness to his writing that I don't read everyday.
As Martin Luther king said, "You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism."-Martin Luther King, Jr. * Speech to his staff, Frogmore, S.C. (November, 14, 1966
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." -Jules
“A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the metaphysics of books.” -Walt Whitman“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” - Friedrich Nietzsche"
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." Nietzsche
"Yet, taught by time, my heart has learned to glow For other's good, and melt at other's woe." - The Odyssey
"They can because they think they can." - Virgil
"Give me odorous at sunrise a garden of beautiful flowers where I can walk undisturbed." - Walt Whitman
"Oh while I live, to be the ruler of life, not a slave, to meet life as a powerful conqueror, and nothing exterior to me will ever take command of me." - Walt Whitman
As you can see, I am a fan of Walt Whitman. There is just a freshness to his writing that I don't read everyday.
04 December 2008
Response to Rebuttle on System of Exploitation
Through the use of Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th century German philosopher and philologist, like a lens for dissecting language; it will be used to support a fundamental exploitation theory of a veil proposed by W.E.B. Du Bois, and to break down this veil to dissect a scenario of segregation in the cafeteria. The purpose of the excerpt provided in the essay was to establish this lens that I mentioned my in thesis statement. Essentially, that is the reason why I do not provide any case examples to back up his theory. I was just merely stating that I plan to use his theory as a lens for looking at my case example.
When you argue, “You keep assuming that the premise of all your claims are to be understood and accepted by you simply claiming them to be so,” you are thinking that what I said is what I said. When I started off my explanation, the key thing to remember is that I started it off by saying, “According to Nietzsche.” The point of doing this was to break down his argument so you could understand what my lens is and how it will operate. It is my understanding that when you use a concept as a lens for discussion, there is no analysis on this lens other than explaining what it is and how it works. I anticipate that you may argue, “You need to provide information that will make your lens a stronger component in your essay.” If I were writing an essay from the Nazi perspective on the reasons that lead to the creation of World War II from the lens of Goebbels; It would require that the claims put forth to be just as equally understood and accepted because they are claimed to be so.
You mention that, “People can, for example, derive different “truths” from the same fact, from any one fact.” Nietzsche argues that, “there are no facts, there are only interpretations.” You argue that that at the very top facts and truth are two very different concepts. A dictionary defines the word truth as a reality. Also, a reality is defined as a fact of existence. Transitively, both facts and truth are a reality, and a reality is both a fact and a truth. Your example to your argument relies theories rather than “truths.” Both parties argue different theories (hypothesis) which is not the same thing as an argument of “truths.” Theories are an attempt at trying to explain something that is abstract. This whole paper is a theory, what Nietzsche is arguing is a theory, and everything in our world is based on theory. The reality is that the Earth’s temperature is rising from year to year. Clearly only theories can only attempt to explain why this is happening which already puts this outside the discussion and lens of Nietzsche. Theories are not truth. Conversely, truths are not theories. Therefore there is no transitivity to your argument.
This leads me to your second point which has been partially addressed. It was said, “There are still no case examples to explain or illustrate any of these points.” The purpose of Nietzsche was to main argument as a lens. However, I did throw in a huge piece of information that actually acts as a case example. In the thesis it was stated, “it will be used to support a fundamental exploitation theory of a veil proposed by W.E.B. Du Bois.” Support is a two way channel of action. For something to be supported, it relies on a structure. A structure has a sole purpose: to support something. Similarly, Nietzsche provides the structure to support a fundamental exploitation theory. Therefore, I argue that the theory of a fundamental exploitation proposed by Du Bois to be a case example of Nietzsche.
Familiarly, the word theory has returned. I mentioned that there is no transitivity between theories and truths/facts. The argument still remains. In fact, this clash is actually exploited to support the main argument. From the exploit brings birth to the concept of the veil. The veil represents the use of theories as a spoon-fed manipulation of the public. To parallel with a point in my essay, “The veil is exactly what Nietzsche was arguing about the use of language to promote illusions through the use of stereotypes.” An illusion and the veil are equitable words; they both represent the exploit that was developed by the clash of theories with truths/facts.
Ultimately, the cumulative support system that has now been established by Nietzsche and Du Bois allows for the final part of my thesis; the breakdown of the veil to dissect a scenario of segregation in the cafeteria. The dissection of the scenario is actually considered the final piece of this support structure. With all of the elements together I have effectively created a layered mechanism that could be used with new cases as well. Separately, each part of this support structure requires the other parts to be a full mechanism. Nietzsche and Du Bois work together to absorb Beverly Tatum’s idea into the mechanism. The mechanism in this instance; my thesis statement.
When you argue, “You keep assuming that the premise of all your claims are to be understood and accepted by you simply claiming them to be so,” you are thinking that what I said is what I said. When I started off my explanation, the key thing to remember is that I started it off by saying, “According to Nietzsche.” The point of doing this was to break down his argument so you could understand what my lens is and how it will operate. It is my understanding that when you use a concept as a lens for discussion, there is no analysis on this lens other than explaining what it is and how it works. I anticipate that you may argue, “You need to provide information that will make your lens a stronger component in your essay.” If I were writing an essay from the Nazi perspective on the reasons that lead to the creation of World War II from the lens of Goebbels; It would require that the claims put forth to be just as equally understood and accepted because they are claimed to be so.
You mention that, “People can, for example, derive different “truths” from the same fact, from any one fact.” Nietzsche argues that, “there are no facts, there are only interpretations.” You argue that that at the very top facts and truth are two very different concepts. A dictionary defines the word truth as a reality. Also, a reality is defined as a fact of existence. Transitively, both facts and truth are a reality, and a reality is both a fact and a truth. Your example to your argument relies theories rather than “truths.” Both parties argue different theories (hypothesis) which is not the same thing as an argument of “truths.” Theories are an attempt at trying to explain something that is abstract. This whole paper is a theory, what Nietzsche is arguing is a theory, and everything in our world is based on theory. The reality is that the Earth’s temperature is rising from year to year. Clearly only theories can only attempt to explain why this is happening which already puts this outside the discussion and lens of Nietzsche. Theories are not truth. Conversely, truths are not theories. Therefore there is no transitivity to your argument.
This leads me to your second point which has been partially addressed. It was said, “There are still no case examples to explain or illustrate any of these points.” The purpose of Nietzsche was to main argument as a lens. However, I did throw in a huge piece of information that actually acts as a case example. In the thesis it was stated, “it will be used to support a fundamental exploitation theory of a veil proposed by W.E.B. Du Bois.” Support is a two way channel of action. For something to be supported, it relies on a structure. A structure has a sole purpose: to support something. Similarly, Nietzsche provides the structure to support a fundamental exploitation theory. Therefore, I argue that the theory of a fundamental exploitation proposed by Du Bois to be a case example of Nietzsche.
Familiarly, the word theory has returned. I mentioned that there is no transitivity between theories and truths/facts. The argument still remains. In fact, this clash is actually exploited to support the main argument. From the exploit brings birth to the concept of the veil. The veil represents the use of theories as a spoon-fed manipulation of the public. To parallel with a point in my essay, “The veil is exactly what Nietzsche was arguing about the use of language to promote illusions through the use of stereotypes.” An illusion and the veil are equitable words; they both represent the exploit that was developed by the clash of theories with truths/facts.
Ultimately, the cumulative support system that has now been established by Nietzsche and Du Bois allows for the final part of my thesis; the breakdown of the veil to dissect a scenario of segregation in the cafeteria. The dissection of the scenario is actually considered the final piece of this support structure. With all of the elements together I have effectively created a layered mechanism that could be used with new cases as well. Separately, each part of this support structure requires the other parts to be a full mechanism. Nietzsche and Du Bois work together to absorb Beverly Tatum’s idea into the mechanism. The mechanism in this instance; my thesis statement.
Clarification: System of Exploitation
Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.”(Nietzsche 2) For me, this speaks completely to the idea that I am trying to put forth. At the very core of Nietzsche’s idea, he challenges the idea of truth as a myth. Nietzsche argues that truth is merely a metaphor and is an abstraction that is used by a society as a spoon-fed manipulation of society’s intentions. In the case of the current governing political system, these truths, ultimately meaning language, is the structure in place that promotes the acceptance our society’s intension. Nietzsche proposes a valid question, is language the adequate expression of all realities? He argues that people are immersed in illusions. These illusions are perpetuated by language. Another name for these illusions instituted by language is what I would consider stereotypes. Stereotypes are a way to exploit people into acceptance of extrinsic values. In other words, stereotypes are a part of language, instituted by those who wish to maintain power, where the rest of us act as a buffer to allow this governing state to exist.
Here is a very clean way of me communicating the same idea but less technical:
According to Nietzsche, there are no facts in our world, only interpretations of what is a fact. Another word for a fact is a truth. By comparison, since facts and truths are both synonymous words, they are both interpretations. He argues that therefore, truths are a myth, by default of a truth being an interpretation. A myth is any invented story, idea, or concept. Myths are used as metaphors by our society to control its citizens into believing that there is only one right interpretation. In our current governing political system known as capitalism, this is a very powerful tool. By this, I am referring to the use of metaphors as a way for communicating myths (or so truths) as a way of manipulating people (or controlling the people by brainwashing). A metaphor (or the way of communication of myths) is sustained only by one system. Language is defined as a system of symbols, signs, sounds, or conceived as a means of communicating thoughts or emotions.
The use of myths is a way to deceive by producing a misleading impression of our reality. This means that myths is synonymous with the word illusion. The use of myths or illusions by capitalism is best seen with the concept of stereotypes. Stereotypes are used by capitalism as a way to exploit people into accepting myths. Since capitalism is a system of power, the only thing that helps maintain this power is the ruling class (ruling class being the people who stand to best gain from the existence of capitalism) through the use of language. Since we are all citizens in the capitalist society, we are spoon fed myths, we are spoon fed that the way we are told is the only true reality, and therefore since we do not challenge this truth, we are protecting it.
Here is a very clean way of me communicating the same idea but less technical:
According to Nietzsche, there are no facts in our world, only interpretations of what is a fact. Another word for a fact is a truth. By comparison, since facts and truths are both synonymous words, they are both interpretations. He argues that therefore, truths are a myth, by default of a truth being an interpretation. A myth is any invented story, idea, or concept. Myths are used as metaphors by our society to control its citizens into believing that there is only one right interpretation. In our current governing political system known as capitalism, this is a very powerful tool. By this, I am referring to the use of metaphors as a way for communicating myths (or so truths) as a way of manipulating people (or controlling the people by brainwashing). A metaphor (or the way of communication of myths) is sustained only by one system. Language is defined as a system of symbols, signs, sounds, or conceived as a means of communicating thoughts or emotions.
The use of myths is a way to deceive by producing a misleading impression of our reality. This means that myths is synonymous with the word illusion. The use of myths or illusions by capitalism is best seen with the concept of stereotypes. Stereotypes are used by capitalism as a way to exploit people into accepting myths. Since capitalism is a system of power, the only thing that helps maintain this power is the ruling class (ruling class being the people who stand to best gain from the existence of capitalism) through the use of language. Since we are all citizens in the capitalist society, we are spoon fed myths, we are spoon fed that the way we are told is the only true reality, and therefore since we do not challenge this truth, we are protecting it.
Essays
Please read my essays and point out anything that you find to be hard to understand. Or feel free to critique everything I have to say. This is just my opinion on materials.
Living in a Social Construct: Having Intrinsic Values and Repudiating Instrumental Values
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary there are 8 different possible meanings for the term value. The word ‘value’ can be defined as a monetary worth of something or in the case of philosophy; there are both intrinsic values and instrumental values. Intrinsic values define our individual importance that we place on a given feeling. This is what we define as meaningful or valuable in life. Instrumental values can be thought of values that are somewhat superficial or fake to our intrinsic values; like in the case of young women idolizing stars and striving towards perfection that they see every day in magazines, TV shows, or movies. These values are created by society and are often instilled in the members at youth. The creation of these outside values is created by a phenomenon known as a social construction. How can we escape this social construction and repudiate instrumental values? We must identify the social norms that we find conflicting to our intrinsic values. After identifying these values, these instrumental values, then we can either repudiate them or substitute for intrinsic values. Living in a social construct provides the opportunity for humans to lose intrinsic values; social norms substitute the intrinsic values for an instrumental value set.
Works Cited
1. McRobbie, Angela. "YOUNG WOMEN AND CONSUMER CULTURE." Cultural Studies 22.5 (Sep. 2008): 531-550. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 16 Oct. 2008.
2. Berger, Peter L. The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, 1990.
3. “Media cited for showing girls as sex objects” By Sharon Jayson, USA Todayhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-19-sexualized-girls_x.htm
4. Young Girls Targeted By Makeup Companies. Advertising Age, 11/27/2000, Vol. 71 Issue 49, p15, 1phttp://www.frankwbaker.com/young_girls_targeted_by_makeup.htm
5. Calhoun, Thomas C., and Addrain Conyers.. "A SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANCE IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM." Sociological Spectrum 26.6 (Nov. 2006): 529-531. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 30 Oct. 2008.
6. Psychological Association Task Force, American. "Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls." Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls. 2007. American Psychological Organization. 30 Oct 2008.
We live in a society that puts people on pedestals for being successful businesspersons. Having millions of dollars, a large house, and a college education from an Ivy League school is how people in this country view success. This is an example of an instrumental value; money equates to success and seeks to find happiness through materialism. For some people, making millions of dollars and being a successful businessperson is total happiness. My counter to this argument is the amount of stress that would impose on an individual being rather large.
The case of women in our capitalist society is the most blatant example of the power society has with instrumental values. According to Angela McRobbie, a professor of communications at the University of London, women are treated as “female commodities.” (McRobbie, 1) They are used as products to sell ideals. For a teenage girl to face all of the images used to market products, they are also being sold the instrumental value of a goal of perfection. Makeup is an example of a product to help lead towards this direction of the adoption of this new instrumental value.
Sharon Jayson, a USA Today journalist for Health and Behavior, confirms this result in her article, “Media cited for showing girls as sex objects.” Within the contents, Jayson discusses a new report by the American Psychological Association. The APA report states that, “Advertising and media images that encourage girls to focus on looks and sexuality are harmful to their emotional and physical health.” (Jayson 1) Teenagers are confronted with this image of perfection thru the medium that is the media. The media has the strongest impact in establishing social norms. Clearly, the media imposes instrumental values unto females, especially teenagers, as a tool to generate more power and control. For this case, the business in the media doing the advertising stands to benefit the most from this superficial value. If they succeed in convincing the viewer into buying their reality (their values) then not only will the teen adapt to this reality but they will also buy the product in question. The generalization of what this case alludes to is a term coined by the APA as sexualization.
Jayson reports that, “the panel defined sexualization as occurring ‘when a person’s value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g. made into a thing for another’s sexual use.” (Jayson 1) In other words, sexualization drives home the idea that in our social construct, we are faced with a clash between our personal values and what values someone else thinks we should have. The act of doing this by the media is the objectification of an individual at the expense of their intrinsic values. The loss of these values make the individual no less shaped than a rock, with no more power than to be controlled. Instrumental values are easy to identify in this case, as most people in our country understand the idea that “sex sells.”
According to the APA report, “One of the dominant themes about sexuality reported across these studies and across magazines is that presenting oneself as sexually desirable and thereby gaining the attention of men is and should be the focal goal for women.” (APA 14) This is a widely held instrumental value that is conflicting with intrinsic values in females. For our capitalist society, it is most beneficial for women to focus on being desirable because this creates a myriad of products for them to buy. This also can be seen as a control mechanism by our social construct. The very fact that young children and teenagers are being targeted in a time of their lives when they are most influenced into these concepts illustrates the power that instrumental values instill.
Repudiating instrumental values in a social construct is called social deviance. Social deviance is any action or behavior that does not satisfy society’s social norms. A person who is labeled as insane is a socially deviant individual. This stereotype of insanity for a person as socially deviant does not fit appropriately. It is possible that this reality for the socially deviant individual is just a form of consciousness. Peter Berger, director of the Institute on Culture, Religion, and World affairs, said that this is considered, “the realization of the social construction of reality.” (Berger 2) He defines the realization of the social construction of reality as, “a world that originates in their thoughts and actions, and is maintained as real.” (Berger 2) For an individual to understand how the world around him works and to disagree, it is plausible to define their own reality. They could design their own world that revolves around their own intrinsic values.
Instrumental values affect most people subconsciously and to define your own reality can allow you to repudiate this power that social constructs exhume. As in the report from the APA, the only other possible way to repudiate instrumental values is to understand their origins and try to fix that within the social construct. A social construct is only as good as its intentions and with studies we are able to find problems and make them known. This is not an aspect of the economic system but an aspect of our political system.
Subconsciously our intrinsic values, like healthy development of sexuality, are being challenged by the instrumental values of society which is purveyed through reality as the correct value. To identify how our social construct operates is the first step to achieve a state where we can maintain our intrinsic values. For the case of the teenage girl, understanding that marketing is an attempt to subvert essential values for survival is key in maintaining true intrinsic values. To become socially deviant is to accept your own values over the instrumental values of society which allows for the only understandable way to have your own true existence.
Works Cited
1. McRobbie, Angela. "YOUNG WOMEN AND CONSUMER CULTURE." Cultural Studies 22.5 (Sep. 2008): 531-550. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 16 Oct. 2008
2. Berger, Peter L. The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, 1990.
3. “Media cited for showing girls as sex objects” By Sharon Jayson, USA Todayhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-19-sexualized-girls_x.htm
4. Young Girls Targeted By Makeup Companies. Advertising Age, 11/27/2000, Vol. 71 Issue 49, p15, 1phttp://www.frankwbaker.com/young_girls_targeted_by_makeup.htm
5. Calhoun, Thomas C., and Addrain Conyers.. "A SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANCE IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM." Sociological Spectrum 26.6 (Nov. 2006): 529-531. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 30 Oct. 2008
6. Psychological Association Task Force, American. "Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls." Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls. 2007. American Psychological Organization. 30 Oct 2008
21 June 2008
First Post
Well I have arrived at an item on my to-do list and I am glad to finally have my first post on Blogspot! I think this is my first step into the digital world out of the superficial tuck that is Facebook.
All I have to say is that for now this will be my one hiding spot where I will let the world know what is currently on my mind. You will have to forgive me for any typos as that is one thing that surely drove my honors preceptors nuts. Tonight I have been plotting my educational road map. The idea:
Bentley Undergraduate Degree ---> Harvard Business School 2+2. This of course relies on a solid GMAT score to be considered not too impossible.
Anyhow I am tired tonight. Night Night ^_^
All I have to say is that for now this will be my one hiding spot where I will let the world know what is currently on my mind. You will have to forgive me for any typos as that is one thing that surely drove my honors preceptors nuts. Tonight I have been plotting my educational road map. The idea:
Bentley Undergraduate Degree ---> Harvard Business School 2+2. This of course relies on a solid GMAT score to be considered not too impossible.
Anyhow I am tired tonight. Night Night ^_^
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
