This blog is now located at __FTP_MIGRATION_NEW_URL__.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
__FTP_MIGRATION_FEED_URL__.
Friday, August 05, 2011
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, August 11, 2006
All the world's a stage...
Children need play. As I teach students preparing to be educators of young children, I point out the importance of imaginative play for children's learning and development. Imaginative play provides an opportunity for children to try on "many different hats," if you will. Imaginative play provides a safe environment for children to explore different social roles or "practice" resolving conflicts. Imaginative play helps children to make sense of the sometimes confusing world that surrounds them. If you ever want to get a good indication of how you are doing as a parent, observe your young child "playing" family or dollhouse and see what they do as the "dad" or "mom."
I recently had a bit of an "a-ha" moment. During a rehearsal for Beauty and the Beast, the director talked about the excitement of theatrical performance. As a person "becomes" a character in a dramatic role, he or she can "escape" into an alternate world in which the individual can explore and experience alternate lives in a "safe" way (although when you introduce the idea of performing in front of an audience, the experience feels far from "safe"). Through experiencing other possibilities, we can better understand ourselves and our own identity by walking in another's shoes (or, perhaps more accurately, becoming another person walking in our own shoes). In essence, dramatic performance can serve a similar function to imaginative play engaged in by young children (Hmm. Maybe that's why they call them "plays"?). Of course one does not need to "tread the floorboards" to have a "safe" escape experience and "explore" other experiences in a safe way. A good book or movie can allow us to vicariously experience alternate identities and situations that can serve to help us understand ourselves better by viewing the world through the eyes of others, but there is definitely something special about making those "other eyes" our own eyes by becoming--if only for a while--another person (or in my case in Beauty and the Beast, a rug). Another person with a different background, strengths, and shortcomings. Ironically, there is something about getting away from ourselves through the tools of imagination and pretend that can help us to see ourselves more completely and accurately when we return to our real lives. By escaping ourselves, we come to know ourselves (at least a little bit better, hopefully).
So, play on.
I recently had a bit of an "a-ha" moment. During a rehearsal for Beauty and the Beast, the director talked about the excitement of theatrical performance. As a person "becomes" a character in a dramatic role, he or she can "escape" into an alternate world in which the individual can explore and experience alternate lives in a "safe" way (although when you introduce the idea of performing in front of an audience, the experience feels far from "safe"). Through experiencing other possibilities, we can better understand ourselves and our own identity by walking in another's shoes (or, perhaps more accurately, becoming another person walking in our own shoes). In essence, dramatic performance can serve a similar function to imaginative play engaged in by young children (Hmm. Maybe that's why they call them "plays"?). Of course one does not need to "tread the floorboards" to have a "safe" escape experience and "explore" other experiences in a safe way. A good book or movie can allow us to vicariously experience alternate identities and situations that can serve to help us understand ourselves better by viewing the world through the eyes of others, but there is definitely something special about making those "other eyes" our own eyes by becoming--if only for a while--another person (or in my case in Beauty and the Beast, a rug). Another person with a different background, strengths, and shortcomings. Ironically, there is something about getting away from ourselves through the tools of imagination and pretend that can help us to see ourselves more completely and accurately when we return to our real lives. By escaping ourselves, we come to know ourselves (at least a little bit better, hopefully).
So, play on.
A Shadow of a Doubt
You know, as I was pondering religion again as I often do, I decided I needed to make a post on agnostic's. I am absolutely sure that every person who strongly believes that faith is the best method to obtain religious truth ought to happily and proudly declare themselves agnostics.
This isn't as crazy as it might sound at first. An agnostic is a person who ( in the strongest version of agnosticism) believes that it is impossible to know if God exists. Now faith, as defined by dictionary.com, is a belief which is not based on logical proof or physical evidence. Many practicitioners of religion believe that looking for proof is sign seeking, and will be punished by God. And in my past religious life I heard many talks claiming that the very weakest form of religious belief is based on evidence.
So, we can see that faith based belief is not based on any kind of clear physical evidence. In fact, faith based belief is almost the exact opposite of justification based belief. Justification, as the term is commonly understood is a process of pointing to logical reasons and evidences that would logically support the issue in question. Usually, justification is a process of establishing credibility between multiple parties, and as such the evidence must be of a physical or logical nature.
Now, most philosophers for centuries have believed that knowledge is 'true justified belief.' Let me elucidate on this a bit. First off, there is clearly a reality our there that is independent of our beliefs. For a person to know something, it must be the case that what the person believes corresponds to what is actually out in the world. It must be true. I can't correctly say that I know that 3+3 = 7 despite how strong my convictions are since this is false. I am just wrong. However, the truth or falsity of our beliefs is often beyond our ability to directly ascertain, so lets just say that just in case what we are claiming matches the reality in the universe, that it is true. Next point. I think it is obvious that we must actually believe whatever is in question to know it. Enough said. Finally, what we believe must be justified for it to be known. To show this let me give you an example. Let's say that I am extremely paranoid and I believe that every person who wears red is a criminal. Now lets suppose that today I happen to see a person on the street in a crowd wearing red. I say to myself, well that person is clearly a criminal. Now, it just so happens that by coincidence that woman did indeed rob a bank. Just because I have a belief that is true doesn't mean that I know it. It is called a lucky guess, because red clothing is a poor indicator of a persons criminal nature. My belief has no justification. I think if you will reflect on this you will see that true justified belief is the standard model for what constitutes knowledge.
So you see, a person who uses faith as a basis for beliefs must, and should deny that they have justification. Without justification there is no knowledge. If someone believes that the only way to gain the truth of something is by faith, and she seeks no justification, then she can never know that thing. Hence, a person of faith should be, by definition, an agnostic.
This isn't as crazy as it might sound at first. An agnostic is a person who ( in the strongest version of agnosticism) believes that it is impossible to know if God exists. Now faith, as defined by dictionary.com, is a belief which is not based on logical proof or physical evidence. Many practicitioners of religion believe that looking for proof is sign seeking, and will be punished by God. And in my past religious life I heard many talks claiming that the very weakest form of religious belief is based on evidence.
So, we can see that faith based belief is not based on any kind of clear physical evidence. In fact, faith based belief is almost the exact opposite of justification based belief. Justification, as the term is commonly understood is a process of pointing to logical reasons and evidences that would logically support the issue in question. Usually, justification is a process of establishing credibility between multiple parties, and as such the evidence must be of a physical or logical nature.
Now, most philosophers for centuries have believed that knowledge is 'true justified belief.' Let me elucidate on this a bit. First off, there is clearly a reality our there that is independent of our beliefs. For a person to know something, it must be the case that what the person believes corresponds to what is actually out in the world. It must be true. I can't correctly say that I know that 3+3 = 7 despite how strong my convictions are since this is false. I am just wrong. However, the truth or falsity of our beliefs is often beyond our ability to directly ascertain, so lets just say that just in case what we are claiming matches the reality in the universe, that it is true. Next point. I think it is obvious that we must actually believe whatever is in question to know it. Enough said. Finally, what we believe must be justified for it to be known. To show this let me give you an example. Let's say that I am extremely paranoid and I believe that every person who wears red is a criminal. Now lets suppose that today I happen to see a person on the street in a crowd wearing red. I say to myself, well that person is clearly a criminal. Now, it just so happens that by coincidence that woman did indeed rob a bank. Just because I have a belief that is true doesn't mean that I know it. It is called a lucky guess, because red clothing is a poor indicator of a persons criminal nature. My belief has no justification. I think if you will reflect on this you will see that true justified belief is the standard model for what constitutes knowledge.
So you see, a person who uses faith as a basis for beliefs must, and should deny that they have justification. Without justification there is no knowledge. If someone believes that the only way to gain the truth of something is by faith, and she seeks no justification, then she can never know that thing. Hence, a person of faith should be, by definition, an agnostic.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Beauty and the Beast
You know how after hearing something a few dozen times you start to see things in it you didn't at first? Well my husband and children are in the Disney musical Beauty and the Beast, and I am sitting behind listening to all the songs and lines as they are rehearsing. After a while, I started realizing some odd things about the characters.
First, since Lumiare sings that "ten years we've been rusting," clearly they have been enchanted for at 10 least years. Then realize that the prince is coming up on his 21st birthday. So, that enchantress punished a boy of about 11 because he wouldn't let her into his castle! His parents probably told him not to let strangers into the castle on dark and stormy nights. And they were right! What an evil enchantress! She not only punished the boy, but turned all the innocent bystanders into cookery!
Chip doesn't seem to be 10 years old; he asks questions and acts more like a 6 year old - did the tea pot give birth? Where is the father? Or more interestingly, what is the father?
And speaking of parents, where are the prince's parents? I assume they are dead since Disney hates parents and kills them off the first chance they get. So here is this kid left in charge of a whole castle without even an advisor. What!? Mrs. Potts says at one point that his behavior is partly their (the servants) fault because they have let him have his way, but they are the servants, right? What else are servants supposed to do? Crazy!
What about this castle? Before it was enchanted it was a normal castle. So what is it doing hiding in the middle of a forest? Aren't castles the homes of rulers, and so they are usually located in the middle of a kingdom? Where is the kingdom? And don't you think that if this only happened 21 years ago ALL the villagers would know about the castle that was transformed? The villagers shouldn't ever think the Maurice is crazy!
Belle is a pretty good character, but she is not without her flaws. Just look at these lines. "Little town, full of little people", and "for once it might be grand, for someone to understand, I want so much more than they have planned". She is a bit stuck up, isn't she? And she lied to the Beast, but then, who wouldn't have, given the duress of her situation. She gives her word that she would stay at the castle (as a prisoner) in place of her father, but as soon as the Beast shouts at her to leave his private room she runs away. Of course, she caused the trouble by trespassing, so it was her own fault. How does she expect a prisoner to be treated? She actually had it quite good! She definitely has a princess complex.
Her darkest fault however is a bit unexpected. I bet you didn't realize she is a cannibal! Think about the song "Be Our Guest" and you will realize it is a bit creepy. There is a line " dancing pork, singing veal, what an entertaining meal" but everything that talks or sings or dances was a human! Even worse, in our play, all the children are types of food. Don't eat our children Belle! As the Mob song goes singing about the dangers of the Beast . . . "Said to sacrifice our children to its monstrous appetite" - - I guess the mob had it almost right, except it is Belle eating the children!
This is a warning to all of you -- don't over analyze Disney plays. This way lies maddness!
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Turn that smile upside down
And frown that smile away!
Ok, so I picked up a book by one of my favorite authors, and it was yet another book on how to be happy. I am so disappointed that I have to rant for a bit.
Our society is obsessed with being happy. Not long ago there was an article in Discover Magazine about people who are taking classes on how to be happier. Psychiatrists are constantly drugging perfectly miserable people into states of artificial toleration. Your local corner zealot is currently selling happiness by the can. Pulpits are being pounded, and books are being perused for the location of the fountain of happiness. Why? 'Cause that is how humans should feel!
I'm not convinced. Humans are often unhappy, but does that mean it is wrong or unnatural to feel unhappy? Wouldn't the unnatural thing be to only feel one emotion? We are designed to experience many emotions, why skimp on all the others? Have you ever noticed how unproductive happiness is? Your mind wanders, you burst into annoying songs that are usually off key, and you smile vacuously. Now contrast that to people who are angry. Do you really think that anybody would have fought the British for America if they were all content and happy. Don't you think they had to be really ticked off in order to dump all their favorite beverage out into the sea? A happy person would have just smiled and shrugged off the extra pennies. Happy people don't riot, and governments know it. That's why so many rulers were insistent on their people having a religion, because religion teaches people to be happy and accepting of their circumstances.
What about the memorable speeches in history? Do you think they came from smiling, happy people? NO! Martin Luther King was most unhappy about the way people were being treated, and he told everyone. When there are gross injustices happening to us, or in the world, we shouldn't just shrug them off. We should get angry and sad. Don't be a Stepford Wife!
I think the real problem for many people is similar to that of the child that has been eating candy all day. She is starting to get sick on all the sweets, but she just keeps looking for the best pieces thinking it will make her feel better. We should have happy times, but to try to be happy all the time is just wrong and shallow. Telling people to be happy all the time is just a fancy way of recommending egocentricism. People need to care about something larger than just themselves and their own little minds. But ironically, this often won't make you happy. You will feel sad and angry and revolted. However, you won't feel sick.
So today I suggest that you have a goal of going out and trying to make just one person a little bit unhappier.
Monday, July 17, 2006
A Good Quote
I read this today and I loved it. I like it in part because I know I can be a jerk when I am trying to argue a point, so I need to be careful. Undoubtly, the other part is because the jerks that I am arguing against should also read this quote and ponder it!
Nietzsche
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
Nietzsche
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
Friday, July 14, 2006
piaslreasetline
Does it seem to anyone else that President Bush is tacitly endorsing Israel's attacks on Lebanon? I almost think Bush hopes this will escalate to the battle of Armageddon; I'm sure he'd just love to have the distrinction of being the last President before the Second Coming. I just read a news article headlined "Bush rejects Lebanese call for cease fire." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_eu/g8_bush_8
(Excuse me for a moment while I go scream...)
Okay, I suggested a solution to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict years ago, in a paper I wrote for a highschool English class. The steps they need to take are as follows:
1. Give Palestinians equal rights, including the right to move freely through the country without fences or roadblocks.
2. Change the flag to not include religious imagery.
3. Change the nation's name to something that doesn't make the Palestinians feel excluded. I suggest combining the old name (Palestine) and the new name (Israel) in such a way as to give neither a clear preference: Piaslreasetline.
4. Build a Jewish temple inside the Dome of the Rock, allow both groups to worship there freely.
5. If all this fails, move everyone out of the country and declare it one big archaeological site off-limits to the public.
(Excuse me for a moment while I go scream...)
Okay, I suggested a solution to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict years ago, in a paper I wrote for a highschool English class. The steps they need to take are as follows:
1. Give Palestinians equal rights, including the right to move freely through the country without fences or roadblocks.
2. Change the flag to not include religious imagery.
3. Change the nation's name to something that doesn't make the Palestinians feel excluded. I suggest combining the old name (Palestine) and the new name (Israel) in such a way as to give neither a clear preference: Piaslreasetline.
4. Build a Jewish temple inside the Dome of the Rock, allow both groups to worship there freely.
5. If all this fails, move everyone out of the country and declare it one big archaeological site off-limits to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)