words @gilliandrums - Tumblr Blog

My first jab at Newspaper Poetry :-)

#newspaperblackout #austinkleon #poetry #poem

You're going to hate hearing this. My only defense is that this is what I wish somebody had said to me around 1995 or so.

We've worked through several modules that asked you to think about your cognitive processes. In some cases, we've asked you to consider metacognition--pondering HOW you are learning things, and how you could learn them better. In other cases, we've asked you to deconstruct usual assumptions, tackle ambiguities, move beyond your perceived limitations, question received wisdom, and otherwise not simply accept the "easy" answer.

If there's an intellectual message of our course, it's that we hope you advance in your academic career unwilling to settle for "sound-byte" answers. The world is chock-full of complex problems, and the solutions are inevitably equally complex. They cannot be simplified to simple slogans, and anyone that tries to do that should be regarded with some trepidation.

In fact, we hope you are suspicious of messages that contain only simplicity. You should SEEK complexity, because only in that maze of uncertainty can we hope to find truth. Supposedly single truth, and simple truth, is the realm of the un-academic. In navigating complexity we find actual truth, as well as the sometimes-uneasy alliances that govern relationships in an ever-shifting world.

Everyone has an agenda. Some people have more than one agenda. Keep that in mind as you navigate your college career, and indeed, the rest of your life. The "simple" answer usually fails to miss an important--and perhaps crucial--element of people's motivation. Always invest the mental energy to perform a double-check.

Cracked

It's so much easier to just sit back and criticize other people's creations. This movie is stupid. That couple's kids are brats. That other couple's relationship is a mess. That rich guy is shallow. This restaurant sucks. This Internet writer is an asshole. I'd better leave a mean comment demanding that the website fire him. See, I created something.

Oh, wait, did I forget to mention that part? Yeah, whatever you try to build or create -- be it a poem, or a new skill, or a new relationship -- you will find yourself immediately surrounded by non-creators who trash it. Maybe not to your face, but they'll do it. Your drunk friends do not want you to get sober. Your fat friends do not want you to start a fitness regimen. Your jobless friends do not want to see you embark on a career.

Just remember, they're only expressing their own fear, since trashing other people's work is another excuse to do nothing. "Why should I create anything when the things other people create suck? I would totally have written a novel by now, but I'm going to wait for something good, I don't want to write the next Twilight!" As long as they never produce anything, their work will forever be perfect and beyond reproach. Or if they do produce something, they'll make sure they do it with detached irony. They'll make it intentionally bad to make it clear to everyone else that this isn't their real effort. Their real effort would have been amazing. Not lik

I learned more about my dad at his funeral than I had as his daughter.

Understanding is never passive, but involves active construction through exploration and reflection. Both were convinced by their observations that learning only occurs when learners are ready; people internalize, remember and use only what makes sense to them. They rarely make leaps in understanding, but rather move ahead in small increments, incorporating only what they are on the verge of understanding.

Giving advice, as opposed to receiving it, appears to help unmotivated people feel powerful because it involves reflecting on knowledge that they already have. So if you’re completely clueless about the resources or strategies necessary for progress, asking for help is probably the best first step. But if you (like most of us), know what you need to do, but are having trouble actually doing it, giving someone advice may be the push you need.

For example, most civilizations have associated light with truth and knowledge and darkness with falsity and ignorance. Thus, we still say that information has “come to light,” or that investigative reporting “shines light into dark places.” As a result, the sun – being an object of light – has often represented some form of metaphorical source of knowledge. Humans seeking knowledge, on the other hand, are often depicted as having a light-source (candle, torch, lamp) thus designating them as having some, but not all knowledge. Finally, the ignorant people are understood as “being in the dark.”

From the beginning, man has realized that there is something about humanity that does not quite fit with the rest of nature. Nature is perfect: harmonious, complex, self-propagating and sustaining, and is always running at 100% of its potential (every amoeba is fully an amoeba, every squirrel is fully a squirrel). All parts of nature have a role to play, and play that role to the best of their ability. Human beings, on the other hand, don’t have the same kind of role. We have reason (intellect), which means that we have a choice – and that means that we don’t just have one type of potential, but a whole bunch of them. People can be doctors, pharmacists, drug designers (Walter White), homeless, etc. As a result, we’re never fully human, in the way a squirrel is fully a squirrel – our potential is just about impossible to completely actualize. This means that, unlike other parts of nature, humans can be good or bad – in the sense of fulfilling their potential, their choice of actions, etc.

What matters is whether the terms we use match in meaning, and thus allow us to speak about the same topic. Without a shared understanding of ideas, we cannot actually communicate (even if sometimes it may sound as if we can).

An additional benefit of this kind of thinking is in keeping us from falsely assuming that we share definitions, because we share a term. Reverend Gary Hall’s response to Richard Dawkins is a great example of recognizing this false assumption. Given Dawkins’s position on God, Rev. Hall replied, “I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in either.” Theology aside, Rev. Hall’s statement cuts to the heart of the issue: while both men use the same term, their respective definitions of God are so radically different that any debate on the topic is actually impossible – they can’t help but talk right past each other (also known as incommensurability). However, despite these radical differences, we often engage in all sorts of debates and discussions, failing to realize that we’re never actually speaking about the same topic – all because the terminology sounds the same.

“Asking people to defend their opinions is extremely important, as it makes them a rationalized thinker and actually makes their thoughts worth something. I appreciate Socrates opinion that not all thoughts and opinions are worth value. It is the structure of the argument that determines if an idea is worthless or not. It is important to ask a question directly, ask for clarification in a different situation, ask for examples, personal experiences and alternative cases in where the idea or thought may not be true or apply. Once a person puts all of this context into their argument, it becomes easier to determine the value of the argument itself. Once the value of an argument is made, it is also important for both parties to have a common ground of understanding about it, stressing the importance of addressing the same subject from the same angle, not the the same subject from two complete different backgrounds and meanings, or else nothing could be accomplished.”

The unexamined life is one not worth living