Just Add Water

JUST ADD WATER!

So much is hidden behind this phrase.
Every infomercial, ever, comes to mind....
" It's a plane that flies it's self... all you have to do is just add water!"
Well not exactly but you get the idea. Condensed orange juice, chia pets, just everything unnatural. Adding water creates a chemical reaction and makes things... well react.
But there are so many meaning behind that phrase in and out of context. Really human life is almost like that. Without water we die. The body can survive with out water up to three days. The body can survive up to forty days with out food. Without water we are dead.
Just add water.
Just hydrate yourself.
Just make sure you can function.
Just live.

If a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear it?

I guess that is kind of the same thing? Well not really but almost .... it's a different sense, I suppose.

"A new way of understanding an already powerful theory is beginning to take shape, one that could change the way we understand the world around us. Do we create what we observe through the act of observation?"(Roebke pg. 230)

That question really gets me, especially since I really don't understand the philosophy behind it. Solipsism is the philosophical theory that self is all that you know to exist(Webster dictionary)...???

WHAT!!?

That barely makes any sense... well I guess it does, kind of?

Philosophy drives me crazy. Does that mean everything behind my back right now is just blank space an entire universe undiscovered and unused by us because we just haven't created anything there?

Observation I believe is key to learning, but creating? In art observation is key to learning and creating your art. But does the same hold true for the world? Do we observe and then create the world surrounding us. Sure there are tons of theories are using your "energy" to attract opportunities, people. good health, and so on. Even science falls back into spirituality sometimes. And this really seems to be on the border line for me at least.


Roebke's arguement is unclear to me still. And I think in a way his conclusion is passive, leaving the reader unstatisfied. I do however really enjoy the end when he ask a question Dr. Zeilinger cannot answer, and a week later there is a job posting for a collaborative philosopher.

Faustian sold his soul to the devil... Have we?

Limitless— that is what has seemed to become the staple of our society according to Berry. Berry directly calls out our society and almost everyone living in it on their wasteful and greedy way of life. When I first read this I tried to dismiss Berry’s view of our country. But not even a quarter of the way through article, not only could I not dismiss his views, I had to accept that they true. Not only true, but shamefully I am living them. We all are though when it comes down to it.

Berry talks about the industrial revolution, and how this is where the idea of a limitless economy started. This is why we live this way, the way we live calls for limitlessness on every aspect . Berry talked about a summit in Louisville Kentucky. This summit was supposed to deal with the problems of fossil fuels and our energy sources. The solutions presented were not solutions at all, but just temporary replacements for our usable and non-refundable sources.

Limitless is not just present in things like our economy. Everyday everywhere you go people want everything for nothing. Even a trip to get ice cream becomes a production. Over 20 flavors over 50 topping, and an endless way of having it served. The choices have become over whelming. Berry is just yelling out for us to wake up and simplify our lifestyle again. Because in reality its not as hard as it seems.

Waste and Greed. Greed and Waste. WasteandGreed

The image of waste fills my mind with mountains of garbage. Just an overwhelming mass of people's trash. Broken computer screens, unwanted toys, rotting food, clothing never worn, shoes missing there match, and just an excess amount of matter. A matter that could have been saved and recycled, but instead was destroyed and made unusable.

Greed and Waste are close in character. Greed in my mind is matter wasted. The foundation of greed comes from waste. We are too greedy to share so we dispose of whatever we can't handle. It is a person that sits there- on their mountain- and they create more, they hoard more things, and eventually it is all wasted.

These two cohorts further the cycle of taking, never giving back, destroying community, simpleness, and just causing destruction.

Derrida's afraid of writing... I mean he writes and all, but still he's afraid of writing.

Jacques Derrida: author, philosopher, speaker.
He is many things, but his one skill that accounts for much of his success, he claims to fear. Why is that? Derrida's fear of writing is something that not is not uncommon. I believe this fear doesn't come from the writing itself, but the fear of human reaction. Every person, every individual judges and reacts to all of other peoples actions. Its natural and unavoidable because of different opinions, different ways of life, and just different people. He uses writing to face his fears, he uses it to venture forward into the unknown of opinions and confrontations.

I have only once really experienced fear after writing. It was a rhetorical analysis of the Bad Romance music video. When I picked Lady Gaga as my topic I knew right away it would be controversial, but not until after the paper was printed and handed in did I start feeling the anxiety build up in my body. My entire paper was about women and their sexuality. What I had experienced in the past at school was these kinds of topics were not discussed and were deemed inappropriate. The Irish catholic girl inside of me became nervous at what my professor would do. I was afraid she would think of me in a negative light and grade my paper poorly because of the blunt topic I was addressing. Later after receiving an A on my paper, I realized that- yes- the subject was controversial but I wasn't being graded on being appropriate.

Derrida uses language as his vehicle to propel his ideas forward. He fears the back lash but never takes back anything he publishes. Its a constant battle between himself. Believing in what he is writing in and fearing the reaction of what he believes.

Hass, Jones, and language.

“Hubris at Zunzal” by Rodney Jones and “The Problem of Describing Trees” address the topic of language. The written language— when you really think about it— is a very strange concept.

In Hass’s poem he sneakily makes his argument by exploiting people who try and make language deeper, prettier, and more meaningful. When in actuality they just stomp on all of those things, making language loose it simplistic beauty.

In Rodney’s poem he commends the written language for being created without it our thoughts, quite literally would be washed away and irretrievable. “ No image like the image of language.” This quote embodies the need and beauty of descriptive language. These poems both center around language. And prove two different points. Balancing out the two extremes. Without it we are lost, with it we are over zealous with its use and abuse its simplistic nature by making it overly complicated.

The Conversation of Mankind

Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind"
by Kenneth A. Bruffee

"Education is not a process of assimiliating "the truth" but, as Rorty has put it, a process of learning to "take a hand in what is going on" by joining the conversation of mankind."
-Kenneth A. Bruffee

I chose this quote to start because I feel it really embodies the meaning of the entire piece. Collaborative learning is a technique that we've all been experiencing since pre-school. Personally, I have had really positive experiences, but I also have had disastrous results. Reading Bruffee essay made me consciously recognize that all the peer editing/grading, group projects, and class feed back these past years have been a type of learning technique. I agree, through collaborative learning I have gained a lot of knowledge, a lot faster. Knowledge communities are helpful to the individual’s growth. After all I believe that communities are the reason for individual success.

However a failed community or a failed attempt at using collaborative learning can cause destruction. I can think back to many of my experiences where I was put into a group and told to answer an ambiguous question. The results came out unanimously: all of the groups didn’t answer the question. Or it was not exactly what the teacher was hoping the results would be. So how do you guarantee the success of knowledge communities? I think a lot of it has to do with the individuals themselves. If the individuals aren’t committed or part of different knowledge communities it cause issues.

“Without successful teachers the community will die when it’s current members die, and knowledge as assented to by that community will cease to exist.” So how do teachers fit into this technique? Bruffree claims that teachers are one of the largest knowledge communities. In this learning technique the only issue is who has authority. Where does the sole power lie? I think that power or authority goes to the community or even individual who is part of more Knowledge communities than the average person. Or the person with power could be the expert of one thing .