I really enjoyed Emily Artz French's visit to our class. I feel a lot of what she said is similar to our ideas about science and biological evolution. She demonstrated that the creative process is an evolution in itself. She raised questions about original thought and expressed doubt whether truly original thought is even possible. I felt as if this really touched upon the multiple perspectives we talked about in regard to the self. In my opinion we are all a combination of differing perspectives but each of us is a unique combination. So, every thought we have is made out of "old" components, it can be a new thought.

Another quote that stood out for me from Emily's talk was that she is always getting "one step closer to the ultimate vision" It was here that I saw the similarity between Emily's creative process and the scientific method. They both ask questions, experiment and ask more questions in the hope of arriving at something more true the next time around. 

p.s I apologize for my late post - for some reason I had the thought that I had already posted.

Also some links you might find interesting:

Article on childrens' use of ironic language:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/health/12irony.html?_r=1&ref=health

Annotated "Origin of Species":

http://documents.nytimes.com/charles-darwin-on-the-origin-of-species?ref=science#document/p425

 I found the discussion in Thursday's class very interesting.  What I found particularly interesting was how Emily's art had formed itself.  She spoke of this huge gap, about 9 months I think it was. During this gap she had done nothing with the image she had in her head, then nine months later it all spilled out and she was inspired by something to paint.  So what was it that exactly happened in this gap of nine whole months? A similar thing happened to homo sapiens. All the genes and capability that we have now were there millions of years ago, but there was a significantly large gap between when we evolved, and when our "culture" began to come about. What was going on during that time?

Also, I didn't like that the pictures were purposely arranged in that order to fit evolution.  I find the order that they were created in would be way more interesting and telling of the thought process.

On the Parable of the Sower: it "sort of" reminded me of the book Brave New World. Except in Brave New World there was this Utopian society that they had created. Humans were artificially produced to be perfect and uniform.  They were conditioned since birth to be super intelligent, perfect, and content.  Immediate gratification was encouraged. Everyone was "happy", yet it was still so eerie. It was creepy that everything was perfect and everyone was so evolved and intelligent. Everyone was the same but no one cared because they were conditioned to be happy, they were not familiar with being....sad.  It made me sad, maybe we're not supposed to reach perfection and total happiness, maybe we will stay changing and just infinitely improve....

It’s really great to have a understanding and creative artist here to talk about her creation and the progress. Being a scientist student who abandoned the way to study piano exclusively and let photography and writing only be in the category of habits, I have to say that Emily’s talking make me see more things in myself.

The idea of hibernation is great. As I asked her if she would feel disappointed about the disability or incompletion to create an idea in her mind. Then she said she would express it anyway. This answer shocked me, as there have been too many times for me to regret not getting my idea down to be expressed. Same for writing, more practice will do help to make me think more and record more.

Speaking of language, I treat it more like a mortal property for enrichment of one person. I used to feel very sorry that one language is losing everyday in this world. But we can do nothing about this loss of a group of people who used to speak it. What we can do is to learn the language we are interested in and make us the speakers, or the torch bearers who keep the fire of language culture stable and bright.

As Europeans are trying to learn as many languages as they can, I found it hard to understand that languages are losing their status in Albany. In China, people put English in a very great status in all kinds of requirements, on account of the important use of English to be an international talent. The trend in the world is that people are going to learn more about languages, which is driven by interests and needs as results of globalization. Languages are never simply tools of communications. They concealed the cultural treasure kept in history, just like the DNA we own carrying information form pre-history, as Colin Renfrew mentioned in <Prehistory>. Knowing one language is a key to the understanding of one people and their lives. And experts of languages carry the great responsibility to translate languages, as well as to set rules and lead direction for others to learn new languages. Don’t abandon language program….

 Put one foot in front of the other

And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door
...
If you want to change your direction
If your time of life is at hand
Well don’t be the rule be the exception
A good way to start is to stand

(Santa Claus Is Coming to Town)

I tried to post a link to that music video, but my attempts failed. It was a tragedy, and since I'm quite tired, I might have cried a little. But just a little. Really.

So, why did I post a Christmas song? Because Santa is AWESOME!!!...and because it is a fitting reminder of evolution. "One foot in front of the other" is a simple message, but it does express the idea that life is constantly in motion. Perhaps this motion is effortless, like an adult breezing across a room, or perhaps the movement is more deliberate, like a baby trying out her first steps.

In one example of deliberate motion, our guest artist mentioned that she had chosen the order of her series' artwork in order to reflect her idea of human evolution. I admired how neatly her artwork flowed from one theme to the next, from biological evolution to cultural, but I felt in some way, cheated. Why hadn't she presented the images in the order that she created them? To do so would be the best representation of her thought processes. By forcing evolution in her artwork, the artist lied to us. She forced us as viewers to create a construct that hadn't existed in the first place. 

Speaking of invented constructs, Lauren Olamina, from the Parable of the Sower, created her Earthseed religion. Although Earthseed evolved from Buddhism, Taoism, and Lauren's own experiences, I felt that it was a dead end. Lauren evolved during her escape north, as did her faith and her community of believers, but I always had the sense that Earthseed could not be taken seriously. My rejection of Earthseed might be a tragedy, since belief was Lauren's most valuable possession, but I could not accept a religion that was completely made up.  

And an interesting article I came across today:

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/ 

I really liked having the artist come and talk with us on Thursday. I found myself comparing her process of creating art, especially the period of hibernation, to my writing process. I feel like this was a relatively common sentiment for many of those involved. I know I personally like setting down a piece of writing when I get stuck and coming back to it later after doing something completely unrelated. It helps unclog my brain. I also liked the concept of discussing the evolution of a series of paintings about evolution. It almost goes back to the mirror-facing-another-mirror business that I mentioned in class in reference to one of her images. In this case, however, it's more the concept of the reflection of the subject (evolution) in its own creation.

And should I talk about Parable of the Sower? I'll just say that I actually really enjoyed the book, and I'm interested to see what kinds of discussions we have about it.

Were people born to be evil or naïve? Or was it the physical, biological and cultural environment that changes people’s nature?

The “evil” here does not exactly mean the “bad”; perhaps, it should be “selfish”. I strongly believe that people were born to be evil and then modified by the factors existing in the circumstances they live in—education, morality and social influences. The scarcity of all kinds of recourses in the world determines that no everyone gets what they want. Thus, in natural environment in the ancient age and then the society in the civilized age, people first need to satisfy their own needs by competing with others. They need to verify that they deserve more by competition. Is it selfish? It should be. Without the guidance of social morality and education, just as what happens in the novel Parable of the Sower, people outside of the wall steal and rob others’ possessions, shoot citizens, and rage women. Meanwhile, people inside the wall, receiving basic education and holding normal social morality, know how to get along with each other, somewhat harmoniously. No new born babies are naïve. For example, they tend to wholly occupy their mothers’ breast milk, or cry. They were not born to be willing to share; but gradually the circumstances teach them to do so. They have been being loved and then loving.

Does a single hero create a new era in the cultural evolution? Or is it a special period that nurtures growth of a hero?

I believe that it is impossible that a single person plays a determining role in the change of culture, but the circumstance and the crowd do. We need; then we have. In current world, civilization complicates the evolvement of the culture, more of less weakening the ­­importance of biological and physical effects, because conscious human beings permanently involve in this process. The civilization is found by all the human beings not any individual.

There's a relevant "room for debate" about ongoing cultural change in the NYTimes today, provoked by the decision of The State University of New York at Albany to get rid of degree programs in French, Italian, classics, Russian and theater. Many strong echoes here of our class discussion about the degree to which--and how--colleges might alter their structure, to reflect the changing cultures in which they are embedded.

I have been reading parable... it is the most depressing book I have read thus far.

I do not want my future to be like that. All that destruction and chaos where one cannot even

Walk outside for fear one can die. How a 5 year old child can be killed tragically. How a man’s best friend becomes a man eating monster. How something like global climate change affects our future generation.

I am starting to see why my elders always look at the past, in a world like that I would do the same. Does the world we live in now really hurt our ancestors. Is life always better when we are young? Is there never going to be a world where the present is what we are happy about and not looking forward to the future and remembering the past. Are humans so spoiled that they are never fully satisfied. Some children say they never want to be like their parents but that statement “in my day” but I feel like in the future when we are older in years will be caught saying that exact statement.

I read the book, but it is just something I am too afraid to realize. What are we as a society going to leave to future generation? I sure hope it is not that.

 Over fall break, I read Parable of the Sower

I'm kind of divided when it comes to Parable of the Sower.  (Many spoilers ahead)

I half liked it, half didn't.  I didn't like it for a few reasons.  At times it felt like Earthseed came dangerously close to being cult-like.  (Or heading in that direction)  In near apocalyptic times, it makes sense that people would experience religious extremes: either they go from a staunch believer to a non-believer or transition from a non-believer into a believer.  Or switch belief systems, kind of like Lauren did.  (Drastic times call for drastic changes?) However, I definitely saw the possibility of "Earthseed" developing into something questionable.  Lauren was so invested in her religion (understandably so, I guess she did create it) and unwilling to find fault with it.  And most other characters just kind of went with Earthseed, no questions asked, despite their prior disillusionment towards other religions (except Allie, I guess).  The only one who logically opposed it was the old man and even he gave in eventually merely because he was attracted to her.  

It's not really the ideas behind Earthseed that bother me as much as the religious aspect.  Why create a "religion" behind change?  Why not use that as basis for general political structures/community and not give it a context of worship?  Octavia Butler commented at the end that she believed Lauren could gain a godlike status towards the end of her life (like Jesus?) because of those who misinterpreted her religion.  Isn't that allowing her religion to take the same course as the others she so vehemently opposed?  Doesn't calling it "religion" eventually demand that "mystical weirdness" Bankole talked about?  I think there are a lot of problems with how she's putting forth her ideas.  But I do see the importance of change and I do agree, no matter what, change happens.  But could there be away to have an awareness of that, an understanding of it, without forming a religion around it?  Maybe, also, this means that when it comes to trying to change something as fundamental as a belief system, it's not so easy.  And it's super easy for it to fall back into what it was: standard religion.  The structure of religion in particular seems to be something so essential to human life that it's difficult to alter, despite even Lauren's best efforts.  

Definitely an interesting read.

The discussion we had last week was interesting. I think it was very interesting that we invited an artist to our discussion. One point Emily brought up about her creation process was really inspiring. She said that once she got stuck in the one stage of per creation. She would put that aside and focused on other issues. The pause didn’t mean that the person just let go the idea but allow the idea to transform on its own. I found that really reasonable to explain the huge gap between first appearance of homo sapiens and earliest agricultural revolution which is the in the excerpted reading of Prehistory. Sometimes, transformations or trials don’t have obvious appearance. It takes time for anything happen or for us to realize that something did happen. I think this phenomenon applied some other situations. I think it will be helpful if we can put less pressure or focus in certain thing if we really are at a point of dilemma. I also have another question about the huge gap between revolutions. It could be depend on the standard of the revolution. The definition of progress could also affect our conclusion. Take the reading as an example. The development in agriculture in Asia is the most obvious development at that time period. On the other hand, the area around France also had a significant development in the art. The development in two different geographic locations had development in different areas. If we only use one of the aspect to value the evolution in all areas, the conclusion will not be conclusive and Therefore, we discussed whether a revolution happened or not, the perspectives that are been taken into account of can affect our conclusion.

So I have finished reading the Parable of the Sower and I found it to be a pretty good book. While the story itself was very interesting what caught my eye the most was the setting. This book is set in the near future about 14 years from now. in almost what seems an apocalyptic world. In the United States, society has gone down the drain and its an eat or be eaten world. Its almost scary to think that this could happen. One of the things I thought about the most though was how could society go from what it is now to what it is in the novel in such a short time period. Does change really occur that fast? Can a thriving society in one of the most powerful nations quickly fall into chaos? It takes centuries for the evolution of a species to occur. Does cultural evolution occur faster than nature can change?  

I don’t think I can quite pinpoint how cultural change occurs or predict when it occurs, but I can tell you how I experienced it myself. I remember when 9/11 occurred. I was probably in third/fourth grade when our teacher stopped everything to watch the news. I remember the smoke, the fire trucks, the chaos, and Death, who ruled that day. For some reason I don’t feel things have been the same ever since. I feel that the consciousness itself began to increase our paranoia towards terrorists, our mistrust in our government, and the fear to lose what so much love. I believe that many would agree with me that things were never quite the same since then. Be then again, it’s always been that way. I know that history tells us that this mindset has dwelled for centuries. So are catastrophes catalysts for cultural change?