In response to C.S. Lewis's Vivisection I have these 3 questions:
1. Is Vivisection ever morally right?
2. Should we test on animals?
3. What are some other alternatives to Vivisection?
I will answer question one and two:
In the article Lewis goes back and forth between different views on Vivisection and every one of them seems to have its arguments for and against but they all still seem to come to the conclusion that Vivisection is not right, I personally have a two sided stance on the matter, I'm sure there are some people who agree with me. I think that animal testing is not morally right. Animals cannot speak for themselves, and I do believe that every animal has a conscious mind no matter how small. I believe that they do feel, they feel pain, joy, and fear.
Now with that said I will address question two. I think that if the animal is being tested on to help the human race for the better that animal testing is ok. Animal testing has proven very helpful in the field of science and medicine without it we would not have a lot of the medical and scientific advances we do today. I do not wish there to be cruelty in the pursuit of finding these advances but I know that that cannot be true. Cruelty mostelikely comes with the territory of Vivisection. I hate to think of the cruelty that is done to these animals in the pursuits of finding advances but I ultimately feel that it is for "greater good".
Friday, April 19, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Shooting an Elephant
In responce to George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" I ask:
1. Why do people feel the need to impress others?
2. Why did the author refer to the 'natives' as 'yellow faces'?
3. Why did the author care if he was being laughed at by the 'natives"?
I am going to answer the first question.
In Orwell's article he talks about not wanting to do anything to get laughed at by the 'natives' and ends up shooting an elephant because he wants to impress the crowd that had formed around him, but why do people do things like that to impress others? Orwell is an English soldier living in Burma, at that time he was considered the "superior race" so why did he feel the need to impress them?He admitted to hating the 'natives' and the job that he was doing there so why did he shoot the elephant?
In Bhuddhism elephants represent mental strenght. I think its ironic that Orwell shot the elephant to impress and entertain the natives. In doing so he shows his mental weakness, he wouldent do the right thing because he couldn't bare to be laughed at by the natives. Someone with mental strenght would have done the right thing solely based on the fact that it was right.
I like to think of myself as someone who doesnt care what people think of me, but I constantly find myself seeking the approval of others. My theory on this is that people as a whole are affraid to be alone. I think we all have this strange delusion that if we dont constantly impress and gain approval that we might end up alone, So we unconciously (or conciously) impress others with the hope of finding approval from someone so we dont have to be alone.
1. Why do people feel the need to impress others?
2. Why did the author refer to the 'natives' as 'yellow faces'?
3. Why did the author care if he was being laughed at by the 'natives"?
I am going to answer the first question.
In Orwell's article he talks about not wanting to do anything to get laughed at by the 'natives' and ends up shooting an elephant because he wants to impress the crowd that had formed around him, but why do people do things like that to impress others? Orwell is an English soldier living in Burma, at that time he was considered the "superior race" so why did he feel the need to impress them?He admitted to hating the 'natives' and the job that he was doing there so why did he shoot the elephant?
In Bhuddhism elephants represent mental strenght. I think its ironic that Orwell shot the elephant to impress and entertain the natives. In doing so he shows his mental weakness, he wouldent do the right thing because he couldn't bare to be laughed at by the natives. Someone with mental strenght would have done the right thing solely based on the fact that it was right.
I like to think of myself as someone who doesnt care what people think of me, but I constantly find myself seeking the approval of others. My theory on this is that people as a whole are affraid to be alone. I think we all have this strange delusion that if we dont constantly impress and gain approval that we might end up alone, So we unconciously (or conciously) impress others with the hope of finding approval from someone so we dont have to be alone.
Monday, April 1, 2013
A Small Place
In response to Jamaica Kincade's "A Small Place" I ask:
1. Why did the author tell two differnt stories?
2. Are the English really to blame for everything?
3. What was the significance to telling the story about the tourist?
I will answer all three questions:
1. In Jamaica Kincade's "A Small Place" the author tells two sotries.The first is one from the point of veiw of a tourist, the other was from her point of view (an Antiguan). The author tells the two stories to show the two sides of Antigua. The first story portraying a beutiful place to go on vacation and get away from the mundaine world that you (the tourist) lives. The second story telling how the "beautiful" place the tourist is visiting came to be, how the Enlish came and made everything theirs. Kincade really wants the reader to see the different point of view the two people have of the same place. The tourist sees a great place to go on vacation with interesting native people. The native people see the reminance of what England left and how it reminds them of how much they disliked the Enlish.
2. The English in that time were taking land by storm. Just as Kincade says the English wanted to feel better about themselves so they took land from others. But the English really were just people of the time. At this time all the wealthy nations were trying to expand, they were taking land from people they thought were less than them because they felt entitled to it, the common thought was if the natives dont know what can be done with this land then they shouldent have it. Expansion was first and foremost in the wealthy nations minds, the more land and people they had to control the more powerful they were. In the case of Antigua, the English saw the land as more wealth and more people to control, they were the "superior" people so therfore they deserved the land, so they took it and made their own. But what the author doesnt mention is that they were just people of the time, tinking the same as all the other wealthy nations, doing what other nations were doing to other unclaimed land.
3.The authors point in telling the story about the tourist is to make the ironic connection that the tourist who come Antigua and thought of it as a magical place so full of beauty are the "same" English people as in the second story, people coming in to the native land thinking and doing what they want and how they want. They do everything their way, not thinking to try things in the custommary manner of the native people, and when they see the people native to Antigua they think to themselves "its so interesting and weird how they conduct themselvs and how they live their lives" when in reality the Antiguans are saying the same about the foreigners. Its true of all cultures though, as Kincade says we are all natives of our own land and we are all tourists of someone elses whenever we leave.
1. Why did the author tell two differnt stories?
2. Are the English really to blame for everything?
3. What was the significance to telling the story about the tourist?
I will answer all three questions:
1. In Jamaica Kincade's "A Small Place" the author tells two sotries.The first is one from the point of veiw of a tourist, the other was from her point of view (an Antiguan). The author tells the two stories to show the two sides of Antigua. The first story portraying a beutiful place to go on vacation and get away from the mundaine world that you (the tourist) lives. The second story telling how the "beautiful" place the tourist is visiting came to be, how the Enlish came and made everything theirs. Kincade really wants the reader to see the different point of view the two people have of the same place. The tourist sees a great place to go on vacation with interesting native people. The native people see the reminance of what England left and how it reminds them of how much they disliked the Enlish.
2. The English in that time were taking land by storm. Just as Kincade says the English wanted to feel better about themselves so they took land from others. But the English really were just people of the time. At this time all the wealthy nations were trying to expand, they were taking land from people they thought were less than them because they felt entitled to it, the common thought was if the natives dont know what can be done with this land then they shouldent have it. Expansion was first and foremost in the wealthy nations minds, the more land and people they had to control the more powerful they were. In the case of Antigua, the English saw the land as more wealth and more people to control, they were the "superior" people so therfore they deserved the land, so they took it and made their own. But what the author doesnt mention is that they were just people of the time, tinking the same as all the other wealthy nations, doing what other nations were doing to other unclaimed land.
3.The authors point in telling the story about the tourist is to make the ironic connection that the tourist who come Antigua and thought of it as a magical place so full of beauty are the "same" English people as in the second story, people coming in to the native land thinking and doing what they want and how they want. They do everything their way, not thinking to try things in the custommary manner of the native people, and when they see the people native to Antigua they think to themselves "its so interesting and weird how they conduct themselvs and how they live their lives" when in reality the Antiguans are saying the same about the foreigners. Its true of all cultures though, as Kincade says we are all natives of our own land and we are all tourists of someone elses whenever we leave.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
commentary #2 on Monica's essay
Monica, over all I really enjoyed your essay. From the begining I clearly understood your veiw of the article and what you were going to address in your essay. Every paragraph was had a specific subject you talked about. Your use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos was very straight forward and concise. Your thesis was straight to the point and not hard to find which was a very good thing because sometimes it can be hard to find a thesis in an essay. I feel that your body paragraphs really tied back in with your thesis in a clear manner and were very easy to read. Your break down of the body paragraphs were well thought out, and I feel really got your point across. The use of quotes in your essay was good, they strengthend your point and clearly tied in to the main poin of the paragraph and even your thesis.
I feel you could use a few quotes at the begining of your essay just to help the reader really understand what you are talking about. I also think that you could use a small summary paragraph after your thesis statement just to inform or re-inform the reader of what happens in Hitchens article. Your conclusion is good but I feel that it can use a little work. When I was reading it I kind of felt as if your essay just stopped without clearly concluding your thoughts.
Your over all essay was a success and with a few adjustments I feel could be a really well thought out and great essay. :)
I feel you could use a few quotes at the begining of your essay just to help the reader really understand what you are talking about. I also think that you could use a small summary paragraph after your thesis statement just to inform or re-inform the reader of what happens in Hitchens article. Your conclusion is good but I feel that it can use a little work. When I was reading it I kind of felt as if your essay just stopped without clearly concluding your thoughts.
Your over all essay was a success and with a few adjustments I feel could be a really well thought out and great essay. :)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
rhitorical critique essay
Kayla McHale
Professor Brown
English 1B #11875
25 March 2013
Rhetorical
Critique Essay:
Believe
Me, It’s Torture
The word torture can mean a lot of things too many
different people. The definition of torture in the Webster’s New World College Dictionary is: 1.The inflicting of
severe pain to force information or confession, get revenge etc. 2. Any method
by which such pain is inflicted 3. Any sever physical or mental pain; agony;
anguish (1512). Water boarding seems to have always been a controversial issue
in the topic of torture but the definition of the word water boarding on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website is:
an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee’s mouth and
nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning. With these two definitions in
mind I think it’s safe to say that as water boarding is an interrogation
technique with the ultimate goal to gain information, that water boarding is in
fact torture.
Christopher Hitchens a writer for Vanity Fair was asked by some people from the magazine if he would
be willing to participate in being water boarded and then, afterwards, write an
article about his experience. In his article “Believe Me, It’s Torture” he
explains that in his situation everything was very controlled and that he could
at any time end the demonstration. Hitchens tells of his frightening experience
of being bound to a board at a slight downward angle (so that the water has
somewhere to run), having towels put on his face, and then having water poured
over the towels. He recites his terror and panic as the watered down towels
became heavy and that when he finally ran out of air and had to take a breath
in, that he most certainly felt that he was drowning. He even goes on to say
that “The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any question, and
I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer.”
Hitchens uses quite a few great literary devices such as Ethos
Pathos and Logos to strengthen his argument that water boarding is in fact torture
and not just an “enhanced interrogation technique.” Although he contradicts
himself slightly in his article I believe that his account of what he went
through helps him succeed in persuading the intended audience of his argument.
When reading more thoroughly through the article,
Hitchens uses a lot of great descriptive words and sentences to portray his
story. He says that “.. Preparing to be
surprised by a team of extremely hardened veterans who had confronted their
country’s enemies in highly arduous terrain all over the world. They knew about
everything from unarmed combat to enhanced interrogation” (1). The way he
describes these men really makes you believe that they know what they are doing
and that they have done it several times. This is a great use of Ethos, which
is the literary device that shows you how well the presenter convinces the
audience that he or she is qualified to present on the particular subject. This
sentence its self makes you feel that because the men that were putting him through
this demonstration knew what they were doing that Hitchens can now present
confidently on the subject.
Hitchens makes effective use of vivid imagery throughout
his whole article when he tells the audience what he went through in the
demonstration. This is his appeal to Pathos, which is the appeal to the
audience’s emotions, values, or morals. Hitchens describes an indemnification
contract that he had to sign “Water Boarding’ is a potentially dangerous
activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical,
emotional, and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and
death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.” He goes on
to state that he would be provided a safeguard during the process “however,
these measures may fail and even if they work properly they may not prevent
Hitchens from experiencing serious injury or death” (1). Pathos really is
Hitchens strong suit, his understanding and use of vivid imagery really
captures his audience and makes them feel like they are going through this
horrifying process with him.
It gets a little bit tricky when Hitchens says some
things that, when reading with an untrained eye can make his argument look
invalid. In the midst of a very descriptive paragraph making great use of
Pathos, Hitchens admits to having a great fear of drowning that comes from early
in his childhood. Some readers might say that this statement makes his argument
invalid because of course water boarding would fell like torture to him if he
already has a great fear of drowning. Would it feel as much like torture to
someone who loved the ocean and had no childhood accident that gave them that
irrational fear? Of course it would. Hitchens saves himself when he includes
the statement “Not that that makes me special: I don’t know anyone who likes the idea of drowning” (1). This
statement puts a stop to the thoughts that make his argument invalid; no one
likes the idea of drowning.
Although Hitchens use of Pathos is great in helping the
audience feel what he was experiencing and gives him some sympathy, his use of
Logos, an appeal to reason, is what really shows the audience that his
argument: water boarding is torture and that it shouldn’t be used, is extremely
valid. In the last page of his article Hitchens introduces the audience to his
main witness Mr. Malcolm Nance. Nance he has been involved with sere since
1977. Sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) is an advanced form of
training endured by those members of the Special Forces. Nance’s argument
against water boarding is this:
“1.
Waterboaring is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such
by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.
2.
If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the
future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting
American prisoners in harm’s way.
3.
It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of
extracting junk information. (Mr. Nance told me that he had heard of someone’s
being compelled to confess that he was a hermaphrodite. I later had an awful
twinge while wondering if I myself could have been “dunked” this far.) To put
if briefly, even the C.I.A sources for the Washington
Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.” Just put a pencil line
under that last phrase, or commit it to memory.
4.
It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious
“ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what
will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s
clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and
the electrodes and the rack” (3).
Nance’s reasons are
what really solidify Hitchens’ argument but what really brings it home is what
Hitchens says next. “To quote Nance: Torture advocates hide behind the argument
that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will
aid the enemy. Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were
released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through
hundreds of interviews, movies, and documentaries on exactly what methods they
were subject to and how they endured. Our own missteps have created a cadre of
highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own sere school for terrorists”
(3).
Hitchens article “Believe Me, It’s Torture” makes use of
all the great literary techniques to persuade his audience in Vanity Fair that water boarding is
torture and should not be used by the U.S. military. Through Ethos, Pathos, and
Logos Hitchens shows the audience that he his knowledgeable on this subject.
His recitation of his experience during the demonstration would surly bring
sympathy from his audience, and with the help of Malcolm Nance’s information on
the subject Hitchens clearly conveys that water boarding is not only unethical but
that it can and has educated terrorists on our interrogation techniques.
Work
Cited
Hitchens, Christopher. “Believe
Me, It’s Torture.” Vanity Fair Aug. 2008:
1-3. Print
Merriam-Webster.
“waterboarding.” Merriam-Webster.com.
Merriam-Webster inc. 2013. Web. 23 March 2013
Webster’s
New World College Dictionary. Furth edition. Ohio: Cleveland, 2010. Print
Friday, February 8, 2013
One Sided Arguments
1. Why is Lady Gaga so loved by our generation?
2. Is Paglia biased tword the older gereation of music and thinking?
3. Is Gagas extreme wardrobe and overtly sexual lyrics "corrupting" our younger generation?
In response to Camille Paglia's "Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex" I will be answering all three of the questions above.
It seems like every time I turn on the radio a Gaga song is playing on at least one of the stations if not more. She is definitley loved by many people, but why? I agree with Paglia in the sense that her songs are a bunch of catchy nonsense that you cant help but get stuck in your head, but I think she is loved for alot more. Lady Gaga is not afraid to be put in the spot light thats for sure, she says what she wants and dresses in wildly outrageous costumes, and I commend her for that. She encourages self expression.. maybe not in the best way, but she does tell her "little monsters" that they ae beautiful just the way they are and I feel that this is why she is so loved by so many. Our youth today are bombarded by the superficial standards of what is beautiful. Even back when I was growing up I always felt the pressure to have the "supermodel" physique, and the fact the Lady Gaga takes the time to tell her fans that they are perfect the way they are and that self expression is a beautiful thing, I think, is why she has such a large fan base.
Now with all that said, I have to touch on Gagas Lyrics and outrageous outfits. Normaly I wouldent have a problem with extreme or avant garde outfits, which seem to be on trend these days, but Gaga takes it to the utmost extreme. It seems like everywhere she goes she is wearing some horrendously absurd costume (I think we all remember that all meat dress she wore a few years ago). What does all of this say to the younger generations? Gaga is undoutably a role model to many young adolescences and the fact that she is bringing sex and violence into her songs and performances could be taken in some circumstances as "corruption" of their inocence.
Ok enough with Gaga, on to the author. Camille Paglia does make some good points but all of what she is saying doesnt seem to be anything but a rant about how much she dislikes Gaga. Throughout the piece she is constantly comparing Gaga to older well known artists, mainly Madona. The piece as a whole just seems a little to one sided, favoring Madona and the other older artists. I never really understood what her argument truely was, it was mostly a piece about how much she dislikes Lady Gaga and how she favors other artists. I personaly was extremely confused by the end of the article because the author never really got to poving her title.. that Gaga is in fact " the death of sex ".
2. Is Paglia biased tword the older gereation of music and thinking?
3. Is Gagas extreme wardrobe and overtly sexual lyrics "corrupting" our younger generation?
In response to Camille Paglia's "Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex" I will be answering all three of the questions above.
It seems like every time I turn on the radio a Gaga song is playing on at least one of the stations if not more. She is definitley loved by many people, but why? I agree with Paglia in the sense that her songs are a bunch of catchy nonsense that you cant help but get stuck in your head, but I think she is loved for alot more. Lady Gaga is not afraid to be put in the spot light thats for sure, she says what she wants and dresses in wildly outrageous costumes, and I commend her for that. She encourages self expression.. maybe not in the best way, but she does tell her "little monsters" that they ae beautiful just the way they are and I feel that this is why she is so loved by so many. Our youth today are bombarded by the superficial standards of what is beautiful. Even back when I was growing up I always felt the pressure to have the "supermodel" physique, and the fact the Lady Gaga takes the time to tell her fans that they are perfect the way they are and that self expression is a beautiful thing, I think, is why she has such a large fan base.
Now with all that said, I have to touch on Gagas Lyrics and outrageous outfits. Normaly I wouldent have a problem with extreme or avant garde outfits, which seem to be on trend these days, but Gaga takes it to the utmost extreme. It seems like everywhere she goes she is wearing some horrendously absurd costume (I think we all remember that all meat dress she wore a few years ago). What does all of this say to the younger generations? Gaga is undoutably a role model to many young adolescences and the fact that she is bringing sex and violence into her songs and performances could be taken in some circumstances as "corruption" of their inocence.
Ok enough with Gaga, on to the author. Camille Paglia does make some good points but all of what she is saying doesnt seem to be anything but a rant about how much she dislikes Gaga. Throughout the piece she is constantly comparing Gaga to older well known artists, mainly Madona. The piece as a whole just seems a little to one sided, favoring Madona and the other older artists. I never really understood what her argument truely was, it was mostly a piece about how much she dislikes Lady Gaga and how she favors other artists. I personaly was extremely confused by the end of the article because the author never really got to poving her title.. that Gaga is in fact " the death of sex ".
Friday, February 1, 2013
Be Well Informed
David Weinberger's A Marketplace of Echos is basically asking if these "coffee shop forums" and "echo caves" are dentramental or helpful to the way we argue.
1. Is the internet giving us more or less diversity?
2. Are these echo caves detramental?
3. Is the internet strengthaning our beliefs of "brainwashing us"?
Im going to address a little of all of these questions.
Yes i think the internet is giving us more diversity but i feel its what we do with that diversity that defines us.
This is where the "echo caves" come in. The use of these sites and forums I believe are detramental to the way we think and therfore the way we act. Upon entering these forums dedicated to only onesided topics we are immersed in a sea of people that all have the same veiws and opinions as us. This only sterenghtens our veiws making another oppinion seem way more out in left feild than it may really be. At this point the other side of the argument may seem irrelavent to others and once they enter into an argument they may not even stop to concider what the other individual has to say, thinking their oppinon is right no matter what.
That is what I mean when i say "brainwashed". Are these sites helping us to better understand our position or are they just strengthening them to the point that our side is all we can see on that subject? Arguments should be held not only to convey your side of the oppinion but also the see the opposing argument as the other person does. This doesnt mean you have to convert you opinion, but at the end of the argument you should come out enlightened in a sense with a better understanding of the other side of the argument. I think these "echo caves" are brainwashing us in a sense that we can no longer take the opposing argument into concideration, thus loosing the whole point of arguing.
In conclusion I think that the forums mentioned in A Marketplace of Echos are detramental to the way we think and argue. I have always belived in being fully informed on a topic before engaging in an argument with an individual, and these sites are making that very hard for some people.
1. Is the internet giving us more or less diversity?
2. Are these echo caves detramental?
3. Is the internet strengthaning our beliefs of "brainwashing us"?
Im going to address a little of all of these questions.
Yes i think the internet is giving us more diversity but i feel its what we do with that diversity that defines us.
This is where the "echo caves" come in. The use of these sites and forums I believe are detramental to the way we think and therfore the way we act. Upon entering these forums dedicated to only onesided topics we are immersed in a sea of people that all have the same veiws and opinions as us. This only sterenghtens our veiws making another oppinion seem way more out in left feild than it may really be. At this point the other side of the argument may seem irrelavent to others and once they enter into an argument they may not even stop to concider what the other individual has to say, thinking their oppinon is right no matter what.
That is what I mean when i say "brainwashed". Are these sites helping us to better understand our position or are they just strengthening them to the point that our side is all we can see on that subject? Arguments should be held not only to convey your side of the oppinion but also the see the opposing argument as the other person does. This doesnt mean you have to convert you opinion, but at the end of the argument you should come out enlightened in a sense with a better understanding of the other side of the argument. I think these "echo caves" are brainwashing us in a sense that we can no longer take the opposing argument into concideration, thus loosing the whole point of arguing.
In conclusion I think that the forums mentioned in A Marketplace of Echos are detramental to the way we think and argue. I have always belived in being fully informed on a topic before engaging in an argument with an individual, and these sites are making that very hard for some people.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Its your mind, You control it
In response to Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" I have these three Questions:
Is Google really making us stupid or is it in some ways making us smarter?
Is there such a thing as too much accessible information?
And last but not least.
If the brain can be rewritten by surfing the internet, can it also be rewritten by reading books?
The main argument in this article is about how our brains are being rewritten because of our constant surfing of the web and demand for more information in less data. If this information is true and our brains are being rewritten why can't we rewrite them again by immersing ourselves in books, not e-books but real, hard copy, printed on paper, books. Yes more information in less data is a very gratifying and sometimes helpful thing, but if the concern is for our minds then the answer should be simple, it's your mind you control it. People often forget that they dont have to give in to all of this technology, yes it really does make things easier, but all life doesn't have to revolve around gadgets and the technology they bring. You can choose to go to the library and find that new book you heard about or you can choose to read the overveiw and reviews on your ipad. If James Olds is right and even the adult brain can break and make new connections then we still have time to pick up those books and build new connections. Retrain your brain to appreciate long works of writing rather than short blurbs on your favorite website. The choice is ours whether we let this technology feed our demand for quick and easy information, or if we pick up that book and get lost in someone elses world.
Is Google really making us stupid or is it in some ways making us smarter?
Is there such a thing as too much accessible information?
And last but not least.
If the brain can be rewritten by surfing the internet, can it also be rewritten by reading books?
The main argument in this article is about how our brains are being rewritten because of our constant surfing of the web and demand for more information in less data. If this information is true and our brains are being rewritten why can't we rewrite them again by immersing ourselves in books, not e-books but real, hard copy, printed on paper, books. Yes more information in less data is a very gratifying and sometimes helpful thing, but if the concern is for our minds then the answer should be simple, it's your mind you control it. People often forget that they dont have to give in to all of this technology, yes it really does make things easier, but all life doesn't have to revolve around gadgets and the technology they bring. You can choose to go to the library and find that new book you heard about or you can choose to read the overveiw and reviews on your ipad. If James Olds is right and even the adult brain can break and make new connections then we still have time to pick up those books and build new connections. Retrain your brain to appreciate long works of writing rather than short blurbs on your favorite website. The choice is ours whether we let this technology feed our demand for quick and easy information, or if we pick up that book and get lost in someone elses world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)