"The Pain Scale" by Eula Biss affects me intellectually. Although it is a hard piece to classify and understand what the central message is suppose to be, this piece still grabs my attention and holds it.
The main concern Biss seems to have is the inability to quantify pain. There is no way to measure how much pain someone is feeling and have the other person who recieves the measurements to completely understand that pain. She furthermore explains the attempt that we make in quantifying pain: on the pain scale, from 0 until 10, with zero being no pain to 10 being extreme pain. The dilima with this is that pain is a subjective event that includes physical and emotional feelings, and sometimes even spiritual and/or social and/or financial feelings/reasons.
When Biss is asked what sort of pain she felt at a particular moment, she felt she had to protect her "reputation" and "act certain" that she was feeling pain that needed to be tended to; she did not want the doctor, her farther, to think that her pain was a lie. This is how many people feel about going to the doctors: you just do not know how to express your pain whereas the next person will understand it as you do.
Although pain and the inability to measure it or express howmuch of it one is feeling to another person seems to be the core theme in this piece (especially because it is titled "The Pain Scale"), religion and the number zero are reoccuring thoughts throughout. Biss compares zero to be less tangible than Christ. This maybe because when one speaks of Christ one speaks of love, and there's only one force that opposes it: hate (Satan); you can only have one or the other. With the number zero on any scale, you're essentially measuring whether you have something or not; but you have many more choices: from 0-1 there is an infinite amount of numbers between these two numbers along; so how is that one could ever reach zero at all?
Throught, Biss appeals to the readers' logic with her knowledge but she also presents many unanswered questions to leave us to figure for ourselves.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Why Bother?
Michael Pollan's article, "Why Bother", starts off by explaining the title. The question is meant for individuals hoping to become active in doing something to stop climate change. It is until Pollan is influenced by Al Gore that he writes. Gore simply ends with: we (the people) must "change our light bulbs"--this being the most and only realistic thing we can do right now. Which leads Pollan to
discuss the core question: what if one does bother?
Pollan essentially says that becoming an activist for energy conservation, to hinder climate change, one must work at it. Even if one does become an activist, the overall climate changing conditons would not be influenced upon globally; The individual could persevere on--which is a sign of virture; but Pollan goes to frase that many, such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times put it, acclaimed it as a "personal virture". How does one know if the climate will be affected by changes suggested?
Pollan does find that many individuals all across the globe are worried about Global warming, and he even finds that scientists' projections shows that the warming and the melting is occuring much faster than the models predicted. He quotes Michael Specter: "Personal choices...take laws and money." If
we do decide to change climate change rates, we will have to change our lifestyle. He says we must convince the politicians first becaue they are the ones we leave the job to through specialization; which is a blessing but also a curse: it "obscures the lines of connection--and responsibility".
Pollan adresses that cheap energy/fossil fuel is easier and efficient eneregy, but it gives us climate change. We must act now because we are running out of time; we must "act as if acting will make a difference." We must treat the Earth as if it was our home for infinity. So we must maintain sunlight
but replace fossil-fuel fertiliziers; we should utilizy the sunlight and gardening--these are by-products to living a healthy life.
discuss the core question: what if one does bother?
Pollan essentially says that becoming an activist for energy conservation, to hinder climate change, one must work at it. Even if one does become an activist, the overall climate changing conditons would not be influenced upon globally; The individual could persevere on--which is a sign of virture; but Pollan goes to frase that many, such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times put it, acclaimed it as a "personal virture". How does one know if the climate will be affected by changes suggested?
Pollan does find that many individuals all across the globe are worried about Global warming, and he even finds that scientists' projections shows that the warming and the melting is occuring much faster than the models predicted. He quotes Michael Specter: "Personal choices...take laws and money." If
we do decide to change climate change rates, we will have to change our lifestyle. He says we must convince the politicians first becaue they are the ones we leave the job to through specialization; which is a blessing but also a curse: it "obscures the lines of connection--and responsibility".
Pollan adresses that cheap energy/fossil fuel is easier and efficient eneregy, but it gives us climate change. We must act now because we are running out of time; we must "act as if acting will make a difference." We must treat the Earth as if it was our home for infinity. So we must maintain sunlight
but replace fossil-fuel fertiliziers; we should utilizy the sunlight and gardening--these are by-products to living a healthy life.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
More pondering
A person who is lazy is normally so out of choice; but that doesn't mean the person is because that's the person's personality. There must be a deeper meaning to why it is that a person chooses not to do something. Maybe that person is having a hard time trying to relate. What if we scratch that point, what if that person sees that socializing is pointless unless it contributes to the knowledge of society.
Or what if that person is a man of few words just because he doesn't see the need to explain by detail that point that stands clearly stated.
What does all of the above sentences say.
Maybe the person has issues. From where-- family memebers, friends, peers, church...?
Or what if that person is a man of few words just because he doesn't see the need to explain by detail that point that stands clearly stated.
What does all of the above sentences say.
Maybe the person has issues. From where-- family memebers, friends, peers, church...?
Tentative Research question--
Many people think that by taking a pyschology class they can better interpret a person based off of his or her first impressions of that person; but in reality, with this class experience, it may make the job a lot harder. Now, there are many more possibilites floating in the students' head to why a person may think this way or act that way.
I am really interested in taking maybe a pyschology class next summer because I'm interested in knowing why people act a certain way, or why a person feels this way about this thing while another person reacts differently. What strikes me more is the ability that each individual gets to be his own person, and not one person is exactly the same as another--no matter how similiar their ideologies or beliefs are. I find that learning the inside of another person's mind is a crucial element to understaning one's self.
It is a vey difficult task, and I use to find myself frustrated at the number of possibities that shape a person in a specific way, especially when I'm acting out a part for a theatrical performance. When analyzing a character I learned that you have to go directly from dry reading the lines--without emotion or preconcieved ideas of the charater--to understanding the character's goal and interest, and purpose for being on stage, and the obstacles to which the character acts against.
Off that point, when analyzing a person in everyday life, or that newly acclaimed friend, you start with what you think and then you ponder.
You start at this point/idea and you expand upon it from there. You go from point A: this person is interesting because he/she likes this, and I like this thing too; to point B: he/she likes this because I like that very thing, or he/she geniuely likes the thing.
I am really interested in taking maybe a pyschology class next summer because I'm interested in knowing why people act a certain way, or why a person feels this way about this thing while another person reacts differently. What strikes me more is the ability that each individual gets to be his own person, and not one person is exactly the same as another--no matter how similiar their ideologies or beliefs are. I find that learning the inside of another person's mind is a crucial element to understaning one's self.
It is a vey difficult task, and I use to find myself frustrated at the number of possibities that shape a person in a specific way, especially when I'm acting out a part for a theatrical performance. When analyzing a character I learned that you have to go directly from dry reading the lines--without emotion or preconcieved ideas of the charater--to understanding the character's goal and interest, and purpose for being on stage, and the obstacles to which the character acts against.
Off that point, when analyzing a person in everyday life, or that newly acclaimed friend, you start with what you think and then you ponder.
You start at this point/idea and you expand upon it from there. You go from point A: this person is interesting because he/she likes this, and I like this thing too; to point B: he/she likes this because I like that very thing, or he/she geniuely likes the thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
