Metacognition: First Semester English

The first semester of my sophomore year has been a busier one than ever, what with my schoolwork and extra-curriculars weighing down on my ability to function and cutting into my prefered amount of sleep. It has also caused me to carve out some methods in order to be more efficient in my thinking and learning, especially in english class, which has been more of a help to my academics than I ever could have hoped for.

This way of thinking involves learning how to spread out my attention on a single task over several hours or days or weeks, whichever is the most productive. Last year, I had the issue of reverse-procrastination. I felt the need to finish everything the instant I got it and often stayed up much later than necessary in order to ensure that it got done as soon as possible. This was the biggest problem in english, where I had long essays which were meant to be a collaboration of many days of thinking.

This year, I've come to the realization that I'm not expected to do anyting of this sort, not even by the teachers who assign the work. It turns out, I do my best writing when I come back to my work a day later to bring in "fresh eyes" and a more critical mind. My method is more efficient when spread over a week or more. So I started the year with a new attitude which has developed over the course of the semester into the best possible version of itself. I maintain an element of "hyper-efficient productivity", but not so much that it inhibits me from participating in cross country, orchestra, speech team, or other activities I have passion for. In fact, I was surprised at how easily this change came to me, and therefore I was confused about why I hadn't figured this all out last year and saved myself some sleep.

I generally like the way I work; after all, it is the way I've been doing things for my entire academic career. It's tailor-made to my learning style and speed of thought. But I know there is still more that can be done to aid my work ethic, like learning to study more in one sitting, thus lengthening my attention span. I can also try to fix my propensity to zone out in class during discussions of literature, which I've found myself falling into more and more this semester. in increasing amounts, I'm learning things about myself and my personality that I would have immediately passed off in an inability to change and adapt last year. And that in itself is a clear academic achievement.

Blogging Around

This is in responde to Mary's blog post about the loss of simplicity in modern music, and references Jerry Lee Lewis's "Great Balls of Fire" as an example of the older, better aproach.

You've really nailed it on the head here, Mary. Besides the fact that I love this song, I absolutely agree with your observation about the loss of simplicity in music today. I think that's why I'm so fond of artists like Jack Johnson, who often sing plainly with just a guitar in hand. I mean, half the time I listen to music, I zone out and let the instrumentals bring me to some place in my head. I do some of my best thinking to the soundtrack of Prokofieff's concerto for cello, which is very complex, but mostly contained in a lone cello with little orchestra involvement. I mean simplicity is beautiful in music, and it's a sign of our obsession as a society with always being productive that we can't stop outselves from shoving five minutes of singing into a three minute song. If you look at classic songs from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, you'll rarely find one more than three minutes long. Nowadays, the standard has risen to about six minutes. We need a musical reality check!

This is in response to Chen's post about the rock version of Pachelbell's Canon in D, which emphasizes changes in music over time.

Haha I LOVE this video. I have ever since I saw it a few years ago, back when it was a youtube sensation. I don't know if you'll know this, but after this video came out, some record company or other decided they wanted to sign this talented kid, so they ceaselessly searched for him. I mean, as you'll notice, he doesn't show his face. I'm not sure if they ever found him, but I found it interesting. Anyway, this song is really a cool interpretation of a classic song. I'm not even sure why it's considered Christmas music. Some people use it for their wedding. But yeah, interpreting songs that have been done in one way for a really long time is just as original and difficult as writing the song yourself. It may even be harder to do...

iMedia: Levi's Commercials

I first saw the "America" Levi's commercial from the Go Forth campaign in a movie theater during the previews. I was slightly dumbstruck by the complete change in their approach to advertising. The usual Levi's jeans commercial consisted of gorgeous models wearing little to no clothing besides their signiture 501s, often integrating some sexual appeal, mythological theme, or a combination thereof. Basically, I would classify them as gratuitous. But this new one was amazing; you need only watch it to see that their sophistication and creativity level shot skyward at an impossible rate. It was artistic; historically relevant, yet refreshingly modern; frightening, yet optimistic. In short, something I'd never seen before from a company as commercial as Levi's.

I think "America" and "O Pioneers!" inform our culture of the relevance of recent history and the power of the individual versus the whole nation. I mean, where else would the public, so engrossed by their XBOXs and iPhones, hear Walt Whitman (who happens to be one of my favorite poets; I've had an excerpt of his writing on my facebook page for over a year) in a reading of some of his classic works? This ad exposes themes of rebellion and strength similar to that of the 1960s and the Vietnam war, while also keeping their message culturally relevant. Instead of implying that wearing their jeans will make you a supermodel and irresistible to the opposite sex, it emphasizes that Levi's has been there throughout history, witnessed it, and stayed strong. After all, the company has been around since 1853. I see the commercial as implying unity in the face of adversity while forcing us to see the mindnumbing change in our culture and outlook on the world since the last major crisis. Frankly, it's impossible not to see, what with their use of an image of an interracial couple, for example. The ad campaign is a striking sort of duality: eerie, haunting, intelligent, and most importantly, effective.

What struck me instantaneously upon viewing it, however, was not all of that. That came after, as I really thought through what I had just seen. My immediate reaction was how unbelievably cool the video was. The masterful artistry of the black and white scenes, the color scenes, the lighting and outdoor setting, the historical photography and the modern actors, the scratchy recording of classic American poetry, it all overwhelmed me. I left feeling confused that the commercial was even trying to sell me something, and therefore, more interested in the campaign as a whole. Something just worked through the ad; it was that ellusive je ne sais quoi. And to be honest, it left me, and many others, wanting more.


"America": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdW1CjbCNxw
"O Pioneers!": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8tqEUTlvs&feature=related

Connections: Medieval Thinkers and Religious Extremists

Life is a balance of the forces around you, forces that are black and white and every shade of gray. Most thoughts and ideas fall somewhere in the middle, but not always. In my opinion, those that are a lovely and pure gray are ideal; they're not too extreme, not too conservative. I know some people would be cringing at that assertion, shouting that I don't believe in anything enough to support it with wholehearted commitment to a cause. This leads into the somewhat surprising struggle between the extremes and the middle.

The premise of King Lear is filled with power struggles and idea clashing between the Renaissance thinkers and the Medieval thinkers. King Lear, the person with most of the power according to the state, is bent on tradition and stability, keeping with the way things have always been done. He is very medieval in his ways. His opposition comes from those that disagree, namely his older daughters, Goneril and Regan. They are clearly Renaissance thinkers, and also quite Machiavellian in nature. Despite their selfish actions, they represent the middle shade of gray in this argument. Renaissance thoughts centralize around individualism and scientific discovery. During their time, this was considered very extreme. But in our society, Renaissance thinkers are more common and popular. In my opinion, this is the best way option.

Similarly, on the news we often hear about religious extremists causing trouble and terror around the globe. Their name says it all: they're extreme. They believe in only the fundamental guidelines of their religion and leave no room for progressive thoughts and actions. The people who tend to be in the middle religiously are the people I'm surrounded by everyday in my community. The suburbs are not where one would expect to find a terrorist hiding out. We collectively represent the "middle", ranging from religiously indifferent to very observant.

The reason for the religious distinction is an inability to agree between the extremists and the middle. This is the exact same as in King Lear, where the extreme Medievalists are dead set against the middle Renaissance thinkers. The significance of this connection is the unusual nature of it. Normally, the opposite extremes hate each other, or at least argue and fight. It's not often that an extremist in something is offended by another person's neutrality. But this is illustrated in Shakespeare's world and our modern world. Both concepts are alike in the fact that they're a bit unexpected, and thus important to keep an eye out for.

Dialectics: War and Creation

In the Broadway musical Rent, one of the characters, Marc, says "the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation." Despite being housed in the middle of a somewhat cliché rebellion song, which consists of dancing on tabletops at a restaurant and singing about "sticking it to the man", this line exhibits insight beyond its surroundings.

So what is the reason for this divergence from the classical duality of "war and peace"? In theory, war is the definitive opposite of peace. One is violent and ruthless, the other is cooperative and prosperous. However, I think the reason for this lyric and everything it implies is that theory is not always the absolute authority. Something can be perfect in theory, but if it doesn't translate to actuality, then it's meaningless. In my opinion, war can be driven by the pursuit of peace, and I think it often is. Even when war is retalliation for an act against a country, for example, the base beliefs are that one party would bring peace if they were in power and perfect circumstances were set up.

This new idea of "war and creation" being opposites makes a lot of sense. Creation is never the direct goal of war; often, it's an indirect one. For example, if the Arab nations can destroy the Israeli state, then they can create their own Islamic "empire". War leads to destruction, then possibly creation. But never just creation.

So is there a possibility of a dialectical "third option", one which unites these very different concepts? I'm not sure if war can ever lead directly to creation without destroying first; it also depends on your definition of both destruction and creation. Does it have to be something you can see, feel, or touch? In the future, when our wars have become electronic like so much else in our society, will an attack on a database count as destruction? Or is everything technological just a series of electrical signals which are never destroyed, just rearranged? In the same way, would an addition to the internet really be created? How do you sense what is not within our capabilities of perception to feel?

Perhaps this unity of war and creation would be the exact equation for peace and prosperity, the ever-elusive utopia. If there was a way to wage war without destroying, just bringing about the creation of newer, better, and stronger institutions and people, then war would lose its bite, its horror. And this leads to the final question: is this possible in actuality, or is it just another theory?

Metacognition: The Kite Runner Essay

In my essay, my main focus was on a somewhat overlooked character. There are pages and pages about Hassan, Amir, Baba, and even Sohrab, but very little about Rahim Khan. Therefore, my method of thinking was to focus on the "little guy", the character who is not as important in quantity, but the most important in his qualities. The main effectiveness of this way of thinking is that it causes the reader of the essay to have a minor "A-ha!" moment when they realize that they knew all along about your claim or thought, they just didn't quite articulate it in their mind. It just hovered right below the surface.

I like the way I thought about the character in my essay, but if I could write a more involved essay and delve deeper into him, I would want to fabricate a history that explains why he acts the way he does. But that would have taken too many pages
and too much speculation and psychological analysis for the parameters of this essay.

I really like that my thinking focuses on someone deserving of focus, cheesy as that may sound. There's something self-rewarding to giving credit where credit's due; in this case, it was to the powerful support of the character Rahim Khan. He truly deserves to be admired for the actions he takes in the book, especially because I found Amir so unrelatable and frankly despicable. I mean, I'm aware of how cliche my idea can be, but I simply don't care that much. It was a point I wanted to make about a character I really liked. And that makes it worth writing about, in my opinion.

Blogging Around

Obviously, I posted this on Graicey's blog in response to her post about the book, The Most Dangerous Game, and how the human need for survival can drive people to extreme measures that some can fathom and others find impossible:

Wow, Graciey, I really agree with what you said here. I've never read the book, The Most Dangerous Game, but I've been told the premise and discussed it with a friend once. One of the reasons I'm so interested in psychology and the limits of the human existance goes back to my family history in the Holocaust. Most people know that my grandmother survived both Auschwitz and Terezinstadt concentration camps, I mean, I bring it up sometimes in class discussion when it's relevant. But I don't know if people know that I think about it more than I let on. I drive myself crazy analyzing the choices of the Nazis who killed so much of my family. And it frightens me a little, but I've realized that they obviously didn't view the people they killed as human beings. And I bet once they started killing, it got easier and easier. I've come to the unfortunate conlusion that it's ignorant to assume that all people view life in the same regard as we do in the "civilized world" of today. If one can shift their mind a tiny bit, all the normal rules simply don't apply. These people are in an entirely different league. And Graicey, sorry for being so verbose, but your entry really got me thinking! :-D

The second comment is in response to Merrick's post about nature vs. nurture in determining whether Assef is a true sociopath:

You bring up a good point here. Assef must have been influenced by his environment; after all, I know people who have a sibling who is their polar opposite, just a genuinely horrible human being. There's no genetic explanation for why one child turned out so right and one turned out so wrong. This must apply to Assef; his parents seem to be respectible people. Also, I usually forget to look for the reasons behind Hitler's extermination of Jewish people. And when I think about, I'm sure there were members of Hitler's family who turned out to be fully functioning members of society, not leaders of a Holocaust. I always just see him as a "bad apple" or someone who is just wrong in the brain. But there's really was an economic depression and times were desperate in Hitler's Germany. And we all know what desperate times call for...