Regurgitation tests

Recently I've slowly been making my way through posts on the blog from previous TOK classes, and today, the one that struck me had to do with school tests. (Thus, I give it credit for my post.) As I look back on my school career since kindergarten, many, if not most, of the tests I have taken were "regurgitation tests", or tests where a student must do nothing more for an A than use the cut and paste method. In my eighth grade history class on a test day, I would sit at my desk with a paper before me consisting of basic questions and answers provided for me- all I had to do was choose the "correct" answer, or the answer my teacher and textbook told me was right. Then there was the matching section that required little to no thought at all; again, answer choices were given with one answer per description leaving me nothing to do but rewrite the answers I easily could have memorized ten minutes before class. Ben Franklin was smart and did a lot of stuff, George Washington was the first president of the U.S., Honest Abe freed the slaves. So what? How does that affect me? Why do I need to know about random guys who have been dead for two hundred years?
It seems as though I was rarely taught about applications and how to have a greater understanding of the information I was slapping onto the page. It wasn't important to me to know WHY, I just wanted the A. I wasn't taught to have an appreciation for what I was learning because I couldn't make connections. Then, suddenly in high school, the teachers expected me to apply, reexplain in my own words, analyze. Yes, Hester in The Scarlet Letter sinned and had an illegitimate child, good for her- now what does that symbolize?
Middle school tests were mostly multiple choice, fill in the blank, matching, write-what-we-tell-you-to-get-the-A. Even band and orchestra tests were cut-and-paste: here's a scale, play it at this speed, get loud right there, don't mess up, go. Little room was left for interpretation. If I wanted the grade, I just had to memorize, memorize, memorize until the information basically rolled of the pen on its own. Then, of course, the majority of those facts had to fall out of my brain to make room for the next set of names, dates, and events. No need to keep the info because there isn't a final exam.
My question is, what was the point? Sure, I learned some basic things about the Pilgrims, compound sentence structure, and Colombus sailing the ocean blue, but how much did the regurgitation really help me? I can't tell you how many teachers have said, "yeah, I know they taught you that in middle school, but actually that's wrong and it happened this way."
Of course, this is all in the understanding that there are obviously concepts that middle schoolers can't really grasp at their maturity level, but could it have hurt to put in some application and analysis requirements? I think we would have retained more useful information had we learned to go deeper at an earlier point in our education.

sight, touch, smell, sound, taste as Ways of Knowing

As Dr Schaefer spoke today, he mentioned in passing the usage of "tactile memory" as a means in which med students learn of human anatomy. (He spoke of learning the feel of "normal" or "healthy" organs in order to determine illnesses and abnormalities).
This brought to mind a series of questions: How do you distinguish memory of different senses? Is there even a distinction? For example, if the "tactile" memory remembers an item as soft, but the "visual" memory forces you to recall the same object as having a rough exterior, what trumps the other?
I list the five 'sense-based memories' as ways of knowing in this order: tactile, taste, visual, smell, and sound. My opinions are based on my own experiences with the senses; I'm curious to see opinions of others.
To explain my preference of the senses as WOK:
The first is tactile, just because so much information can be gathered from studying an object with one's hands. For example, taking an object in one's hands (with all other senses disregarded), one can learn the shape, a general idea of the material, one can hazard a guess from the shape at the usage of the object.
2. Taste. This appears quite strange in list of importance, but it makes sense (at least for me...) With taste, one can do similar tests as the ones possible with the hands. Putting an object in one's mouth can help determine the texture, (possibly) the size, an idea of the material (metal, for example, has a distinct taste to another material, such as wood or plastic), the durability of the object.
3. Visual. The eyes can determine color, identify shape and use of the object, possibly texture, material. The eyes are limited as to they cannot directly contact the object; unlike touch or taste, the eye is limited to only what the object "seems" to look like: if I had a pencil, for example, carved out of wood, painted like a generic Number 2 pencil, complete with lead colored paint, shiny metallic paint, and pink paint for the rubber, my eyes could be deceived into believing that it's an actual pencil. But by feeling it (or by tasting the materials) I would be able to determine that a) it does not taste like lead at its tip, the pencil lead is not separating from the wood at my touch (or in my mouth) , it must not be a real pencil, and b) the eraser is not textured correctly, this is not a pencil.
4/5. To be completely honest, I find that smell and sound are rather close in validity. The nature of both senses is so determinant upon the item being studied that I feel that there is no fair way for me to judge one more useful than the other as a WOK.

How do you disagree/agree with these orders?

Ways of Knowing the Truth (and a Lie)

In TOK today, Mr. Perkins asked the question "what ways of knowing are used when lying?" and before I forgot how to communicate, this was my answer: ultimately, the same ways of knowing that are applied to a truth or even a belief are used for a lie. So, all ways of knowing are applied.

However, lying seems to involve both intuition and reasoning more so than determining the truth. Telling a lie entails understanding all perspectives of an argument so that the lie can be effective. Intuition determines how to phrase the lie while reasoning determines the extent of the lie.

Truth, on the other hand, can be "absolute," such that mere acknowledgment of the truth (just realizing that the truth exists) is enough and understanding the entire meaning is not necessary. The truth, then, uses all ways of knowing equally.

Same Teachers

A quick question I threw out mere seconds before the bell rang:

In math, how much of an obstacle to understanding, a problem of knowing, is it to have different teachers for each level and branch of mathematics? Would it be a help to have the same teacher for several levels, especially levels in succession, as you often do when in foreign language study?

Incarnational Epistemology and Snow

In class today we used the phrase "incarnational epistemology" to describe the way of knowing that comes about when a person moves beyond rote, formulaic, cut-and-paste methods to a deeper, intuitive, more personal and fluent way of knowing.

Along the way, I thought of the poem by Howard Nemerov's poem, "Because You Asked about the Line Between Prose and Poetry."

Sparrows were feeding in a freezing drizzle
That while you watched turned to pieces of snow
Riding a gradient invisible
From silver aslant to random, white, and slow.

There came a moment that you couldn’t tell.
And then they clearly flew instead of fell.

How does that happen for you? When does your knowledge of an area or subject move from "silver aslant to random, white, and slow?" In other words, when does your knowledge become deep, true, personal, fluent? How does that happen? Assuming that it has happened for you, in what areas, academic (math, science, languages, music, etc.) or otherwise (social, spiritual, interpersonal, romantic-relational, etc.) has it happened? Were you aware of the point when it happened, or only aware now that you look back on it?

What is mathematics?

This is in response to one of the questions posed in today's TOK class.

Which is the right answer:
Mathematics is the search for answers (with numbers/ of numbers/ by numbers).

I would argue that is is "by numbers" because the numbers only have meaning because we give them meaning. Mathematics, to me, seems to be a way for mankind to make abstract concepts like speed, predicting population growth, movement, etc. into concepts we can grasp. As a result the numbers help us quantify aspects of the world. The numbers allow us to make abstract concepts tangible and then understand their meaning. It is only by using numbers that we can think at a higher level.

You wouldn't understand...

One of the question Mr. Perkins posed in class today asked if the argument "You can't argue this because you aren't_____(fill in blank with something such as a race, sex, religion, etc)" is a valid point. Bobby mentioned that he thinks this is true in the case of abortion- he does not feel that he can position himself against abortion because he is, in fact, not a woman and will never personally have an unwanted pregnancy. However, I would argue that men can have a valid opinion on abortion for a couple different reasons. For one, abortion in many cases is an ethics issue, often based on religion. Many Christian (and other religious) men see abortion as being morally wrong according to their beliefs, and opinion having nothing to do with their experience or how the woman may feel. I am not stating my own opinion on the abortion question, but I do see how a man could validly argue that abortion is wrong. Even a "non-religious" man may argue that abortion is morally/ethically wrong.
Many of you are in the same English class as I am and probably remember the discussion last week we had regarding racism/hate. To recap, we were discussing the Kincaid essay (about her experience in an English colony and her resulting negative view of England) when a girl in the class posed a situation, asking if hers was equal or related to Kincaid's. The situation was this: "My mom's friend, who is black, hates all white people because as a result of slavery, she is unable to find information on her family heritage and ancestral culture. She can trace her family history as far back as their trip in the slave trade, but beyond that she knows nothing." I argued that her hate of an entire race is not justified just because of the past, giving other examples and backup as well. My point now, however is not my argument, but the response I was repeatedly given by the teacher, even when I stayed after class for a few minutes the next day to clarify a few things. Every time, my teacher told me "Well, you don't see it to be justified, but you cannot possibly understand how it really must feel because you are white and you were not enslaved." I found a few different problems in her argument, but that one that hit me the most was that I supposedly cannot argue that hate is not justified if I have not been in the person's situation. Therefore, I found it interesting that the point was revisited in TOK.
While perfect understanding in its purest form cannot possibly be achieved as we are unable to put ourselves exactly in each others shoes and our thoughts on things are all subjective to experience, I think that it is necessary to agree on the validity of some level of understanding. Obviously, yes, I am caucasian and have never persoanlly been enslaved, beaten, or anything of that sort. Whether my argument in class was right or wrong, should its validity be based upon the that idea? Can I therefore not have a valid opinion on subjects dealing with races besides my own?
What if no one was ever allowed to express an opinion about anything they have not personally experienced in full? We would never get anywhere as a united society if we could only have negative opinions on things we've experienced. Women would only be able to discuss women's rights with women because any man's opinion on the matter would not be valid. We would always have to assume that the other party is correct if they have experienced something we have not. (I would consider that to be fallacy of authority in some cases...)

The Pilate Question

In a comment on the previous post, stephaniee wrote, "since we have come to the consensus that there is only one truth, how can it be determined? it can't be by public belief. many people used to believe we lived in a earth centered universe and they were all wrong. so how can one determine among the many views what is true and what is not?"

This is a form of the famous question asked of Jesus by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"

My hat is off to stepaniee, for she has taken this discussion exactly where it needed to go, hence my copying of her comment to start a new post. I now leave it to you to discuss which ways of knowing are most useful in coming to determing the truth. As one guiding question, does it matter in what area of knowledge that truth is pursued?

Adjectives and Nouns

What an exciting class we had today! As we talked about "justified true belief," a long-standing definition of knowledge, someone used the phrase "accepted truth." This led to a fascinating discussion. Consider two sets of phrases, each phrase being composed of a noun and an adjective.

Set A

blue circle, graphite circle, thick-lined circle, square circle, triangular circle


Set B

blue truth, pencil truth, thick-lined truth, my truth, half truth


In set A, the first three items made sense, but in set B, the first three items were non-sensical. A circle is completely capable of being described by the adjectives "blue," "graphite," and "thick-liend," but clearly those adjectives make no sense when applied to the abstract noun, "truth."

In set A, the last two items are non-sensical because, as one student observed, the definition of a circle precluded that word's being modified by either of these adjectives. By definition, one cannot have a triangular circle.

What, then, about the last two items in set B? We hear the phrases "my truth" and "half truth" all the time, but do they make any sense? Can the word "truth" ever be modified by an adjective, or is there something about its definition that precludes such modification?

Interestingly, when pressed to come up with something that was true for person X and not true for person Y, while avoiding mere opinion, the class was hard pressed to find something. An early attempt by one girl was the sentence, "I am a girl," which she said would be untrue if I, her male teacher, spoke it. I suggested that self-reflexive sentences were a category unto themselves (pun intended?) and that we would set them aside for the time being. I would encourage anyone interested in these linguistico-philosophical puzzles to check out Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas.

Another student suggested that the word "truth" in a particular area, such as truth in mathematics, truth in religion, truth in history, might or might not be capable of accepting an adjective.

So where do you come down on this? Can the word "truth" take an adjective?

"Popperian Sense"

I was reading the IB Physics binder looking up information about the Group 4 project and I found something that I hoped Mr Perkins would clarify:
On Page four of the Diploma Programme the text reads, "There is no one scientific method, in the strict Popperian sense, of gaining knowledge, of finding explanations for the behaviour of the natural world..."
I surmised that this referred to Karl Popper's "Umbrell(a)ology" article. Mr Perkins: do all IB students worldwide read the same articles? If so, how were the five articles chosen?

Thoughts on Educational Elitism

Today (9/29/09), a large percentage of the IB juniors were pulled out of their homerooms and instead lectured on the upcoming PSAT/NMSQT. Part of this lecture was that these students, who were selected based upon (I'm assuming) GPA/class rank, had a better opportunity to succeed than the rest of the students at North Central. This raised two questions for me: 1) Really? Just because we have performed well in the past does not necessarily mean that we will be able to consistently do well academically in the future, nor does it mean that we are necessarily better off than any other student at North Central. In my experience, academic success hinges more on the ability to jump through hoops than on actual intellectual prowess. Just because you can memorize something once for a test does not mean that you have learned it. I believe that this facet of the educational system tends to misrepresent students' aptitude. Success on a test should not hinge on memorizing miscellany, especially in an age where, in any real-life application, said miscellany could easily be looked up if unknown. A student who happens to be a bad test-taker could be just as intelligent as any of the Top 25, but said student's test anxiety keeps them from excelling in the educational system as it is. In my mind, this is no reason to dismiss the student as "less likely to succeed." 2) Why do we get special treatment? We have proved that we can do well on standardized tests (which I believe are not an accurate measure of anything, but that's another rant), so why do we need special attention now? Should not the effort instead be directed to helping those students who are struggling academically? Or have they already been relegated to a lower rung on the intellectual ladder? I believe this policy of giving the intellectual frontrunners another push forward while ignoring the rest is both illogical and immoral. A great Vulcan (well, half-Vulcan, technically) once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." So then, is our "equal-opportunity" system of education really "equal?" Why are the test scores of the tops of the classes any more important than any other students'?

Admittedly, I do not have a full knowledge of North Central's PSAT/NMSQT policy, but I do know that the select few are being segregated from the rest of the student body during the testing. That says enough for me.

Senior Presentation- Organ Donors

I loved the topic for today's senior TOK presentation, and want to see what everyone thinks of it. The main question is: Is it okay to pay organ donors?
The arguments were mainly based on the morality of the situation. The question then becomes, Is monetary motivation for organ donation immoral? Can we even define this as an absolute moral value? If so, does that mean it should not be done?

This was one of the questions I wrote on the back of my card:
If a man with complete kidney failure needs a donor to live, should we let him die just because the donor would be giving according to monetary motivation as opposed to compassion?

No Certain Answer

I don't believe there is any right answer to this question although there may be some wrong ones. It is based solely upon human nature and how it differs in each individual. But what I hate about human nature and just don't understand is:

Why when then majority of the world advocates unity and even the steriotypical answer to a beauty pagent question is "world peace," why must we insist upon creating hate that will only create more violence and disunity?

Provocative Language

I cannot say how wonderful the discussion was today with Group B in TOK. Incredible. Here are the questions that I wrote on the board that sprang up from your discussion. Take one or two and start new posts, delving into them more deeply. Be sure to use ways of knowing other than emotion and connect deeply with issues of language, thought, and perception.

1. Why is the language of the WBC more provocative than the language of other groups?

2. It was stated that the WBC profits from its provocative language. Comedy Central makes a profit from offensive speech as well. What is the difference?

3. How much is North Central responsible for the protest today?

4. Could the message of this play have been conveyed through a less controversial play?

5. By saying "X," am I imposing "X" on my listeners?

Best vs. Strongest

When we split up into smaller groups last week, my group was given the task of deciding which way of knowing is the best. However, Mr. Perkins' original wording confused the discussion a bit when he first said "Which is the strongest way of knowing?", and later changed his wording a bit (I believe without intending to change the concept) in saying "Why is it the best?"
First of all, this pertains to interpretation because, while in Mr. Perkins mind he may have been thinking of the same concept in both sentences, I and another in my group were unsure of whether he wanted the best WOK, or the strongest.
Our group then began discussing first of all, whether or not there is a difference between best and strongest when it comes to WOK, and if so, would the best and strongest be two different ways of knowing?
I would argue that the "best" way of knowing refers to the most reliable, whereas the "strongest" would be the one used most often without taking reliability into account. I also think that these are represented by two different ways of knowing.
Emotion is, in my opinion, the strongest way of knowing. Emotion can overpower all of the other ways. How often do we hear about people who make rash and often foolish decisions because their emotion has clouded their reason? Stronger emotions can cause us to hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. They can alter our interpretation of ideas obtained by our senses. They often overrule conscience, common sense, and instinct. When we really want something here and now, the strong emotional desire may cause a lapse in reason so that a potentially bad decision is made on the spot. (Hence "impulse buys") This is why commercials are so effective- we see something really cool with its supposed benefits and played-up appearance on the screen and we want it, without really stopping to consider outside factors. Is the company reliable? Is it worth the money? Could I really use this? How much did the commercial embellish the product to make me want it? Strong emotions can (and will) quell most, if not all other more trustworthy ways of knowing.
Because it is extremely subjective to several factors (personality, background, situation, etc), however, emotion is not the most reliable way of knowing by far. On this, there was a lot of disagreement within the group as well as among the rest of our class. The class ended up with it narrowed down to two: sensory perception and reason. Which do you think it is? Or is neither the best?

Language and the Novel 1984

The other day I was listening to the audiobook of 1984, written by George Orwell. The book tells the story of Winston Smith and his attempt to rebel against the totalitarian state in which he lives (cite). This government controls EVERYTHING, clothing, sleep, jobs, etc. Winston Smith works for the government and one day speaks with one of his colleagues, Syme. Syme is working on a new language called Newspeak, derived from English. For example; Ingsoc is a word for "English Socialism" in Newspeak. As one can see the language is a simplified form of English. The reason for this adaptation of English is so the government can have even more control over the people. The new language for example will not have words that have a connotation of dissension, so that there could be no dissension. The same goes for words such as "freedom" or "love". The government in the novel 1984 now has total control over the people because they have restricted the peoples' language. Furthermore, this falls in line with the article, Whorf (or Whore, depending on your eyesight) on Language. The restriction on the language also constricts a person's thoughts or perceptions. Just thought I would share this with you in the hope to prompt discussion.

The Power of Language

Someone in Group A, which meets on Tuesdays, made a powerful observation. We were talking about the difference between denotation and connotation, and from this began to talk about the different rules that govern how we speak. I pointed out that there are rules that seem connotative in nature, rules that govern when to say and not say certain words, for example, for reasons of offense or politeness. There are other rules that seem more denotative in nature, rules such as not splitting infinitives in English.

My question regarded why we seem unfazed by the breaking of the so-called denotative rules, those typically taught in school, and why we are aghast when someone breaks one of the so-called connotative rules. The student who responded made the brilliant insight that the denotative rules are about form, but the connotative rules are about content. By breaking them, we say more than meets the ear.

So what are your thoughts? In what ways does language equal power? How does someone with an excellent command of written and spoken language have power over other less-skilled practitioners of the same language?

What We Know of Language

One of our students posted the following as a comment to another post:

Why must perception, in its definition, state act of apprehending? Must one understand what one sees/views through senses or mind in order for it to be 'perception'?For example: a student who does not speak/read Greek leafs through a Greek text. Can't the student *perceive* that it is in a foreign language, while not *apprehending* its language?

This reminded me immediately of a piece in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus in which the character Socrates is talking with a young man named Theaetetus about language.

SOCRATES: Shall we say that we know every thing which we see and hear? for example, shall we say that not having learned, we do not hear the language of foreigners when they speak to us? or shall we say that we not only hear, but know what they are saying? Or again, if we see letters which we do not understand, shall we say that we do not see them? or shall we aver that, seeing them, we must know them?

THEAETETUS: We shall say, Socrates, that we know what we actually see and hear of them--that is to say, we see and know the figure and colour of the letters, and we hear and know the elevation or depression of the sound of them; but we do not perceive by sight and hearing, or know, that which grammarians and interpreters teach about them.

All this is to say, along with Rachel (I think), that I can know that the letters before me are whatever color. I can know that they have this and that shape, that some are straight and some are curved, etc. I may even recognize them as the letters of a particular language. Given all this, it could be said that I know what I see. I do not, however, as Theaetetus points out, know all that a teacher of the language could tell me about it.

A while back Magister P asked the question what is thought?
To me thought is what you perceive. You cannot think or form a thought if you have not perceived anything. You perceive through your senses and then come to a conclusion. And one can have a thought about what one has already perceived in the past.
This also leads in to the perception, thought, and language problem.
Assuming what I stated earlier is true then it seems that it is a circle except that perception can't go directly to language. One must have a thought in order to have a message to convey.

Language, Thought, and Perception

Today in my TOK class, Mr. Perkins divided us up into 4 small groups and discuss a topic he gave us. My group had to talk about the relationship between language, thought, and perception, and to try and define how they were related. We talked for a while, but couldn't really come up with relationship that everyone agreed to.

Here's what the majority of my group came up with (we defined "lead to" as one thing coming before the other [ex. perception can come before language], and "affect" as one thing making someone reconsider what they thought of or viewed before [ex. what someone tells you could make you perceive it differently]).
1) the relationship between language, thought, and perception can be best described by drawing them in a triangle/circle.
2) thought can lead to language and perception
3) perception can lead to language and thought
4) language can lead to thought, but not perception
5) all have an impact on/affect the others

When we joined with the other group, some people didn't agree with what we had come up with. Other ideas were that the relationship is better represented by a line (language had to turn into thought to become perception and vice versa), and that language could directly lead to perception.

Any different ideas of how the relationship between these three should be defined/explained? Or does anyone agree with the ideas we already came up with?

Sufficient Persuasion

Bjorn wrote in a comment to the last post, "I'm not completely sold on this concept at all. While examples have been raised, I don't find them at all valid. While my intuition tells me that sure, there are probably some ideas that cannot be communicated between specific languages, I think we need some more direct and accurate examples before I'm 100% persuaded."

Okay, what would it take for you, Bjorn, to be 100% persuaded on this particular issue? What would it take for someone else?

Bjorn, I think you have offered solid refutations of the arguments presented thus far. Do others find Bjorn's refutations successful in rebutting the arguments? Why or why not?

Language Barriers

As we left class today, Mr. Perkins called us to think of various ways in which ideas, descriptions, words, and concepts are lost in translation when moving from one language to another. What are things you can say in one language that cannot be conveyed or are simply not used in other languages?

A couple examples we have already had include things such as objects specific to a certain culture and "splitting infinitives". What are others you can think of? How might they affect communication?

A less important and yet prominent example that immediately comes to my mind is the English contraction. I haven't studied many languages besides Spanish, but a lot of others don't use contractions at all. To say "Sarah's dog" in Spanish, one must lengthen the sentence and say "El perro de Sarah", which directly translates to "the dog of Sarah". In English, we also use contractions to combine words such as "does not", "cannot", "will not", etc. I would imagine that the concept is probably a bit difficult to grasp for those learning English as a second language, just as it would be strange for us to have to always say "the book of Jim".

I also want to refer to a statement made about insults. Mr. Perkins argued that swearing shows a lack of thought, displaying that one is too lazy to come up with a witty, effective comeback. I absolutely agree with this statement. I don't say this to rebuke anyone who cusses, but I believe that language has so many words for a reason, and that is to allow people to communicate thoughts and ideas on a very specific level. When one desires to respond with a negative comment, is it not more specific to have a well-thought comeback than an impolite "**** you"? First of all, if the goal is to demoralize the other person, which is what swearing at them is meant to do, wouldn't it be more demoralizing if one were to show superior intellect by coming up with something intellegent to say? Secondly, "cuss words" are so overused today that they have almost completely lost any coherent meaning whatsoever. For example, (and I only quote this in context), "sh**" is now not only a dirty bathroom word. It has come to be used as an exclamation, often even used the a paradoxical phrase "Holy sh**!", which makes no sense whatsoever. Even more recently it has gained a positive connotation substituted for words such as "cool", "awesome", or "tight". Instead of saying "It's really cool!", people say, "It's the sh**!". Therefore, the connotations of swear words have strayed so far from their original diction that they imply no specific meaning at all upon common use. Though strong words, "F you" cannot bring across a more direct meaning than a witty comeback, and is therefore less effective in the long run. Cussing seems to be a product of human laziness to come up with more polite and more descriptive words.

Continuation of the "Conscience Question"

I don't recall us clearly defining "conscience" in class, though we outlined it marginally. Conscience, in today's world, is generally defined as the part of the mind (superego) that dictates and admonishes the ego. Interestingly enough, conscience was originally associated with religion (Catholicism), and it dictated precisely what was right and wrong in earlier times; however, modernization has caused society's idea of conscience to morph from the "devil and angel" idea into an "inner voice" telling a person only what is wrong.

Based on what others have said and the definition above, it appears to me that conscience, while universally relevant, is individual-specific in its interpretation shaped by one's religion, upbringing, family, and associated morals. Here is my claim: conscience is the most dominant way of knowing, the ultimate authority, per se, over any organism, and is a purely acquired characteristic.

To support this, I sought the help of the all-important Google search engine and found this article: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Peter Kreeft, a PhD of philosophy at Boston College, has two premises: 1) that conscience is an absolute authority and 2) that the only possible source for conscience is an absolutely perfect will, a divine being. Kreeft continues by establishing four possible explanations for conscience (check out the website to see them explicitly). One example is that we all possess the “herd” instinct, the altruism that applies to our need to protect offspring in the face of danger in order for our “lineage” to survive. However, he specifies that a mother would do this to protect her children, but no other type, such as a child, man, or child-less woman, would do such a thing…I find the example to be more applicable towards intuition than conscience- what do you think?

The first of his premises is more or less a given; however, I disagree with the second. Frankly, my religion is different from the mainstream one in this country- that does not make my ideas illegitimate. As Ali suggests in her post, is what I condone what you condemn? Conscience seems to be something of an intuitive, second-nature, less of an analytical or intellectual by-product.

That then leads me to think whether conscience is really a way of knowing. If conscience is affected by religion, and other extraneous factors, conscience cannot be innate. Not only does each religion differ, but each Hindu’s interpretation of the religion is different as well, for example. To address the most basic level of this, my family, from Southern India, worships a completely different set of gods and beings than another family, from Northern India. Nevertheless, our collective beliefs are known to the world as Hinduism. While some tenets and ways of our religion are universally accepted, such as the respect for other beings of the earth or the pressing of the hands together to pray, there are slight differences in the bases of each family that affect our consciences.

The same idea is applicable in America: we all share a similar belief of right or wrong because of education and other factors. But at the same time, we all have different morals established by our respective families, religions, and other acquired ideals.

So. Do you agree? Or do you dare to disagree? =D Is it really a way of knowing?

Conscience- Natural or learned?

On Thursday our class had to stop in the middle of a discussion on conscience and were left with this question- is conscience something you are born with, or does it begin to develop later in life?

I think conscience is something one is born with. However, because morals aren't learned from birth, conscience does not develop until understanding is present. Conscience begins to take a more defined shape as one matures and starts to discern right from wrong. It begins on a basic level with being taught by parents/guardians what and what not to do. (For example, the cliche "Don't take a cookie from the cookie jar without permission"). At this point, conscience is simply based on the information the child has gathered from his/her parent. As life goes on, the child becomes a teen and must begin to make his/her own decisions because they will soon move away from their moral teachers (parents) and live a more independent life. Conscience becomes stronger as the teen is forced to make his/her own choice of what morals to live by and the values become more personal. Often this choice is made based on the morals previously installed by a parent. The fact that morals vary from person to person is why one person's conscience may condone something another person's would condemn. On the other hand, widely-accepted values give consciences similarities. (For example, most people would understand murder to be against their morals)

Therefore, conscience begins at an early stage of life but develops and becomes more prominent as one ages, makes decisions, and learns from experience. It varies from person to person according to moral teaching and early background.

What do you guys think?

Atlas Shrugged and Knowledge

Just a little while ago, I was sitting and relaxing in my room. Suddenly, I looked at my "bookshelf" - the floor - which houses some of my favorite books. The first novel I noticed was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, one of the best in my opinion. It reminded me immediately of TOK and the topics we have discussed in class regarding knowledge and our ways of knowing. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand outlines the foundations of her philosophy - Objectivism - in the tome's climax: John Galt's radio broadcast to the collapsing nation. The statements in his speech are profound, and helped me better understand the concept of "knowing," and also reinforce the conviction that I do know... well, anything... and thus I resolved to post a few of them here:

"Man's mind is the basic tool of his survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its consent is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch - or build a cyclotron - without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think" (Rand 1012).

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man [Aristotle] who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification... Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn all at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too" (Rand 1016).

Know Thyself

The Delphic oracle in ancient Greece had two sayings..."Know Thyself" and "Nothing to Excess." Although the original sayings were in Greek, the first one was displayed in Latin, Temet Nosce, above the Oracle's kitchen door in the first Matrix movie. Several comments on the first post of the year started to move down this path.

How does one know oneself? Is self-knowledge the surest knowledge that we have? Can you be wrong about yourself?

What is Knowledge?

Wow! Talking about jumping in deep quickly! One of the many comments on the last post was the following:

This brings up the question: how do we, collectively, define true knowledge? Is it knowing how people feel, what people think, or why people do things? Is it a perfect understanding of another's mannerisms or history? Is it any combination of the above, or is it all of them? "True knowledge" seems an inherently vague concept- which is odd, as it seems to imply utter clarity.

How do we define knowledge? How do you define knowledge? The question originally asked about a collective definition? Can there be competing or individual definitions of knowledge, or does the question itself require there to be a common, collective, universal definition in the way that there must be a common, collective, universal definition of a triangle?

Welcome IB Class of 2011!

Welcome to the 21st Century Agora! I am excited to start exploring ideas with you, and I look forward to getting to know all of you. The question is, how should I do that? Should I use the same methods by which I have come to know that a classic Mustang is smokin' hot? Should I use the methods I employed as I came to know that the Latin verb portare means "to carry?" Do team mates come to know each other using the same methods by which a parent comes to know a child, a child comes to know a parent, or spouses come to know each other?

How, then, I am to know you?

Oh, and what methods will you use to know me?

Knowing Things Helps

Comprehension is the better part of argument. Despite the tempting simplicity of spewing quotes, reading and understanding them first helps.

“While Ayn Rand retains the traditional classification of art as well as the idea that the arts are essentially mimetic in nature she rejects the traditional view that the primary purpose of art is to afford pleasure and convey value through the creation of beauty, which she does not regard as a defining attribute. In her view, the primary purpose of art is much broader: it is the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man.” My emphasis.

Well golly gee, that sounds awful like recognizing art that doesn’t meet typical standards of beauty may still reflect “whatever is metaphysically important to man," even if it is a blue canvas - but that's a separate battle. A “selective re-creation of reality” is anything mimetic; whenever you reproduce something, you’re picking something real (we’ve got “selective” and “reality”) and reproducing it (“re-creation” – check). Let’s review: while Ayn Rand retains that art is essentially mimetic, she holds that every piece of art is a “selective re-creation of reality,” a phrase synonymous with “mimetic”. Groundbreaking philosophy; too bad Plato didn’t copyright it when he posited that a = a.

Next: “Further, Rand holds that the distinctive character of each of the major branches of art derives from--is determined by--a specific mode of human perception and cognition.” Another shocker: modes of mimetic art derive from the way we perceive the world, almost as if we reproduce things in response to the way we perceive them. Which would mean that art is mimetic. Third time’s a charm.

Now we’re in the deep waters: “As a consequence, she argues that, technological innovations notwithstanding, no truly new categories of art are possible, only recombinations and variants of the primary forms which have existed since prehistory.” Eternally existing primary forms? If only Plato could get paid royalties (or at least get associated with a popular political movement so people would read him). Remember that whole bit about mimetic art reproducing existing elements of Plato’s realm of ideals? Probably not, but I promise, we talked about it in class for about two years. Ayn Rand sure is refuting our class discussions and the foundations of Western thought.

“According to Rand, art serves a vital psychological need that is at once cognitive and emotional. Only through art, in her view, can man summon his values into full conscious focus, with the clarity and emotional immediacy of direct perception.” The dead horse has been thoroughly beaten, so I’ll just point to that discussion we had stemming from Perkins’ book of aesthetics thought experiments, specifically where a student is told by her psychologist to experience art to regain peace.

And the big finisher: “Thus she not only identifies what art is, in terms of essential characteristics, she also provides an enriched appreciation of the importance of art in human life. Moreover, in so doing, she makes clear why much of what the artworld [sic] has promoted as the art of the past hundred years is, by objective standards, a perversion of the very concept." Forgive me for not being blown away. Not ONLY has Ayn Rand told us that art is mimetic, she’s also told us that appreciating it is important. Here’s where things get fuzzy for me though: If art is not only “selective” but its means of presentation derive from “a specific mode of human perception and cognition,” how is it in the least bit objective? If appreciation is an individual task unifying emotion and cognition in an effort to establish a unity in “human existence,” how does it reach towards anything transcendentally objective, especially when art is, by your definition with my emphasis, “the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man”?
If you had actually read your quote before posting it, instead of just skimming from a line with the word “art” to a line with the word “objective,” you’d know that these claims are redundant not only compared to Plato but also to what we’ve said in class. 

UPDATE: If you want to find these exact quotes online, you can do it in three easy steps.
1) Google "ayn rand on art"
2) click on the first result
3) click on Introduction. Don't worry, it's on the top half of the page.

FROM THE EXPERT ON EVERYTHING!!!!

The words to articulate this came to me this morning while watching cartoons and I decided they merit recording.

Here's Ayn Rand on Art....she refutes most of what we've said in class. INTERESTING!!!!!
From the Introduction What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi:

"While Ayn Rand retains the traditional classification of art as well as the idea that the arts are essentially mimetic in nature she rejects the traditional view that the primary purpose of art is to afford pleasure and convey value through the creation of beauty, which she does not regard as a defining attribute. In her view, the primary purpose of art is much broader: it is the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man. For Rand, every art work whether of painting, sculpture, literature, music, or dance is a 'selective re-creation of reality' that serves to objectify, in an integrated form, significant aspects of its creator's basic 'sense of life.'

"Further, Rand holds that the distinctive character of each of the major branches of art derives from--is determined by--a specific mode of human perception and cognition. As a consequence, she argues that, technological innovations notwithstanding, no truly new categories of art are possible, only recombinations and variants of the primary forms which have existed since prehistory.

"According to Rand, art serves a vital psychological need that is at once cognitive and emotional. Only through art, in her view, can man summon his values into full conscious focus, with the clarity and emotional immediacy of direct perception. For Rand, then, art is a unique means of integrating the physical and psychological aspects of human existence. Thus she not only identifies what art is, in terms of essential characteristics, she also provides an enriched appreciation of the importance of art in human life. Moreover, in so doing, she makes clear why much of what the artworld has promoted as the art of the past hundred years is, by objective standards, a perversion of the very concept."

My Aesthetic Philosophy

The words to articulate this came to me this morning and I decided they merit recording. 

Good art makes itself more than its medium. A masterpiece is not simply paint on a canvas; it expresses a Truth so real that its relevance to the sentient world renders it incontestably present. Hamlet is great because its characters and concerns exist transcendentally and are presented by a creative entity so careful and accurate that the Truths being presented resonate in their audience as if it has encountered a flawless embodiment of the idea. It is the responsibility of the artist to express a real Truth consistently and accurately but it is the responsibility of the audience to consider all of the elements of the art as potentially accurate and question whether an innovative presentation does not more accurately reveal Truth than the tradition method to which the audience may be more accustomed.
Craft exists separately from art because it subordinates the artistic ideal (the accurate incarnation of Truth) to some other factor, often utility.
 Being innovative is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being good art; one can fail their responsibilities as part of the audience either with too closed of a mind (rejecting all innovation without respect to its potential effectiveness) or too undiscerning of a mind (admiring innovation for its novelty and not holding it to standards of efficacy). Some modern art may be bogus, but not because it's different - because it's bad.

deciding on important art

People’s opinion in judging a particular artwork is often relative. However, most of the time, people agree on the importance of a certain artworks. Especially curators, who are often educated and have the ability to judge the value of artworks. Although people may have different tastes in picking their favorite artworks; the style, composition, texture, use of color, light and lines and so on all contribute to, and to a degree, determine the quality of an artwork. Using art elements and principles, curators might not be able to determine or agree on the best piece of artwork, but they can definitely determine what's a good/important piece. Thus, these curators are using what they learned from (possibly) school as their source. They are relying on authority as a way of knowing. Also, the importance of an artwork might not mean only the quality of this artwork, it can also suggest historical significance and so on. Curators also need to use their logic to decide on important art. A great piece of art may strike anyone as important. Like everyone else, curators can often rely on their common sense and intuition as sources. But most importantly, curators need previous education and knowledge about art, including art principles, history, to judge and to serve as a way of knowing.

touch as a way of knowing

Touch is a necessary way of knowing in almost every areas of knowledge. It might not be primary, but definitely important. Since we are talking about art, I’ll use art as an example. Art is certainly an area of knowledge where I find touch to be a primary way of knowing. Besides viewing a piece of artwork, the texture of the particular artwork is also very important. Through creating texture, artists can often express their individuality. An artwork with texture is usually more alive and interesting. Van Gogh for example is known for his use of texture. While viewing an artwork, people, including myself, are often tempted to touch the work and feel it. Through touching an artwork, one can learn more about the art, including the style, the theme and so on. Texture is an important element of art, mainly visual art. In the museum, visitors are not allowed to touch the artworks in order to prevent possible damage. However, “the problem with this is that it ignores and leaves out all those many artworks that the artist intended to be touched, handled, interacted with and explored in many different ways, including multi-sensory approaches. It also ignores the exciting input that artists can have in designing and creating interactive, which can give unique perspectives on other artists’ work.” Touch is even more important while judging sculptures and potteries, since how smooth the surface of, for example, a ceramic piece, determines its quality and value. Touch is a primary way of knowing in art. It is, however, less relevant to abstract areas of knowledge such as mathematics since numbers and calculations are often abstract ideas that touch can not be applied to.

Important Art and Phenomenological Translation

First, the ways of deciding what's important art have to be varied and complex, or we'd all be capable of being curators. We ain't. Although some of these decisions must of course be guided by critical response to the art, the requirements of establishing a significant collection, and the audience, there's of course some elusive quality that requires years of study. The arrangement of pieces within an exhibit probably requires similar insight. 
Perhaps good art (perhaps not important art) all shares a quality of leaving a phenomenological impression that transcends translation. If you could fairly explain the piece without the piece, why would you need the piece in the first place? Some art can do this - either in its ambiguity (no one translation can capture the entire phenomenological experience of viewing/interacting with the piece) or in complexity (there's just no way of putting it into words - perhaps the piece is not static and no description remains adequate permanently). In any case, there's a connection between what makes art Art and what makes art untranslateable. 

Can you feel it?

As Magister P asks: what areas of knowledge do you find touch to be a primary way of knowing? And why is it a preferred way of knowing for you in that area?

Morpheus and Magister P think alike. What is real? We can touch what we "see", and the sensations tell our brain that it is real. Touch presents itself as the strongest sensory method for identifying if something is real. Therefore I believe touch to be a very strong indicator if something exists. Physical, concrete molecules pushing back against your fingers is a pretty strong resource telling you that it is real. Other senses can be obscured and altered by optical illusions and sensory confusion, but if you are holding on to what you believe is real, then who is it to tell you that it isn't?

The 100 Acres exhibit will be a fantastic experience for anyone. But what will make it THAT much better is the non-repressed urge to go over to the art pieces and touch them! Who wouldn't love to climb, slide, sit on, jump off of the sculptures and such that are to be in the park? Instead of staring into a canvas with colored oil paste blobs and being quiet and serious...we can feel the surfaces beneath us and enjoy it (and why not sit there and relax too and take in the world around you in nature with the noises that permeate the 100 Acres exhibit as well)!

REAL LIFE!

I AGREE! It's hard to put your finger on EXACTLY what makes actually experiencing something so much more valuable, spiritual, and moving. It's a little like seeing the actual Declaration of Independence in its glass case in Washington, D.C...all I could imagine was the founding fathers' hands actually grasping the pen to write their names on this document 233 years ago. The experience could not compare to seeing a fake copy of the Declaration. Seeing the "real thing" or the "real place" allows one to experience it with all his senses; he is not limited to one. Yet in the case of the Declaration, this spiritual experience can be completely in our minds (imagining the history, realizing the historical significance, etc.). Either way, the experience is a spiritual one, and even if experiencing a work of art in real life does not offer us greater knowledge (I didn't really LEARN anything new from seeing the actual Declaration of Independence) it is an enjoyable experience that can lead to inspiration--the building block of art.

I am in complete agreement with what Jill and Ben said in their prior posts, suggesting that there are many things that cannot be completely captured with a picture or a video. The old adage suggests that a picture says a thousand words, but seeing an experience first-hand sure says a lot more than that. I do not think any documentary on the Grand Canyon and adequately qualify the experience of seeing it -- this is why thousands of tourists go there every year even though they can google a picture. If pictures really did an experience justice, then there would be few reasons to get out of bed in the morning. I can find most things on YouTube, so what would be the point.

But! I think that it is unfair to totally disregard the relevance and importance of pictures and video as a way of conveying an experience. In fact, there are some things that REQUIRE pictures and video to actually convey a certain experience. I immediately think of the television show "Planet Earth" on the Animal Planet. There are scenes of the earth that range from tiny microscopic images to far-reaching clips of the entire planet. If you have not seen this video, take a minute (or three): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5eJkjMLIRM. In case you don't have the time, it is a slow motion video of a shark attack. I can say with almost complete confidence that I will never have the opportunity to see this experience first hand in my entire life. I do realize that the experience was unique for the photographers who shoot the film and could be classified as an "phenomenological experience" that cannot be fully captured. But what can be said about microscopic images that no one can actually "experience" or take in? For me, the media arts often fills this void, allowing me to see an experience that I will never be fortunate enough to see in person.

Cuz he's hot then he's cold..!

So I think one of the most obvious examples of touch being a way knowing is telling whether something is hot or cold. Though it may seem simple and unimportant it does in fact have a lot of value. Neural sensors on our skin are one of the main uses of our brain so that we can directly perceive and interpret the things outside our own body. To know the world outside our own body is one of the whole purpose of knowledge and learning; understanding more about the world around us so we can understand ourselves and our purpose within it better. Though touch serves mainly just utility purposes it has another extremely important function. The function may not be an "accepted" or clear area of knowledge but area is the area of safety for our body. One can sense if something is causing us pain whether it be tearing or burning our skin it is vital that we know when these events are occurring in order for us to survive and maintain our health. So this way of knowing might not be important in some study or research area, but it is very important in everyday life.

Sports is an Art...Right??

When I first heard the reference to the translation of a phenomenological experience I immediately connected it to sports. Though it may seem like a superficial reaction and one only fueled by my love of sports and not so much fine art, it still seems very valid and pertinent to me. I watch a lot of sports on TV: basketball, football, baseball, and especially soccer. Through my experiences from watching games on television and actually going to a game at the stadium it is clear to me why TV can never quite capture the ambiance of a sports match. For me this is especially true for soccer games. So much of soccer is about the atmosphere surrounding it, everyone tries to cheer as loud and as long as possible to try and help the home team gain motivation to play better. This is combined with the numerous displays of flags, posters, confetti, streamers, and even smoke bombs. But you don't get the same experience by watching a whole bunch of rabid fans chanting and waving flags as you do when you're actually there throwing streamers on the field while trying to cover your face and mouth from the smoke of the bombs going off all around you. So having seen the difference between these i can say that there is nothing more true than this statement by Dr. Freiman about not being able to capture beauty of art, or sport, in pictures and video. That is why i will never turn down an opportunity to see a game or go to see a famous painting or monument because the first hand experience is one of a kind and cannot be replicated by anything.

Translation of the Phenomological Response: You Have to be There

There is undoubtedly an ambiance to a place that cannot be captured with pictures. There are so many subtleties to a location that cannot be captured unless one is there—smell, temperature, and texture, among others. But in terms of the park, or an exhibit, I think the element that pictures can’t capture is simply reality. In a park, or any beautiful location, you can turn 360 degrees and see different views creating the whole picture; you really are under the sky, there is a stretch of grass to every side, and if you wanted you could walk a little ways and get new views from the park. However, if you are looking at a picture (even a film), you are limited to what that picture shows; it simply isn’t real, and if you look a few degrees left or right, you view the wall next the screen the picture is on, or something equally successful in reminding you that you are indeed viewing an image of something real and beautiful but not the thing itself.

The same could be said for a story. You are hearing a description of an event, but not the event itself. There are even more subtleties that cannot be accounted for in a story—you can’t physically see it, you can’t hear it (you may be missing out on a lot of tone, if the story involves people speaking), you can’t grasp what went really went on at all. You are forced to rely upon a very flawed description: it is a recount of what happened, it is from an individual’s perspective, it is limited by that individual’s capability of expression.

The even itself, and places themselves, simply cannot be translated; they must be witnessed.

Sound of Silence Response: Silence v Noise v Pleasant Sounds

First I think it’s interesting to focus a little bit on the idea of “noise” as a term. I don’t think of noise necessarily as the opposite of silence. Noise seems inherently negative in terms of hearing, just as sharp seems a negative touch, or bitterness a negative taste. I consequently think of something inherently positive like “pleasant sounds” to be opposite noise. “Silence,” on the other hand, is not only an absence of noise, but also an absence of pleasant sounds. Silence can be both positive—relaxing, peaceful—and negative—foreboding, uncomfortable.

Now to apply these terms to the given questions. I find there to be an absurd amount of noise in my life, everywhere. In the morning, the sounds of people getting ready for work and school; at school, kids yelling in the hallways, constant lecturing (which is not always noise, but often is), intercom announcements, constant chatter, too much else to name; in the city, sirens, more chatter, construction, traffic; at home, sounds in the kitchen, more chatter (let’s be honest, arguments), and too many televisions. I must admit to contributing at least somewhat to virtually all of the listed noise. Noise is part of nearly every second in every location.

Ideally, one would seek out an absence of noise and a presence of pleasing sounds—it makes sense to want to trade a desirable sensation for an undesirable one. However, this idea has two problems: one, it is difficult to find a location that both lacks noise and has pleasing sounds. (For example, I sit by this creek sometimes in Marrott Park because I like the sound of rushing water, but I’m always frustrated by the fact that I can still hear the traffic a few hundred yards to my right.) Two, even pleasant sounds can turn into noise. (For example, I have been listening to the same group of birds yelling for the past half hour, and while it was pleasant at first, I have half a mind now to run at them with my hockey stick.) The consequence of being unable to find an ideal location with pleasant sounds but no noise is the desire for silence.

As silence does in fact have the capacity to be peaceful, it is often better to have silence and no noise than to have pleasant sounds and noise. Silence thus becomes essential to escape the constant unpleasantness of noise. (As I type this, I now hear sirens in addition to the cawing birds and televisions and chatter, and would like nothing more than to shut it all out.) It becomes essential to have quiet places anywhere they can be available, to escape noise. At the same time, it would not be desirable to have quiet everywhere, for that would bring in the elements of discomfort and foreboding (lacking continually the noise we have grown so accustomed to), and thus make noise sometimes preferable to the silence.

I suppose what I have arrived at is that it is essential to find a balance between noise and silence, to maintain peace of mind. What I would really love, however, is a wooded stream away from people and traffic, where I could tell the birds when to and when not to chirp, and maybe hear some Red Hot Chili Peppers when I felt like it. As I don’t think this place will ever exist, I will settle for a few short periods of daily silence to contrast the constant noise.

Translation of the Phenomenological

At one point in her evening lecture, Dr. Freiman mentioned that all the best pictures and video in the world could not adequately convey to artists just what kind of environment 100 Acres is. She commented on the impossibility of translating a phenomenological experience.

Okay, first of all, I am just enough of a word freak to love an expression like "impossibility of translating a phenomenological experience."

But more to the point, why is it that pictures, even moving pictures with sound, cannot seem to convey all that there is to a place? Why do people when telling a story sometimes add, "you had to be there?"

The Sound of Silence

Chilean artist Alfredo Jaar is planning a piece for 100 Acres called Park of the Laments.

What role, if any, does silence play in your life? According to Jaar, this park is to be "a place where we can lament and purge the global atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries."

What noise is there in your life? How much noise do you contribute, both to your own life and to the world around you?

How important or unimportant do you think it is to have quiet space...in your life? in the a school? in a city?

Kinesthetic Knowing

In her evening lecture, Dr. Freiman commented that one of the ways we learn in our society is through touch and the use of our kinesthetic senses.

It struck me that we had never discussed this particular way of knowing.

So...

In what ares of knowledge do you find touch to be a primary way of knowing? Why is it a preferred way of knowing for you in that area? What are its drawbacks in this or any other area of knowing?

Deciding on Important Art

I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Freiman between her afternoon and evening lectures a question quite relavant to TOK. I asked, "How do you in your role as a curator decide what is important art? In particular, how did you determine which artists to invite into the 100 Acres project.

Before I share what her responses were...and she may share herself, since I have sent her an invitation to our blog...I want to hear from you. What ways of knowing do you think a curator would employ in making such decisions?

I'm sorry if we sounded disrespectful or rude in any way concerning the obituary! I realize that if it was my own deceased grandmother/mother, I might not have found it so funny. But at the same time, the humor we found in the article was NOT from the out of body experience itself or the fact that she was forced to use her right hand, but rather in the way it was presented. It's like a politically-incorrect joke. My dad has a ton of jewish jokes; he learned all of them from his many Jewish friends while in college in Boston. The jokes are hilarious, but my dad is the farthest thing from anti-Jewish--some of his best friends are Jews. Yet his jokes never really cross the line, and he knows what should be a joke and what's not funny. However, they'll always be people who are offended at the slightest things. A problem of perception, maybe? Regardless, I thought the obituary was funny. I believe that I am in no way disrespecting the woman and the merit of her life. I would be embarrassed if anyone thought I was disrespectful, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way!

The Invention of TOK

Take a look at this great cartoon that Alley M. brought to me today. Very TOK!