Professor: Dr. REDICK
PHIL 326
LE, KIM-CHI
Date: January 28, 2008
SUMMARY of TITANIC FILM
Every body in the world should know Titanic boat, the biggest ship at that time, and the technologies were very strong. They were proud as the ship unsinkable, but it sunk the first time when they got the first trip from England to USA.
The ship was very famous, and then the accident occurred that was very terrible and it made people get shocked and interested to make a movie. I watched that movie more than two times. I had many thoughts in my mind.
- At that time, people were very smart.
- The technologies were very high, and because of that, it made people too proud and they became stuck up.
- The boat was very organized, separating the class of people very clearly.
- The rich people had too much power, too much favors etc…
Sometime I cried because the rich people did not treat the poor people right. I felt sorry for poor people.
I cried when I saw the ship sunk.
We need to watch “TITANIC” movie, and then we can learn and take experience about its story. Every thing can be replaced or destroyed as “The unsinkable ship TITANIC” was sunk!!! Don’t be proud too much. Don’t feel you are the best of the world. Only the good spirit can be forever.
Professor: Dr. REDICK
PHIL 326
LE, KIM-CHI
Date: January 28, 2008
SUMMARY of TITANIC FILM
Every body in the world should know Titanic boat, the biggest ship at that time, and the technologies were very strong. They were proud as the ship unsinkable, but it sunk the first time when they got the first trip from England to USA.
The ship was very famous, and then the accident occurred that was very terrible and it made people get shocked and interested to make a movie. I watched that movie more than two times. I had many thoughts in my mind.
- At that time, people were very smart.
- The technologies were very high, and because of that, it made people too proud and they became stuck up.
- The boat was very organized, separating the class of people very clearly.
- The rich people had too much power, too much favors etc…
Sometime I cried because the rich people did not treat the poor people right. I felt sorry for poor people.
I cried when I saw the ship sunk.
We need to watch “TITANIC” movie, and then we can learn and take experience about its story. Every thing can be replaced or destroyed as “The unsinkable ship TITANIC” was sunk!!! Don’t be proud too much. Don’t feel you are the best of the world. Only the good spirit can be forever.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Natural Poetry in A Secular Pilgrimage
I recently began reading Wendell Berry's A Continuous Harmony: Essays Cultural and Agricultural. The first chapter brings the reader into the idea of nature in poetry and begins by relating nature and a religious state of mind - or more accurately put, worship. I thought it was interesting when Berry talks about how in a book by John Stewart Collis (called The Triumph of the Tree), Collis speaks of how the primitive man when presented with knowledge began looking through the things at a greater Thing. He was finding God in objects - apparently his first notion. I'm not sure where this idea comes from because I always assumed Adam's first response was "OH, I'M NAKED!"
The next part seems to go into man's rejection of the connection of the Creator and creation. This is something I feel plagues our society in particular. In other religions which share a similar God (Yahweh or Allah) there seems to be no problem with in intermingling of faith within the state. But in America, there has been and I think will always be a distinction. Our very founding was based on a religious freedom. I think that this country's idea of a separation of church and state came from a religious hold on everything. When Henry VIII basically said "Goodbye Catholic Church... HA HA I'm Pope now!"
Anyway, back to the separation of Creator from creation. There's an interesting contradiction made by Berry where he states that contemporary thinking would call the nature poetry a secular pilgrimage because it has no affiliation with a holy place or institution but is fully in search of the world. However, he then states that it's still a pilgrimage because it's a religious quest. I don't know what to make of that. He says "It does not seek the world of inert materiality that is postulated both by heaven-oriented churches and by the exploitive industries; it seeks the world of creation... in which the Creator... is still immanent and at work" (Berry, 6). Guy Davenport stated in his poem Flowers and Leaves stated "... the ghost who wears our inert rock/is fanatic with metamorphosis..."
I'm going to do some more reading and then reflect more upon this reading. Check back soon.
The next part seems to go into man's rejection of the connection of the Creator and creation. This is something I feel plagues our society in particular. In other religions which share a similar God (Yahweh or Allah) there seems to be no problem with in intermingling of faith within the state. But in America, there has been and I think will always be a distinction. Our very founding was based on a religious freedom. I think that this country's idea of a separation of church and state came from a religious hold on everything. When Henry VIII basically said "Goodbye Catholic Church... HA HA I'm Pope now!"
Anyway, back to the separation of Creator from creation. There's an interesting contradiction made by Berry where he states that contemporary thinking would call the nature poetry a secular pilgrimage because it has no affiliation with a holy place or institution but is fully in search of the world. However, he then states that it's still a pilgrimage because it's a religious quest. I don't know what to make of that. He says "It does not seek the world of inert materiality that is postulated both by heaven-oriented churches and by the exploitive industries; it seeks the world of creation... in which the Creator... is still immanent and at work" (Berry, 6). Guy Davenport stated in his poem Flowers and Leaves stated "... the ghost who wears our inert rock/is fanatic with metamorphosis..."
I'm going to do some more reading and then reflect more upon this reading. Check back soon.
What is "Wilderness"
In my research for the final paper, I am continuing a discussion about the definition of "wilderness". I am focusing on the Christian movement within big cities, namely New York City. Let's see, when I say "wilderness", what image would usually come to the mind of readers/listeners. Prairie lands? Mountain ranges? Long trails cutting through those ranges? The desert? I think that's the stereotypical image of wilderness. But, I believe wilderness can be any landscape that takes one away from their norm. Roderick Nash states:
"There is no specific material object that is wilderness. The term designates a quality (as the "-ness" suggests) that produces a certain mood or feeling in an individual and, as a consequence, may be assigned by that person a specific place. Because of this subjectivity a universally accepted definition of wilderness is elusive."
Nash also delves deeper into the word by researching the origin of the word and says it's a place of wild beasts implying "the absence of man" (Redick, 1). This would counter my argument because Mash believes for a place to be wilderness, no articles of human beings can be found and the environment is [predominantly] of the non human (Nash, 7). I disagree. If anyone has ever been to New York City, that's a place of wild beasts! And while evidence of humans is found EVERYWHERE, one can still become bewildered therein.
But, upon further reading, the United States Congress even passed legislation denoting what is wilderness. The Wilderness Act of 1964 states:
"...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
"Untrammeled" means without borders - no boundaries. So, wilderness according to the United States government is a place that is in contrast to areas where man dominates.
I still assert that wilderness can be physical or mental - meaning, one can be in wilderness out in the Plains States and can be similarly bewildered within a large city.
"There is no specific material object that is wilderness. The term designates a quality (as the "-ness" suggests) that produces a certain mood or feeling in an individual and, as a consequence, may be assigned by that person a specific place. Because of this subjectivity a universally accepted definition of wilderness is elusive."
Nash also delves deeper into the word by researching the origin of the word and says it's a place of wild beasts implying "the absence of man" (Redick, 1). This would counter my argument because Mash believes for a place to be wilderness, no articles of human beings can be found and the environment is [predominantly] of the non human (Nash, 7). I disagree. If anyone has ever been to New York City, that's a place of wild beasts! And while evidence of humans is found EVERYWHERE, one can still become bewildered therein.
But, upon further reading, the United States Congress even passed legislation denoting what is wilderness. The Wilderness Act of 1964 states:
"...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
"Untrammeled" means without borders - no boundaries. So, wilderness according to the United States government is a place that is in contrast to areas where man dominates.
I still assert that wilderness can be physical or mental - meaning, one can be in wilderness out in the Plains States and can be similarly bewildered within a large city.
The Etymology of Language
A discussion was had in the first week where we looked closely at the relation of words and language to culture - and the building/origins of those words. Particular attention was paid to the following quote by Gary Snyder:
“Languages meander like great rivers, leaving ox-bow traces over forgotten beds to be seen only by the air and scholars.”
The correlation made is that like the rivers are in constant flux or change, so are words and, moreover, their meanings. Language communicates by creating images in our minds and we draw conclusion based on such. And, over time, one association we place on a word can systematically take on a new understanding. For instance, the word "crypt" was brought up in the discussion.
From my notes:
The connection between being hidden and being a final resting place is the body of the person
A lot of time, the changing of meaning has to do with the land and human connection to land. Sacred energy exchange is made when we consume food – in order for us to survive, something has to die.
One of the richest periods for new words was the early 19th Century – Neologism (can probably be attributed to the Industrial Revolution).
So, back to crypt: its original meaning was the ditch created by a plow. These ditches were long lines side by side; from the top one cannot see the bottom – which ended up being where bodies are laid which lead to “modern” crypts.
I paraphrased another quote: “Language is like an inter-fertile species spreading over time." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??? Language spreads throughout society and the many facets therein. It's the intermingling of language. I thought it was surprising when we talked about lower class individuals listening in on the conversations of upper-class folks. The lower class began using the upper-class language in their own speech.
I don't know about others but I like figuring things out. That sounds so blasé but it's true. Finding the origins of anything have always fascinated me and even more, tracking how they have come to enter our generation and society. I hope this class will continue to do so.
“Languages meander like great rivers, leaving ox-bow traces over forgotten beds to be seen only by the air and scholars.”
The correlation made is that like the rivers are in constant flux or change, so are words and, moreover, their meanings. Language communicates by creating images in our minds and we draw conclusion based on such. And, over time, one association we place on a word can systematically take on a new understanding. For instance, the word "crypt" was brought up in the discussion.
From my notes:
The connection between being hidden and being a final resting place is the body of the person
A lot of time, the changing of meaning has to do with the land and human connection to land. Sacred energy exchange is made when we consume food – in order for us to survive, something has to die.
One of the richest periods for new words was the early 19th Century – Neologism (can probably be attributed to the Industrial Revolution).
So, back to crypt: its original meaning was the ditch created by a plow. These ditches were long lines side by side; from the top one cannot see the bottom – which ended up being where bodies are laid which lead to “modern” crypts.
I paraphrased another quote: “Language is like an inter-fertile species spreading over time." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??? Language spreads throughout society and the many facets therein. It's the intermingling of language. I thought it was surprising when we talked about lower class individuals listening in on the conversations of upper-class folks. The lower class began using the upper-class language in their own speech.
I don't know about others but I like figuring things out. That sounds so blasé but it's true. Finding the origins of anything have always fascinated me and even more, tracking how they have come to enter our generation and society. I hope this class will continue to do so.
Reflecting upon Wilderness as Axis Mundi article
Having class outside was a great way to discuss one's connection to the landscape. Sitting in the grass, blocking out the sun's rays as it got cooler and cooler, I listened in to a conversation about a topic we've elaborated upon for the past few weeks - wilderness as axis mundi. First, the writing style you (Dr. Redick) use can sometimes cause me to stumble, but I feel that might be a good thing because it forces me to have to reread the section thereby, I learn more. This is true for most philosophical writing, however.
Spiritual journey is something I've always contemplated in some manner. I've grown up in a non-denominational Christian background and one of the key ideas is that we are all on a journey - spiritually. I know that my own has been like that of a roller-coaster - up and down, up and down. I presume, having listened to the struggles of my close Christian friend, that this is true for most. An allegory can be made between spiritual journeys and physically wandering the wilderness of the outdoors, and though I have never been on the Appalachian Trail (AT), I have been hiking and horseback riding through the mountains of Montana and walked through the valleys, skirted the cliffs, listened to the roar of waterfalls and geysers in Yellowstone.
I'm thinking, and this comes from someone who is not as up on the topic as others in the class, that axis mundi can be a location anywhere - somewhere a connection to God (in my case) is made. There was this moment in Montana that I was standing on a small plateau called "Lone Tree" that I can say I felt this connection. I must say, that ride up to the spot was hell on the horses - mine stumbled several times; she was an old girl. But once on the top, the view was breathtaking and one wonders if anyone else in the world knew about it. I could look out upon miles and miles and miles of prairie and smaller mountain chains - and BIG SKY. So, I sat down and took in the cool breeze and the only feeling was peace. I assume, and again, I'm an amateur, that this was axis mundi.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
