Waking Cities

“The city of Life is different from any other city you will find in your empire, for its sole purpose revolves around the truth of what makes it real.” What is it that makes something real? In Calvino’s Invisible Cities, reality is approached from a particular point of view. It engages us to believe something is real by telling us about something which isn’t. We travel through a series of cities, varying from the most unimaginable to the most disconcerting, and find ourselves looking at a reality based on these imaginary places. It’s almost as if we were lead into a waking life, peering into something that is real while arriving from an imaginary reality. And this is depicted more easily by analyzing the movie Waking Life (2001), where many of the concepts that the various characters try to teach to the main character are also seen as an imaginary city, an invisible city. Invisible Cities shows us a reality through the eyes of the imaginary, giving us guidance and entertaining us at the same time, and which is clearly seen by the dialogues in the more direct Waking Life.

.
Marco Polo describes to Kublai Khan a city known as Eusapia. This is a very particular city as Marco Polo describes it. “No city is more inclined than Eusapia to enjoy life and flee care. And to make the leap from life to death less abrupt, the inhabitants have constructed an identical copy of their city, underground.” pg 109. They have made an exact replica of their city for the dead, where when people die, they are taken there and set as if they were still alive. “They say that every time they go below they find something changed in the lower Eusapia; the dead make innovations to their city; not many; but surely the fruit of sober reflection, not passing whims.” pg 110. How can it be that the dead make innovations to their city? It is obviously referring to something else that is not so literal. Also, the city of the dead? Sounds familiar to what Dante describes in his Inferno, but doesn’t necessarily have to relate to that. On the other side, if you think of something mentioned in Waking Life in the part where the couple talks, you do notice a resemblance.

.
The guy mentions to his girlfriend on how it is that when a person dies, his brain continues to have brain activity for another 12 minutes. This he then relates to how it is that when you go to sleep you might only sleep for about a minute or two, but in your mind you experience a lifetime of events. Those 12 minutes then become an entire life you could be experiencing while already being considered dead. So are you living after death? In Waking Life it’s stated that you could live an entire lifetime in those few minutes, but when you think of it, when a person dreams, he doesn’t usually dream exactly the things his life is about, but sometimes dreams crazy things that we would never expect to happen in our lives. In Eusapia the same thing happens. “To be sure, many of the living want a fate after death different from their lot in life, the necropolis is crowded with big-game hunters, mezzosopranos, bankers, violinists, duchesses, courtesans, generals- more than the city ever contained.” pg 109. So in both cases, after a person dies, they don’t actually die, but experience a whole new life that may be different from the one they already had.

.
Then in the movie of Waking Life a part comes when a scientist begins to explain how it is that we are actually part of an organized set of natural laws where we do not actually decide the things we do. He begins by comparing it to destiny and how the believe in God being the one that decides on what happens, when compared to science might make sense. If we are a system that follows all of the natural laws, and our brain is a system that sends commands to other parts of our body to issue a command, we believe we are free of doing it, but actually all of those things are done by laws such as the chemical laws and electrical laws. So no matter what we do, there is no such thing as free will. We are doomed to live in a world in which everything is predetermined. And then comes another city described by Marco Polo called the city of Perinthia. This city is as particular as any other city Marco Polo talks about, but what makes it unique is how it relates to this theory of predestination.

.
“Summoned to lay down the rules for the foundation of Perinthia, the astronomers established the place and the day according to the position of the stars; they drew the intersecting lines of the decumanus and the cardo, the first oriented to the passage of the sun and the other like the axis on which the heavens turn.” pg 144. The city is arranged in a way so that everything about it is set according to the arrangement of the heavens, as if it were a reflection of the organization imposed in space by the natural laws. So the city actually becomes something that was predestined to be like that, it becomes what it was going to become anyways. “Perinthia- they guaranteed- would reflect the harmony of the firmament; nature’s reason and the god’s benevolence would shape the inhabitants destinies.” pg 144. So maybe things are supposed to be predestined in a way, for we are but a set of natural laws, and here Calvino expresses it in a way to make us understand. He tells us how it is that a city is reflected only and precisely on the natural bodies in space, and not how the architects of the city wanted to build it. Everything that happens in the celestial body will automatically cause something to happen in the exact same way inside the city, making the city something dependable on natural laws.

.
Also, you can see how in the movie some captions actually help make the points proposed become more obvious and get more emphasis. Depending on how the images are presented, you understand and give importance to certain parts of what they are saying, so presenting them in the correct way can sometimes improve the results you get. For example, the first caption from Waking Life uses a series of elements of composition to help make the caption express what it wants to say in a more emphasized way. The guy moves position from being laid down to moving up and ending up being in a zoom to the previous caption. The characters are also set using the rule of thirds, appearing each on in the best position for this rule. Colors around them are mostly a scale of gray, starting at white and ending on black, all except for the two characters who appear with normal skin color. Also you notice the lines in the back of them which are used as guidance, as well as the fact that the woman is watching the guy as to give him even more importance. This becomes a prime element if you are to give importance to what is being said, for if it were presented in a less articulated way, your interest in wanting to know what is happening would be diminished.

.
Then there’s a second image that refers to the scientist talking about the natural laws and about the concept of predestination. During his interview some composition details become even more obvious in the previous image. In this case the caption adapts itself to what the person talking is saying. As he talks about the natural laws, his figure begins to transform to something related to what he is saying. In this case he is talking about how the human is predestined because it works in a way that goes along with the natural laws, so his face becomes a series of mechanical operations. And not only that, but the rule of odds also applies since the number of objects working in the representation are 7, giving more importance to one of them. The colors become different as well. The center one becomes a different color from the rest apart from having the features of the face of the guy talking, while the rest become another color. All these elements come together to once again provide the caption with the necessary ingredients to make it a more interesting thing to pay attention to.

.
The city of Life is just a simple addition to the numerous cities presented by Marco Polo in Invisible Cities. Each city tries to recognize an element of society by talking about it symbolically. Reality is transmitted by giving us something completely unreal, and a clear example of how it can relate to a reality is comparing it with some situations in Waking Life. But some things can contain more than one reality. In the case of the city of the dead and how we live on after death you find elements of utopia. By making a city of the dead where everything we do will be what is perfect for us, a utopia is formed. In terms of predestination, the idea of a city being made in accordance with the stars shows us how destiny is present around us. But then there’s the other part of the description of the city where when something happens in the city, the sky reflects it. So there is a trace of taking decisions and influencing our surroundings. What is real and what is not will sometimes switch side, but how are you to know which is which? Being able to understand and take the time to analyze the true meaning of something becomes essential, a tool you will use to discover what is real.

When You Run Out Of Where To Fish

Sporting Equipment: The Real Use

Nothing like a precise pass.

You better practice to send it right where you want it.

You can't paddle him down that easily...

Decided to change your sport to something a bit less demanding?

Did the ball ever slip by?

Horse Riding Clases

Another very satirical piece appears in the following chapters of Gulliver's Travels. This time it's a conversation between one of the Houyhnhnm's and Gulliver talking about Yahoo's and Houyhnhnm's. "... he desired to know, 'whether we had Houyhnhnm's among us, and what was their employment?' I told him, 'we had great numbers; that in the summer they grazed in the fields, and in winter were kept in houses with hay and oats, where Yahoo servants were employed to rub their skins smooth, comb their manes, pick their feet, serve them with food, and make their beds." pg 187. This is a very comical piece that is going on between a Houyhnhnm and Gulliver, because even though it's not exactly what horses are for, he's not saying anything that's not true to him. He says this in order for him not to get mad, which would be the result if he had said to him that humans actually rode on them.
.
It's as if we were told that cows in another place on earth ride humans over pastures, using them as transport and a machine of war. It would be something completely unthinkable for us if we were told about that, and would most likely not believe it, or scold them for something so atrocious. That would be the same reaction that the Houyhnhnm's would have if Gulliver had told him the real use for humans. And it doesn't stop there. As the Houyhnhnm hears Gulliver saying this, he responds: "I understand you well, said my master, it is now very plain, from all you have spoken, that whatever share of reason the Yahoo's pretend to, the Houyhnhnm's are your masters." pg 187. Now it becomes even funnier. You can't but laugh at the words he is saying, and even more coming from such a wise figure as the one from which it is coming from. This part can be anything but serious, but the way in which it is described shows it's supposed to be so, so the only thing that makes it funny is the sarcasm that is used by Swift. His use of techniques such as this one help him make out of the serious story it is supposed to be, into something made to make us laugh.

The Noble Steed

The scene that appears in Gulliver's Travels in part IV made me laugh at what was going on. Apparently, some horses appear with a way of being that shows the personification that Swift is using on them. They actually have some sort of intelligence that makes them act as human beings would act. "They were under great perplexity about my shoes and stockings, which they felt very often, neighing to each other, and using various gestures, not unlike those of a philosopher, when he would attempt to solve some new and difficult phenomenon." pg 175. This scene can't but be a satirical scene. Seeing this piece makes you laugh, and when you know the way in which Swift writes and how he doesn't take things seriously, you know it's meant to make you laugh. Thinking about how two horses may come out in the middle of a forest, begin to inspect you with their hooves, make gestures about what they are seeing, and understand what is going on at the moment as to act accordingly to what’s going on is simply something you would never imagine, and therefore makes you laugh. And this is a mixture of irony, absurdity, and target. How ironic is it for a horse that can actually reason, make gestures, and act as a human to inspect a man instead of the man inspecting such an unbelievable creature such as this one? And isn't it absurd anyways that in the middle of a forest a horse comes in and suddenly begins to act as a human? But then there must be a target for this.
.
As you read further ahead you learn that these creatures are actually smart creatures called Houyhnhnm's that rule these lands and control human beings that are referred to as Yahoo's. You see how it is that these creatures treat the humans, and why it is they felt so curious towards Gulliver. The humans that were there were set completely off to what we think that humans act. Maybe this was the point brought by Swift in introducing something as absurd as a human acting horse race into the story. By showing us how the humans (or Yahoo's) acted in this place and why it was so strange that these new human acted different from them, he shows us how he sees human nature. He may be trying to show us that people act in a certain way because that’s their nature, and how sometimes it's not the best we can imagine, but then might also try to show us that there are exceptions to the rules as in the case of Gulliver, where he is completely different to what anyone in that place had ever seen.

.

Whey: The watery part of milk that separates from the curds, as in the process of making cheese.

Comely: Pleasing and wholesome in appearance; attractive.

Sorrel: A sorrel-colored horse or other animal.

Nag: To annoy by constant scolding, complaining, or urging.

Macbeth Scenes CNG

I really enjoyed doing the Macbeth scenes in groups and acting them out as a class. It's fun watching how other people decided to dress up to try and show the time period in which they were set. The way in which the scenes were acted out was also an important part, since different groups used different techniques to try and show what was happening in the scene, as for example the shadows and the swords being played by an actor. We should do this more often for other plays as well because not only is it something different from what we normally do, but also by acting the scenes out with a group, we get to understand what is happening much better. Also, interacting with the other class was also something I liked, since we don’t get to be with the people in that class, so seeing how they chose to act the scene and how good they actually are at acting was a fun experience. And as I was mentioning before, some elements some groups used in their acting came out really well. The swords part was a really well done one, symbolizing Macbeth and Macduff fighting by just showing the two swords fighting by themselves. Things like this is what makes doing these activities a lot more fun to do, as well as get us to come out of the normal routine we have and do something different.

Style Showdown: Article vs Article

An article is always meant to inform the reader of something, but the way in which the writer decides to transmit this information varies a lot. A clear example is the distinctions and similarities between "Heeeere’s . . . Conan!!!" by Lynn Hirschberg, "The Cost Conundrum" by Atul Gawande, and "JA • • •" by Kevin Heldman. The three articles talk about a situation that is going on, but each of them uses techniques that are different from one another. An example is how Hirschberg uses style in his article. He comments on the history of Conan, and how it is his career works. For it he uses a very formal approach to the reader and includes a very minimum opinion part in it. Most of his data comes from things Conan has said and from factual things. This kind of style is very different from what the other two writers use. Gawande comes in to introducing his article by describing the environment followed by facts about the town he wants to talk about. He goes straight on to telling the most important information about the article, and at a point changes completely and puts himself into the story by telling his personal experience, "From the moment I arrived, I asked almost everyone I encountered about McAllen’s health costs—a businessman I met at the five-gate McAllen-Miller International Airport, the desk clerks at the Embassy Suites Hotel, a police-academy cadet at McDonald’s." Even though he himself is included in the story he is covering, most of the things he does and learns about are all about the issue of healthcare and all relate to what he began his article with.
.
He also does not use many personal thoughts without using supporting evidence to back it up, like: "The place had virtually all the technology that you’d find at Harvard and Stanford and the Mayo Clinic, and, as I walked through that hospital on a dusty road in South Texas, this struck me as a remarkable thing." And you notice how it is that in this piece he also applies irony, telling about the huge amount of technology they had while they walked through a dusty road. Finally there's Heldman, who introduces to us the story of a guy he calls JA. His way of writing is completely focused on telling us the story of what JA does. His article is based more on opinion and his point of view on the subject. He rarely gets the point of view of other people, but rather sticks to relating a story from a particular point of view to try and get us to see it specifically from the view he wants us to see it. He could have chosen to do an article about graffiti in the streets and include his case, but in this case its first about his case and then how he graffiti’s. The style in which these writers express things is very different from one to another. Some may decide to use some literary devices, styles, and registers while some decide to use others depending on the audience they want to get to.

Seizing The Minotaur Fleet

In Gulliver's Travels the author comes back after taking all of the enemy's boats with him back to the city. As he approaches, however, the king and the people of the city of Lilliput become scared because they see that the enemy boats are approaching but only the head of the giant is seen, so they believe he is dead. "The emperor and his whole court stood on the shore, expecting the issue of his great adventure. They saw the ships move forward in a large half moon, but could not discern me, who was up to my breast in water." pg 36. The immediate reaction these people had was one of complete horror. The one thing they thought was undefeatable was below water and the enemy ships were coming their way. The situation is very similar to what happened to Theseus during his trip to kill the Minotaur under Aegeus's command. He decided to leave the city with black sails, and promised his father that if he was to return victorious, he would change the sails to white ones. Theseus actually did come out victorious, but when returning from his voyage he forgot to change the sails, so when his father saw the boat coming back with the black sails, he thought his son had died and killed himself.
.
It is very similar between the two because in both cases the people who were waiting on the hero to come back with the good news get scared because they see something that is not true from the distance. The result is something completely different, but how are they to know? They think one of the things that were most important to them came out wrong. The only difference is that in Gulliver's Travels the people of Lilliput realize after a bit that the situation they thought was happening wasn't really what they thought, while in the other case the king kills himself because he doesn't get to see that what he thought was happening was really the completely opposite of what it really was. Both stories should have had a happy ending, but in one of them the situation changed completely because one of the characters interpreted a thing in the wrong way.

Gulliver's Kong

In Gulliver's Travels the author is given his freedom with a set of limits set upon him as the only condition to be free. Being given his freedom didn't necessarily mean that he was completely free. The only difference between being free and not being free before and after he was given this opportunity was that he wasn't tied up. Does it make any difference between being tied up and not being tied up if you are free in one case and not in the other? It obviously does. Sometimes, however, it's not enough to bring us happiness. He was given some benefits, as being able to walk around the metropolis and not being tied up, but still he could not leave the empire and he began to be considered a tool of war. The author felt he had gained some trust with the empire, including the king, but now you begin to see why it is that they offered their friendship: to get him to help them in a war. This case scenario is extremely similar to that of the movie King Kong, which is the reason why I decided to choose this caption from the movie: A giant in a city of small people. That was how King Kong felt in his arrival to the human city. Both the author and King Kong might have felt a kind of curiosity about what was happening with all these small scale things, and even more after being left free. Both of them are set free, but are they really free?
.
Being awarded freedom in a place where there really is no freedom, isn't much of freedom, or is it? Apart from that, they both have given their trust to someone, as did the author in Gulliver's Travels to the king and King Kong to Dwan, the woman he becomes obsessed with. By giving their trust to them, they await something in exchange, but it is that trust which causes the author to have to accept taking part in the war and King Kong to accept travelling out of his home. Another important thing of the caption from the King Kong movie is the feeling it makes the audience have. When you see this caption you see King Kong with a lonesome, resigned look while holding the one he trusted in and at the same time you see him being located in the middle of a strange city to him. The feeling of loneliness in the picture expresses what it is like to feel alone in a big strange place. The author in Gulliver's Travel is trapped in a place that is unknown to him, a place too "big" and different from what he is accustomed to. Choices he makes are all affected at what he can and can’t do, and how his new environment takes part in it as well.

Night at the Museum: Illustrative

In Gulliver's Travels you come across the fact that the main character ends up being the prisoner of a big tribe of miniature people. He awakens all tied up by his hands, feet, and hair in an island after being shipwrecked. All the small people that inhabit the island are amazed at the giant, and if they sense any danger coming from him, they will attack. "When in an instant I felt above a hundred arrows discharged on my left hand, which, pricked me like so many needles." pg 12. This is why I chose to represent this scene with a screen shot of The Night at the Museum starring Ben Stiller, where he is captured by a tribe of miniature people and tied up as a hostage. He is run over by a toy train and is attacked by mini Mayans with arrows as well.
.
In this screen shot you can see the face Ben Stiller has, one that shows how confused he is at what is happening. He also seems to be calm, just as the main character in Gulliver's Travels is when he is captured. You can see the train that just hit him next to him and one of the small cowboys that captures him, starring Owen Wilson. And there are also some characteristics of composition in the screen shot. You can see how the train’s tracks take you directly to look at Ben Stiller’s face, as well as how the lines the mountains make a focus on him as well. The image depicts the feeling both Ben Stiller and the main character in Gulliver's Travels have when being captured by the small race of people.

Red Balloon

The Red Balloon picture is one which keeps in mind perfect geometric figures. All around you find rectangles, rounded figures, and other straight lines. All of these are present at the lower edges of the painting, almost forming a sort of triangle facing down. Then there is the red balloon in the center of the painting. When you make that sort of triangle it becomes a sort of arrow, but since in this case there is no point where the 2 lines meet to make a point in the triangle, the focus automatically moves up to what is in the middle of it, which is the red balloon. Also at the top edges the line in one side is guided directly towards the balloon and at the other side is a rounded figure that ends in a sort of step going under the balloon, which sort of delineates the importance of what’s above it. Whenever there is a figure formed, whether it's a triangle or a rectangle, it is colored in a brighter color from the rest of the painting to make it stand out. And there is a small detail about the balloon that makes it even more special, which is that around the balloon there is a sort of glow that different from the rest of the space around it, without there even being a geometric delineation to consider it another figure.

.

And since the background is blue and the glow that the reddish balloon gives off is yellow, it becomes extremely similar to the sun, as if the balloon was what was brightening the place. The line coming down from the balloon is the same line that is continued a bit lower with the triangle and rectangle that are there present, which gives it a parallel effect since that line is almost parallel with another one towards the left of the painting. By using a series of geometric figures, the painter in this case is capable of giving and showing the importance and highlights the picture contains.

The Last Supper

The first thing you get to notice as you look at the painting of the alternative Last Supper from the one we are all accustomed to, is the apparent disorganization in which the scene is presented. Da Vinci's Last Supper shows all the disciples seated in an organized way, but here they are presented in various ways. All of them seem to be talking to each other about who is going to betray Jesus, but the position their bodies have are actually intended to be lines that guide you towards Jesus and give emphasis on him. The table also is a line that goes perpendicular to Jesus, so that sort of perfect geometric arrangement takes you to emphasize on Jesus once again. You also see that the colors on the back are brighter around the edges, but as you start to come back towards the center, it becomes darker. What this does is that it makes Jesus appear to be brighter than the others because he is a light in the dark. Also, the other people apart from Jesus wear colorful outfits going from green, to blue, to yellow, while Jesus wears white, making him different as well. You also notice something particular, which is that only Jesus and one other person are looking straight out of the picture. Making this something which stands out could take us to give greater importance to this other person, and if we are talking about importance in the scene of the last supper, that person would be Judas.
.
Then there are other elements about the picture you notice that have a lot of significance. You see a sort of women lying right in front of Jesus. This woman is without a doubt Mary Magdalene, who many people consider to be Jesus' lover. By introducing her into the piece, you now begin thinking on how she symbolizes an unclear truth about Christianism. Also there is a sheep head on one of the plates. This is clearly a representation of how Jesus was supposed to be the Lamb of God, and how he was going to be sacrificed for the good of mankind. There is also bread and wine on the table, which is what Jesus says will signify the body and blood of him and how it will always be sacrificed for the human kind. Elements present all around the piece of art are intentionally put there for us to truly view and give importance to aspects of the picture the painter wants us to notice.

Style

"Ah, what people are! He is almost not with us, and his life is nearly gone, but T.R once yelled at him, so he loves him." pg 98. The way in which Seize the Day by Saul Bellow is written shows a lot about what the author wants us to feel. The style it imposes gives us a sense of understanding the characters more personally. The way in which Willhelm, being the main character, expresses his emotions and thoughts, gets us to understand and get into the story at a greater scale. Bellow's way of making it a personal interaction between the characters and the readers in terms of the way in which they express themselves and how you see their thinking patterns, gets us to feel more comfortable and at the same time more integrated to what the character is going through. This is because once you start to identify yourself with the character by how it communicates to you, the reader, you feel a connection and therefore understand the characters point of view much better.

.

If Bellow had used a more formal and more to the point sort of style with his characters, the result would be a much different. When it is written in a style such as that one, you usually get the feeling that style usually imposes, being it more serious and more attentive to facts. In other words you could say it is a sort of connotation-denotation difference, since one of them gives you the feeling to follow it along in a fresh way while the other makes you feel you need to pay close attention to details and what the precise meaning of it might be. He also writes making a lot of emphasis on some points by making them sound as full of emotion, or even sarcasm, as he possibly can. He writes energetically, and the way in which the character's conversations go along create an easy flow, one without that many difficult words or sentences. His style is therefore sensed as a very fresh, but energetic one.

The Truth To Confusion

"There truth for everybody may be found, and confusion only- only temporary, thought Willhelm." pg 80. One way or another, we all have the same problems and joys. We all know what pain is, what fear, hope, love, and other such feelings are. We have all lived through them at a moment or another. Then why is it so hard for us to sometimes see and understand what the other people are feeling? Aren't we supposed to know what effect a certain emotion has on us? Unless we are someone that has never experienced something like pain or hope, we are bound to knowing what effect these emotions have on ourselves. If you see someone going through a situation you know about because of your personal experiences, you automatically begin thinking about what you felt and how that person must be feeling it. All of our experiences tie in with them, but many times we don't react, but rather think it alone and recreate it for ourselves. How hard is it for us to actually try and help the person out as we know we would love others to do if it were us that stood in their place? The situation is the same, we know that. We know what happens, what we could do, and what the possible outcomes are. But then comes a second problem, which Willhelm talks about. We know the situation other people are in, but the way in which we communicate with them is having trouble.
.
Both people involved in a conversation know to what they want to get to, but the communication process is difficult to get through. We often have to go through long processes while explaining to someone the circumstances that lead to something ending up being another thing. And it goes beyond feelings. We all share characteristics such as having a mother and a father, the way we are physically, with the characteristics every human being has, and stuff such as how we are taught and the activities we carry along. We know we share this with other people, but stuff as simple as that sometimes get confused in our conversations, so we end up spreading them even more by putting stuff that's supposed to be that way anyways. We therefore all know the truth of something, only that we keep adding stuff in our way of transferring information that doesn't need to be said, creating confusion. Once we get everything together, we understand each other because we know what it feels like to be in their position. We know a situation and perform according to it because we are involved with it in a way. We share various characteristics, and so our logical way to act would be in an understanding, prudent environment

Truth

"Was he a liar? That was a delicate question. Even a liar might be trustworthy in some ways." pg 54. Is it sometimes better to tell a lie than tell what actually happened? Many times we face two options when we have to face another person about something we did. We can either tell the truth or a lie about what happened, but then comes the dilemma of what's the best thing you should do. Is it always better to tell the truth? Ethical values play an important role in this choice making. So how can we judge others about the choices they make if it's all based on what they believe to be good and bad? And then there's the positive and negative effects of telling the truth or a lie. When we make the choice of electing one of them, we know there will be consequences, but how do these consequences vary? We are taught to tell the truth always, and never lie to a person. But sometimes a lie can bring more positive things than telling the truth. Hiding some things from some people can actually keep them in better shape than if they were told the truth about something. In other words, lying can sometimes prove to be more ethical than telling the truth. An example of this would be a normal case scenario anywhere. When you meet a person you have never seen before, you automatically begin to analyze him of all the good and bad things he has. When we talk to them, though, we don't greet them by telling them: "Hi, your pants suck, your head is too big, and you walk like a 3 legged giraffe." And wouldn't that be telling the truth?

.

That's why it becomes obvious we are telling lies all day long in order to maintain order, and to have a more positive effect on the person than if we told them the truth about everything. But then there's also the other case where you have to take responsibility for your actions. In this case there's no doubt of what sticks to the ethical values. Telling the truth will always be the best, even if we know it might not be the best for ourselves. Finally, there's the hardest of all choice making regarding whether to tell the truth or a lie. If there was an old woman to whom her sister who lives far away, and with which she doesn't talk regularly, had just passed away and you had to either tell her or not, what would you do? You know that at her age she is very sensitive to anything that happens, and might not be able to take it, but then you also think about her right to know. This is one of the hardest cases you can find, but it does happen. How would you choose? In cases like this one it all depends on what you consider the best choice. Neither of the two choices could be considered better than the other, since they both have a positive and negative side to it. Deciding which one to tell her would depend on your values, on what you believe to be the best.

A Fish For The Future

"I can't give you money. There would be no end to it if I started. You and your sister would take every last buck from me." pg 51. This is pretty similar to the popular saying where its better to give a poor person a rod and teach him how to fish for himself than giving him a fish. If people get accustomed to getting stuff the easy way, they will become nonstop beggars. They will have to depend on others in order to survive, and what they will give back is nothing more than being consumers. Our world can't afford to have people who are consumers but give nothing back to society. It is as if a few had to work for the good of the many, without the many giving something back to help those few. It is almost related to the selfish gene theory proposed by Dawkins, where those that try and get something out of others without them having to give anything back, is the same as how there are organisms that decide to not help other organisms back because they know they will be looked after anyways. The problem with this is that then a person will appear that will decide not to help them out if they don't work, which also applies in this case with those that work and those that don't. But then there are also people who can't work by themselves, including people with disabilities and those that don't have the tools to do so. In the first case it is really hard to actually demand that that person work to get what he wants instead of giving him what he needs, since the problem originates in that the person is physically unable to do what we want him to do. In the second case, though, there is a way in which we can follow the idea of not giving him exactly what he needs, but help him get it himself.

.

It's called education. Those that are poor sometimes lack the tools to do things we want them to do instead of begging in the streets. If we give them education as a tool, rather than giving them money as a usable resource, we will be enabling them for the future. But then comes the problem you see in the book. Willhelm was well educated, and still there is the problem of him not having enough money, so he has to rely on his father. When a person is given the opportunity to do something, and is given the tools for it, there is no reason why he should not do it. Those that don't appreciate the opportunities they are given, should not be helped after in terms of giving them the things they need. Only those that are willing to change and think about their future should be given another chance, a chance to advance and take care of themselves.

The American Invention

"It doesn't mean a thing. Inventors are supposed to be like that. I get funny ideas myself. Everybody wants to make something. Any American does." pg 37. We are always urged with the need to want to make something, whether it's a physical creation or an achievement. I take myself as an example, being somebody who loves creating stuff. Whenever I want to make something up for a project or such, I usually think of something that's either very recognizable, which people connect easily, or something completely new. Making ordinary things keep you ordinary. That is why people choose to either make something new or something people can connect easily without it being completely predictable. We tend to think that one of the best things we can make in our lives is to create something. By creating something we are immortalized somehow, which is what the human being has always wanted to do, become immortal. We are also helping others out in something that wasn't as easy to do before the invention, as well as wanting to be recognized in life by the creation of it. It sort of gives us security that we actually got to do something worth the while during our life time.

.

And in accordance with Willhelm, it's true that inventors many times think of simple ideas that maybe one day could become extremely useful. A clear example is Benjamin Franklin, who thought of ideas as simple as tying a key to a kite to experiment with lighting and electricity, and which turned out resulting in having almost everything around us being run by electricity. He also invented many other things including the idea of firefighters, which at that time might have seemed more of a silly job since fires weren't that common, and paying for the expenses of it would be nonsense. And many ideas turn out to be like that, first being an idea that is either not affordable or simply is considered something nonsense, to becoming a widely used invention.

For Sale: My Son

"For many weeks there had been no executive, no sales, no income. But how we love looking fine in the eyes of the world- how beautiful are the old when they are doing a snow job! It's Dad, thought Willhelm, who is the salesman. He's selling me." pg 11. In Saul Bellow's Seize the Day, Willhelm's dad tries to make out of Willhelm, the main character, something he's not. Willhelm notice's it and therefore says that the true meaning of his father concealing the truth is intended to make his father look good. Could Willhelm's father be the cause of his actual situation? A father making up things about his son while in front of him could have a serious effect on the sons perspective of the father, and of himself. Thinking about it myself alongside my own personal experiences, my father has never invented lies about me to show off, but if he would ever do it, I think it would discourage me from what I want to do with my life. And I bet it wouldn't be true only in my case. When your father has to make something up about you, it's because that's what he considers to be what would be the best case scenario possible. By him making it up, it's also proving you aren't filling the expectations your father had for you in the first place. So the direct effect is a case of unworthiness in the son. His mind begins to change and take decisions based on what he thinks he deserves and should therefore do.

.

It's not the same if a father is constantly telling you how proud he is of you and at the same time helps you to improve in your weaknesses than one that has to rely on making things up so that people can see him and yourself with 'good' eyes. Maybe this was the case with Willhelm's father, where he had to rely on making stuff up to make him look good. Could it have been that because of his father, Willhelm might have ended up where he is, without a job, insecure, and in a difficult family life without his wife and kids? The most probable answer is yes. If his father would accept him with his likes or dislikes, or maybe even give him support to overcome problems and be proud of all he has achieved, maybe Willhelm's situation would be different. We need to consider when we can help others overcome difficulties, and what the best way to help them gain self confidence is. If we are able to make a person feel he is able to do anything and achieve any goal, there is no doubt he certainly will.

How Much Will The Insurance Cost?

"From that time on, Felicite thought solely of her nephew. On warm days she feared he would suffer from thirst, and when it stormed, she was afraid he would be struck by lightning." What Felicite is feeling is not something new to our every day lives. We tend to think on "what if's" all the time, and many times we create things which don't really exist. We might miss a person that has gone off in a trip, or maybe we don't want something to happen in a certain way. We do something, or someone else does something, and then we begin to think on what the outcomes of that might be. Will he be coming back? What if he doesn't make it? What if something happens to him and nobody knows about it? All of these questions are common in our way of thinking of things. We imagine all the possible ways in which a situation could end up. Are we trying to be prepared for what is to come? The reality is that there is no way of being a 100% sure that something will turn out in a certain way. We could spend ages trying to prepare for a moment, but there would be no way to be sure that it will happen. There are so many ways in which a situation could end up turning out, that trying to prepare for some things is rather useless.

.

Even though it is true we must prepare for our future, take cautions for what we know will have a big influence in the future, and perform actions that will affect us positively, we must also learn to let some things be. If we were to always be thinking of things we might think will happen or things we don't want to happen, our world would be submerged in an imaginary, chaotic world where we would forget about our present. Letting things be is sometimes the best thing we can do. We don't have control over many of them, so whether we spend our time or not thinking about it, it wont be any different to what is going to happen. When we can influence something, however, then that is the moment we should act and do all we can to change a situation, but when there really is nothing we can do to change something, the best thing we can do is to continue life as it goes, and let that moment come, whatever the outcome may be.

Happily Ignorant

"Felicite developed a great fondness for them; she bought them astove, some shirts and a blanket; it was evident that they exploited her." In A Simple Soul by Gustave Flaubert, Felicite was a person of virtue, a person who was devoted to serving people around her. But what happens when people know we are willing to give something simply for charity? This resembles one of the arguments mentioned in Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. People will begin to take advantage of her being so nice, while they themselves don't have to give anything back. While Felicite gives, the children take advantage and benefit themselves. And what is it that causes Felicite to not react and see the truth? In this case it is not so related to genes specifically, but on what her formation is. If she doesn't know that she is being taken advantage of, she wont care for the difference. Ignorance is different from genetical formation. But does that mean that we are born good, or that simply we don't see we are doing good by our own formation? Could it be that we are good because we are programmed to be so?

.

The most reasonable answer would be that we are not born ignorant, but rather are affected by our surroundings on the choices we make. So does ignorance make us happy? In this case Felicite is ignorant, but at the same time she is happy. People are taking advantage of her, and she still is happy. So what is the pursuit of happiness? As Chris Gardner clearly states it in the movie The Pursuit of Happiness: "There's no 'Y' in Happiness, it's and 'I' ." Going further ahead from the literal meaning of that sentence, you identify the true meaning of the expression. You shouldn't ask yourself what is it that is making you happy. You should keep away from thinking material things are what actually creates our happiness, but rather think about yourself, and how it is possible that you yourself find happiness in what you do. This was the case of Felicite, who didn't have to look for a reason to be happy, but simply was. So it ties up closer to our formation, to how we decide to live no matter what others do around you, and learn to get the best out of every occasion.

I'm Seeing Imaginary

"Well? he said. Are you looking?

My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel I was inside anything." pg 228. The case presented here is of strange occurrence, and where the choices the characters make show a meaning to their actions. We have two characters: the narrator, who is only referred to as "bud", and Robert, who is blind. As they draw the picture of a cathedral, Robert asks "bud" to close his eyes while drawing it and then open them again when they are finished. Here is where these lines take part in the story, and whose occurrence show a lot about what is happening. Why wouldn't "bud" open his eyes? The only difference between him and Robert was that he had the ability to look at whatever the two had created. He decided not to. When he closed his eyes he says he knew about everything that was there around him. There was a reality he knew was present with all the things he knew surrounded him, a reality that wouldn't change no matter what. While knowing all this he thinks about how the emptiness of feeling nothing there begins to appear. Isn't it blindness when you know somethings there, but you have no way of assuring yourself of being certain it really is?

.

Robert had actually told "bud" to open his eyes, to see and assure himself in what was in front of him, but the point was really to make him understand that depending on how we can describe something, we are able to see it one way or another. Robert could not see it in the same way as he did, but once they were finished there was a way for both of them to actually recognize it. But was "bud" trying to see something else apart from what Robert wanted him to see? He finishes off by saying: "It's really something. I said." pg 228. From Roberts point of view you would think "bud" is referring to how beautiful the piece came out after he saw it, but it really isn't like that. He is looking at nothing really, but is rather imagining while his eyes are closed. He is imagining a world he hadn't paid much attention to before, a world that showed him a new point of view. What he saw was not the picture. What he saw was what he thought the picture would look like. By actually not looking at it directly, he is opening his mind to what the picture could be. He knows it is there. He knows he drew it and how it must sort of look like. Now he uses his imagination, he constructs it in his head and sees how it is we can all see something, one way or another.

J.P Begins

In Where I'm Calling From inside of Raymond Carvers Cathedral you find a situation in which J.P is involved that is very similar to the movie Batman Begins. "He'd suffered all kinds of terror in that well, hollering for help, waiting, and then hollering some more." pg 130. J.P falls into this well, and suffers a trauma he believes has shaped him, with things such as the sounds that came around him and the feeling of bugs at his sides. It is not until his father gets there with a rope to help him that he can actually feel a little more secure. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne falls inside a well at an early age. There he suffers a terrible trauma as well with a colony of bats flying around him. He too is saved by his dad with a rope. But what could be the meaning of this in J.P's life? We know the case of Bruce Wayne, where it is only after he has confronted his greatest fear with his experience in the well with the bats that he can actually get to help others. And how else could you help others if you cant deal with your own problems first? Sometimes moments like these are necessary for us to take action in the future, but sometimes the same occasion can take to two very different outcomes. In the case of J.P, he had almost the exact same experience as Bruce Wayne, but his outcome came out different.

.

When we look towards the present J.P is going through you see he is at a sort of alcoholic rehabilitation center. How did his condition end up being like this? Destiny? I don't think so. Something lead him to end up like this. If you see how a trauma such as the one that Bruce Wayne and J.P went through, you know its not something easy to overcome. Bruce Wayne could only get over it after living somewhere in the Himalayas with a bunch of monks. What if this event in J.P's life was something that got him to look for a way out of his problems by drinking alcohol? It wouldn't be something out of this world now a days. The two ways in which you can get out of a situation are clearly expressed here with two very different characters who had a very similar experience. The way in which you treat an opportunity and the measures you take parting from it can become decisive in what the future holds for you.

A Crazy Dream

"You dream! Patty said. Even if you don't remember. Everybody dreams. If you didn't dream, you'd go crazy." pg 97. Are we meant to have dreams in order for us to really live a happy life? What are our reasons for living? Once we begin to understand why it is that we persist in our everyday lives, go through hardships, and keep our heads up to go through the unknown, we will know we do what we do because we dream of the future and the things it could bring. We might sometimes doubt what is to come, and whether it will do good or bad to us. Some things might look as if though they were to really change our life, and so we hang on to that. It is this dream that makes us want to face the impossible. We want to get to places no one else has gotten to, to experience things we could only imagine, and to get something we think will make us as happy as we could possibly get. And so we work for it. If we were to sit and wait for things to happen, our life would pass by without anything good to hope for. Some of us believe in destiny, while others believe in the creation of our own paths. But the point we want to get to is the same. We all want to be happy, and we have a dream we want to accomplish.

.

But what if we didn't have any dreams? What would be the case behind working all day if you don't know where you want to get to? Here is where the difference between destiny and the creation of our own paths differentiate. Would it be worth the while working if we were to think the future that awaited us was just something gray and boring? When we think of a negative future instance being something 100% accurate, we tend to really not put so much interest on how we get there. On the other hand, if we create a positive dream we want to get to, the way in which we act in our every day life would be a lot different. We therefore do need to have dreams to not go crazy. We need an inspiration, a reason to look towards the future. Those that have lost their dreams or think they did not come true when they wanted them to, tend to not enjoy things as others who still have them do. Dreams are meant to inspire us to pursuit greatness and to help us see all the great things we sometimes miss in the world of opportunities we are living.

Big Problem, Little Problem

"He passed away, said the nurse at the counter. The nurse held the hairbrush and kept looking at her. Are you a friend of the family or what?" pg 78. Many times we fail to notice the circumstances we are living and how much better they are from those that other are people are going through. We consider small problems to be a disaster, and we tend to stress out and think of life as something horrible, when really what we are living is paradise compared to what others are. For us to really get to understand why it is that we tend to look at everything in a negative way we have to understand that it is usually because we always want to reach perfection. At that moment, what really was happening to Scottie was not that big of a deal compared to what was happening to the other family with Franklin. As mentioned by Howard: "Until now, his life had gone smoothly and to his satisfaction." pg 62. Both Ann and Howard were accostumed to living a happy life, so any small problem turned into a big one, even if at the very end it turned out to be one.

.
If we didn't want everything to be perfect, but rather considered everything perfect, we could get to seeing everything in a positive way. Small problems would become opportunities and big problems would become learning experiences. Living a happy life would be something permanent, where looking at small problems in a way in which we see them as something not that bad would be an advantage. Our life is determined not by the things that we encounter, but on how we recieve and live them.

Tickets Please?

"He was going somewhere, he knew that. And if it was the wrong direction, sooner or later he'd find it out." pg 58. This part of The Compartment in Cathedral is very similar to what happens in two movies. In Mr.Beans Holiday it turns out to be that Mr.Bean ends up making a tour through Europe by trying to get to the french coast. He won a trip to that paradise beach, but ends up getting mixed up with train routes and a little boy. He really has no idea of where he is going, and as well as with Myers in The Compartment, and he doesn't talk any of the languages there, being completely lost sometimes. He also has the dilemma that Myers faced when thinking whether or not he should visit his son or simply bypass it and go somewhere else, since Mr.Bean has to decide whether he goes to his destination at the french coast or tries to help the little boy get back to his father. Any small decision any of them decide to make in this case has a huge effect, since both choices are big changes that could come to the characters life.

.

Then there's also the movie Eurotrip, having a similar idea to that of The Compartment as well. In Eurotrip Scottie decides to go off to Europe to try and find a German girl with which he has only talked online. He really has no idea of where she is, and goes with some friends to roam Europe however they can and try and find her. Myers doesn't know where he is headed to towards the end of the story, which is mostly the idea in Eurotrip, where they simply go around Europe any way they can getting from place to place. They sometimes end up in places they don't know of, but they go ahead with the oh well attitude and keep roaming around until they get to her. In this case though, its a bit different in terms of the problem that the characters face. With Myers and Mr.Bean the case is about making a really important decision that will affect them greatly in the future, but with Scottie it's mostly a careless trip where they don't care about their actions, but rather on how they will get there.

It's Perfect

While reading Preservation within Raymond Carver's Cathedral, I came across a situation that reminded me of an event in my life. "She couldn't believe the mess inside. The ice cream from the freezer had melted and run down into the leftover fish sticks and cole slaw. Ice cream had gotten into the bowl of Spanish rice and pooled on the bottom of the fridge. Ice cream was everywhere." pg 39. At my house we have a Labrador called Tommy, and he is an eating machine that does not care what he eats as long as he thinks it might be fun to eat it. Since he is a dog which doesn't like strangers, we sometimes have to lock him up when people visit us, so I usually leave him in the kitchen and go and receive the people coming and bring them inside. One time though, I brought some friends over, and we stayed up until very late at night. When they were leaving I was exhausted, so I took Tommy to the kitchen and guided them out. When I came back in, I went straight to my room and fell asleep.

.

The next morning I decided to go down and get a snack before breakfast. When I entered the kitchen I could not believe my eyes. Tommy was sitting down in front of the oven with a sad puppy face, and all the desserts my mom had prepared for a meeting she had that day were all over the floor and counters. The floor was full of tracks in all sorts of dessert combinations, varying from reddish strawberry tracks to dark chocolate ones. He himself wasn't so clean as well, having chocolate, pieces of strawberries, and white cream all over him. What was I supposed to do? As I thought about what excuse I would use so my mom wouldn't blame me, I went inside to see if there was anything still left intact. The snacks my mom had left out were all over the farthest side of my kitchen, and one of the Coke bottles had fallen, which by the looks of it, it seemed as if Tommy had had fun trying to bring it open. Everything was completely messed up. As I scolded Tommy for what he had done, I tried to fix some of the things up. I tried fixing some deserts that weren't as mangled with, but what was the point of it, I would have had to mix all the good parts of each dessert together in order to get something decent. As I gave up, I took my dog outside and just let him be, and I went up and told my mom the truth.

Back to Poo-tee-weet?

"The bird let go with its cry once more. May-awe! it went. Nobody said anything. What was there to say?" pg 18. Once again we go back to Slaughterhouse 5. In both cases there is a bird involved in which it gives a simple bird sound, but what do they mean? Poo-tee-weet? In Slaughterhouse 5 whenever Poo-tee-weet appears, it usually has little to do with what is going on, being it more of an add-on to make emphasis on a point. Slaughterhouse 5 talks about predestination, taking into account Billy, the main character, and how it is that he lives every moment of his life in a never ending cycle, moving back and forth through time. So by fitting Poo-tee-weet into context you can think of it as the add-on that is actually something that brings us back into a reality the story has, the reality of who cares? If things happen in a way that is irreversible, who would even mind it happening? The meaning of the Poo-tee-weet inside of Slaughterhouse 5 is put there to symbolize something completely meaningless. It's as if everything that is being said really has no point to it. But is there really a connection between it and May-awe in Raymond Carver's Cathedral?

.

A peacock in the short story of Feathers, presented in Cathedral, really has no importance within the story. It is as if it were just supposed to be there to do absolutely nothing. But once we take the idea of what happened in Slaughterhouse 5, you can give new meaning to the peacock's presence. By the peacock being there and making the May-awe sound every now and then, it shows something very similar to the purpose of Poo-tee-weet. Jack and Fran had never thought of having babies, and actually didn't even like the idea of it. After their visit to Bud's house, it becomes apparent that they decide to have a baby. But what was it that made them decide on having the baby? An ugly baby would have the contrary effect on a person who was in the same circumstances, I mean, who, that doesn't like the idea of having children, after seeing an ugly baby would want to have one? Well, here is where May-awe comes in, being it the source of what is to come. It's as if the whole situation that is created after the visit had happened not because of that visit, but rather because it was already meant to happen whether they visited or not. Isn't it a Poo-tee-weet of the moment, a May-awe of who cares? The meaning of the peacock could be said to be a factor which is trying to explain to us the meaning of why it was that the short story ended as it did. The real meaning of Fran and Jack having a baby has nothing to do with the visit, as predicted by the peacock taking the example of Billy in Slaughterhouse 5, but rather is something that was supposed to happen.

Wanna Know How I Won?

"So we identified two characteristics of winning strategies: niceness and forgiveness. This almost Utopian-sounding conclusion- that niceness and forgiveness pay- came as a surprise to many of the experts, who had been too cunning by submitting subtly nasty strategies." pg 213. This is a point of view that gives arguments that go against what normally happens. Normally when you try and do something, the person that ends up being victorious is that which did something different or better than its opponent. In other words, those that make a trick, or something we didn't expect, would end up being better than someone else. If one of the two beings that are competing is completely pure in the sense it will always forgive and will be nice, and the other is completely evil in the sense that it will always try and take advantage over the other, then it would be obvious the evil one would win. But in this case it is saying it won't. The one that shows purity will be the one to succeed. This idea brings immediately to your mind the picture of religion, and all the good deeds one must do in order to be successful. The three universalizing religions of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have the idea of values that involve making us better people as one of their priorities. They teach us to act in a better way, a way guided in the opposite direction of evil intentions. And religion begins to affect everything around us. We see heroes in story books, brave knights in their noble steeds, and the triumphs that have happened throughout history. All of these come together thanks to the teachings of religion to show the values of forgiveness, of purity. It's not always the case.

.

Today in class there was a clear example. We played the game mentioned by Dawkins known as Prisoners dilema. Two of my classmates played against each other, trying to get as many points as they could. Obviously, the one who constantly used Defect, or in other words not help in any way, ended up winning. But the second round we played, we played to push a grade up, or pull it down, depending on who won. The attitude of the players changes completely. One of the players decided to begin the round by helping while the other didn't. Since that moment the one that didn't help was in advantage, and they continued to use Defect for the other rounds until the last round came. If the player that had always used Defect used it again, he would of definitely won the pull up on the grade, but since he knew his friend could lose and end up with a lower grade, he changed to helping him. The final result was a draw. What is going on here is how he used a helping attitude to help his friend. But isn't this in this particular case bad, since by not being nice he could have won a higher grade? It actually isn't. By helping his friend he is actually helping himself. If he would have won, great, he got a higher grade in just one occasion. Now, by actually being considerate to the other person, he is actually gaining his friendship, and could therefore get the help from him in other instances. And he doesn't only get a closer friendship with him, but by committing the action in which he showed compassion, everyone present at that moment actually felt closer to that person, so he is getting even a better deal then if he had gotten the higher grade. So forgiveness and niceness actually proves to be better with a group in which mutual help is active, rather than thinking in your own selfish intentions when in the group.

A Perpetrators Decision

"A perpetrator holds both gun and briefcase, sees both paper and blood." (Written as the review "Gun and briefcase" by Timothy Snyder for the book The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Little). We are to decide on how we are to carry something along. In The Kindly Ones Little introduces a character that is supposed to tell everything as it happened during the war. He would not mind how harsh or absolutely peaceful the event may have seemed, but told it exactly as it was. Many times we want to do something, and so we go ahead and use whatever our method is to actually make it happen. In this case it's saying that a perpetrator must always have a Plan B. He can do things in a more peaceful way by talking things out and getting to an agreement, or he can also carry them along by using more violent methods where one of the two might end up hurt in some way. That is what the briefcase and the paper symbolize in this case, meaning a peaceful way in which to do something, while gun and blood symbolize a more crude and violent method. This choice is expressed in Shakespear's Macbeth with the decisions Macbeth and Lady Macbeth must take. Macbeth wants to become king, and so he must choose a method to do so. Since in the story he is predestined to become a king, his method to become one could be more simple than he could possibly think. That's the problem with destiny, it makes us think on doing the easy stuff because we will get to the same outcome anyway.

.

But what if even by knowing we are going to get somewhere we decide to take the harshest path? Macbeth didn't even think on doing things in a more civilized and peaceful way, but decided to go after the violent and dangerous path. The plan he came up with alongside his wife was one which involved the murder of the king in order for him to become one. Why would he decide to inflict pain and spend more time on this plan then just wait for the right moment if it was predestined? His choice was one which would be almost contrary to what destiny is supposed to cause the people who believe in it to act according to. When we choose whether we use a peaceful or a violent way in which to do something we are always influenced by what we personally want to do. Macbeth, being a general in war, may have found this an easier way for himself to treat the matter, since most of his experience is related to violence. So both Macbeth and the main character in The Kindly One are to decide on how to carry something along. One may choose to do something according to your experiences, as in Macbeth, or one could also choose to do something in a way in which we decide to be indifferent on the method we choose to apply.

We Are Who We Created

"Whether a female develops into a worker or a queen depends not on her genes but on how she is brought up." pg 174. Are we to decide on what we become? The example given by Dawkins explains how it is that a bee develops according to how she is nurtured. Are we the same way, or do we think we turn out to be someway because we were meant to be like that since the beginning. When talking about whether its nature or its nurture, its important to think on how both of them may affect us. One may give us such and such characteristic, and the other might put in some more. When talking about nature, I believe its guided more towards how we are physically, and on how we develop and function. Nurture on the other hand, puts in the rest of the package, including our emotions, way of thinking, and actions. If we are raised in a certain way, we will achieve and become a person that is unique. By raising a person to think about greed and about always trying to beat other people in different things, that person will end up being a totally different person than someone raised with values such as respectfulness and benevolence. A worker bee can become a queen or a worker, raging from what we consider in our society as the top and the bottom of social levels. Do we want to become a worker or a queen? And who is it to decide, the one that nurtures us, or do we also have a significant role in it?

.

To understand it I had to put my family and myself in the picture. Since I was small I was always raised with the values my parents introduced into my life. I grew up believing in those values, and would use them whenever they came up,but there comes an age where we begin to gain more conscience of what is happening around us. When I reached this point, I began to modify some of these values for some which I considered would be better. You might think this was because I met other people and therefore got their ideas, but it isn't always the case. There are moments when you simply look around you, and you begin to understand why some things work in a certain way. This way you are actually molding who you become unconsciously. The values inserted into you at the beginning have some effect, but what really matters is what you make of yourself, not what others make of you. So we do make our ourselves what we want to become, and what we want to achieve. The idea that we are made to function in a certain way with which we will always stick to is made just to prevent us from actually deciding our fate (It should be clarified that when I use the word "fate" I intend to consider fate not something that was meant to be in a certain way, but rather a conclusion of the actions we have already committed. ). We therefore can decide and take action in choosing to become a queen or a worker.

The Male-Chauvinist

-Hey dear.

-Hey Honey, thanks for coming.

-I'm glad to be here, but tell me, what's the purpose of our meeting?

-Well, Michael, I wanted to talk to you about whats going on in our lives. I wanted to talk about how your relationship with the kids and me is doing. And to tell you the truth, its not going well.

-What? Come on Stacy, we already talked about this. You know I have other responsibilities to take care of. I have a work to go to and a family to sustain.

-I know, its just that your family should be your greatest responsibility, I mean, you've been acting in a way in which we simply cannot stand. And of what I have understood of my readings is that the actions you are performing...

-Oh come on Stacy, don't bring that book up again. You know I read it already, and I know that what I'm doing is perfectly logical.

-No Michael, its not. Dawkin's says you have to decide on what you are going to do, and there are various paths you can choose from. Your kids say you don't spend enough time with them, they complain that you are too entertained by your work and your physical conditioning. And even though the book claims that what you are doing might be an advantage because of what you have or are able to do, its not working at all to keep your family happy.

-Well, if you are going to use the book against me, then I might as well do the same.

-It's not about the book Michael, its about what you are going to do about it.

-Cause you know, I am trying to sustain a family. If I wasn't helping you at all, as your book well states it, I would be considered a "philanderer" instead of a "faithful". I am doing what I can Stacy. You know the stories of all the men who abandon their wives and families and go out with other women. I mean...

-Stop it Michael, I'm not talking about that. Its just that even though you are a loyal husband, you simply aren't spending enough time with your kids, or even with me. You are too interested in doing other things than helping me raise the kids. And yes Michael, it is something in the book as well. Since you already gave your part to make the kids, now you want me to do the rest of the job so that you don't waste your precious time.

-Oh, so now you think I'm a male-chauvinist! Stacy I love you, and I really appreciate what you're doing, but its just that I have some responsibilities to take care of in order for my family to live as comfortable as possible.

-I understand you Michael, its just that you have to make some choices on what your priorities are. The children and I don't care to not live as comfortable as we now do if you are willing to spend more time with us.

-I'm... sorry, Stacy. I really should have thought about the benefits of being with my family instead of looking around for other things I thought would make your lives much better.

-Its ok Michael, that's what talks are for. Now lets go home, the kids are waiting for us to go out for the camp trip.

-Ok, give me a second while I finish this coffee. Would you mind asking for the check?

Is He Apt?

"For instance, suppose her dilemma is whether to give a particular morsel of food to a little child or a big one. The big one is likely to be more capable of finding his own food unaided. Therefore if she stopped feeding him he would not necessarily die." pg 125. This small passage in Dawkins The Selfish Gene reminds me of my family. My family is composed of my parents, my two sisters, and I. Since we have arrived at an age in which we like going out with friends to do absolutely everything, we therefore are constantly asking for permission from our parents to go out. They at first don't let us go out, but are rather precautious because they think at times we aren't able to take care of ourselves. After a while they loosen up a bit, and give us more freedom. In my house I am granted permission to do things almost always, after coming from a line of refuses to let me go out. On the other hand is my sister, who my parents don't allow to go out as much as they do with me.
.
What's clear about this example is how in my case my parents might now consider me to be more apt to be out on my own than my sister. They may know from previous experiences that I may know more than my sister because of our age difference. Since I have lived more, I may be more likely to survive alone than my sister would. Therefore my parents might feel they don’t need to take care of me anymore in some aspects, and so I get to go out. My parents’ feel of my sister may still be uneasy, since they might think that she is still not able to be on here own. Even though at times we may think we are being denied things because of dumb reasons, in co-relation to Dawkins statement they do it to prepare us much better for the future in which we may not be relying on them.

The Limits We May Or May Not Be Imposed With

"As a result a naturalist is able to describe a dominance hierarchy or peck order-a rank-ordering society, in which everybody knows his place, and does not get ideas above his station." pg 114. Do we limit ourselves to live we what we have and not look out into the world to get more? This idea is one that is debated a lot and which we usually agree with in all its meanings at different times. Sometimes we think and are told about how we should be happy with what we have. We should appreciate the things we have and moments we are living, therefore leaving our greed of acquiring more out. Why do you want more? Aren't you happy with what you have? Do you know there are people who are less fotunate than you? All these questions are brought to your mind at some point, and usually we agree with them. Happiness is something we create, not something we are born with. But then theres the other way around to the statement. Shouldn't we think about our future and want to improve in every way possible? We consistently want to become better people and look ahead to all the possibilities life brings. Why should we accept misery as something to live with, and why should we accept something we know could be better off in some other direction? These questions force us to think about improving our way of life, and want more in every way.

.

So how can we decide which one to follow? If we were to hear one of them independently from the other, we would agree with it no matter what, even if they are the complete opposite. The truth of the matter is that there is no way to really decide on one, for both of them are programmed on the human body. We always want to achieve more and look at all the possibilities, but at the same time we think about what we have and about how we should be happy for it. But is there a difference between wanting to improve and greed? And is there a difference between accepting what we have and mediocracy? There is. Both mediocracy and greed are the extreme levels of the two. If we were to hear these two as something we are able to do at the same time, we would counter them with greed and mediocracy. Therefore the perfect balance between the two involve having both of these at a controlled level, where the extremes are what causes us to consider two good things to become the complete opposite in a negative way. We are able to be happy with what we have, but at the same time look into our future and want the opportunities which come up, helping us go for the better.

The Trigger Of Trust

"In a world where other individuals are constantly on the alert for opportunities to exploit kin-selected altruism, and use it for their own ends, a survival machine has to consider who it can trust, who it can really be sure of." pg 105. When we decide to trust someone, we usually gather a number of characteristics of that being that make us have some security on whether to trust them or not. It is explained here that some people might take advantage of another person who is willing to give something up, so the person who is having someone else taking advantage of him usually has to decide to trust him or not. Sometimes people deceive us into believing they are worth trusting, and end up taking advantage over us. This is a clear example of what is known as altruism vs selfish intentions, since we do not care about the benefit of the group but rather our own personal benefit. An example of this could be the case of Attila the Hun, who is known worldwide as someone who was almost unbeatable in battle. Feared in battle, no one was ever able to inflict him a wound. He was a man that took safety measures in trusting other people, but by trusting someone who he considered to not represent any danger (his wife) it was she who would end up killing him. For him his wife may have not presented a danger, since one usually gives trust to close family members, but the wife took complete control over the situation by simulating to be someone he could trust only to get the best out of him.

.

This is how trust is manipulated, and it is why trusting someone has become so hard. By trusting someone we are becoming vulnerable to that person in some aspect, so when trusting we see all the circumstances that help us decide whether to do it or not. We become scared that if we give too much trust, it can come to hurt us in the future. This might be a trigger to making us become the same as what we are scared of. When we are scared that maybe the trust we give people might be used against us, we sometimes take the measure to assure ourselves that if that person violates the trust pact, we will do the same to them. So by actually doing the thing we fear will be done to us, we are actually keeping ourselves safe from that same thing we decided to give in the first place, and whose purpose is to give us some tranquility on who we can count on. Trusting someone has become a matter of deceiving, an act of calculated actions between the trusted and the trusting, and a game in which our tranquility relies in our ability plan ahead before taking action.

A Crickets Losing Streak

"Each cricket can be thought of as constantly updating his own estimate of his fighting ability, relative to that of an average individual in his population." pg 81. Dawkin introduces his point of view on what he thinks might be the competition between individuals and how some might alter their behavior based on past events. He talks about how species might go into a fight of some sort, and if they lose under the circumstances of that fight, it might take them to doubt their fighting abilities with those same circumstances in the future. He makes a point in explaining how its different between crickets and say, chimpanzees, where crickets remember not an individual but rather every member of the specie as the cause of his win or loss, while a chimpanzee remembers that individual. In other words, once crickets win or lose a fight, they will remember they lost to a specie, rather than remembering exactly which individual it was. This is very similar in human beings, since we also tend to moralize or demoralize depending on how we do on a certain occasion.

.

"All that happens is that individuals who are accustomed to winning become even more likely to win, while individuals who are accustomed to losing become steadily more likely to lose." pg 82. Once we make a mistake, one of two things happen. We either take action based on it or ignore it. If we take action we tend to either prevent that moment or provoke it, depending on whether it was good for us or not. This sometimes prevents us from making things we normally can do, but are afraid of because of a bad result in the past (as mentioned in "Sink-or-Swim?"). In our case as humans, it happens both in the way of the cricket and of the chimpanzee. Since we have culture, we follow a set of rules on acting with other human beings, and therefore tend to direct some actions not to an individual but to the human race as a whole. We think we cannot perform an action because it will have an effect we know of, since we understand how culture tends to function. This may limit us in what to do and what not to in terms of thinking on what could happen generally with any human being, but then we also tend to understand consequences based on a specific human being. We also get to know people and measure how our acts are to be done with that human being in order for us to know if we'll lose or win. Therefore our actions are being oppressed by individuals as well as by the general population. Many things we can do become something in our mind which we consider impossible to achieve, end therefore don't carry them along. If only we were able to really understand what we are able to do and what not to by not thinking on past incidents but rather on Will and a positive attitude, the extent to which our abilities could grow would become indescribable.

I Chess-bot

"He(the programmer) tells the computer the basic moves of the game, not separately for every possible starting position, but in terms of more economically expressed rules." pg 52. In this part Dawkins talks about consciousness and about how even though we can try and recreate it on machines, there is only a certain limit to what we can get them to do. He explains in this case how the programmer can teach a machine basic moves that will set the standard of the things he can do, since they are rules to follow which wont change according to the meaning they are given. A similar case to this one comes from the movie I Robot, starring Will Smith. In the movie robots are given a code to the way in which they can act, and it is pretended for that code to be perfect. But in the movie robots gain a sort of consciousness when they begin to interpret the code, and therefore start to take over. Dawkins expresses this fear in the following discussions, and talks about how someday robots might end up having a conscience, which is very different to simply having a standard set of rules to follow.

By having a conscience we are receiving more than a given way in which to do things. We are able to make connections and therefore understand things better, as well as want those things that are better. As in the case of the movie, once we begin to understand how some things could become better by implementing some changes, we go ahead and do them. In the movie the robots are the ones that see that changes could be better even against our will, but in real life we as humans do the same thing, since we decide that some things are better off in some ways and so we do them not caring of what other species think or want.

Who Should We Choose?

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins explains the process of why some genes are chosen on top of others. The case he directly uses is that of the eyes, explaining how it is that the "architect" that we have in our self's decides which eye color to choose for us. If we were to have a gene for blue colored eyes and a gene for brown colored eyes, only one of them would be chosen. Since brown is dominant over blue because blue can only become dominant if it has 2 alleles, then it is certain that a person with a brown and a blue allele will have brown eyes. The other gene is not lost though, it is kept inside the body, and could be passed on to future generations making it possible at some point for the 2 alleles to meet each other and therefore create blue eyes.

It is very similar to how we always choose what we believe is better. When we have the choice to get something we believe has a greater value, we take it, and we also keep that of less value for if in the future it becomes necessary. Once we don't have something valuable, we stick to the next most valuable thing we can find, or in this case, the blue eyes. The blue eyes become a matter of keeping them for later on in the trip, and using them in case we need them, since we know they may come in handy when the other choice we have is also blue eyes. Many times we have the choice of getting something we want, and usually will get the best we can, but in those cases in which we don't, we stick with what we have, and are proud to pass them on around.