Clara’s Dali Seminar Reflection! (in poetic form)
Africa cries at a man who’s not worth
Watching South America drip off the face of the Earth.
The world is stretching and cracking for the birth of a new man,
Sending tsunamis upon Europe with a claw of his hand.
Mother nature watches and says “look, baby, see?
I’m starving and dying due to what they’ve done to me.
Mankind is nothing more than a parasite
Who makes me lose blood every day; every night
The sun has left; our galaxy is now a desert;
Carry on without me child, because I won’t be getting better”
The child’s eyes become wide as she falls silently down,
Bleeding like the earth on a dreamlike desert ground.
He listens for a heartbeat, but it doesn’t even echo--
As the past often does so nobody lets go.
But this child is too young to understand where mother went,
All he knows is that she left because her Earth is ripped and bent.
Dulce Seminar Reflection
Omelas Seminar Reflection
REACTION:
In the Seminar that was held on Thursday, Kinjah brought up an interesting point. We were talking about the little boy that was locked in the closet, and how he had to suffer to make everyone else happy (the idea was that no one could do anything about it). But then Kinjah made the point that you can help the little kid, but you would have to suffer in place of its suffering. I thought this was very interesting. I came into seminar with the idea that the kid was special; it was the only one that could make everyone else happy by suffering. I thought that maybe it wasn’t human or something. But if one main point of the story is that there must be suffering if there is happiness; that made me think of the real world’s suffering vs. its happiness. The people in serious poverty, in places like India, Africa and the Middle East, are not inhuman. They are just people that were unlucky enough to be born in poverty (this also relates to Kinjah’s other idea, that this story is actually a metaphor for our world). So, working off of that theory, anyone could take the place of that child, and the child could take their place. That is how my opinion changed, and I don’t think that a seminar has actually changed my mind that much before. The strange part is that I just realized it.
CONNECTIONS:
I think that the happiness theory in this story can actually relate to human emotions. The theory is that you can’t have happiness without sadness. I can connect this to a person I know. She seemed really, really happy most of the time I knew her. It didn’t seem fake at all, and I was really convinced that she was truly happy all the time—she would come to school smiling and complement people. She laughed a lot. As the years went on, I eventually found out that she was severely depressed, and had been for the entire time that I knew her. Apparently, she would spend all of her energy in school trying and succeeding at convincing people she was a positive person…and when she got home she would let out all the tension in her day of faking her emotions. I had no clue that she cried that much, or abused herself, or that she was suicidal. There obviously can’t be an “up” without a “down.” Her parents eventually put her on antidepressants. Then, the “happiness” and sadness was still there, but it was all mixed together. To me, it seemed like her emotions had become a flat line; they were all the colors of the universe mixed together to make a greyish-brown muck.
DETAILED RESPONSE:
Question: Is it more moral to stay in Omelas or walk away?
I think that the right choice is to walk away and show that you can be happy without the suffering of others. This can be shown by a quote on the 140th line where it says, “They may brood over it for weeks or years. But as time goes on they begin to realize that even if the child could be released it would not get much out of its freedom…” Considering these two sentences, I think that there is a personal moral benefit to leaving Omelas. Not only would it be right in general, but it would be right for yourself. It definitely isn’t healthy and or self-beneficial to sit around, brooding on the terribleness of your city, for a period that can become years. If it’s wrong to torture other people then it is also wrong to torture yourself. The confusion wouldn’t help either—that is, wondering if there is a right thing to do. (Is it right to free the child that is suffering, or is it right to continue the happiness of Omelas? There can only be one or the other, but shouldn’t the child also get a chance to be happy? Or is that wrong? ) The only way to end confusion like that would be to leave, right? That seems like the most moral thing for a single person to do if they don’t know how to make the Omelas situation right.
I found this second sentence to be equally as supportive of my perspective as the previous one. “They know that they, like the child, are not free.” If they aren’t free, then how are they feeling real happiness anyway? It makes sense to walk away, because you would be freer, and I think that staying in Omelas would probably cause the child more suffering, because its suffering would probably be worse because there would be one more normal citizen to be happy. Even if where you are going is certain death; that is the most moral thing to do. Death will free you, and your absence would keep the child from suffering that much more.
QUESTIONS THAT I STILL HAVE:
1) What does the sentence on the 147th line mean?
2) Where do the people that walk away from Omelas actually go?
3) Who and where was the child before it was locked up in a closet?
I choose question two! She never actually says where the people that walk away go. She just say that they go alone, walk ahead into the darkness and don’t come back, to a place less imaginable than Omelas that may not even exist—and they seem to know where they are going. I read over this a few times, and was frustrated because I thought I would never actually know where this place was if she didn’t mention the name. But then I thought: what kind of place do people go alone? What kind of place doesn’t allow you to come back? What kind of place is hard to imagine for most people, widely debated about what it is actually like? What kind of place can people go if it may not even exist—if the idea that they are there is just a theory? And… how do they already know where they are going if they have never left Omelas?! After thinking about that, I came up with a real, there’s-no-way-this-can’t-be-right kind of answer: They are leaving Omelas to die, and possibly go to the afterlife! (The afterlife was the actual “place” she was talking about) Isn’t that awesome that I figured this out with my own brain, by myself in my house? Yeah! That is awesome. I thought that I would never figure that out.
Jihad vs. McWorld
This seminar was focused on two possible futures: Jihad theory, or McWorld Theory.
The Jihad theory held the idea that all cultures would branch away even more, and the world, as a whole, would be very disconnected. The McWorld theory presents the idea that the world would unite through technology, and culture would stop. People usually think that Jihad means war and McWorld means peace. But I still wonder if McWorld would actually be peaceful. The idea is alright. But in order to make everyone agree to unite through technology, I feel that there would have to be some major brainwashing. In class, we discussed the idea that violence was anything that kept people from reaching their full potential. If we have a natural habit of breaking into different cultures, then McWorld may not really be a peaceful future.
Dulce Seminar Reflection
This was a great seminar. Toward the end, when we were talking about whether or not it would be right to die for your country, I brought up the point that there is no “right way” if someone has to die; therefore, peace is the only real right way. Nathan Stilwell said that people may not even be able to achieve peace, so what is right may be impossible. I don’t know if people can achieve peace, and I don’t expect that two fighting countries will suddenly decide to chill out and realize that neither one was right. I think that this question of man’s ability to achieve peace has been brought up in many of our seminars throughout the year. Nathan’s comment has brought me to believe that the question we should be asking is actually “Given the specific situation, is it moral to die for your country?” I can’t answer that question, but I know that it is never sweet, nor is it right.
While reading and interpreting poetry, I have noticed that similes and metaphors are quite eye-opening if I can understand them. They help give me a clearer and more emotionally attached view of what the poet is describing. For instance, “As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.” rather than, “My buddy over there was having a hard time with some poison gas.” The simile was a better visual aid, and it can help more people experience the emotional aspect with the words, “drowning” and “sea.”
All right. I have already answered this last question, so I’m going to bring this topic in a new direction. While I made the point above that peace is the only right way (and that something is definitely wrong if someone is dying for the cause), there is the theory that peace can come out of war. Kinjah and I agreed upon the idea that peace, being the absence of violence, could occur if everyone on the planet attacks each other with a series of nuclear bombs until everyone is dead. If that is considered peace, then I think there is a good chance that we will, in fact, have world peace at some point. We just won’t be around to see it. But, no one will have to worry about defending their own country—except for the cockroaches, if they live. But if nothing survives, then could it be called peace? Let’s pretend for a second that no one lives on Mars. Does that mean there is peace? Does the absence of violence apply when there is also an absence of life?
Deogratias Seminar Reflection
The idea that I found most interesting in this seminar, was that Deogratias was thought of as a pest. I thought that it was interesting because it was one of the main ideas behind Deogratias’ motivations to rape and kill. I also found it interesting that he was treated like a dog, in spite of being a Hutu. That part sort of confused me, because the Tutsis were the ones who were usually treated like dogs in the Rwandan Genocide.
I think that this Seminar could have gone better than it did. I didn’t get a chance to speak the entire time, neither did at least three other people. Not to complain, but it seemed like the same people kept jumping in and talking, not giving anyone else a chance to speak. I was always being spoken over. But there were still some interesting insights brought up in this seminar.
The Roots of War Seminar Reflection
Reaction:
I believe that it was Kelsey who said that our life was already planned and we couldn’t stop our destiny. She had a different opinion than other students who said that destiny could be changed. My reaction to this whole idea is…well…I’m confused. I think both sides are true. My opinion is: Yes, you can control what happens in your life, but whatever happens is what happens. That is your destiny because you can’t go back and change it once it’s already happened. Even if you have made your own choices.
Changes in thinking:
I have thought about that whole destiny thing a LOT before. In fact I’ve thought about that very question at least once every two weeks for the last few years. Still, this seminar is pushing me to go deeper into that concept. After seminar, I came to the conclusion that both things were true, like I said above. The seminar actually made me come to a decent conclusion after I had spent the last few years arguing with myself and trying to decide whether you can change and control your destiny or not.
Connections:
I’ve been writing music since I was six years old. Slaughterhouse five reminds me of this anti-war song that I wrote last summer. It covered some of the aspects of slaughterhouse five, like death, war weapons and machines, suffering, grieving, etc. It was also composed in such a way that it sounded eerie and depressing, like war is.
Self-Evaluation:
I think I need to work on asking people to clarify concepts. There were a few times that I was really confused by what people meant. For example, I didn’t understand Trevin’s metaphor at all. To improve, I will be a little more aggressive in the way of getting the opportunity to speak. That way, I will be able to ask them to clarify their idea before we’ve moved on to the next topic.
Slaughterhouse Five Seminar Reflection
This first Seminar of the school year was focused on an article called The Roots of War. Tucker made a comment that I found interesting and agreed with. He said, “There is a huge difference between violence and war.” And that got me thinking…animals are violent all the time because they kill for food. Violence is a natural thing. But people are different. We don’t bomb and invade other countries because we want to eat all the people (as far as I know, anyway). We attack and demolish those civilizations because of disagreement, greed and anger. Even if we are naturally violent, war is something that has developed since the beginning of culture. Therefore, it is not just an instinct. People have a choice: We can keep the world peaceful like a civilized person would do, or we can be immature, greedy and foolish—by promoting war.
Before this seminar, I thought that all violence was purely a choice, not something in our genes. But I was successfully convinced in this seminar that violence, not war, is natural. The more I think about it, the more it makes since. We, as animals, have natural hunting and self-defense instincts. I would definitely consider that to be violence and I can’t believe that never occurred to me before.
Part of this seminar, the part in which we were talking about hunting instincts and violence being natural, reminded me of the hunter-gatherer reading and seminar we did in John’s class last year. We were comparing animals to people and I instantly thought of the hunter-gatherers: lack of developed culture, no major wars, and no bombs.
Because this is the first seminar of the school year, my mind needed refreshing. I didn’t do as well as I would have liked to, but I was still fairly strong in the way of communication, particularly listening. I listened carefully to the entire seminar and understood most of it; I was just having trouble with finding things to say. And when I did have something to say, it was hard to find a chance to say it. Of course, I will improve quickly. I had the same problem last year and I was having half as much trouble by the next seminar. And on the bright side, I didn’t dominate the conversation at ALL. Isn’t that nice? Next seminar, I would really like to improve on coming up with new ideas that spur the discussion. I plan on doing that by thinking outside the box as to come up with things that aren’t obvious and that bring the conversation in a new direction.
Being Peace Seminar Reflection
One major part of buddhism, from what I read, is being in touch with yourself. It is supposed to help you realize your full potential. But I think that "knowing your full potential," isn't always what people think it is. If you underestimate yourself even a little bit, it's like putting a cap on your potential. While I agree with many ideas in buddhism, I think trying to find your potential should be done with caution, and what you "can't do" should never be a part of that.
