On November 10, 2010, I attended the panel series with Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson entitled "Sustain.ability: Thriving on a Small Planet." In the discussion, Berry and Jackson talked a lot about things that are going wrong in the environment and how people in the human race need to act now to help save our planet. Berry talked a lot about the ignorance of many people who believe that there are no real problem that exist as far as the environment is concerned. When attending this event, I immediately thought of the film the 11th Hour.
Like the 11th Hour film, the topic was mainly focused on how the health of the planet is beginning to diminish and how the actions being taken are not dire enough. When reading an article about Berry it said, "As the American environmental movement has metamorphized into the global drive to achieve sustainability, he has been a steady voice of reason and compassion." Berry and Jackson both made excellent points about their takes on what the environment should mean to the entire population. They discussed how there are so many different ways that the smallest changes each person made could make a huge difference. This was practically identical to what the creators of the 11th Hour film were saying. They all wanted different ways for our society to be able to help and respect the environment.
I think what I liked best about the discussion was that it was real people who had spent their entire lives doing good by the environment. Although the 11th Hour film was a huge impact, hearing people discuss the issue with YOU and others like you has a whole other meaning behind it. It wasn't just about being preached out or hearing a repetitive speech about how to protect the plant. Instead it was something that was able to reach audience members on a much more personal level.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Lieber Aims for the New Generations
For two classes in the month of December, our class of W350 was invited to visit the Lily Library. Our visit was geared towards researching some of the documents about Conservationist Richard Lieber. Some of the documents involved were speeches, journal entries, etc. This was to help us understand the purpose of our Public Awareness Projects. It was to help us find ideas and interests for our “Real” forms.
The piece of documentation that stood out the most to me was a speech that Lieber had given at Purdue about conserving our national parks. The reason I liked this speech was because it wasn’t him just speaking to a bunch of politicians or officials, but he was aiming the college students. I thought it was very appropriate. I had planned for my “Real” form to also address college students. So, the impact of Lieber’s speech had a lot on how I thought about my own project. It also reminded me a lot of the 11th Hour film we watched. I was able to be engaged about the issues of the environment with the film as I was with the speech. The similarities between the speech and the film would have to be the urgency to maintain the life that we have sustained on this planet for years and to not take it for granted. Like the film, Lieber dealt with critics who believed that environmental issues were a complete myth. He was somehow able to push past those critics and make a difference. Today, to help our planet, we should do the same.
I think it is important to express these issues more to college students or even high school students. When one comes to think about it, students ranging from the ages of 16-25 have a great impact on ongoing, current issues. It is probably easier to spark interest in younger minds because they are always evolving. I think that is what Lieber was aiming for when he chose to speak at Purdue. He talked about his journey with helping to conserve the national parks, and the gratification he feels with helping the planet. I think he wanted to speak to the hearts of students who felt the same way in hopes to keep the issue alive.
The piece of documentation that stood out the most to me was a speech that Lieber had given at Purdue about conserving our national parks. The reason I liked this speech was because it wasn’t him just speaking to a bunch of politicians or officials, but he was aiming the college students. I thought it was very appropriate. I had planned for my “Real” form to also address college students. So, the impact of Lieber’s speech had a lot on how I thought about my own project. It also reminded me a lot of the 11th Hour film we watched. I was able to be engaged about the issues of the environment with the film as I was with the speech. The similarities between the speech and the film would have to be the urgency to maintain the life that we have sustained on this planet for years and to not take it for granted. Like the film, Lieber dealt with critics who believed that environmental issues were a complete myth. He was somehow able to push past those critics and make a difference. Today, to help our planet, we should do the same.
I think it is important to express these issues more to college students or even high school students. When one comes to think about it, students ranging from the ages of 16-25 have a great impact on ongoing, current issues. It is probably easier to spark interest in younger minds because they are always evolving. I think that is what Lieber was aiming for when he chose to speak at Purdue. He talked about his journey with helping to conserve the national parks, and the gratification he feels with helping the planet. I think he wanted to speak to the hearts of students who felt the same way in hopes to keep the issue alive.
The 11th Hour Screening
On October 18, 2010, our class from W350 Sustainable Public Discourse attended the screening of the film The 11th Hour. We were asked to view the film and join in discussion with a panel of experts afterwards. The film, which was narrated by Leonardo Dicaprio, was about the impact our society has had on the current issues with the environment. The film tells its audience how many critics believe that global warming and other environmental issues do not exist, but the professors and scientists in the film explain otherwise. They provided information with how our ever-changing world is in danger due to many people not fully understanding or believing that the planet is in danger.
In the film, many of the people involved tried to explain the issue involved. Scientists, activists, and other professionals try to help the audience by introducing alternatives to using so much our planet’s energy. The explain the importance of recycling, investing in different kinds of energy conscious tools, and most importantly becoming aware that the issue is an ongoing problem that isn’t going to magically go away without the help of the human race. The try to help sway the audience by explaining that if the population doesn’t begin to take action soon, in the future there may be no more human race to speak of.
When viewing this film, I felt very scared in a way. It is a problem that I am completely aware of. But, had no real idea it was as serious as the film made it out to be. I do my best to make sure I do my part in taking care of the planet by recycling or walking most places. But when watching this movie, I felt like no matter what I try to do, there is always going to be a step more I need to take.
In the film, many of the people involved tried to explain the issue involved. Scientists, activists, and other professionals try to help the audience by introducing alternatives to using so much our planet’s energy. The explain the importance of recycling, investing in different kinds of energy conscious tools, and most importantly becoming aware that the issue is an ongoing problem that isn’t going to magically go away without the help of the human race. The try to help sway the audience by explaining that if the population doesn’t begin to take action soon, in the future there may be no more human race to speak of.
When viewing this film, I felt very scared in a way. It is a problem that I am completely aware of. But, had no real idea it was as serious as the film made it out to be. I do my best to make sure I do my part in taking care of the planet by recycling or walking most places. But when watching this movie, I felt like no matter what I try to do, there is always going to be a step more I need to take.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Dispositio and Lynching
Part 1
For this short assignment, I chose to analyze Ida Wells-Barnett’s speech, “Lynch Law in America. According to Ross Winterowd’s article "Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse,” Wells-Barnett’s speech is a classical form of oration. According to Winterowd, the classical oration made up of 5 different segments. "Exordium to gain the audience's attention, narratio to state the speaker's case, confirmatio to prove that case, reprehensio to refute the opponent's case and peroratio to sum up" (Winterowd p. 40). Winterowd goes on to tell his audience that by having this arrangement is what helps to create meaning in a piece of an argument. Wells-Barnett's speech manages to arrange her topic in a similar pattern as Winterrowd explains. Her exordium, the hook she uses to gain the readers attention, is at the beginning of the article when she states “OUR country’s national crime is lynching” (Wells-Barnett). By putting the word “our” in all capital letters, she stresses the idea of how the readers of American people could help make the change. Her narratio is where she manages to outline her speech by pointing out the gross injustice that lynching is. Showing the readers that lynching is something she is proposing be banned. For her comfirmatio, she provides readers with factual information regarding the statisics of lynching. Wells-Barnett uses tables in her speech to show the difference in lynching numbers between states. She uses her data to point out that many of the states that before the Emancipation Proclamation were considered slave states had a higher total of lynchings as opposed to “free states.”In her peroratio, Wells-Barnett wraps up her argument by explaining how Americans should feel guilty for supporting the lynching law for as long as they have. She explains how other countries may begin to do the same. Wells-Barnett uses her voice and authority to clearly show that because the United States had no real laws against lynching at the time, which many countries, such as France, were following in our footsteps. Wells-Barnett tries to clearly address this issue and that it must be stopped and banned before it creates a global issue.
Part 2
An issue I wish to explore is handicap accessibility on campus. I have found that on the IUB campus there is limited number of accessible entrances for people with disabilities. It is not fair that people with disabilities have only one option to enter a building, where able bodied people have numerous and faster ways of entering buildings all over campus. Therefore it takes longer and requires more effort for people with disabilities to get to class or their destination. People with disabilities do not always want to rely on others for simple assistance such as getting to class or meetings. I believe that this issue deserves attention because people with disabilities are becoming more mainstreamed and it is our duty to make that transition as easy as possible. My proposal is to target the office of Disabilities Services for Students to create more accessible entrances to buildings all over campus.
For this short assignment, I chose to analyze Ida Wells-Barnett’s speech, “Lynch Law in America. According to Ross Winterowd’s article "Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse,” Wells-Barnett’s speech is a classical form of oration. According to Winterowd, the classical oration made up of 5 different segments. "Exordium to gain the audience's attention, narratio to state the speaker's case, confirmatio to prove that case, reprehensio to refute the opponent's case and peroratio to sum up" (Winterowd p. 40). Winterowd goes on to tell his audience that by having this arrangement is what helps to create meaning in a piece of an argument. Wells-Barnett's speech manages to arrange her topic in a similar pattern as Winterrowd explains. Her exordium, the hook she uses to gain the readers attention, is at the beginning of the article when she states “OUR country’s national crime is lynching” (Wells-Barnett). By putting the word “our” in all capital letters, she stresses the idea of how the readers of American people could help make the change. Her narratio is where she manages to outline her speech by pointing out the gross injustice that lynching is. Showing the readers that lynching is something she is proposing be banned. For her comfirmatio, she provides readers with factual information regarding the statisics of lynching. Wells-Barnett uses tables in her speech to show the difference in lynching numbers between states. She uses her data to point out that many of the states that before the Emancipation Proclamation were considered slave states had a higher total of lynchings as opposed to “free states.”In her peroratio, Wells-Barnett wraps up her argument by explaining how Americans should feel guilty for supporting the lynching law for as long as they have. She explains how other countries may begin to do the same. Wells-Barnett uses her voice and authority to clearly show that because the United States had no real laws against lynching at the time, which many countries, such as France, were following in our footsteps. Wells-Barnett tries to clearly address this issue and that it must be stopped and banned before it creates a global issue.
Part 2
An issue I wish to explore is handicap accessibility on campus. I have found that on the IUB campus there is limited number of accessible entrances for people with disabilities. It is not fair that people with disabilities have only one option to enter a building, where able bodied people have numerous and faster ways of entering buildings all over campus. Therefore it takes longer and requires more effort for people with disabilities to get to class or their destination. People with disabilities do not always want to rely on others for simple assistance such as getting to class or meetings. I believe that this issue deserves attention because people with disabilities are becoming more mainstreamed and it is our duty to make that transition as easy as possible. My proposal is to target the office of Disabilities Services for Students to create more accessible entrances to buildings all over campus.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" />
Friday, September 24, 2010
“The Future of Reading”
By
Johan Lehrer
Today’s technology is growing at an even more elevated speed then ever before. But, what happens when something so basic as reading is turned into an Internet activity?
In Johan Lehrer's “The Future of Reading”, he makes it very clear who his receptive audience should be: the average citizen that is highly involved in reading and is among the younger generations. Lehrer's point within the article is to persuade the readers to not do away with hardcopies of books and to lessen the use of technology in the aspect of reading. He wants to support the idea of keeping books around and doing away with things like the iPad and the Kindle. The biggest appeal of the article is how Lehrer manages to use arrangement when it comes to organizing his thoughts, opinions, and scientific facts.
At the start of the article, Lehrer discusses his love for books. He stated when he was coming through an airport and his suitcase had gone over the weight limit, he chose to dispose of his clothes as opposed to his beloved books and novels. Lehrer makes his argument by stating, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content." He believes that by constantly letting technology run these aspects of our lives that it is going to make it easier and easier, ultimately failing us with the ability to use our imaginations and grow intellectually. Referring to our readings, this article would be a perfect example of Gross’s article, “The Arrangement of the Scientific Paper.” Gross states “Reading experimental or descriptive papers in science, we invariably experience an inductive process, a series of laboratory or field events leading to a general statement about natural kinds.” This article is also relative to Bacon through its style and arrangement. Lehrer takes similar steps and approaches to reach the idea of his “experiment” and “hypothesis.” Lehrer manages to make his “experiment” clear with discussing the decline of reading done through hardcopies of books. This is where he is able to make his “hypothesis” for his argument clear in that technology is useful, but believes that the more reading done through the Internet will slowly keep younger minds from expanding.
All of Lehrer's examples begin with personal experiences and opinions and move more into scientific testing. Lehrer guides the readers into actually studies that have taken place with neuroscience to help prove his theory. Referring back to Gross’s article, this could fall under the “Methods and Materials” category.
Lehrer breaks down the argument by discussing that there are two different pathways to read. The first method is known as the ventral route. This route, as Lehrer describes it, is direct and efficient, and is a large part of how we read today. Lehrer breaks it down further by stating, “We see a group of letters, convert those letters into a word, and then directly grasp the word’s semantic meaning.” He refers to the neuroscientist, Stanislas Dehaene, to explain how the familiarity works in the part of the cortex in the brain referred to as visual word form area. Lehrer argues that this is what makes reading effortless to us and we don’t have to think about the words on the page.
The second method is called the dorsal stream, which Lehrer makes clear that this is the better way to read. It is “turned on” when we are having to pay closer attention to a sentence. Whether it be involving big or awkward words we don’t know or bad handwriting. Lehrer states that many scientists believed that this became inactive after adults learned to read but have come to find out that many adults are still occasionally having to comprehend difficult texts. This was clearly Lehrer’s favorite pathway in his argument because it is a way to keep the brain active and making readers have to comprehend words more to be able to keep learning.
After Lehrer makes his argument, he is able to jump into Gross’s definition of “Results.” He clearly makes his point of what readers in the generation (and future generations) of growing technology should do. He discusses not only what readers should do, but those who provide the technology for reading texts as well. “So, here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult. Perhaps we need to alter the fonts, or reduce the contrast, or invert the monochrome color scheme. Our eyes will need to struggle, and we’ll certainly read slower, but that’s the point: Only then will we process the text a little less unconsciously, with less reliance on the ventral pathway.” Lehrer presents an argument with style and arrangement in a convincing way. He proves his theories through scientific efforts and manages to engage many different perspectives. He involves not just parents, but children and venders of technology products as well. He makes a persuasive argument that utilizes Gross’s arrangement for writing a scientific paper.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Does September 11th have more than one meaning?
Friday, September 17, 2010
“One Day, Now Broken In Two”
By Ann Quindlen
We as American’s all remember the horrific events that occurred on September 11, 2001. But, before that year, what did the date actually mean? Was it a loved one’s birthday? An anniversary? Did it have any significant meaning? I know for myself, it did not. No matter whatever event actually took place before that day, it is clear that now the specific date of September 11th has a particular meaning.
In Ann Quindlen’s brief article, “One Day, Now Broken In Two,” aims her argument towards to idea of patriotism, which the intended audience could relate to. Quindlen manages to describe her own personal meaning to the attachment of that day: the birth of her son. But now, she states, “The day approaching will always be bifurcated for me: part September 11, the anniversary of one of the happiest days of my life, and part 9-11, the day America's mind reeled, its spine stiffened and its heart broke.” Quindlen is able to take on one of the most sensitive and talked about issues of our generation and is able to say what all Americans have felt after the disaster.
Even though Quindlen had a personal effect by her son’s birthday, the date of 9-11 may just be that. She seems to believe that this date was significant to everyone before the attacks. In the article it is clear that Quindlen is very patriotic and tries to relate to what every American had felt that day. One thing that the article manages to address in a nation wide standpoint is describing how we as American’s have tried to mend after the incident. Quindlen talks about a time when she was in another country and someone had asked her if everything was back to normal after the heartbreaking events. Quindlen replied saying, “I said yes. And no. The closest I could come to describing what I felt was to describe a bowl I had broken in two and beautifully mended. It holds everything it once did; the crack is scarcely visible. But I always know it's there. My eye worries it without even meaning to.” Though the thoughts and feelings that Quindlen discusses are highly touching and heart felt, that is simply are there is to the article: thoughts and feelings. There is no critical point.
When comparing this article to Kinneavy's “Basic Purposes of Composition” chart, it would have to be believed that it would be found under Referential category under a Diagnosis. According to Kinneavy’s definition of aims, I would have to say that Quindlen’s aims of discourse in her article are very complicated. Though Quindlen’s article is touching and states concrete facts, there is no real sense of persuasion. She is just stating a personal experience from what the specific date means to her. By no way is she trying to persuade the reader of what that day means or should mean. This becomes a problem when trying to classify the article in a specific category. Mainly this is because she is not making a particular point within the article. It is simply based on feelings and personal reactions to the event. She doesn’t stop to address or acknowledge that someone else who is reading the article may have a different stance or viewpoint on the occurrence. Although the article is touching, it lacks a certain point or even any kind of persuasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)