origin vs consequences

In philosophy we're currently learning about the beliefs of a philosopher, James, who says that the origin of ideas and things doesn't really matter, it's the consequences of the idea or origin, it's what they produce. This reminds me of part of our discussion of Dana on thursday. The origin of Dana is not only confusing to the reader but to Dana herself. Although she may seem lost her "true" origin isn't as important as her consequences, which would be overall saving Rufus to in turn save herself. This is what should be important to her, I haven't finished the book yet but I believe if she discovers this she will be more at peace with 1976 Dana and 1819 Dana. It doesn't matter which reality she thinks she belongs in but more her actions in both settings that influence the bigger picture. Eventually her two selfs will fall into each other and what time period she belongs in won't be as difficult for her to grasp because she knows who she is, what her life means and also that her consequences are the most important thing.

Random quote relating to our class..

Today I was reading a blog, and I came across a few statements that resonate with our class: "My memory of the conversation is more abstract than actual, and while the words have long since escaped me, the feeling of that interaction is as vivid as anything I remember. As a child it is not often that adults level with you and speak to you simply as a human being and not some lesser thing. At least I remember feeling that way back then." After reading this, I thought of our discussions about memories, especially when we were reading O'Brien's novel, and how events can never be retold exactly how they happened because we are always editing it, even in just our own minds depending on our perceptions. The idea that although we may not remember most of a certain event or conversation, the impression that it made on us can be more valuable and more meaningful than the actual experience itself- and therefore (in relation to O'Brien), a war story resonating that emotion is more accurate and important than a factual retelling of a war. I thought the statements above express this idea quite eloquently, and I was just really excited to find relevance to our class in a favorite band's blog.

What defines a slave?

Clearly we have (adamantly) discussed time travel and the different versions created by different perspectives at our last meeting. The question remains whether destiny has already predetermined a person's actions, which would mean that their actions (as purposeful as they may be) are not affecting what will happen or was meant to happen OR does history (past, present, and future) first depend on whatever actions a person may take (which would create multiple dimensions assuming time travel was even possible.

These questions can not and will not be answered until we are actually able to go back and forth. Even then, we will never be able to tell if somebody "changed the future" because if we decide that "future" is always an event that has yet to happen, if we experience it, go back and change something, and return to that point, the future was not changed but instead the "present" or to the time traveller the "past". The person still hasn't experienced the moment after they decided to go back to the past, and so how would they know if that moment later was always meant to happen or in fact changed due to their own actions? In fact, if time travel were even possible, there would never be a past, present, or future. Everything would be individually questionable. So I guess those questions of whether history determines actions or whether actions determine history (all a matter of controlling our "destiny") will never be answered.

Believe it or not, this post was not supposed to go on that tangent again, but I don't really use the delete button on my laptop, so everything is in my stream of thought. I always think before I type, but I rarely decide to erase something.

Anywho, I started this because I was thinking that actions determine history or vice versa would shape our view of Dana. If she has basically no control over destiny, she technically cannot be seen as weak. She'd just be another human roaming the earth to do what she was supposed to do. However, if her actions are what cause the history in the first place, the reader can definitely decide how to interpret how she acts. I'll just go with the second choice because then I can get to my point quicker (thank Jesus).

Though I have yet to finish the book, I have decided that it could go one of two ways (watch me be wrong). Dana could find a way to separate herself in the slavery era from the Dana in 1970's. This would require her to consciously remember the person she used to be before she was aware of time traveling: the passive, unhappy, woman whose marriage is not accepted by either family, and also the strong, educated woman she wants others to recognize. Though she was still affected by ignorance of others and even some racial issues with her husband, she must overcome these issues and as a couple, Kevin and Dana are in need of growing together. Dana could learn to understand that she does not have to internally accept what is being done to her in the slavery period as her "truth", and just play the game until she goes back to the 1970's. This is more difficult, however, because both she and Kevin are traveling and her decisions do not necessarily affect him internally.

On the other hand (more likely to happen I believe), Dana could be unaware of how easy it is to accept the slavery period as her truth, and be stuck in that role (both there and in the 1970's) until her death. If she is unable to separate one place from the other, the racial issues between both her and Kevin and even the problems with others can escalate. The visit to the slave era can create a realization that she needs to fight against these issues and prejudices, but if she is unaware of this concept, she would feel even more and trapped than before because of her acceptance of the ideas and beliefs of the slaves in 1816.

Though technically Dana is a slave in one time and free in another, the idea of "what defines a slave" comes to mind. Though one maybe is not whipped and by law unable to leave their master, the idea of slavery is also (by definition) a person who works very hard without appreciation. Also, it is a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something. If Dana is unable to separate what she decides to be truth or just a game she has to play IN ORDER to use both time periods and combine them to recreate herself (or continue on her destined path), she will enslave herself in both times and never be able to leave or forget the role of slave. She may give up and allow herself to be controlled by who is deemed "superior" because this is what others in the slavery period have convinced her to believe.

Though legally she is free, Dana may always be a slave to others and (if she is able to control this destiny) even herself.

I used to think that I always thought for myself

Thoughts from Tuesday's discussion continue to visit me. Thoughts about how the class has shaped us, the pressure of choosing a career, and the choice between producing work from you or simply restating the professor's views.

First of all, this class has definitely made me think more critically of myself as well as reevaluate the way I process information. For example: before this class, I used to think that I always thought for myself however, looking back, I also let society think for me sometimes. After realizing this, I stopped bullshitting myself and began to set goals based on what I want from me, and not what the world expects of me.

However, being honest with myself was harder than I thought. I am an art major. I really enjoy expressing myself through art, but lately, being strait up with myself, I can't help but feel a bit like a whore, like a professional people pleaser, simply because of the Art classes I'm taking now that exploit the commercial functions of art rather than focus on its expressive qualities.

A strange connection.

This evening I attended the Kronos Quartet concert over at Tunlane. There were no program notes, so for one of the pieces the first violin player gave a short explanation about how it was written and what the story behind it was. The piece was entitled "...hold me neighbor, in this storm..." and the violinist said that he asked composer, who is Serbian, to write a piece that explained the situation that was happening over there so that he,his group, and the audience could understand what was going on. He said this, and throughout the piece I kept thinking of Tim O'Brien and how he used his numerous books to try and figure out what happened over in Vietnam. O'Brien used words and Aleksandra Vrebalov used music to try and convey the emotional turmoil that they lived through.

When I grow up...

The discussion in class really had me thinking hard today about what I want to be and what i want with my life. As I was thinking I came to the realization that I had no earthly idea of what I wanted to be. I also figured out (as Janelle may have said in different words) that this isn't the time to have everything figured out. It's the time to grow, to change, to become a better person, to discover what a better person really is. I can honestly say that this course is making me reflect upon myself and "truths"... it has made me question mainly everything in everyday life. I can honestly say that now I am a skeptic.

freakonomics

I read Freakonomics for another class, and all throughout it I kept thinking of this class. For those who don't know much about Freakonomics, the book focuses on using economics to question certain quirky questions about the world. I really recommend the book to everyone, even if you think economics sounds extremely boring - I thought the same thing before I read the book. The authors make the material interesting and "provocative" as many of the reviews stated. The authors talk a lot about questioning conventional wisdom, and makes many great points about it, especially regarding parenting. Anyways, it made me think about how we accept certain "truths" about the world, and so many things are seen as general knowledge, but are they really the truth? Research data is questioned in the book, and the authors admit that many experts use information to their advantage for their own gains.. and therefore stretch the facts. The book just reinforced my use of critical thinking, and along with this course, is forcing me to question more than I used to. And because of that, the world, and everything, seems more interesting.