Comments (0)

By ZenMaintenance, 12 Nov 09 21:01

There have been many literary phenomena; people learning to write, for example. It has become a way to express simple thoughts, then more and more serious and more complicated ones, until, at last, literacy had evolved to be something more than a couple of sentences or a reason to stay inside and have a quiet afternoon. After thousands of years of evolution, literature became a reason to think; to believe; to wonder. At the forefront of this thinking mass have been two very deep novel genres: Transcendentalism and Existentialism.

Transcendentalism, the first to appear, was really less of a genre but a branch of thought in itself. German transcendentalism was one of the more prominent types of transcendence; made famous by novelists such as Herman Hesse. It then went on to form a new idea in New England, appropriately called New England Transcendentalism. This variation of it, being one of the more prevalent, thought that the way to transcend one’s environment was to move closer to the natural world and slowly make your way to God, through this method. This style has been around for hundreds of years, in one form or another, and was commonly linked to Eastern Spirituality. Another write who was not necessarily considered Transcendental, but can easily be oinked to this style, was Jack Kerouac. One of the leaders of the Beat Generation, Kerouac’s novel On The Road was a loud, ringing voice calling people to trace their roots and find the nature within themselves, in order to truly transcend and find a God in everyday life.

Existentialism was like transcendentalism, but it explored, in a meaningful mixture of humanity and unsolvable problems, the inability for humans to truly transcend while living in an absurd world. It is closely linked to a separate philosophy, called absurdism, which pulls around the idea that the universe, and, ultimately, humanity’s attempts to understand it, is completely absurd in actions and does not follow a specific idea. Fyodor Dostoevsky is commonly linked to thsi philosophy, as a founding father, with such novels as Crime And Punishment (A novel in which the protagonist tries to justify an entirely pointless crime, but cannot). This type of inquiry stretched through the decades, and was used, most prominently, by Jean Paul Sartre, Franz Kafka, and Albert Camus, respectively. Albert Camus helped to truly expand existentialist ideals; he threw out inquiry after inquiry, while still staying entirely closed off, within the realm of a specific philosophy. Kafka was also a very important literary figure in this aspect; his novels expressed a hope that humanity could overcome its problems, but showed that, oftentimes, he cannot, and must simply look forward to survival, because this is his ultimate goal, until death.

Existentialism and Transcendentalism are two very important types of literature. They are inquisitive, daring, and, most of all, truly familiar with the ideals that make us human. The fact that it took us thousands of years to reach this point of writing only goes to help prove the level of inquisition that this type of thinking has brought about.

~ZM~

Comments (0)

By KDurch, 12 Nov 09 16:41

okay…so this is just a small paper I wrote for my social mass media class. It doesn’t have much one can talk about, but something interesting to read, I guess… Please feel free to pass judgement or comment on the paper!

Kendall Durchanek

                                                             Symbolism in Mass Communication
In a world of media and communication, people relate to what they see and talk about as symbols. Symbols can be seen as people, objects or even subjects of interest. “Symbol” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is “an object that is used to represent something abstract” and “Symbolism” is “to represent by a symbol or symbols.”
Symbolic Interaction Theory (SIT) has been around and known for over sixty years now. Its roots are traced back to pragmatist philosophers such as Peirce, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead. Blumer, Becker, Goffman, Denzin, and Hochschild have taken the ideas of the philosophers and continued to study and improve the theory. Blumer, who agreed with Meads ideas, defines SIT as “the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between human beings.” (Gingrich).
Symbols have been around for a long time. Cavemen used the walls of caves to draw their stories to pass down the generations. Books were later formed to write down stories, then still pictures and now moving pictures: television and videos. These are not the only places one can find symbols. Within pictures, stories, and moving pictures there are symbols. There symbols are spoken, moving, or inanimate objects.
G.H. Mead and Herbert Blumer worked together to create the general basics of SIT. They focused on the communication and interactions between people. When one person talks to another, the process of what s/he says to the other they find the interpretation may be different. This comes from the idea that each person grew up with different influences around them than the other person. How they were raised with religion, politics, education, or even location are all factors of your interpretation or symbols in the world.
“Interactionists” focus on their image of people rather than on their images of society. They consider humans “pragmatic actors”, people who continually must adjust their behavior to the actions of other actors” (McClelland). They do these studies by personal observations. They say that personal interaction gives you a better feel for how people interact and behave in actual society. In conclusion they find that people are never the same around people (McClelland).
“The empirical path is one of the main reasons that symbolic interaction has remained an important theoretical influence in communication during most of the twentieth century is they question as to what really happens as humans interact. Given that it concerns human interaction the raw materials for study of this interaction are available to anyone. At the same time, the study requires careful observation, an ability to pay attention to detail, and a consideration of the accepted and routine. While it may be difficult to abstract from the perspective of each sociologist, empirical study must move beyond the prejudice and bias of the observer” (Gingrich).
When they studied people, they made a list of different things that they noticed about humans interactions with each other. These were their emotions, body postures and movements, and their etiquette. If someone had something important, they stood more still and seemed apprehensive, while if someone had some sad news they seemed slumped over and their emotions were slow and sad.
There are some downfalls to SIT though. These range from the fact that it’s “too broad, it places too much emphasis on personal behavior, it neglects other important variables, and it is not falsifiable.” They say that the subject of study is too broad and that one cannot pin-point and describe every symbol or interaction between the people. Another aspect is the reality of the subject. Some event may just be okay, but the people can accept the event as something really good or really bad. Their portrayal may be different than that of what was supposed to happen. These are two of the main topics as to why SIT is not a good theory on its own, but rather the basis for many theories (West and Turner).
As long as media is around, symbols will always be around. Also as long as humans are around, there will always be a study of their behaviors and interactions with each other. There will always be questions to be answered, but might not fully comprehend. We can always get close to finding these answers using technology, but then you take the human out of their normal comfort zones and they will not act the same.
Some interactions that I have had with this theory, through the media have to be based on politics, movies, and basic television watching. When I was little I watched movies and wanted to be like the actors and actresses I saw. As I got older and became more aware of actors and what they did, I changed my mind. They are basic people, but get more coverage, because they are in movies or television, and they lives are never left alone. I do not want to be famous for just making movies and having my “mistakes” made a big deal that could end my career.
If you look at symbols in a political sense, you have two main political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. These two parties are symbolized by a blue Donkey- Democrats- and a red Elephant- Republicans. Every two years there is either state or national elections to elect different politicians. How the Politian is doing in the race is marked by red or blue. People will then know what party is winning and where. These politicians stand for what America wants and represents. So when two people talk about politics, if they were raised in a house with different political views, then those two people’s interactions would not be the same. It might create stress or greater conflicts between the two people, but the two people can also work around those differences and make peace and understanding.
In general people associate education as a symbol of money and wealth. It is common to call people that have a college education on the middle class to wealthy status in life. And if you did not get a high school education, you are looked upon as poor and no money. These are all symbols of the general society. Not all wealthy people had college educations though. Most actresses and actors made it through at least high school-getting the diploma at the same time as acting-. These people are also looked upon as symbols. Little children look upon famous people as idols and want to grow up and be like them. People from other countries see these movies and believe that what they see is what America is like.
Everywhere you go you see signs, cars, and people sitting on the street holding signs. These are all symbols, symbols of life and the society around us. These are just some of the ways I interact and face the idea of Symbolic Interaction Theory. People study the aspect of how humans interact with each other: ranging from body language and emotions, the media’s portrayal of people and aspects of life and each person’s perspective on life.

Works Cited
Gingrich, Paul. “Sociology 319: Symbolic Interactionism.” 1 February 2000. University of Regina. 6 December 2008 .
McClelland, Kent. “SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM.” 21 February 2000. Grinnell College. 7 December 2008 .
West, Richard and Lynn H. Turner. “Symbolic Interaction Theory.” 2007. Introducing Communication Theory Analysis and Application Third Edition. 7 December 2008 .

Comments (7)

By ZenMaintenance, 22 Oct 09 19:39

So, really, I believe that this country needs to get its epistemological roots back. There are people upon people upon people who get a free education and a home for the first eighteen years of their lives, and these people hate school.

I’m not saying that every person hates school, but that people need to learn that their education, while it may not be extremely important to them, expands the brain. It helps them to contemplate things which may be of a help to them; and even gives them better employment opportunities. So, why wouldn’t people just learn for the crapping of it, since they have to anyway? Boring stuff, maybe?

Hmmm… Interesting thought, ZenMaintenance. Very interesting, and I have to say that that is a problem among some.
So, let’s address another point: To those of you who have read the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World. I remember, form this novel, a specific point, in which the main characters are meeting with the World Controller, Mustafa Mond. In this meeting, the characters are told that modern humans are treated to have a predetermined intelligence for one reason: That if everybody were geniuses (Paraphrased, obviously), then there would be disaster.

I do not agree with this. I believe there would be arguments, but not disaster. Especially not if people were reasonable and logical enough to use the Socratic Method or to listen to each other reasonably, like humans begins should.

Ahhhhhhhhh……. Socrates. I knew nothing about him until last summer, when I was reading the nonfiction book Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. He told us (The readers) that nobody had really tested the formerly accepted ideas of society and religion/metaphysical ideas before the Sophists. He said that these people were, basically, the first organized school of thought. Then, the Socratic and post-Socratic philosophers began to use thought. I really think that the most important influence on our government should be considered Socrates, not John Locke. Simply because of the Declaration of Independence. It states that we are all created equal, and he government is there to provide for use the freedoms we need and want, and that if the government becomes destructive to the aforesaid means, that we are to abolish it and start again. Socrates demonstrated this tenfold; he tried to have every person believe in equality, and, when persecuted for his beliefs, kept his stance, doing everything he could to change the government so that it wasn’t destructive to these means, and, when he failed, he accepted death. Although it is true that because he didn’t have a ridiculously large following, he wasn’t able to do a very large amount of persuasion, and he, being a peace monger, would not want to try and revolt.

Also by way of argument comes a piece of literature known as Catch 22, written by Joseph Heller. It’s a good book, according to most people, but some people don’t understand the humor, don’t like the humor, etc. I think people have to be able to understand the book more to be able to really enjoy it. The book, obviously anti war, was truly about the government’s conquest into different people, and the craziness of the subordination of some of those people, and the beliefs of those who, although they are not truly crazy, are labeled crazy by the government and treated as such. It uses humor (a lot of it pretty dark) in order to show the ridiculousness of the System. And, although it becomes gravely serious at different points, it really holds true to its comedy almost the entire time. But the reason it uses comedy is that the author is writing it so that he expresses the craziness not only in its characters and its form of logic, but also in the writing. The insanity of the whole situation is shown simply through the use of a cut storyline, jumping back and forth, with no real logical order to follow, until the storyline has been pieced together.

Another interesting work of political fiction is Orwell’s 1984. Very good. It’s a classic, well known piece about an oppressive government. It was written in 1948, and uses a very closed in mood and personality to achieve its main message: The impossibility of truly functioning in such a government. The governmental entity, known simply as Big Brother, is not even truly existing within the story. We never learn if he’s real. It’s a pretty good concept, though, the idea of only hearing the story through one point of view.

Solipsism- that’s one of the philosophies mentioned when the government is being explained. It is the idea that nothing exists outside the mind of every person. And it’s a very personal idea; if I can’t see you, you do not exist at the moment. This is close to subjective philosophy. It has the same basic idea, except that it was never developed metaphysically. It’s also close to existentialism; the study of the existence of man and his place within his universe. Most existentialists would argue that man is in charge of his own destiny and that the only thing he is sure to do on earth is to exist; whether it be one day or three hundred years. A good book on this is L’Etranger (The Stranger in English), about a man who commits a pointless murder and is condemned to death. The man believes throughout the novel that there is no force bringing humans together, and that it is absurd to even believe that. This branches out into absurdism; the very belief described in the last sentence through the idea of existentialism.

Another philosophy-Objectivism-was brought out through Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. It shows the idea that things exist outside of the realm of thought.

Metaphysics. Can’t get enough.

So, if you were to ask me, people should remain to follow school, if only epistemologically, for the sake of learning,, through earlier years. I think that people should contemplate the metaphysics that they are aware of, in order to breach their understanding of the relam outside our own.

~ZM~

Comments (5)

By Malice, 11 May 09 7:15

All of which you are about to read is of my opinion.

In this modern world of humans who have little to no morals, and humans being annoying, the world is becoming/has become a place where people no longer take responsibility for their own actions, or keeping morals at a standard, people have become focused on things that should not be focused on at a later time. Some annoying qualities that people suffer from, and I remind you this is my opinion, are how an excuse can be found for it to not be their fault, no matter the situation, also, how some people always find a way to talk about themselves, and never tire from it. They can rant on about how “awesome” their weekend was, while you are dying of boredom, wondering how they don’t notice you are annoyed and don’t care, even though most of your responses are “Uh huh”, and you aren’t saying anything about it, not even commenting on it, or asking questions about it. People who talk about things as if they know what they are talking about, but have no idea what they are talking about are one of the worst things I’ve been around, in my opinion. Talking through ignorance is not okay. Not only is what you are talking about wrong, but the information that you are spreading around is also wrong. Next, promiscuity, especially in teenagers, is terrible. Even if it’s just with one person who they aren’t sure they are going to be with forever is wrong. It should not be with multitudes of people. It should be your job to make sure that the sexual organ you have acquired through being born is not shared among the populace. For females, in my opinion, it is gross for them to go around with multiple guys. I mean, sure you might like it at the time, but later in time, when you find someone that you want to be with, your vagina has been penetrated by hopefully you know how many other males, and is putrid and impure, and this isn’t even considering it might be loose, and you’ll know how experienced other people are, so then you may always be thinking about how “good” your life long partner is, compared to your one night stands or short term boyfriends or whatever they were. This isn’t fair to that person, or to you. For males, it isn’t as gross.. I mean your penis isn’t inside you, a place that’s hard to clean or anything, but still.. Getting vaginal liquids, or even just the thought, through a condom, is still gross if it’s from more than one female. I mean it’s not meant to made to go and loosen every girl you can, it’s meant to make children with the one you are going to be with forever. Think before you act, just because you can get a girl to, doesn’t mean you should. This is more antagonistic towards males though, it isn’t always their fault, girls do want it too, and some are willing to. Still, taking advantage isn’t right for males or females.

In the old world, things were better, in my opinion. People seemed more sincere to each other, and there were no divorces. People stuck together til the end, and everyone knew everyone else. When people would be married at a young age and never get divorced, and life was simple and nobody had a care in the world. It was easier to make a living and people helped each other out even though they were just neighbors or lived in the same neighborhood.