As a means of getting organized, I chose to clean out the closet in my bedroom. My closet isn't a walk-in, so it's not huge, but it's not super small either. It's lined with five rows of long white shelves. However, there is a small area for hanging fancy pants clothing that is tucked away in the right corner of the closet. Needless to say, it gets messy after awhile. Clothes get put back too hastily and they fall on top of each other and if I'm not in the mood to fold, well... they just get thrown in. So, here's how I went about it:
At the beginning, I felt a bit overwhelmed because I have a lot of clothes that have gathered in my closet. Instead of tearing everything off all of the shelves at once, I went one shelf at a time, which really eased my bewilderment. Towards the middle of my closet cleaning, I got pretty bored, I was sick of folding, but I knew I still had a lot to do. I decided to play some music, which kept me entertained until I finished. When I placed the last pile of clothing onto the last section of shelf, I felt such great relief. It was as if a weight had been lifted off of me when I completed my closet cleaning.
My mind definitely feels better now that it has completed its task. However, it is somewhat nervous and disappointed because it knows that the perfect closet won't look like that forever. And sooner or later, it'll have to endure the perilous task of folding hundreds of clothes once again.
From organizing my closet, I've learned that I feel happier when I'm organized. I also learned that sometimes organizing is a pain in the butt, but it is definitely helpful in the end. I now know just exactly where everything is, and will no longer have to maul through fifty shirts before finding the one that I'm searching for.
As I worked on this project, I was surprised to learn that I was torn over which way to organize my closet. I always color coordinate my sweatshirts: gray, black, navy blue. However, I tend to group my long sleeves, t-shirts, and tank tops according to style. This time, one part of my mind wanted to color coordinate those, too, while the other preferred the usual way. I was frustrated that I was struggling so much with which way to organize... I wish I could simply make a decision and be done with it. Afterall, was it really so hard to fold some clothes and group them in the way that I saw fit? I am seriously terrible at decision making. However, I was successful when it came to deciding whether to keep or donate certain clothes. I have a rule: If I haven't worn it in a year, I have to get rid of it. A good portion of my closet was emptied this way. I am pleased that my rule has allowed me to make decisions about some things. I guess I'll just have to keep working on everything else.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Change of Mind: Descartes
After reading about Descartes in Sophie's World, I see reasoning, God, and reality in a new way.
Before learning about Descartes, I never questioned reasoning. I didn't question the environment surrounding me... I always thought it was just there. However, Descartes was full of doubt, never sure of what was real and what wasn't. Through this thought process, he came to comprehend that he was really alive. Gaarder explains, "When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being" (235). Though Descartes conclusion is somewhat simplistic, it is at the same time complex. As humans we should all question what we are and find the reasoning behind it, but most of us don't. Descartes made me realize that we shouldn't just accept what we are, but that we must find reasoning to make it true within ourselves.
Descartes also changed my views on why/how God exists. As opposed to other theories, I liked and understood his most. I'd never given much thought about who or what God is before this. Basically, Descartes explains that because every human has instilled within them the idea of "perfect," God must exist, because that idea could have only originated from a "perfect" God. I like Descartes way of thinking here. Again, it is somewhat simplistic, but it makes sense to me, and I appreciate that.
Descartes perception of reality is interesting. He is a dualist and therefore believes in two forms of reality: thought/mind and extension/matter. Before Descartes, I hadn't considered two different realities, nor did I really consider "reality" in general. However, Descartes explains that it comes in two forms. Thought is within one's mind and is not tangible. It takes up no room in space and can therefore not be broken into smaller parts. However, matter, the other form of reality, does take up room in space and can be broken down into smaller parts. Descartes believes that God created these two substances, but they don't have contact with each other. From Descartes, I see a better distinction between thought and matter. I'm happy that man is both, because with with our bodies and minds, we can achieve a better sense of reality.
Before learning about Descartes, I never questioned reasoning. I didn't question the environment surrounding me... I always thought it was just there. However, Descartes was full of doubt, never sure of what was real and what wasn't. Through this thought process, he came to comprehend that he was really alive. Gaarder explains, "When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being" (235). Though Descartes conclusion is somewhat simplistic, it is at the same time complex. As humans we should all question what we are and find the reasoning behind it, but most of us don't. Descartes made me realize that we shouldn't just accept what we are, but that we must find reasoning to make it true within ourselves.
Descartes also changed my views on why/how God exists. As opposed to other theories, I liked and understood his most. I'd never given much thought about who or what God is before this. Basically, Descartes explains that because every human has instilled within them the idea of "perfect," God must exist, because that idea could have only originated from a "perfect" God. I like Descartes way of thinking here. Again, it is somewhat simplistic, but it makes sense to me, and I appreciate that.
Descartes perception of reality is interesting. He is a dualist and therefore believes in two forms of reality: thought/mind and extension/matter. Before Descartes, I hadn't considered two different realities, nor did I really consider "reality" in general. However, Descartes explains that it comes in two forms. Thought is within one's mind and is not tangible. It takes up no room in space and can therefore not be broken into smaller parts. However, matter, the other form of reality, does take up room in space and can be broken down into smaller parts. Descartes believes that God created these two substances, but they don't have contact with each other. From Descartes, I see a better distinction between thought and matter. I'm happy that man is both, because with with our bodies and minds, we can achieve a better sense of reality.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
iMedia: Gregory Crewdson's Photography
Gregory Crewdson was born in 1968 and is now a well-known photographer. He studied at Yale University and is now an instructor there. I learned about Crewdson in my photography class and I have basically fallen in love with his photos.
Crewdson has a team of nearly sixty people that work to perfect the sets for his photos. His photos are elaborately staged and sometimes super expensive to create. Most of his photos represent small town life, though they no doubt have a sci-fi feeling to them. Many of his photos are reminiscent of a colorful episode of the Twilight Zone and some say that they resemble Steven Spielberg's work because they appear somewhat cinematic.
Crewdson's elaborate sets definitely represent 21st century life. Here in the 21st century, we are all about complexity. Crewdson demonstrates complexity through his enormous, staged sets that require hundreds of hands and lots of time. Not only are his sets complex, but so are the ideas that his photos may or may not get across.
I am deeply enthralled by his somewhat perplexing photos. First, because they allow the imagination to run wild. There is no limit to what his photos might represent. For example, his series, Beneath the Roses, features an image of a woman floating face up in the water inside of a house in what looks like the den. How odd! He also has another that I deeply enjoy: a man standing outside of his car, the door is open, it's pouring rain and he's soaking wet. He's kind of feeling at the rain, as if asking, "what is this stuff?" I don't know what it means, but that's why I love it. It can mean anything!
The light in his photos is also extremely well done. Light comes in strong from all different directions, but is also lacking in all the right areas. Also Crewdson displays his photos on an extremely large scale, almost taking up full walls. This is reminiscent of today's society in a way. Everything is big nowadays... big TVs, big cars, big photographic displays... his usage of "big" is intriguing and helpful at the same time. Big photos, as opposed to one that fits into your wallet, are easier to connect and fall into. The largeness is also more realistic and lifelike. Also, Crewdson subtly places small signs and subjects into his photos that can only be seen from an extremely large scale. His talented interest for photography stems from a certain fascination that he has.
Crewdson has many times made the comment that he is intrigued with the idea of "frozen in time." Like no other media, photography has no beginning and no end. For example, books, songs, and movies all have a solid start and a finish. However, the beginning and the end are nonexistent for photographs, they just are. Crewdson definitely has a great time toying with this idea. Often, he leaves the viewer of his photos entirely perplexed, somewhat dumbfounded.
Crewdson has a team of nearly sixty people that work to perfect the sets for his photos. His photos are elaborately staged and sometimes super expensive to create. Most of his photos represent small town life, though they no doubt have a sci-fi feeling to them. Many of his photos are reminiscent of a colorful episode of the Twilight Zone and some say that they resemble Steven Spielberg's work because they appear somewhat cinematic.
Crewdson's elaborate sets definitely represent 21st century life. Here in the 21st century, we are all about complexity. Crewdson demonstrates complexity through his enormous, staged sets that require hundreds of hands and lots of time. Not only are his sets complex, but so are the ideas that his photos may or may not get across.
I am deeply enthralled by his somewhat perplexing photos. First, because they allow the imagination to run wild. There is no limit to what his photos might represent. For example, his series, Beneath the Roses, features an image of a woman floating face up in the water inside of a house in what looks like the den. How odd! He also has another that I deeply enjoy: a man standing outside of his car, the door is open, it's pouring rain and he's soaking wet. He's kind of feeling at the rain, as if asking, "what is this stuff?" I don't know what it means, but that's why I love it. It can mean anything!
The light in his photos is also extremely well done. Light comes in strong from all different directions, but is also lacking in all the right areas. Also Crewdson displays his photos on an extremely large scale, almost taking up full walls. This is reminiscent of today's society in a way. Everything is big nowadays... big TVs, big cars, big photographic displays... his usage of "big" is intriguing and helpful at the same time. Big photos, as opposed to one that fits into your wallet, are easier to connect and fall into. The largeness is also more realistic and lifelike. Also, Crewdson subtly places small signs and subjects into his photos that can only be seen from an extremely large scale. His talented interest for photography stems from a certain fascination that he has.
Crewdson has many times made the comment that he is intrigued with the idea of "frozen in time." Like no other media, photography has no beginning and no end. For example, books, songs, and movies all have a solid start and a finish. However, the beginning and the end are nonexistent for photographs, they just are. Crewdson definitely has a great time toying with this idea. Often, he leaves the viewer of his photos entirely perplexed, somewhat dumbfounded.
Crewdson's photography is both astonishing and at times unsettling. He certainly has the ability to captivate and confuse.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Best of Today: Sophie as a Medium
As we discussed Sophie's World in class today, we attempted to answer the question, "Why does Gaarder juxtapose the Sophie narrative with a philosophy course?" (taken from the Humanities website).
I believe that Gaarder's juxtaposition of Sophie and philosophy is a brilliant idea.
From the question, we came across some excellent explanations. First, Sophie makes the book into a novel. There are characters, like her mother and father and friends, and there are problems that Sophie has already come across... like that her mother thinks she is on drugs due to her newly found curiosity of the world around her. As readers, we are more enthralled by things that we can relate to. So, when Gaarder puts Sophie's life into this work, it provides a greater sense of affection because it is realistic, and it creates an interesting novel. Therefore, more people read it and enjoy it.
If this work was solely philosophy, I would cringe just reading the back cover. When I ponder philosophy, the words that come into my mind are "beyond me... ridiculously confusing... college... religion..." As such, philosophy, at least for me, is completely overwhelming and not something I'd like to read a book about. However, Gaarder's clever ways have put me in a slightly more discernible position: he has combined the mastery of philosophy with a fourteen year old girl who I am more or less able to relate to.
I am so happy that Gaarder has done this, that I wish I could thank him personally. I am totally thankful because this will totally help me get through this 507 page novel. I thoroughly believe that if Sophie was not a part of this work, I would be incapable of reading it. Already, I have noticed that I look forward to reading the "Sophie" parts of the novel. In a way, they give my mind a break from the intense exercise it gets from the philosophy parts.
Considering what Gaarder did, I wish that other writers would do the same. When I think about my past math and history textbooks, I probably would have understood them a lot more, and have been more motivated to read them, if there was a story line twisted into them. I honestly would not mind reading extra pages if there was more depth (like a storyline) to what I'd been reading. In the future, I'll hopefully be able to find novels like Sophie's World, that intrigue me with their fiction, yet teach me significant subjects like astronomy or psychology.
I am extremely grateful for Gaarder's unique combination of fiction and history, and I hope that it makes way for more novels like it, because it seems like an excellent way to teach and entertain at the same time.
I believe that Gaarder's juxtaposition of Sophie and philosophy is a brilliant idea.
From the question, we came across some excellent explanations. First, Sophie makes the book into a novel. There are characters, like her mother and father and friends, and there are problems that Sophie has already come across... like that her mother thinks she is on drugs due to her newly found curiosity of the world around her. As readers, we are more enthralled by things that we can relate to. So, when Gaarder puts Sophie's life into this work, it provides a greater sense of affection because it is realistic, and it creates an interesting novel. Therefore, more people read it and enjoy it.
If this work was solely philosophy, I would cringe just reading the back cover. When I ponder philosophy, the words that come into my mind are "beyond me... ridiculously confusing... college... religion..." As such, philosophy, at least for me, is completely overwhelming and not something I'd like to read a book about. However, Gaarder's clever ways have put me in a slightly more discernible position: he has combined the mastery of philosophy with a fourteen year old girl who I am more or less able to relate to.
I am so happy that Gaarder has done this, that I wish I could thank him personally. I am totally thankful because this will totally help me get through this 507 page novel. I thoroughly believe that if Sophie was not a part of this work, I would be incapable of reading it. Already, I have noticed that I look forward to reading the "Sophie" parts of the novel. In a way, they give my mind a break from the intense exercise it gets from the philosophy parts.
Considering what Gaarder did, I wish that other writers would do the same. When I think about my past math and history textbooks, I probably would have understood them a lot more, and have been more motivated to read them, if there was a story line twisted into them. I honestly would not mind reading extra pages if there was more depth (like a storyline) to what I'd been reading. In the future, I'll hopefully be able to find novels like Sophie's World, that intrigue me with their fiction, yet teach me significant subjects like astronomy or psychology.
I am extremely grateful for Gaarder's unique combination of fiction and history, and I hope that it makes way for more novels like it, because it seems like an excellent way to teach and entertain at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)