Final Essay

The Invisible Barrier of Fear:

An analysis on how fear affects humans in every aspect of their lives

People are constantly looking for possibilities that will allow them to get what they want. Although the methods may vary from person to person, the objective remains the same. We all want to fulfill our desires and to see our dreams come true. Yet, why is it that the vast majority of people that want to be better, don’t quite achieve it? What is the impediment or the barrier that is denying us from our well deserved desires?

Walking Life is a strongly philosophical movie that carves onto several topics regarding humanity and our existence. Amongst them, that mental barrier is questioned. The concern appears on a scene in which an old man, rephrases the preoccupation onto another question. “Which is the most universal human characteristic, fear, or laziness? “ From that screenshot we can deduce several things in regard to his intentions. For instance, since the person talking is an old man, we must understand that the director is implying that he is wise and possesses prior knowledge, and thus, must be right. Since he is the only person in focus, there is nothing else besides his words and actions that matter. Even more so, you can see how serious he is on his question, as his face holds no expressions at all, and the dark background behind him empowers his speech. On the other hand, his soothing voice makes you feel comfortable, and because he is the only person on screenshot, you understand that he is reaching for the viewers. His question is meant for us to answer.

After giving it some thought. I’ve come to the conclusion that most universal characteristic, and the one thing that prevents us from achieving greatness is fear. The fear that we contain is so strong that it is widely represented in our culture and in our everyday actions. Such fear has become so strong in humanity that Italo Calvino, in one of his Invisible Cities Called Chloe, has created a society in which nobody talks to one another. A city in which everyone is a stranger, and all the relationships between each other occur in realms of the mind. Even the most instinctual sexual desires aren’t recreated outside the mind of the citizens because they all fear that the fantasies might come to an end. This is as ridiculous as deciding to stay in your house for the rest of your life to prevent your hypothetical murder on the streets. Is it really worth to choose isolation before taking the risk of living?

More than admiring the power of imagination, Chloe is a city that shows us how far people are willing to go to avoid suffering. How far is the human mind willing to go because of the fear that devours it. Basically, Chloe is a city that proves with hyperbole, how ridiculous it is to fear living. And how ridiculous it is to lock yourself within the illusion of a fantasy world, in which nothing is worth doing, or thinking, for that matter.

The power of fear is also visible on another of Calvino’s cities, called Thekla. Probably as absurd as Chloe, those who arrive at Thekla encounter a city that is in permanent construction, and if one were to ask the reason behind this, he would get an answer such as, “So that its destruction cannot begin.” (Pg. 127) Although I understand that the City’s value is based on its blueprint (which is the sky and the stars), this city also demonstrates how people aren’t confident enough to follow their own ideas, and therefore become unable to reach their final destination or purpose. The people of Thekla even confess that they fear the destruction of their city because they are afraid of their own destruction.

The message behind this invisible city is that by being afraid, you are not able to accomplish your goals. Calvino represents the fear of these people by showing them as insecure. The people are strictly dependent on an outer source and thus will never be able to achieve their personal desires. (That is if they even have them.) Although the stars and the skies may change, their foolishness and blindness will remain the same, and the inhabitants will always seem incomplete and unsatisfied.

After observing how fear affects whole cities or societies, we must notice how this fear affects individuals. The fear that controls our actions makes us act on an “autopilot function” in which we don’t get to experience the art of living. On Waking Life, there is a scene in which the main character encounters a red headed woman, they bump onto each other and they simply apologize and continue along their paths. Suddenly the women returns, after an apparent moment of anagnorisis, and starts a conversation with the main character on the absence of human feelings. The scene implies that we miss a lot of moments because we don’t act and if you think about it, one of the biggest reasons why people tend to isolate themselves from interactions is because they feel threatened. People feel scared of what others might think of them and end up losing valuable moments of their lifetimes-- All because of fear.

The director uses plenty of signals so that the viewer gets to understand the message being said. First thing that I can figure out is that this woman, as well as her message is out of the ordinary. The fact that she is red headed implies that she is not common. She is the only person in the whole movie with red hair, and this makes her stand out, just like her idea. Then, she approaches the main character from above, meaning that she has a higher status. Later, when they are both talking, you notice that she is at rule of thirds, and her presence is amplified both by her movements, and her colors in contrast with both the main character and background.

Fear is contradictory to the evolution of humanity. Whether it affects us as individuals, or as a collective group, if we allow fear to control us we will never be able to achieve true greatness. We must look at fear as an invisible city that forms part of our human instinctive nature. But rather than accepting it, we must confront it and defeat it, to surpass the limitations that we are responsible for creating. If we consciously awaken from the uncontrollable dream in which we currently live on, we will be able to achieve our full potential as human beings.

Human Misfortune

After Gulliver arrived to England, he wasn't able to identify with the people in there and ended up disliking everyone. Not only the English, but also the different creatures he met during his adventures. The only ones that he came to like, the Houyhnhnms, kicked him out of their country and even them didn't seem likable, at least for the readers. Their lives were extremely boring and frankly, I'd rather live in any other ridiculous society than to live with them.

In the end, Gulliver is completely alone. If were are to see his travels as journeys through humanity and our behavior, then we must understand that we are completely flawed. In any case, in any circumstance and at all times, we are ridiculous. Swift himself wasn't capable of finding a solution, or a perfect society. As I see it, there are two possible options regarding Swift's intentions/ Either the book is a satire, and signifies nothing, or Swift is teaching us that in the end, there is no point on criticizing others, in the end, we are all just as bad. Everything you do wont be satisfactory for the others. As humans, we are a mess and we have to accept it and embrace it, but yet, we can try to do whatever we want, and we'll always live a dystopia.

The attractiveness of Deformity

First of all, I thought that it was really funny to see how the most deformed of the Yahoos would be the leader of the pack. As absurd as it sounds, we can certainly interpret it to our society, and specially as teenagers I guess. Why? Because leadership in groups is not related to the beautiful characteristics or virtues. For instance, the leader is not the smartest one, and in most of the cases, certainly not the most correct person. Instead, If you take a look at women for example, the ones that lead the pack are probably the stuck up bithches who feel better than the rest, and thus expect a special treatment from the rest. If this isnt deformed, then what is?

We are certainly led by the wrong morals and desires and even though people are aware of this, they arent willing to make a change. I guess that we act like this because we are led by wrong examples. We want it all, and we measure superiority in spite of how much we've fulflilled our desires. In fact, this concept doesnt even apply exclusively for teens. Take a look at Hitler for example, he wanted the power, the control, and revenge. He was willing to do this by all means necesarry and take a look at how much people that followed him. He was certainly the most deformed of the pack... It is surprising to see how Swift, such a long time ago was able to portray our human behaviour. Either he was too smart, or we havent changed and we keep doing the same mistakes that we've been doing for the past millenia.

Us as them, and them as us

In the fourth part of Gulliver Travels, we can see how Swift uses a different method to criticize society. Before, we saw the people that Gulliver encountered as an allusion to our behavior, but in this part, we are forced to see how our behavior is straight up ridiculous, and how we do things that aren't rational at all. In other words, humans are to Houyhnhnms as Lilliputians are humans.

We see with the horses eyes and get to analyze the behavior of Gulliver's culture (our culture) as if we didn't pertain to it.

The master asks Gulliver, "what were the usual causes or motives that made one country go to war with another?" I answered "they were innumerable; but I should only mention a few of the chief."(PART IV, chapter 5). Yet, he mentions sufficient reasons to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to go to war.

Not only war, but Gulliver also mentions other characteristics of human life, as the passing of laws and the purpose of lawyers. In fact, the more that Gulliver says, the more that the Houyhnhnms, and the readers feel pity and disappointment. As we get to see ourselves in the same way that we see those who we criticize, we feel disgust and alienation towards our lives, and towards our selves and finally, I get to understand Swift's intentions with his 'travel logs'.

Our ignorance as Yahoo's

At first sight, Gulliver is more of a Yahoo than a HOUYHNHNM. Simply because he resembles them and has nothing that relates him with the horses. Yet, we see how he doesn't relate to them at all. He is by far smarter, cleaner, and more reasonable than them and thus he is implying that he is better than them. In other words, he is better than most of the humans.

The strange part is though, that the horses are better than him and the rest of humanity. Aside from being absurd, it looks like a joke on the ways that humans would look to any other specie. It would be to say that we are not as good was we think we are. In fact, we are so wrong in our lifestyle, that even horses could be our rulers.

Frankly, that's the only interpretation I find for what's happened in the story. As it progresses, I might change my point of view, or I might be surprised by the accuracy of my hypothesis. To connect this entry with my previous one, the search engine could easily be a horse, a HOUYHNHNM.

Who's a Yahoo?

Although we've already discussed in class that the search engine "YAHOO" comes from Gulliver travels, after reading the first two chapters of the fourth part, I still wonder what was the intention of the creators by naming it this way.

I understand that YAHOO means human, but it also means ignorant, primitive and inferior. Why question is then, does the name imply that we are YAHOOS because we depend on their service? That we are ignorant and rely on their illumination, and answers?

It could also be the other way around. The search engine is the YAHOO. It is our slave, and does all the primitive work that needs to get done. There is really not way of knowing. They could either be mocking us, or not. There is even the third possibility that it has nothing to do at all. Why? Maybe it just sounded catchy. Signifying nothing? As the answer to that question will remain unknown for the rest of our time on earth, I'd say that we ought to forget about it and just keep on with the reading.

Reading what you want to read

The three articles where very different from one another. To me, "Heeeeere's...Conan!!!" sucked. "The Cost Conundrum" was O.K. and I loved "Ja..." Since articles are intended to different audiences you ought to have your preference. For instance, the first one talked about O'Brien, a comedian for whom I could care less and thus, I could care less about the reading.

The second article was entertaining and useful. It talked about the exagerated prices over medicine in the US. As I've already known, the desire for money has screwed us all up. I dont complaint, I get everything that I need, but I know that things could be better. The worst of all is that I dont think that much will be done in spite of that. The world is controlled by economy. Why would them want to affect themselves for the sake of the people? After all, surivval of the fittest still applies. Ask Darwin and Dawkins. In regards of style, I found the writter very upset but still, with enough serious evidence to make a point. This article both served to inform and to convince. (Altough As I said, It wont do its job in that area.)

The last article had a very different purpose. I was enjoying, and while I was reading it, I asked my self what was the intention of the writer. Honsetly, he didn't idolize their lifestile, but he didn't hate it either. The article then had to be simply informative. But later I realized that it indeed intended to convince. But to convince people that life is different. That people have the freedom to do what their want with their lives. You can do as much wickedness as you want as long as you dont interfer with other's lives.

The reason why I liked it probably has to do with the fact that I am a teen. Whether that is or isnt the case, I feel attracted to the emotions and adrenaline that JA must expierence. Altough I dont suppor that he needs the drugs to live his life. I believe that he is certainly living a better life than the majority of us. He is enjoying, he is living on the edge, and he is doing what he likes to do.

In my life, I would like to be able to follow those three ideals, without interfering with the laws, and with others. With the laws, because of the consequences, not because of what they actually mean, and as for others, I do believe on respecting their rights, and privacy, as I would like mine to be respected.

What I also liked on the article was that it wasnt forcing anyone onto believing the author's point of view. The author gave me the chance to read it and interpret in whichever way I wanted to. The second one didn't really present you with the choice, and well, the first one was as "AS INTERESTING AS TAKING A DUMP...

"J

Why are they even fighting anyway?

Swift is clearly upset or astound by the minimal differences that can lead to war, and separation. In the story, this is clearly represented with the heels. As I don't know much about English history I wouldnt be able to know the exact meaning of the "High-Heels" and the "Low-Heels", but I understand though, that he intends to say that their differences are ridiculous. Same thing happens with the eggs, and even with the conflict between Lilliput and Blefuscu which seems even more stupid.

Now, another small thing I want to talk about is the fact that Gulliver peed onto the pallace to save the emperor's wife. What does this mean? Also, the fact that he was granted pardon. What does this imply to society, or implied back then?

I'd say that first of all, Swift doesnt agree much with the royal desicions. Otherwise, why would he pee on their palace? He could believe that you ought to dishonor the existing rules, and crown, in order to save lifes. We have seen that Swift critizes the whole european culture, and that might've been another of his jokes. Aside from that, as Gullviver was pardoned, then he believes that there is entirely nothing wrong with doing so. That explains why he was so controversial with his book. (Anyways, I'm not sure if many people noticed back then.) Signifying nothing?

The Power of the Unknown

Gulliver reminds me of Hernan Cortez. The conquistador that "discovered" Mexico. He was praised, and seen as a God for his power. With his weapons, clothing, ships, and his animals, he was viewed as a leader, and highly respected at first. Gulliver is receiving a spectacular treatment by the Lilliputians. His size, compared to these creatures, represents the difference in power, and greatness.

Gulliver has the power to tyrannize the Lilliputians but he hasn't done it so far. It maybe that he isn't as cruel as Hernan Cortez, or simply that he hasn't found the opportunity. Yet, as he has the power to choose, we'll just have to wait on his decision.

I believe that the Lilliputians must be experiencing fear, and amusement. He is pretty much as an alien to them, and they will find some use of that. The majority feel intimidated by him, and we would too, if something like that were to happen to us. It is known that people tend to fear the unknown, because you never know how capable are they. I wonder, what does Gulliver and the Lilliputians represent in reality?

Right in front of our noses

As I was reading "The Coming Superbrain", by John Markoff I laughed out loud. I laughed because it remembered me to a story I heard during the weekend that perfectly relates to the Op-Ed. Basically, what Markoff tries to do in the Op-Ed is to evaluate the different possibilities and consequences of a future in which we create machines, or computers that become smarter than us

I believe that this will happen in a not so distant future. Although Markoff said that we wouldn't live to see any examples of this anomaly. There are many machines that have certain control over us, and we don't even know it.

As "La Inolvidable Penny", one of my grandmother's friends said, "Yo nunca escribo en esas maquinas porque no me gusta que nadie me este diciendo que hacer" when we were talking about computers. She hated computers because if you didn't press the button that "they" wanted, then they would simply not do what you wanted them to do and in many cases, just freeze for a while, until "THEY FELT" that you were ready for them.

Why would you have to press those exact buttons to open the explorer? After all, you own the computer and it is meant to serve you, not the other way around.

She also hated Microsoft Word. The exact translation of her words would be, "What the fuck do I care if my fragment needs revising?, I don't want any fucking advice on my grammar."

Penny also despised cellphones, ipods, and even A.I. chess machines. One would say that it is a very childish attitude towards techonolohy, and it is indeed, but we must consider the fact that she is reaching her last days on this planet, and she is much more amused by the amount of progress that has occurred during the past century. Anyways, she is right in the fact that we don't realize that we are enslaved by our machines.

That day shall come. The day in which the computer will tell us what to eat, what to think, and what to do. The day in which robots will have us as pets and We'll never notice. We'll never know because they will control us, and we'll have no way of knowing as they will be hiding right in front of our noses. As it is happening right now.

And by the way, if that day shall come, then the insatiable ego of the computer geeks shall be blamed. Because they are innovating in the daily bases, without knowing the chaos that we'll face in the future. And I bet that they will not feel as proud as they do in these days, when they show their discoveries in front of thousands, just for the sake of the money. How selfish are these geeks. I bet that they are too, ignorant of what hides in front of their noses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/weekinreview/24markoff.html?em

DNA serves well

There is not much to say. I agree with the author. Prosecutors shouldn't block the opportunities to do a DNA test. What is more reliable than this? In fact, it shouldn't even be the prisoner's choice. DNA testing would reduce significantly the margin of error, and ensure that the right people are getting convicted.

Besides, another benefit of the DNA testing is that they could find other potential suspects or criminals. Why wouldn't they want to do this? Why would you eat bad food, instead of your favorite food? (assuming that both of them are equally healthy and cost the same?) Why would you want to be counterproductive?

Maybe the tests are expensive but if you ask the average American, as to whether they would like more natural parks, or a safer country, they'd probably choose the second one. Well, maybe they would even choose the first one. But if it were up to me, I'd choose to spend more of my tax money onto safety. After all, who wants a bunch of criminals around their kids? Free! And, who wants to see innocents convicted for lifetime? Talking about justice there. It is all a matter of reasoning, and progress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19tue2.html?_r=1

No Music, No Life?

Miro's painting is straight up funky. The colors, the shapes, the lines, and the overall energy that it creates makes me either smile, or just want to go out and live. Enjoy, and even sing.

I wonder what is he implying with this painting? You can see plenty of figures that resemble reality, but they are all distorted in ways that cannot be described. There is this man playing his guitar, or banjo, or whatever that may be and he is inside a house. There is a dog that is enjoying music and looks like it were drugged. There is also a cat, and at the time, the rest of the shapes inside his house seem abstract and undecipherable. Yet, I see a house with a lake, at the left side, in which there are animals and trees.

My immediate understanding of this painting was that music, or art, are the foundations of life, or at least happiness. You can interpret this from the attention that the musician is getting. Most of the objects are revolving around him, or looking up to him as the cat, and the squirrel that I've just found on the wall.

Aside from this, his body is on rule of thirds, and even more so, his face the most notorious thing for me. (By the way, his face is another red balloon.) There are many lines and shapes that direct your eye onto the character and the contrast of his red face, with the whiteness that surrounds him, make him stand out.

The colors are very unreal. Most of them are tones that you wouldn't find normally find. For instance, there is the vibrant green on the walls, and the blue that we find on many details, such as as the trees, and the lake. This is the kind of blue you would find on top of a Disney cupcake. (By the way, to clear things out, I don't mean that the colors are unreal because you wouldn't find them in reality. I say that they are unreal because they are not common. You'd most likely see them as artificial.)

The power of the Balloon

First of all, I'd like to say that looking for a resemblance with reality, this would be a park, or a yard. At the left side, we can see a tree, standing above a kind building or structure. The floor likes like grass and as the see a bit blue color in the background, I'd say it is in the open. (Not to mention the fact that the balloon is rising above.)Aside from this, there is another structure that form a spiral, or stair that fades into the top of a wall, or a building.

I am having a hard time understanding the meaning of this piece. I'd say that it symbolizes freedom, or escaping from something. This would also be reinforced with the fact that things don't like as they would in real life. Now, as there is really not way of knowing, I will focus on the style.

Clearly, the focus point lies on the balloon. This happens for various reasons. First of all, the balloon is the only circle. (As the rest are rectangles, triangles, some squares, and although the 'tree' has smooth curves too, it doesn't get much attention because of its colors and placement.

The balloon is also emphasized with color. It is the most notorious element of the picture and I'd dare to say that it enlightens the rest of them, as a a sun. I know this because the objects that lie at its level have a slight reflection of that reddish color.

Finally, you also focus at the balloon because of the emptiness that surrounds it. That creates importance, and notoriety. Aside from this, the corners of the structures point out to it.

As for colors, the painting is made out of pastels that don't create much energy while you observe them. Since the majority of the background has the color of a cloud, you are not very much attracted, or at least I am not overall attracted to the painting. Yet, the balloon indicates hope, with its color, difference and height and looks as if the author wants to tell us that there is a way out from the depressive mist of... life?

(By the way, I am now thinking that this picture looks like a rooftop.)

Is Happiness is unreachable?

While I was reading the fifth chapter of Seize the Day, I Felt a connection with Tommy. I would dare to say that many of his problems lie on the fact that he feels lonely. Lonely because his father doesn't support him. Loneliness because he cant be with the one he loves. And loneliness because he feels that he doesn't form a part of humanity. Yet, we come to understand that he begins to feel 'connected' with people when he is on the subway station and feels part of some sort of "larger body".

The reason why he trusts in Tamkin is because he encourages him to become a part of the here and the now, and thus the people that live on it. He is his guide and supporter and that is why he relies on him. To be saved. Yet, I realize that there is a point in which Tommy will have to separate from him to begin doing things on his own. This will probably be a turning point in the story, or even so, the climax.

Anyways, I say that I felt a connection with him because although I have plenty, of friends, love, and 'control' over my life, I feel as if there was something missing. I am yet to find what it is and certainly hoping to find it because it seems as if you can never reach that utter point of happiness, or peace.

Freud said that happiness is an illusion and is unreachable and thus I question myself, will Tommy find that thing that he has been searching for? Will I find it too? Well, we just have to wait. Probably seize the day and who knows... We'll eventually get there.

Contradictions, contradictions...

I actually searched on the web for an exact meaning of Seize The Day and it said: Enjoy the present and don't worry about the future; live for the moment; make the most of today.

I just wanted to make sure that there were no other meanings to this maxim because I feel that Bell is contradicting himself in the story. As the title suggests, you should live on the present and forget about the future. Clearly, this isnt what Tommy is doing. He is entangled on a web of lies, fears, and problems from the past and even from an unknouwn future and he doesnt have the chance to live his life. To seize the day.

In fact, Dr. Tamkin, who is someone in whom Tommy has trusted his life, (or at least all the money he had left)encourages him to relax. To understand that things arent accomplished by following a strait path. That the mess will soon get fixed and that life is not too serious.

Well, I don't know if it is only me, but I feel that all the things that he is teaching Tommy are contradictory to seizing the day. Based on this inofrmation I can make two assumptions. Either the title of the book forshadows the fact that Tommy shouldnt be following Tamkin's advice, or; The whole book is a satire that contradicts itself, and will puzzle us until the very end, where we will be forced to choose between seizing the day, or going with the flow, as Tommy will have to do to find peace.

Envy. Which of them needs the help the most?

Tommy's suffering revolves around the fact that he is not receiving any help at all. I cannot understand how he is able to live and surround himself from things that not only don't help him, but affect him in a negative way. First of all, there is his father. Dr. Alder isnt willing to give him a chance. He wants his son to be better, to be like him, but he doesnt want to help him. To me, it would be like if you don't know how to swim and you are thrown into the pool by a random guy. You are drowning and this random guy then tells you that you have to swim to survive, but he wont tell you how to swim. What are you supposed to do? What is Tommy supposed to do?

Margaret isn't helping him either. She doesn't want to divorce, so that Tommy wont be able to marry the women he loves. Honestly, this kind of envy is one of the worst things I've seen, and probably the thing I despise the most in my life. She probably thinks, "Well, If I cannot be benefited from this, then why should anyone?"

This reminds me of a cousin of mine. A little girl, that acted the same way the other day because of an ice cream. The story was the following: She was sick the previous day, and her brother got to eat an ice cream and she didn't. The next day, she cried and cried because both of them were getting an ice cream. She believed that he shouldn't be allowed to have one, because he'd already had one the day she was sick.

The reason why I despise this kind of selfishness is because you technically have the option to help the other one (In my cousin's case, she could allow him to have one.) but you don't, because you wouldn't bare to see others doing better than you. This is a very infantile behavior, and this makes me hate Dr. Alder and his ideas.

If I was Tommy, I'd seek for help wherever I could get one, and I would also isolate myself from all the people that could harm me. I am left with a final question. Which of them needs the help the most? Which of them is less successful? Not everything in life is about money, or power. Values are more important. Or at least were. back in the days...

Postmodernism Attacks

On the second chapter of Seize the Day, we see a struggle between two ways of thinking. First of all, we have Dr. Alder, who wants his soon to be a salesman. Who seeks perfection. Who believes on tradition. And who is afraid of change.

On the other hand, there is Dr. Tamkin, someone with whom Tommy agrees. He is an inventor, and thus has a different way on earning money. We can also see that he is more imaginative, as he mentions the wetsuit and finally, we see deduce that life isn't only the right way, or the wrong way. There are plenty of possibilities that can be unconventional, on which you can earn money and live, as perhaps the author may implying with writing, but there is not way of knowing.

When the author is talking about Americans, he states that "Everybody wants to make something. Any American does." pg 37. Following the contrast between Dr. Tamkin and Dr. Alder, the author believes that people are changing their lifestyle. With the theory of relativity proposed by Einstein, society was affected. People started to change from Dr. Alder's point of view, to Dr. Tamkin's point of view and in my opinion, this is what Wiesel wants to emphasize on this chapter.

Raising your future

My deduction, after reading the first chapter of Seize the day, by Elie Wiesel is that the author is clearly making a connection between the way you are raised and the way you act. For instance, Tommy is never good enough for his father, and his father doesn't hide this. He wants his son to be a reflection of his succes, but does this in a way that doesn't benefit him.

Aside from this, Tommy is also severely affected because he has an imaginary control over his life. For example, he moves to California to 'act' and in the end, has no reason of doing it, but does it. Maybe to prove to himself that he is in control. This shows him as an insecure person that seeks his own approval and self gratification. I'd say that his father was responsible for this behavior he has.

From this chapter we can deduce two things, first of all, that seizing the day is not always a good choice. Or at least that you should evaluate more before you act upon something. And second of all, that Tommy's life will change. Because at the end, he recognizes his mistakes and asks for a better life. Either he'll get a better life, or he'll get a worse life. Either one of them, we can predict that his life will change.

So it went.

The third chapter of Flaubert's A Simple Soul, is titled Death. Not surprisingly, two people die in this chapter. One is Victor, the cousin. And the other one is Virginia, Madame Aubain's daughter.

Something that can be immediately deduced from the chapter is that Flaubert believes that death doesn't care. Similarly to Vonnegut. Who presenced so many deaths that they lost their importance. Except that in this story, Felitice does care. This tells a lot about Felicite as a character. (Connecting it to what we learned today in class.)

I'd say that Felicite is very naive and sweet. She worries about others, probably more than what she worries about themselves and she feels overwhelmed with a world that is stronger than her. This explains why she doesnt complain, even when she dislikes something and also why she fears God's wrath. Felicite knows that deep in the end she could be harmed in any ways and that is why her contact with death is so important. It probably makes her realize that she's not going to stay there forever.

My prediction would be that she will leave the house. She will finally start living a life for her own and follow her dreams. Yet, she could instead maintain her attitude towards life, and towards others and feel consumed in the inside by his desire to act, that she is forced to retain in spite of her fear.

Either one, her experiences with death will add more depth to the story and to herself.

A simple Soul?

I've read the first two chapters of Flaubert's A Simple Soul, and I am guessing that there is a connection between the title of the book, with the way that Felicite, (the main character) is, and the meaning of her name.

First of all, I'd say that Felicite has something to do with happiness. (As 'felicidad' in Spanish.) Now, she is very simple. Or, very uncomplicated. She doesn't really complain and enjoys here humble job. In fact, she is very kind with the majority of the people and again, she looks like a simple person.

The connection would be that she is happy being a simple person. Now, I am left with a question? If we already know what she is like, and by being simple she isn't prone to adventure, or action, then what would be the plot of the story?

I hope that it is not one of those stories that doesn't have an interesting plot. I mean, it could still signify nothing, but could at least attract the reader. Anyhow, I would also like to say that I don't enjoy stories that have women as main characters for the simple fact that I am not one and thus, cannot connect that much with the story as if it where with a male character. (I hope that no one sees this as chauvinism.)

Finally, I would like to say that I find this style very opposing to Carver's and Pynchon's because Flaubert is indeed very descriptive, and uses it to create vivid images on the story but yet, he doesn't take advantage of the silences, like Carver, and doesn't distract himself with other topics, or over-talks meaningless things as Pynchon. (By the way, when I say meaningless I mean that it is irrelevant to the topic, not that it is a bad thing.)

Perception of life

The other day I was thinking on how your situation changes your perception of life. If you are extremely rich, for example, you will surround yourself of a similar environment. You'll most likely never know how different can the world get and never really appreciate the small things in your life. On the other hand, there are people who remain ignorant of the rest of the world because they are 'poor'. These are people that have enough money to maintain themselves but would never dream of having a car, of having computers, or even of traveling away from their neighborhood.

Impresively enough, there are people that live in both of these ways, here in Bogota. For the first example, I'd say, mostly little rich kids. Those that arent old enough to experience a different reality and thus take for granted everything that surrounds them. As for the second example, there are all those 'barrios' in between el "Colegio San Carlos" and "San Andresito". (Just to mention a few.)

Everyone experiences alternate realities that form our whole consciousness. Or in another words, 'the objective reality'. Or do we? Cathedral, one of Carver's finest stories is a story based on the interaction between a blind person, and the main character. A blind person wont experience the same reality that we do, and the drawing of the cathedral on the story reinforces this idea.

Someone who's born blind doesn't get to see how ANYTHING looks like. As opposed to you closing your eyes and picturing something that you cant see. Because we already have an image or a set of images that create a picture in our brains. Well, if you've never seen something then you have absolutely no pictures in your mind at all times.

How strange would that be. To be able to touch, feel, smell, and even taste, but without any images of whatever it is you are 'connecting' with. Now that is a different reality. YOu dont miss not being able to watch, since you cant. But you are left 'alone', in a world which mainly revolves around visibility. You feel safe by watching. You fell that you are in control, when you can see things but when you cant, you are left without the ability to be free. To do whatever you want. (Unfortunately we cannot do whatever we want, in spite of society, but I'm guessing that you are following what my point.)

My question is then, how did the blind man experience the cathedral? The answer to that goes way beyond my level of understanding. I only know that it must be beautiful. Mystical, and fascinating. Confusing and crazy. But in the end, different.

We must firstly appreciate what we have. More than economically,we have to appreciate our loved ones, our eyes, our senses and basically, our lives. We should accept our reality and enjoy it. We have to value every single moment of our lives because after all, each moment is exclusive to ourselves and will never happen again. And besides that, do occasional close readings onto anything, because you'll never know how much stuff you can make up out of them.

Second Thoughts

Okay, first of all I must say that I liked The Compartment. First of all it is a really harsh story. It is about the reincounter of a father and a son who got onto a terrbile fight in which the father told him he would take his life if he had to.

First of all, that kind of fight is not common. Yet, it could happen. And now, the sons wants to meet his father. Probably with good intentions, and yet we dont know. And the father, Myers started having second thoughts as he was arriving the station on which he was supposed to meet him.

First of all, you ask yourself, why would any of them want to meet again. Specially the father. After that terrible fight. He had accostumed to live without him and didnt need him.

At the end of the story. With his second thoughts about getting down on the station and eventually not going. We can interpret that he didnt really wanted to meet him. Either for fear or for lazyness. He was willing to make up excuses to miss their reunion.

Since we dont know what did de son was going to do. We can only judge the father as a person who is completely careless and in my opinion has some messed up perspective towards life. Why? Because he´d preffer to stay unharmed than to do anything for his son.

To me, this means that the author doesnt believe on second chances, or at least is afraid of change. Of course we should be afraid of change. Change is painfull and yet, we must embrace it because it is nesesary on life.

Aside from this, you have to take chances in your life. Honestly, what would´ve happened to Myers if he would´ve gotten down on the station and decided to meet his son? At least he could´ve rested in peace knowing that he tried.

Once more, we are left with the intrigue as to what happens to both of them. And this is why I liked the story. Firstly because it teaches us, or at least me, to stop being cowards, and to act. And secondly, because you´ll never know if there was or wasnt a happy ending.

Hidden message?

After reading the first three stories on Carver's Cathedral I had the craziest idea. I am going to say that all the stories convey the same message. Marriage is an Illusion. Why?

Well, on the first story, Fran and Jack weren't a happy couple. He says that "She and I talk less and less as it is". (p. 26) . I hope I am not the only one who believes that not talking in a sign of problems in marriage...

Anyways, the second story shows how a couple that isn't married anymore can still have great times together. And forget about anyone else.

On Preservation. You experience the way the wife feels in respect to his marriage. The feeling I got from reading the story was that she wasn't happy but couldn't do nothing about and thus had to preserve it.

On Feathers, we see marriage doesn't ensure happiness. On Chef's House, we see that a good relationship can be achieved without being married at the moment. And finally, In Preservation, we see that people can even 'suffer' in spite of marriage. And feel overwhelmed by its power to do anything about it.

For instance, I don't believe in marriage. When I grow up I wouldn't marry legally. Just share my life with a partner. People shouldn't let themselves be controlled by ridiculous society ideas or expectations.

Honestly we should do whatever we want.

Edna & Wes

Reading the book reminds of the typical love story in which the guy makes a mistake and decides to change for the love of his life. She ends up going although she feels it is a mistake. She ends up going.

At the end of the book, you never know what happens to the two of them. It just ends. I guess that style also includes the ideas behind the book.

Carver is leaving us with no answer at all. We decide we end. Or do we? Maybe we have to base the end on the facts presented on the story. I don't know if it is because I've seen too many movies, or that I am a man that makes me think that he wants her back.

I don't care if he has someone else. Or whatever impediments are present. They must get back together or his invitation was useless.

Honestly, If we could talk to Wes. Even if he told me that he was only thinking on being friends or whatever. I wont buy it...

Again, I ask myself. Will this story have a happy ending, or a sad ending?

I don't want any feathers, thankyou...

Honestly, I know that the idea of reading this is evaluating style rather than content (and that must be the case since there isnt any content at all) but I must say that this is one of the worst stories I've read.

It is inbetween a girl's movie in which nothing happens, and talking to a def person. Honestly, I dont mean to offend the books or anything but i felt that I had to say it. Everything said is completely unsignificant. I've seen that many times.

In The Crying of Lot 49, the whole book has no meaning but at least it is entertaining.. I even believe that may have some meaning behind it. And if there wasnt. Then at least Pynchon has a great style. He tends to talk, and talk. And its addictive.

In Feathers, including the fact that nothing has any relation to anything, the way he writes is perfect if you want to go to sleep.

My last comment will have to be that I hope that this guy didnt make money from this book because I'd be pissed.

Prisoner's dilemma

I simply loved this game...

I found it very inspirational. Everything in the world runs by laws similar to the games. Off course that consequences aren't as severe, or prizes aren't as big. But in the world, you depend on the way others interact with you to either succeed or fail.

There are many variations in which you experience the game in your life and thus, different ways in which you play it. For example, there is the interaction with people that are your friends. No matter what, most of the people wont put down the friends for their own benefits. Either they will handle the problem alone, or ask them for help. Or if you have to compete with your friend. You wouldn't do it with the wrong intentions.

On the other hand, there are the people that you don't know. There are two choices. Depending on your prospects on the future with them. If you like them, you wouldn't "defect" them either. (Obviously there are exceptions.) On the other hand, if you feel angry or hostile to them, which according to Freud is the common attitude in humans towards the people you don't know, you'll must likely defect at the expense of your own benefit. Expecting that the other will defect too.

The flaw that I saw compared to the game we played in class, was that first of all, the kind of interaction changes if you can talk with other people first. This is what happens most of the times on the real world. For instance, you might defect at first, but you could change your mind and cooperate before the action is complete.

Emotions, relations and socialization affect the way the game is held. You will encounter much less cases in which you cooperate or defect with someone whom you cant see. If you cant see them and you don't know them, the most probable choice would be to defect in protection.

As we've learned in chapter 10, i think. Grudgers are the ones that get more representation on the gene pool. Because they help who helps them but don't kiss as and let others exploit them. This is the attitude you are supposed to take in the game to win the most, or at least loose the less.

Dawkins says that nice guys finish first... why? Because they cooperate until the other person defects and then they defect. This is very much related to grudgers. But with a better name. They help but wont help if the other doesn't. In my opinion though, the nice guy wont gain more points than his opponent because he will act in base of his actions and therefore will be always second. Yet, it may not be bad depending the case. When it is a case that you need lots of money per say, but don't necessarily need more than the other, it does work. On the other hand, if your goal is to beat the other one, this strategy would most likely make you loose.

Anyways. I just wanted to express my thoughts about this dilemma. I'll be definitevely thinking on this for the future...

Memes; the missing piece of the human puzzle

This is the information I was expecting. I have mentioned in previous blogs that as humans, we are not doing what is best for our genes. Finally I got an answer...

With humans, and the development of culture. New things were replicated and didnt have anything to do with genetics. That's where memes come into place. They are the corresponding to genes, that pass on ideas, songs, fashion, etc. from one brain to another.

This is the reason why humans don't focus that much on genes. (That is, follow their instincts, and yet I am not saying that humans are not instinctive.) Since our brains, and our minds dominate our actions. We have different prospects in life. That is to replicate our ideas, etc. in the meme pool.

Memes are the ones that mold our lives. For example God. It was implanted, or 'mutated' on individual humans life way back in history. Now, a vast majority of the people believe in the existence of a God, or at least gods.

Religion indeed regulates the way in which we live. And therefore, memes, in humans are far more influential than genes. This is also because memes are able to 'replicate' faster than genes do and create an impact quicker, on more people.

This makes me wonder about the power we have as humans against nature and 'stability' on it. By the way, i say stability because it is the way in which things have worked quite well. Doing it differently is more likely to bring chaos to the system as I've mentioned in my previous blogs.

I am glad to know that Dawkins accepts the differences in humans. like he says on the last paragraph, that "we are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators". (pg. 201)

This means that we are overthrowing the stability. And as we are able to end with the tyranny of our replicators. We will do the same as we gain full power. The fact that we are so different than other animals, and that we are able to alter nature for our own benefit. (as Freud mentions on "El Malestar en la Culura".) Makes us dangerous and unstoppable.

(By the way,I'm still worried by the destiny of humanity...)

Crazy ideas... Complicated theories...

I was reading chapter 10 and something came trough my mind. When he was talking about the Hymenoptera insects I read that there are infertile workers that work for the successful reproduction of the queen and the others.

That makes sense. But, I don't understand how are there so many infertile insects? I mean, how is a gene like that, first of all going to spread around the population, and second of all be good enough to be preserved?

Okay, it could be preserved, their job is not to reproduce. Yet, how does it pass on? I have various conclusions on why would this happen. First, I would say that it is the same thing that happens to mules. They are common in the population because a horse and a donkey create a mule. It is supposedly a common meet and therefore, you see these animals often. (If you leave in the coast, like Barranquilla, for example).

Another explanation could be that that gene for infertility is recessive. Therefore, lots of these insects carry them but are not necessarily infertile. While the unlucky offspring do have this gene expressed.

Those are my only two theories and probably it is the second one that makes more sense. Yet it is strange to find this kind of allele in an animal. And it being so common.

This reminds me to the movie Children of Men, where humanity has turned infertile and therefore are on the verge of extinction. I imagine that theoretically. We could be carrying some kind of gene that could eventually cause infertility and that could be passed on easily.

This makes me wonder how lots of hypothetical ideas in regards to human extinction can certainly occur. It might not be with an infertility gene. But, who knows? we might be carrying a potentially destructive gene in our systems. And it hasnt been expressed. It all takes a matter of time, for a random mutation to happen.

Who knows what will be of humanity...

Our kids.

-Glad, you are here. I needed to talk to you about something.

-Okay, but make it fast. I have to return to work.

-I'll do my best. Because it is very important. And I need you to listen to me.

-(not again)...

-Remember that book I gave you in Christmas?

-Suuureee... I, I loved it. Why?

-Well I was reading it the other day and now everything makes sense..

-What do you mean?

-Well. You are not bonding enough with our kids. You never prioritize the family. And I have reasons to believe that you might be cheating on me.

-Honey, I don't want to take more of this crap from you.

Just so you know. I did read the book and let me explain you what Dawkins says, on chapter 9, i think it is.

Men. Since the beginnings of humanity have left the women in charge of their offspring. This is not something wrong nor irresponsible. It is simply part of nature. Women also would like men to take care of the children and that becomes a subtle battle. Besides, I work all day long and you spent your days in the gym, with your friends and shopping. (Not to mention with the yoga teacher).

If you'd understand better what he expressed. That this concept isn't fully applicable to humans because of social and culture influences. You'd understand that this is the natural order of things. I work. You take care of our kids.

-But...

-As I was saying, you have to accept it and don't blame on me something as foolish as this. And as far as whether I am cheating on you or not. I thought that when you married me you understood that I was going to be loyal to you for the rest of my life.

You cant go around saying that if a book generalizes something about males. Then every single guy in the planet is going to follow it. Or has been following it.

These are merely theories mostly based on animals. Animals that dont have the ability to rationalize as we do...

So now. I am going to leave. And I hope you enjoy eating lunch by yourself. Cause I got a lot of stuff going on to handle a neurotic wife like you. Who believes everything she reads. And worststl, doesn't even grasp the meaning of whatever it is she is reading. Okay?

-But.. But... I'm Soorryyy!!

-(fortunately it all went as planned. Now, I am going for lunch with my secretary. Who understands me. Who doesn't expect much from me. And who by the way has the best body I've ever seen)...

What If?

In chapter eight, I read that there are honeyguides who, like cuckoos, lay their eggs in the nests of other species. The baby honeyguide is equipped with a sharp, hooked beak. As soon as he hatches out, while he is still blind, naked, and otherwise helpless, he scythes and slashes his foster brothers and sisters to death: dead brothers do not compete for food!

That is what I call selfishness!

That is also what separates humans to other species. Or it might just be that under the influences of culture and society, we don't do this but we would...

Anyhow, that is the most selfish act I've ever heard of. Supposedly, animals are expected to be equally fond to their offspring than to their brothers and sisters. If this is true, then this little honeyguide will grow up to kill his offspring. He'd think something like "All the food is for me and I don't care who it is, I wont allow nobody to get it".

Can you imagine this kind of thing in humans? For as much as I've criticized the way we live. This is wrong in any aspect. And humans wouldn't do it...

Why would they kill thier own brother when they don't even know if there will be enough for both of them. And also, why don't the brothers and sisters kill this little baby? To prevent him from getting their food?

Doing this would be like killing someone because he might sometime attempt with my life. He might not. But he might as well might and we don't want to take the risks, do we?

Living by what ifs is a mistake. If there is something that I've learned in my life is that there is no point on stressing out for the what ifs. Things happened that way and you were partly responsible about it. (I say partly because we have to take chaos into account). There is no turning back. So you either do something to make it better, or do something to make it better. Those are the only options...

Life is what it is. Not what it might be. Poor animals, who lack the capacity to rationalize. Maybe the brother might have come useful in the future. Who knows? Life is too short to make such stupid decisions. Think. Then act.

Human's poison

Thinking on birth conception. And the things humans do in society made me want to talk about how wrong we are in our lifestyle. I personally believe that we are doing a mistake by living the way we live. What do I mean with this? Basically the way we live in a society. The way we act, by being different from the rest of the species and the way culture, and technology, misguide us from the real purpose in life.

I know that this idea is very extreme butI believe that we should live like the rest of the animals do. The way our ancestors did. And I mean our primate ancestors...

Just because we are more intelligent, doesn't mean that we have to leave the way we do. For example, why do we need technology? In the world we live in, we do need it. We want it and we wouldn't let go of it. But think for a moment, why would we really need an ipod for instance? Why would we need a TV. Why do we need telephones? These are all things that were made, and then became necessary, not the other way around.

We live in a material world and as cliche as it may sound, we are forgetting the meaning of life. We are forgetting nature. And we are forgetting that the world isn't ours. We just make a part of it.

In fact, I believe that there wouldn't be that many wars if we lived in tribes. We would collect the food, eat our food, and then sleep. What a wonderful world would that be.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts. It is the intelligence that we posses that made us go in the wrong direction. Just as Daniel Quinn proposes on Ishmael, "where are going on a downward spiral that will destroy humanity".

The problem is that we are too mistaken to change. It would be impossible, first to convince all that nothing that we use is necessary. That we don't need economy. That we don't need cars. That we don't even need schools.

It is a shame to know that we are going to crash, but we cant do nothing about it. Just like a driver who has no brakes and is approaching an abism. There is not much we can do. Fortunately, you might say, we will not be alive to notice these effects. But eventually, we will all accept that we've gone wrong.

This looks like the beginning of a story like 1984. The only way to manipulate poeople for their own good is by making them forget. By erasing everything and starting over again. But how can we do it?