Brown Symposium

I went to the first two presentations. The first covered the Baylor religious data, the second was devoted to neuroscience. I was mildly surprised to discover that my idea of God is fairly similar to most people despite some of the subtleties I have worked out in compiling my own views. I also learned that my approach to god is about the healthiest from a neurological point of view. I should (in theory) have less stress or anxiety about god and his intentions. I also found their explanations fascinating for why some people advocate such dogmatic views. This helped me come to terms with something that had been bothering me for years. As a libertarian, I have this idea that the world would be a better place if everyone would just do their own thing and let everyone else be. But this is precisely because I think human concerns must be petty and meaningless to an all-powerful being. I have always thought god would more or less leave us alone and (being all-powerful) if he wanted something done, he would do it himself. I differ from the more dogmatic in my sense of an individual relationship with god, and a disinterested one at that. This finally explains why some people can actually care about abortions, gay marriage, stem cell research and other religious-political issues. These people are much more likely to believe in a hands-on God with rules, punishment for failure, and excessive judgement. From this mind set, it is very reasonable to want to curtail other's political and personal freedoms. If god could potentially get so angry, he decided to flood the world and kill us all, I think I too would be concerned about what everyone else did. In fact, the only reasonable action with such a belief would be to obey the rigid rules god laid down lest he smite us all. Doing anything to jeopardize our salvation would be criminal. This also explains the level of contention in such religious concerns. Even accepting that there are personal disagreements, I kind of thought that religious zealots kind of cared too much about such things. It must be infuriating for them to have everyone else violate God's laws and endanger them under the argument that god doesn't exist or care anyway. That would just add further fuel to the (hell) fire and endanger us as recognizing god's power must be paramount. I'm sure in their eyes, they're being responsible and acting for the betterment of all us evil sinners. I connected most of these dots before, but this presentation did a great job of linking them with statistical data and exploring the causal mechanisms. As for the Neuroscience part, I loved the brain scans of meditation and the explanation that feelings of closeness to god could be a result of ignoring sensory information. I'm definitely sharing that with my mom. She meditates pretty regularly and has always tried to get me to do the same so that I too may experience god more directly. I loved this symposium. It was even better than last year. I would also like to hear everyone's opinions on what their god is like.

Tuesday's with Morrie

I have kind of mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I like that it addresses the concerns of aging and the kind of post-modern frustration at the rat-race life. On the other hand, I also think it overemphasises tired cliches and oversimplifies the meaning of life. I feel like too many people get so caught up in the aspects of working and the frustrating existence that is an unexamined life. People invariably have to make certain choices, they must choose certain actions and leave others behind as time and the pressures of simple maintenance demand. Priorities are set and life is missed out on. This leads to midlife crisis's, frustration, and perhaps most horribly, regret at a life not lived. That hit me very hard, it is my single greatest fear that one day as I get older and begin the painful process of dying I will look back over my life for some meaning and contentment and realized I haven't lived. I have reacted to this fear by trying as much as possible to learn new things, to increase my skills, knowledge, perspective, and hobbies. I want to feel as though I am complete, this is why my interests are so complex and varied. I also try to avoid moral ambivalence or intellectual abdication. That is, everything in my live is run through a rigorous analysis for meaning, how it will help me grow, what I will gain, how it makes me feel etc. I strive to be the exact person I choose to be: physically, mentally, morally or even socially. This process has granted me meaning. All my beliefs are being integrated into a logical, complete whole, I am exactly who I choose to be and my life is filled with my greatest loves and passions. I feel like this is the correct way to attack this problem (dying). Rigorous self-analysis combined with tireless effort at self-control and self realization. I do not think the answer is as simple as love. Morrie's argument is just one of a whole series of easy cop-outs to life. As though life takes no effort, as though by merely hoping investment in other people will grant you happiness. I hate this argument as I do similar arguments proposing religious observance, consumerism, altruism, or other popular ideas for what constitutes a meaningful life. The answer is not universal, we all invariably value different things, enjoy different things, and are different people. As such, our meanings must fundamentally be different. There is no one-size-fits-all to the life well lived. It is precisely this belief that, upon its inevitable destruction, leads to unavoidable unhappiness. I don't think the way to live is to adopt a program and expect it to give meaning. That can only come from within. Thus while love, human contact and the like are aspects to a meaningful life, they are not the end-all-be-all. They cannot be in that they fundamentally require a happiness from outside the self. This is, if not impossible, that at least uncontrollable. At best, Morrie's argument is a roll of the dice or toss of the coin. I prefer to think I have some say in my life and its purpose.

Boy's and Girl's Club

My expectations are twofold. I would like to help some of these kids with whatever they have going on in their lives and give them a place to have fun and learn some productive skills. My second objective is to have some fun myself and try to learn something about the next generation that doesn't fill me with dread. I generally love kids so I expect it to be fun right off but I would like some reason to feel as though I have grown as a person, maybe some insight into childhood, or some internal realization about the way I was raised compared to them, something that gives me perspective into myself or humans in general. I don't much care if I do it alone but I think it would be more fun with at least a few people from class. As long as I have someone to talk to my own age I have a security net in case the kids are unapproachable. (though I doubt I'll need it) Specifically, I think it would be fun to get together with the kids in groups and compete against the groups of my other classmates. Something like benevolent gang warfare would be a lot of fun and help the kids with team building and competitive drive. (Plus I think my group would win) I also think this is a great way to get the more shy people in our Paidea cohort to feel comfortable, they would be in a position of semi-authority and have clearly defined goals. I also see the kids falling into this really easily. Regardless of what we eventually do, I think it should definitely have structure and involve group activities. I could deal with less structure and probably a few others too but I think most of our Cohort would feel awkward and not really get the most out of it. Also, group work is more productive as the one-on-one potential is limited with such a tight schedule. I would like to do this every week but my schedule is pretty restricted this semester. With Lacrosse season starting and 17 hours of classes and a campus job I don't know if I'll have lots of time to give but I imagine this being so much fun that I will want to give what time I do have. Really, I need more information on what types of activities we are talking about to be more specific.

End of semester reflection

So I've had a blast this semester. I wish we met more often, this has turned into one of my favorite classes. I like that our group has such opinionated people and those who will willingly argue their points. That's fantastic. Also, I appreciate everyone for how they respond to our discussions. I feel like no one is getting too aggressive or hurt while simultaneously maintaining a strong discussion. I also like that everyone seems to go along with my more outlandish statements. Even when everyone disagrees, I like that I can still say what I really think without worrying about everyone judging or getting their feelings hurt. Though some people should definitely speak up more. (you know who you are)

I enjoyed the 50 facts book and more specifically, the discussions it inspired. I wish we could talk more about some of the things in Newsweek but we have been pretty busy lately. What I really like is when Dr. G. mentions some reference we are talking about and how it connects to some psychological principle. I really do like psychology and if there is anything I would change, it would be to focus more on this particular topic with more lectures or readings focused on that. I realize everyone isn't equally interested in this but as it is our topic I would enjoy more than just a casual relationships to it.

We also need to get more people together for social events. Dr. G's house was fantastic but more people would have been even better. If need be we can take some class time and find out when everyone is free and what they like to do. The more we hang out together the better our class will be. This could also take the form of how we relate our topic more to our group, if we go to various venues with the specific task of analyzing people. - Just a thought

My favorite part so far has been Dr. G's house and meeting Casey and Buttercup. (who should be honorary members) Though to be sure I enjoy our actual class a lot. I don't feel like I've learned that much or united different fields of study any more than normally but then, I didn't expect to. This has pretty much exactly fulfilled my expectations with the exception that it has been more enjoyable than I thought and less focused on pure psychology.

I'm really excited about next semester, Have a nice break!- David

Off campus event

So for our off campus event Steven and I went to the Blanton Art Museum. We also kidnapped our friend and made him come with us while (falsely) promising him free burritos. I generally like art museums and go a few times a year (Mostly with my mom or brother as my dad's side of the family doesn't go for that kind of thing) but I really hate modern art so I thought this qualified as a stretch. It was. I would never have gone if I didn't have to. A few highlights, there were of course paint splatter paintings (which I expected and loath) in addition, there was weird, Pointless sculptures made of welded metals and wood, Some ridiculously simplistic paintings, (think third grade project) and a few exhibits like the first one we saw; a bunch of paper scraps randomly thrown on the floor. How artistic. That said, some of the sculptures were really interesting. There was one particularly that I thought at first to be two interlocking cubes but was in fact a single piece (wow, I'm describing this poorly) that was really cool looking once you bend your mind a little bit. Also, one painting was entirely black but with darker and lighter hues that showed a bedroom complete with furniture, person, things. (I think it's one of those things where you had to be there, but it was really cool looking) My favorite though was a walk-in exhibit entitled building cathedrals. (or something like that) It had 600,000 pennies on the ground in a kind of wavy pattern, 80 or so cow bones hung on the ceiling, a black shroud all the way around (a kind of room about the size of the room we meet in) with some communion wafers hanging from the ceiling. This was all supposed to represent the genocide of American Indians and the profiteering of imperialist dogma (hence the pennies) and it was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. After that we walked around the permanent exhibit a little more and I got to see some Greek pottery that was fantastic as well as some more normal paintings that I could appreciate. Other highlights of the night include our friend punching Steven in the face after finding out there weren't any burritos and that we had lied to him, playing in the UT rubber strand forest thing (I hope you know what I'm talking about) and the surprising amount of homeless people accosting us in drunken song for spare change. I had a blast but I still much prefer impressionist art or Greek sculpture to modern (ie. bad) art. Some of the exhibits just pissed me off, If I had spent any money I would have been very frustrated at the simplicity displayed as art. (one thing was just a piece of pink cloth nailed to a wall !) But overall, a great experience.

On campus event

I went to a biology presentation by Dr. Nancey Street the Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at UT Southwestern Medical Center. She presented some information about their graduate program and a few examples of some of the research being done there. I can't wait to go to graduate school (not there and certainly not in biology) as it seems much more independent and in-depth. I really don't like molecular biology (I'm more of a big-picture person) so the presentation wasn't really fantastic, but that said, I have always loved biology and the concepts were interesting enough on an abstract level. I definitely wouldn't have gone if I didn't have to, but I'm glad I did as I have a much better appreciation of what the science students here go through and what their classes are like. This was also the first time I've really had graduate school discussed and I'm really anticipating it. As for the subject matter, I learned about pathogen fighting, gene testing, microbiology and LDL defects that may cause heart problems. I like the Idea of reasearch a lot. I could see myself in love with a subject and pursuing a solution endlessly even if I meet with problems. I think I could really get into that mindset where even after work, my life is consumed by this Question. I've always been obsessivly curious so I think reasearch is a good place for me. On the other hand, I really hate micro biology so that and other medical approaches are off the table for me. Also, I'm not sure I would like the lack of human contact or the montony of the tests themselves. Overall, I think being an anaylist is the right place for me. I get human contact, a subject that interests me, obsessive questioning, independent study, and I get to have that feeling at the end that I really did something. I think that would be the best part, having completed a field of reasearch, To see the results like a display of your greatness. That would be really cool. I am really glad I had this assignment and I wish sometimes I didn't like the humanities so much so that I would force myself to study other things. Right now I tend to head in a very specific direction (political science) with a broad base (philosophy/History/Economics/Psychology) but I don't really get out of those subjects much. overall, this was boring but fun. strange contradiction.- David

Civic Engagement (take II)

I still think civic engagement is for people other than myself. Despite our talking about the perils of self-righteous behavior following volunteering I still think most of us are imbued with that feeling. To put this in context, I try very hard to live up to my expectations of myself. I have promised myself thought my life that there are things I will never do and things I will constantly strive for. I have never broken any of the 20+ promises I've made. I focus more on what I should be doing and how I should lead my life than anyone I've ever met. I also really hate people accepting ideas of what they should do without any thought. I felt like missing from our discussion today was the question why. Why should we volunteer for others? It seemed as if we accepted this without thought as just part of a larger social agreement that "engagement" is good. That it makes up for the moral abdication so many people go through while ignoring the necessity of formulating their own beliefs. I contend that helping people isn't the end all of human benevolence. Much more than help, I would prefer everyone left me alone. (not in terms of having no friends :), I mean in terms of not paying taxes for social goods or affirmative action, poverty assistance, telling me what I can't do with my body or in my spare time, or public welfare.) I'm more-or-less self sufficient and I would ask everyone else to be so, or at least not demand that I assist them. I don't ask anyone to volunteer for me, why should I have to help them? I'm under no moral compulsion by virtue of my being human. That grants them no title to my labor or benevolence. The only thing I owe them is not to violate their rights. As for these feelings of privilege that no doubt many of us feel, I'm completely opposed to that. I love my position in life but no system gave me this. My single-parent mom worked 3 jobs for years to see her kids through school. My brother and I worked incredibly hard to get where we are. No one gave us this, we earned it. I feel as though too many of us assume that we owe other people things without first asking why. This of course leads to the self righteous behavior when we do volunteer. People feel as though others should laud their accomplishment as part of a shared delusion about their purpose. Rather than strive to find their meaning in life, people buy into existing ones (religions, political parties, NGO's, and yes, volunteering.) Its trendy and popularly accepted so people do it with the hopes that this will finally confer meaning to their pointless life. I strive to be a good friend and a good person and I don't mean to imply that all volunteering is bad, it can be quite the force for good, we must however have this debate as to why we do it. I don't because it's enough for me by fulfilling my promises to grant myself that "good person" status all people crave. Seeing as how we have to though, I would recommend we asist the elderly in retirement communities. besides helping them (which we seem to have automatically accepted as a good thing) it provides us with knowledge about life. In trying to decide where I want to go and what I want to do in my future, knowledge of those who have previously traveled this path and know the dangers is invaluable. There is at least no debate here, we should do this because it helps us by giving a context for the rest of our lives. I'm not opposed to being with kids, I don't know what we can learn but I love children and their excitement. If we want to I'd like to do stuff with kids (or cute animals for that matter) but we should have clearer goals in mind for our own progress. I also like the idea of 3-4 person mini-groups as this would be diverse (good since I doubt we'll all agree on what we want to do) and yet large enough that we don't feel isolated or ineffectual. I would very much like to argue out why we're helping people, what we expect to accomplish, how often we should do this, what expertise we can bring, and how this fits into our individual conceptions of our purpose.