"You think we live on the rich, rather than with them; and so we do, in a sense-but it's a privilege we have to pay for! We eat their dinners, and drink their wine, and smoke their cigarettes, and use their carriages and their opera-boxes and their private cars-yes, but there's a tax to pay on every on of those luxuries. The man pays it by big tips to the servants, by playing cards beyond his means, by flowers and presents....the girl pays it by tips and cards too...and always keeping herself fresh and exquisite and amusing!" (281).

Bart brings up an interesting point. The rich, even though they have a lot and should share with those who do not, share with the expectation that they will be paid back. It is almost as if they are Indian Givers. Each gift they give comes with a price. Americans today similarly struggle with debt. Credit card companies promise people what they want without having to pay for it...right away. What people don't realize is that they are getting into debt. People are paying off student loans far into their adulthood; some Americans spend their entire lives trying to get themselves out of debt.

"What is the truth? Where a woman is concerned, it's the story that's easiest to believe. In this case it's a great deal easier to believe Bertha Dorset's story than mine, because she has a big house and an opera box, and it's convenient to be on good terms with her" (237).

Lily Bart announces a common reality here. Sometimes, people believe what they want to believe, regardless of whether or not it is true. In Lily's materialistic society, money is synonymous with truth. Bertha can buy her own reality, and Lily must suffer the consequences.

Mrs. Fisher says, "That's Lily all over, you know: she works like a slave preparing the ground and sowing her seeds, but the day she ought to be reaping the harvest she oversleeps herself or goes off on a picnic...Sometimes...I think it's just flightiness, and sometimes I think it's because, at heart, she despises the things she's trying for" ( 198).

Mrs. Fisher seems to understand Lily through and through. Lily knows what she wants and is a master and manipulating her way into getting it. When she does get it, however, she lets go. Mrs. Fisher doesn't miss a beat when she realizes that Lily never really wants what she goes after in the first place. Even though she represents wealth and triviality, Mrs. Fisher seems to be as good at reading people as Lily is herself.

"Her daylight view of them necessarily differed from the cloudy vision of the night. The winged Furies were now prowling gossips who dropped in on each other for tea" (178).

"...she had to go upstairs for a lonely night, a night grim and sleepless as her tortured fancy...she had never learned to live with her own thoughts, and to be confronted with them through such hours of lucid misery made the confused wretchedness of her previous vigil seem easily bearable...Daylight disbanded the phantom crew and made it clear to her that she would hear from Selden before noon" (188).

I live by my mother's mantra: No matter how bad things seem at night, they will always seem better in the morning. Lily Bart seems to recognize this to be true. For some reason, the nighttime brings out the worst thoughts and emotions in people. The Furies Bart describes seem to lurk in the shadows. I feel lucky to have realized at a young age that sometimes it is best just to go to bed when I am upset about something. Morning brings a new outlook on life. Sunshine never fails to put even the worst problems in a happier setting. I can't count the number of times I have given this advice to a friend in distress late at night. Without fail, the morning brings hope.

"My idea of success...is personal freedom...from everything-from money, from poverty, from ease and anxiety, from all the material accidents. To keep a kind of republic of the spirit" (70) -Selden

We talked about this passage today in class when describing Selden's character. I think that this is a very moving idea. Things are nice to have, but they are just things. The real gift in this lifetime is to appreciate that over which man has no control. There is a piece of poetry my mom has hanging in her powder room; I happened to notice Professor Dolson has the same piece in her room the other day:

“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful implanted in the human soul.” --Johann Wolfgang Goethe

My mom is a firm believer in appreciating the little things. Nature, poetry, art, music; these are the beautiful things in the world. A cute pair of shoes may be nice, but the truly beautiful things in this lifetime do not have price tags.

"She was too genuinely ignorant of the manipulations of the stock market to understand his technical explanations...she understood only that her modest investments were to be mysteriously multiplied without risk to herself" (88).

As our final is going to deal with the connection between Marx and House of Mirth, I focus on Lily Barton's concern with money as I read. Marx does not have a lot of faith in "capital" or hard cash. At the same time, Lily's life depends on it. Marx believes capital should be converted into common property. (Marx 170). The stock market does relate to marxism; however, because all people have a chance to yield a profit in the market regardless of their social status. Even Lily, an unmarried woman with not a lot of money can benefit.

Lily Bart is a woman with "game." Her coquettish nature and employment of tools of flirtation makes it seem as if men wouldn't be able to avoid falling into her trap. Today, it is always men who have the reputation of being "players." Flirting is a game. It is a give or take game about letting the opposite sex know you like them, but not letting them know you like them as much as you do. It is about curiosity and mystery. It is exciting, but at the same time confusing. Apparently this game has been around for a long time. Lily Bart has an amazing sense of interpreting people and knowing how to manipulate them.

"She began to cut the pages of a novel, tranquilly studying her prey through downcast lashes while she organized a method of attack. Something in his attitude of conscious absorption told her that he was aware of her presence: no one had ever been quite so engrossed in an evening paper!" (16).

Lily Bart calls Mr. Percy Gryce her "prey." Long before the twenty first century of "players" and "ballers" (thank you to the Rap/R&B industry) Lily Bart herself recognizes that getting what you want requires manipulation and deception. She is an amazing reader of people as well. Bart can tell that Gryce has seen her and is shy because of the way he is reading his newspaper. His excessive interest stems from not the article itself, but the fact that he is afraid to look up and see her. The way humans communicate is fascinating. Wouldn't it be so much easier to just walk up to someone you like and say, "Hey, I like you?"

House of Mirth

How refreshing it is to be reading a novel! I love literature, and getting into House of Mirth after so many philosophic and scientific readings is so nice. The descriptions Edith Wharton uses are fantastic, but I thought I would focus on her painting of civilization. After spending so much time on Nietzsche, Gandhi, Lao-tzu, and Rives and the topic of civilization, I thought it would be a good place to start.

"As he watched her hand, polished as a bit of old ivory, with its slender pink nails, and the sapphire bracelet slipping over her wrist, he was struck with the irony of suggesting to her such a life as his cousin Gertrude Farish had chosen. She was so evidently the victim of the civilization which had produced her that the links of her bracelet seemed like manacles chaining her to her fate" (6).

First of all, I am in love with the style of Wharton's writing. The description paints such a vivid picture that it is hard not to get caught up in Lily Bart and her world. My point is however, that Wharton describes Lily Bart as a "victim of the civilization which had produced her." Lily lives in a world that offers her nothing but marriage. Her sole purpose in life is to find a well-off husband who will be able to afford her expensive tastes. Bart says of marriage, "A girl must, a man may if he chooses" (10). Men will still be asked to dinner if they wear shabby clothes, women are asked to dinner based on what they are wearing. This double standard was prevalent in Bart's time. Although Gandhi saw civilization as industrialization, civilization also effected people and their social class and affiliations. Civilization seems to be a common theme studied in Core, and it has been discussed by philosophers, economists, and apparently even literary authors.

"To be sure animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwelling places, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But the animal produces only what is immediately necessary for itself or its young...The animal only produces itself while man reproduces the whole of nature. The animal's product belongs immediately to its physical body while man is free when he confronts his product. The animal belongs while man knows how to produce according to the standard of any species and at all times knows how to apply an intrinsic standard to the object. Thus man creates also according to the laws of beauty" (64). (from Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts)

The idea that man is the only materialistic animal is a common theme in Marx's works. In The German Ideology Marx says, "The first historical act of these individuals, the act by which they distinguish themselves from animals is not the fact that they think but the fact that they begin to produce their means of subsistence" (107).

Marx puts such emphasis on the materialistic aspect of man. While philosophers usually place emphasis on man's ability to think and form relationships, Marx is an economist. He sees man as a consumer. What is also interesting to me is the fact that Marx identifies the importance humans place on beauty. This reminds me of Abby's comment in class today. Sometimes, money-value isn't the most important thing when determining the worth of commodities. Some people believe higher priced commodities give them a higher status. Others just want a "pretty pair of shoes" no matter what the price is, just because pretty shoes make them feel more confident.

My group's job is to find connection in Marx's writing with other texts we have read this year. I have had this job for almost every book we have done so far in small groups. Nietzsche connected with other texts in almost every paragraph. Marx, however, seems very different from every other text we have read so far this year. I would say he is most similar to Darwin because of his scientific way of writing. Marx writes economically, not philosophically like Gandhi, Nietzsche, or Tao. Even so, the connection we came up with today in class was pretty interesting. Seeing as our group didn't get to share it, I thought I would post our ideas.

Marx says, "Christianity with its religious cult of man in the abstract, more particularly in its bourgeois development...is the most fitting form of religion...the transformation of the product into a commodity...plays a subordinate role, which however increases in importance as these communities approach nearer and nearer to the stage of their dissolution...The religious reflections of the real world can...vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form" (239).

Marx's view on Christianity reminded me of Nietzsche's view. Christianity appears primitive and restrictive. It puts man in a cage. Both Nietzsche and Marx seem to think a superior form of humanity would rise above religion, namely Christianity. Finding connections between texts can be challenging, but I think it helps us as writers to learn to "synthesize."

"'Value...is the property of things, riches...of man. Value...necessarily implies exchanges, riches do not'...'Riches...are the attribute of man, value is the attribute of commodities...A man or a community is rich, a pearl or a diamond is valuable...A pearl or a diamond is valuable as a pearl or diamond'" (243).

Half of what Marx says reminds me of a geometry proof and, therefore, goes in one ear and out the other. This particular point Marx makes, however, I actually understand. Marx is making the distinction between value and riches. Inevitably, it is all relative. Things with value are comparable. Riches are not. Value is an attribute of a commodity; riches are an attribute of man.

"The value of commodity...varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productivity, of the labor which finds its realization within the commodity" (225).

Just talking about direct and inverse relationships makes me cringe. Help anyone?

It has occurred to me that Marxist philosophy opposes that of Gandhi. Marx says, "...the division of labor implies the conflict between the interest of the individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals having contact with one another...In communist society...where nobody has an exclusive area of activity and each can train himself in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production, making it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I like, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic" (119). Marx describes an idealist community where no one has a specific role. Each person can do whatever he pleases at any given moment of any given day. Gandhi, however, believes in a Varna system. In this form of society, each individual has a different job, but each job has an equal significance. The job of each individual is passed down through families. Gandhi and Marx have very different views about the division of labor of society.

"Morality, religion, metaphysics, and all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness no longer seem to be independent...men who develop their material production and their material relationships alter their thinking and the products of their thinking along with their real existence. Consciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness. In the first view the starting point is consciousness taken as a living individual; in the second it is the real living individuals themselves as they exist in real life, and consciousness is considered only as their consciousness" (Marx 112).

This passage really messed with my mind. It is almost as if Marx is questioning and tempering with reality. What is consciousness? What is awareness? I keep thinking of The Matrix trilogy. The humans of that world are conscious, but their level of consciousness does not perceive reality. Their lives determine their consciousness. They see only what they are programmed to see, not what really is. If you can't trust your own consciousness, what can you trust? Consciousness is all a person has to maintain his perception of reality.

What is interesting to me in reading Karl Marx after Gandhi is the fact that both men had a very distinct goal. Marx and Gandhi seem to portray their goals and means of attaining these goals in a similar fashion. Both men assert their goals, explain a brief history of how civilization became corrupted into its current state, and provide a list of their most important points. However, Gandhi an Marx have severely different goals and values. Gandhi wants India to be free from the English and the grasp of Western ideas. He wants to abolish factories and education, placing all emphasis on religion. Gandhi explains the importance of Varnas and castes. Marx wants the proletariat class to rise above the bourgeoisie. He wants to extend the number of factories and instruments of production. He also wants free education for all children in public schools. Both men want equality, but they have different ideals and visions of how society should be.

In Marx's Communist Manifesto he states, "But every class struggle is a political struggle" (166). Not only does this bold statement sum up the importance of his first section, it also ties into what we are discussing in my History of Jamestown class. Yesterday we discussed Jamestown in 1610 under the martial law of Dale. My professor actually made a direct reference to Karl Marx when explaining the class structure and laws that were upheld. In William Strachey's, Laws Divine Moral and Martial, it is stated, "Everything that comes under the laws moral and politic is 'no less subject to the martial law'" (33). It didn't matter whether the crime was moral or political, all laws were subject to physical punishment. Some were even punishable by death. The formation of society and class structure became a political issue. People had a class identity, not a personal identity. Marx deals with the individual versus the group as well.

We were asked to write about our lives as individuals, roommates in dorms, and dorm life in halls. The differences in responsibility are similar and at the same time different. I have my personal definition of cleanliness and need for neatness. Fortunately, my roommate and I share the desire for a neat room. Also fortunately, we have messy tendencies. Usually our room is cluttered throughout the week and we will have a big cleanup on Sunday. We need to agree on noise levels and lights out times. There is a lot of compromise and a need for understanding. My roommate and I luckily share sleeping and study habits, but we are just one dorm in the hall of many. Some girls stay up until 3am with visitors; some girls go to bed by 12 because of early morning classes. Our RA has had to send out reminders to all of us to be courteous of our neighbors and their habits. As an individual, I am responsible for doing my share of cleaning and taking care of my things in my room. As a roommate, I am responsible for not only taking care of my needs but for meeting my roommate half-way with adhering to her needs as well. As a hall member, I am responsible for controlling the noise and activity in my room late at night. Gandhi spends a lot of time talking about the differences of importance in individuals and as the individual as a group member. "As with the individual so with the universe is an unfailing principle which we would do well to lay to heart" (Gandhi 76). People do not have individual purposes alone; they have to take into consideration the groups they form and the people around them.

Connections

In the section on Ahimsa, Gandhi brings up the subject of fearing death. "If we are unmanly today, we are so, not because we do not know how to strike, but because we fear to die" (97). This statement reminded me of other works we have read this year. Gandhi's statement corresponds with The White Castle and with Socrates. In The White Castle, the narrator says of Hoja, "...he didn't fear the plague; disease was God's will, if a man was fated to die he would die...If it was written, so it would come to pass, death would find us. Why was I afraid? Because of those sins of mine I'd written down day after day?" (Pamuk 73). In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates says, "Neither I nor any other man should, on trial or in war, contrive to avoid death at any cost...It is not difficult to avoid death...it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death" (Plato 40). All three men share the belief that one must face death in order to be courageous. This common theme is essential in the platforms of each man's religious beliefs. In America, the common attitude towards death is fear and sadness. This attitude is far different from that of other cultures and time periods.

"A peasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary knowledge of the world. He knows fairly well how he should behave towards his parents, his wife, his children, and his fellow-villagers. He understands and observes the rules of morality. But he cannot write his own name. What do you propose to do by giving him knowledge of letters? Will you add an inch to his happiness?...whether you take elementary education or higher education, it is not required for the main thing. It does not make men of us. It does not enable us to do our duty" (Gandhi 54).

Gandhi's view on education caught me completely off-guard. Being an American, I realized that my whole life has been centered on education. I attended pre-school, elementary school, high school, and am now attending a University. What is next? Graduate school? Our society lives and breathes education. Unlike Gandhi, however, I do not see this as an evil thing. Yes, it may be true that education and wealth do not breed happiness. I personally believe that happiness is something attained from within. Happiness has to do with how secure and self-fulfilled you are and has a great deal to do with the relationships you build around you. I do believe that things such as education and wealth are aspects of life that help yield self-fulfillment and the ability to form relationships. What is the meaning of a man's life? Nietzsche struggled with this question. As a human being, I would like to think that I am in control of my own life. The meaning I find in my life has to do with attaining my individual goals and surrounding myself with people I love. Education provides me the ability to challenge myself and meet new people. Education allows humans to understand as much as they can and discuss whatever they wish with whomever they wish. Illiterate peasants may be able to find happiness, but the pool of personal goals they have to draw from is so much smaller than the pool from which a person entrenched in the Academic World has. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to learn more about anything and everything that interests me and to be able to meet people from all over the nation while furthering my education in college. Sorry Gandhi, but I think you underestimated the importance of education and the benefits education can reap.

Gandhi

"To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take their cue from their newspapers which are often dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by different newspapers, according to the party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest" (15).

This point reminded me of my government class last year in high school. We spent a long time talking about news and media and the different biases they often have. Shows like The Colbert Report and the O'Reilly Factor are most obviously biased and should not even be considered real news. Certain newspapers, such as the New York Times, are known to favor leftist or rightest ideas. It is hard to find unbiased news and to approach a news story objectively.

"For man is more sick...than any othe ranimal...he is the sick animal...he is the great experimenter with himself, discontented and isatiable, wrestling with animals nature, and gods for ultimate dominion...The No he says to life brings to light, as if by magic, an abundance of tender Yeses; even when he wounds himself, this master of destruction, of self-destruction-the very wound itself afterward compels him to live" (Nietzsche 121).

We talked about this passage in class. Man wants to feel alive by facing death instead of running away from it. Sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing at all. This reminds me of something we talked about in my AP psych class last year. There is actually a condition in which people have over-active frontal lobes in their brains. This causes a thrill-seeking mentality that isn't easy fulfilled. If it isn't bad enough that man seeks danger as a form of entertainment, there are certain people with this condition that never find this thrill and seek it to the point of death. Feeling like your life is in jeopardy somehow makes life seem so real. I get that thrill at the top of a roller coaster, some people get it from sky diving, others just have a physiological condition that is never satisfied.

Today in class we discussed Nietzsche's approach towards nothingness. I think I interpreted his beliefs incorrectly. At the end of his discussion, Nietzsche says, "This man of the future, who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism...this Antichrist and antinihilist; this victor over God and nothingness-he must come one day" (96).

Nietzsche isn't advocating nothingness or emptiness. He is advocating a third something. I have no inclination what this third something may be, nor am I positive Nietzsche has a clue as to what it might be either. We are trapped. Man of the future will be able to break free. He will not be filled with conventional faith or with a body of emptiness. Maybe the emptiness will be filled with his own ideas and faith in something new. Emptying oneself may be a start in attaining the attributes of this man of the future. The question is, what is the man of the future filling himself back up with?

"Forgetting...is...an active...positive faculty of repression, that is responsible for the fact that what we experience and absorb enters our consciousness as little while we are digest it...as does the thousandfold process...To close the doors and windows of consciousness for a time; to remain undisturbed by the noise and struggle of our underworld of utility organs working with and against one another; a little quietness...to make room for new things...for regulation, foresight, premeditation..." (Nietzsche 57).

After reading this passage I couldn't help but think right back to the time I tried to empty myself according to Tao's teachings. Nietzsche is expressing the importance of emptiness here. Through emptiness, possibility emerges. A window for opportunity opens. It is hard to let yourself become detached from the world around you. It is also relaxing and cleansing. I think the ten minutes I spent trying to empty myself were the most relaxing ten minutes I have had since I have been to school.

Nietzsche says, "They felt unable to cope with the simplest undertakings; in this new world they no longer possessed their former guides, their regulatin, unconscious and infallible drives: they were reduced to thinking, inferring, reckoning, co-ordinating cause and effect...they were reduced to their 'consciousness,' their weakest and most fallible organ!...All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward...thus it was that man first developed what was later called his 'soul'" (84).

I interpreted this passage as a negative outlook on the human conscious and soul. Nietzsche sees these human qualitites as hinderences to the human existance. They make man unsure and unconfident. I found this ironic seeing as Socrates placed all emphasis on the importance of the soul. Plato discusses the soul in great length. Socrates believed the body is just an obstacle in the way of attaining truth and knowledge. Nietzsche and Socrates are philosphers with completely different views. Socrates sees the afterlife as the reason for existence. Nietzsche finds fault with faith, and encourages atheism and focus shifted away from the soul. Could both be right in different ways?

"The strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb-for thus they gain the right to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey" (45).

Nietzsche's bird of prey/lamb analogy has really got me thinking. Our discussion in class was about how this passage relates to choice. How much choice do we have given our natures? I remember the day I realized that my life was the product of my choices. It was the first day of junior high. Up until that day I felt like my life had no room for regret. My parents and teachers had written my life story for me. They had dictated every activity and every schedule of my everyday. I remember being horrified of the new school building and the new part of my life I was about to begin. I sat in the auditorium and thought, "Well, this is it. You are going to be responsible for you now. You have choices to make, mistakes to make, and you will probably not always make the right decisions." I was right. I'm sure I made many "wrong choices" in the following years, but I feel I am a better person now because of learning from some of my mistakes. Sometimes I wonder what life would be like if I still felt I wasn't responsible for myself. I wonder how it would feel to have my parents, teachers, and advisers make all of my decisions for me and plan my schedule for each day. It might be a good life, a safe life, but it wouldn't be my life. My teacher last year used to end every Friday class with this statement: "Have a good weekend. Be smart. Be safe. The choices you make today can and will affect the rest of your life." Choices are a privilege. I feel like that scared child again in a new place. I am starting a new chapter of my life. The choices I make now might dictate what career will have, who my life-long friends will be, and what kind of morals and values I will uphold as an independent adult. I think Nietzsche has a point when he places emphasis on choices. They are crucial in the development of all human beings, and their products define who we are.

"To be incapable of taking one's enemies, one's accidents, even one's misdeeds seriously for very long-that is the sign of strong, full natures in whom there is an excess of the power to form...here alone genuine 'love of one's enemies' is possible-supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies!-and such reverence is a bridge to love" (39).

This passage and message reminds me a lot of Tao's teachings. Tao says, "The most fruitful outcome does not depend on force, but succeeds without arrogance, without hostility, without pride, without resistance, without violence" (30).

Nietzsche and Tao both place importance in not having enemies. Nietzsche believes being above petty arguments and wrongdoings makes a person stronger. Tao believes that having enemies yields nothing, yet nonviolence and love cures all. The message is clear: life has no room for enemies. Without enemies Nietzsche assures power, and Tao promises happiness.

We talked in class about equations being visual representations. Nietzsche equates: "good=noble=powerful=beautiful=happy=beloved of God" (34). This simple math problem somehow does not sit well with me. Are all good people powerful? Are all good people happy? Are all good people beautiful? Life is not fair. This equation is flawed. The cliche "nice guys finish last" is oversaid for a reason. Good people do not cheat to get ahead and gain power. I am not saying that good people are always miserable. I'm just not sure there is a conducive equation for good and evil. Life is unpredictable and unfair.

"...the source of the concept 'good' has been sought and established in the wrong place: the judgment 'good' did not originate with those to who 'goodness' was shown! Rather it was 'the good' themselves ...who felt and established themselves and their actions as good...in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common, and plebeian. It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values..." (26).

Nietszche speaks here about the origin of "good." "Good," he says, was only created when the opposite in society was established. Those more noble believed themselves superior to the common man. Because of this opposite that was created, good and evil existed.

This reminds me of Lao-tzu's preaching. Lao-tzu says, "Recognize beauty and ugliness is born. Recognize good and evil is born" (2). He recognizes too that one entity only exists when its opposite is revealed.

Nietzsche

It is my group's task to come up with connections between Nietzche and other texts. Lucky for me, I feel that the first ten pages connect with almost every work we have looked at so far this year. Section one of the preface screams White Castle. Hoja embarks on a journey to find out why he is who he is. Identity is the main theme in the novel. Nietzsche says, "We are unknown to ourselves...'who are we really?'...we are necessarily strangers to ourselves" (13). Orhan Pamuk uses these essential questions and themes as the basis of his novel. Section 3 reminded me of the teachings of Lao-tzu in Tao Te Ching. Tao literally means "path" or "way." Te means "to get." Burton Watson says, "...te...denotes a moral power or virtue characteristic of a person who follows a correct course of conduct" (Lau-Tzu xiii). Nietzche questions morality in section 3. Here he questions the origin of good and evil. Section 3 also reminds me of the works we read by Socrates. Nietzsche describes his mode of learning to be Socratic. He says, "I departmentalized my problem; out of my answers there grew new questions, inquiries, conjectures, probabilities..." (Nietzsche 17). Nietzsche uses the Socratic method in order to attain knowledge. Finally, in section 7 Nietzsche actually talks about Darwin and his influence. Nietzsche says, "This was unknown to Dr. Ree; but he had read Darwin-so that in his hypotheses...the Darwinian beast and the ultramodern unassuming moral milksop who 'no longer bites' politely link hands...with which it is mingled even a grain of pessimism and weariness, as if all these things...were really not worth taking quite so seriously...But to me...there seems to be nothing more worth taking seriously" (Nietzsche 21). Nietzsche discusses Darwin as an adversary to his beliefs. He believes morality to be of the utmost importance.

It amazes me just how many times I made connections in Nietzsche to works we have read in the last two months. Because we have read these other works, I feel I have a better understanding of what Nietzsche is talking about and what he believes.

"Tao called Tao is not Tao. Names can name no lasting name. Namless: the origin of heaven and earth. Naming: the mother of ten thousand things. Empty of desire, perceive mystery. Full of desire, perceive manifestations. These have the same source, but different names. Call them both deep- deep and again deep: The gateway to all mystery" (1). In studying for the midterm, I chose to memorize the first ten lines of Tao Te Ching. I decided on these lines not only because they were on the first page, nor because they are a complete thought that only use ten lines, but because I believe Lao-Tzu explains the essence of Tao in these lines. The theme of names runs rampant throughout his philosophies. Names are not lasting. They are not the real essence of a person or thing. In the introduction, Burton Watson says, "Tao lies beyond the power of language to describe..."(xiii). On August 8th, a headline in the news caught my attention. A New Zealand couple wanted to name their child "4real" but were denied because the government sanctioned that names could not start with a number. In rebellion, the couple decided to name their child "Superman" instead. Does it matter what a person's name is? According to Lao-Tzu, names are irrelevent in this lifetime.

Mockingbird Remix

I just listened to the Mockingbird Remix, and something new struck me. Rives talks about setting the mockingbirds off in the neighborhoods where "everyone's gotta lotta" and sharing the stories of "those who got nada." Rives talks about capturing honesty. Mockingbirds are unsuspecting witnesses. Mockingbirds can capture the words of a news anchor, nice laundromat lady, postman, an old man snoring, and "your lies." They can capture the fatal phrase, "I guess I can come in but only for a minute." Rives talks at the end about being offered the key to the city. Rives says then he can "unlock the air," "listen for what is missing," and "put it there." Rives isn't just talking about "people watching" or capturing the everyday person in America. He is talking about how people act when they think no one is watching. There is something missing in the world today, and Rives uses the idea of unleashing mockingbirds to introduce the nation to our own vices. Those who have will be able to look through a window into the world of those who have not. Lies will be captured and honesty will run free.

Rives Op Talk

"Op Talk" struck a nerve for me. I actually almost cried. Almost. My brother and I had a very similar relationship to Rives and his sister. My brother is two years younger than me, and as children we were inseperable. We played make-believe games day and night, made K'nex wonderlands, and even held weekly art sales in our front yard of our very own creations. Cary and I did have a secret language at one point. It wasn't "op talk," but it was similar. "Gibberish" never really made it past adolescence, but having my brother there as an alliance during our parents' divorce and the remairrage of our father made all the difference in the world. I'm starting to feel like one of the "excessively emotional" that Professor Dolson was talking about in class on Monday, but hearing Rives' account was like hearing my childhood all over again. I hope my brother and I will continue to stay close for the rest of our lives.

Rives: Mockingbirds

Wow. I am really impressed with Rives. Content aside, Rives has developed a new genre of entertainment. I'm not sure whether I would call it rap, poem recitation, or comedy, but I do know that Rives has a message and a unique way to share it. I am amazed at how Rives' words flow. It is almost as if he is rhyming by mistake. His ideas are just so magnetic that they somehow end up complimenting one another. Now for the content: the mockingbird idea is deep. What would the point of having a mockingbird capture all of the one-liners of all the different people in our nation? Mockingbirds would capture the truth. This reminds me of a passage I had to read last year in my English class. It was called "Nascar Dad." This essay explored the idea that there is no characteristic that can describe a follower of Nascar. Nascar fans range from places all over the country of all different professions and all different social classes. Rives talks about the "voice of life that calls us to live and learn." What is normal? What is truth? Maybe there is no normal. The world is filled with a hodgepodge of people. Everyone is different, everyone unique. It would be interesting to hear what a mockingbird had to say after traveling the world.

"There is no disaster greater than contempt for the enemy, contempt for the enemy -what a treasure is lost!" (69). This passage reminds me of a passage I read in my history of Jamestown class. We just read an account by Archer, a gentleman and reporter for George Percy. I had at once thought that the Indians were savage and violent people. According to Archer, however, the Indians were accepting and had an initial positive reception of the English. The Indians hoped the English would form a military alliance with them against the other warring Indian tribes. When the Indians began attacking the English, it was more of a test of strength than a goal of massacre. The Indians wanted to scare the English, not necessarily hurt them. Even though the English and Indians of Jamestown had skirmishes and battles, there was respect and alliance between them.

"This world has no need for weapons, which soon turn on themselves...The most fruitful outcome does not depend on force..." (30). This quote reminds me of Rosa Parks. I'm sure we are all familiar with her story. This black woman became famous for making huge advances for colored people in America using civil rights activism. Rosa Parks was a passenger on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. When asked to stand in order for white passengers to sit, Rosa Parks decided to make a stand for herself. Rosa had been sitting in the colored section for a long time, and these new white passengers that entered the bus should not have had any more rights than her. Instead of using violence or raising her voice, Rosa Parks simply refused to rise from her seat. Civil disobedience is a concept that Tao would agree with. According to wikipedia, civil disobedience is "the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence." Rosa Parks made a difference for herself and all African Americans of her time without using violence. Sometimes, peaceful measures are more effective than violence actions.

Today I spent another twenty minutes on the patio in front of the library. Again, the sun shone brightly and there was a light breeze. I noticed the same things I had yesterday: the wind made ripples in the water, the ducks, swans, and storks gathered by the bank. Yet, today was different. I tried to not think like Darwin, which was a relief considering thinking scientifically is not the way I think. I tried to absorb my surroundings in the way a follower of Tao would. How would a follower of Tao see the world? I tried to empty my mind of all thoughts and feelings. I felt the Sun beat down on my head and warm my body. I felt the warm breeze rustle my hair. Tao says, "Respect the world as yourself: The world can be your lodging. Love the world as yourself: The world can be your trust" (13). How comforting it was to sit in stillness and in silence. How refreshing it was to just "be." Sitting there, having nothing to think about, although it was a challenge, happened to be one of the most rejuvenating exercises I have ever attempted.

Today I took about twenty minutes between classes to just sit. I sat on the patio in front of the library in a chair. I thought, "If I were Darwin, what would I look for in my surroundings?" I noticed at first the wind. I could feel the wind on my skin, rustle through the trees, and make currents in the lake. Does the wind have a purpose? Where does this invisible force come from? What does the wind affect? Dispersal comes to mind. The wind transports seeds as a method of procreation. Wind creates currents too. Looking at the water I noticed the ducks, swans, and even a stork grazing by the bank. How could all three bird species coexist? They must occupy different niches, perhaps they even have a mutualistic relationship. Sexual selection came to mind. The male ducks have green heads and the female ducks are fully brown. Does each bird species have a different mating ritual? Why do they all just hang out together?

I'm not sure I will ever think like Darwin, nor I am i sure that I will ever become fully interested in the topics that fascinated Darwin. I do know that taking a second to look at my surroundings did pose a lot of questions. Science is a powerful force, and evolution and natural selection are processes that are at work everyday and since the beginning of time.

Tao Te Ching Lao-Tzu

"Excessive food, extraneous activity inspire disgust. Therefore, the follower of Tao Moves on" (24).

It is funny how the message in America in 2007 is everything but this Tao principle. Right away, I thought of the movie Supersize Me. In this documentary on how Americans have become obese because of their excessive eating habits and the oversized food portions fast food joints offer, it is easy to see just how far we have strayed from moderation. Americans have learned to do everything to excess. Not only is obesity on the rise but binge drinking is as well. Americans have grown up to the mantra "bigger is better." The American mindset is to always want more. I wonder if our nation would be healthier and more content if children grew up hearing Tao's words instead of listening to the media. Whatever happened to "less is more" and "be happy with what you have?"

"Music affects every emotion...It awakens the gentler feelings of tenderness and love, which readily pass into devotion. It likewise stirs up in us the sensation of triumph and the glorious ardour for war...We can concentrate...greater intensity of feeling in a single musical note than in pages of writing...Love is still the commonest theme of our songs...music "arouses dormant sentiments of which we had not conceived the possibility, and do not know the meaning...tells us of things we have not seen and shall not see" (272).

I love this passage. Music can be therapeutic, uplifting, inspirational, and cathartic. Even without words, the strength of a melody can be life-altering. You cannot see music; it is not tangible. Yet, music affects humans and almost all organisms in great ways. It is also interesting that love is the most common theme. Birds use melodies as courtship rituals. Humans similarly are moved by "love songs." In a book as dry and hard to get through as The Descent of Man, I found this passage touching and thought-provoking. Music is a source of passion.

The Descent of Man

"We can see from the way his argument is formulated that Darwin realized that culture tended to mute the action of selection in that, most particularly, morality demanded that the strong help the weak survive. The sorry state of the social world led him to observe that "the vicious members of society increase faster than the virtuous..." (241).

How interesting that the most "moral" and "virtuous" humans are the ones that defy natural selection. Here in America, we have programs like well-fare and social security. We have soup kitchens for the hungry and orphanages for the parentless. In the African safari, lions chase the gazelles as prey. This relationship is considered mutualistic in that the gazelles feed the lions, and the lions only prey on the weakest gazelles, making the herd stronger. Humans are at the top of the food chain. There is no being to weed out the weak from the strong. Humans strive to make the weak stronger, not make the race stronger.

"Natural Selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor" (208).

Why did I pick this quote? I found this point interesting. In a world of good versus evil, it seems that there is a dark side to almost anything. It is sort of nice to think that mother nature would never do wrong to an organism. Natural selection is a process that only improves; it never hinders or harms. Although not as significant or as important as the other topics Darwin discusses, it is nice to think about that which is positive for a change.

"...nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every iternal organ, on every shade of constitutional differences, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends...Can we wonder, then, that nature's productions should be far "truer" in character than man's productions; that they should be inifinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship?" (177-178).

After looking back through the reading, I realized that this passage really spoke to me. Humans consider themselves far superior to any other living organism on Earth. This may be true, however, Man cannot control nature. Humans also focus on the appearance, while nature focuses on the structure and function. Man often looks for the "quick-fix," while nature spends time using natural selection to make organisms as best adapted to their environment as possible. Man may be superior, may have a higher intelligence, than any other organism on Earth, however, Nature is a force with which man cannot compete.

On the Origin of Species

Charles Darwin's work is not a new subject for me. Having taken AP Bio last year, I feel as though the subjects of natural selection, mutualism, polymorphism, divergence, and convergence have been drilled into me. We read The Beak of the Finch, which followed Darwin's discoveries in the Galapagos Islands and covered all of the major themes of biology. Even so, the idea of natural selection is a magnificent concept.

"Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure" (185).

Nature works in astounding ways. Man cannot escape the systematic and pragmatic workings of nature. Organisms evolve and improve based on small advantageous changes over generations. Organisms do not just appear out of thin air. No matter how many times the idea of natural selection is discussed in my classes, it doesn't get old. Mother Nature is a powerful lady.

"The theory of recollection and learning, however, was based on an assumption worthy of acceptance, for our soul was said to exist also before it came into the body, just as the reality that is of the kinds that we qualify by the words "which truly is," and I convinced myself that I was quite correct to accept it" (43).

This is an interesting thought that had never occured to me before. Do our souls exist before we are born? If I believe that my sould will exist after I die, has it existed before I was born? Actually, no. I do not agree with Socrates. My soul and body came into this world as one. My soul is the product of the combination of my mother and father; how could it have existed before they even met? Socrates puts a lot of faith in reincarnation. If our souls exist before we are born, where are they? Are the just hanging out somewhere? I don't believe a soul is as tangible as Socrates things. A soul, I believe, is a person's personality, thoughts, morals, dreams, conscience, etc. I don't think it can go floating around out there traveling on its own.

"...if the soul is immortal, it requires our care not only for the time we call our life, but for the sake of all time, and that one is in terrible danger if one does not give it that care. If death were escape from everything, it would be a great boon to the wicked to get rid of the body and of their wickedness together with their soul. But now that the soul appears to be immortal, there is no escape from evil or salvation for it except by becoming as good and wise as possible, for the soul goes to the underworld possessing nothing but its education and upbringing, which are said to bring the greatest benefit or harm to the dead right at the beginning of the journey yonder" (38).

This point reiterates the importance of taking care of the soul while we are on Earth. Again, Pastor Jeff would be proud. First of all, I would like to say that I do agree with Abby's point yesterday that taking care of the body can nourish the soul. Excerising can be euphoric, eating ice cream is comforting, and even finding a pretty dress to wear can make a girl's soul just feel good. I do think that the soul, as opposed to the body, should be the focus of our lives though. Notice that Socrates says that the education and upbringing our souls is what determines its fate in the after-life. Now, a lot of people believe that this life is the only shot we have. Many people in today's day are Atheist or Agnostic. What do they think a soul is? I believe that everyone has a soul. Even here on Earth humans have a physical body and a separate invisible self. The body is tangible, our thoughts, dreams, hopes, and morals are not. My mom has an anonymous quote hanging up in her condo that just came to mind. It goes something like this, "A person should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a little artwork each day in order to better his soul." Now, I'm not sure if I remember it word for word, but it is so true and applicable to what Socrates is saying. It is important to take care of the soul while on Earth.

"The body keeps us busy in a thousand ways because of its need for nurture. Moreover, if certain diseases befall it, they impede our search for the truth. It fills us with wants, desires, fears, all sorts of illusions and much nonsense, so that, as it is said; in truth and in fact no thought of any kind ever comes to us from the body. Only the body and its desires cause war, civil discord and battles, for all wars are due to the desire to acquire wealth, and it is the body and the care of it, to which we are enslaved..." (15).

Humans are too preoccupied with their own bodies and materialistic goals on the Earth. The body is a temporary encasement. It is the way humans experience the world. We see through our eyes, we touch with our hands, we experience life through its outer expenditures. It is our minds and souls, however, that perceive our experiences. The body represents the physical. Power and wealth are the desires of many human bodies. The soul desires things of more complexity and importance. The soul yearns for love, peace, and strong relationships. The mind wants wisdom, knowledge, and wit. My pastor at my old church used to talk about the body being an impermanent home. The soul will leave it in the end. We should not waste time putting all we have into materialist objects or into our bodies. We should nourish our minds and our souls. My pastor would definitely agree with Phaedo on this argument. In today's day, the average human spends most of his time thinking about how he will get rich and how he will look better physically. Plastic surgery and gym memberships are a norm. People really have become enslaved by their bodies.

Socrates' line of thinking about death is intriguing. He says, "Let us reflect in this way, too, that there is good hope that death is a blessing, for it is one of two things: either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and a relocating for the soul from here to another place" (41). This statement reminds me of the attitude many Islam people have in today's day. People who believe that the after-life will be better than their time on Earth have no fear of death. Islamic suicide bombers believe that they are dying for a noble cause, and that they will be rewarded to the highest extent in the after-life. Socrates is not afraid of death. Fear of death is a more modern concept. As people lose faith in an after-life, life on Earth becomes more significant.

I am having a hard time making connections with Socrates and my everyday life. This line, however, I think is widely evident even today:

"On the other hand, you know that what I said earlier is true, that I am very unpopular with many people. This will be my undoing, if I am undone, not Meletus or Anytus but the slanders and envy of many people. This has destroyed many other good men and will, I think, continue to do so" (31).

Socrates, in 399 B.C., makes a statement about the nature of men that is still true in 2007. Rumors ruin people's lives and their reputations. One can find instances of slander and ugly rumors in any high school in the country. Mean Girls does a good job of showing how badly a rumor can destroy a good person. In this movie, the popular girl Regina George makes a rumor that Janice is a lesbian out of spite. Janice is so hurt by this rumor that it haunts her for the rest of her high school career. No one talks to her; her life turns into a sad lonely journey with revenge as a driving force. People make up rumors about others because they are insecure with themselves. They try to make themselves feel more significant by putting those around them down. Socrates is implying that Meletus is trying to slander his name for these same reasons.

"Was it not the best proof that men everywhere where identical with one another that they could take each other's place?" (151).

I do not agree with this statement. People are unique. They have different backgrounds, different interests, different morals, and different aspirations. The case of Hoja and the narrator is unique and completely mind-boggling. Any two people can study and try to mimmick the other's lives, but that doesn't mean they can actually switch minds and souls. I'm still not sure what message the reader is supposed to get out of The White Castle. I'm still not completely sure if Hoja and the narrator switched places or even if they were the same person all along. I do know that their situation was unlikely and definitely not applicable to men everywhere.

Okay, I am going to ignore the fact that my head hurts right now from even trying to comprehend when Hoja and the narrator switched places or if Hoja and the narrator are even different people. I might need to reread the entire thing just to even try and get a handle on the situation. Instead, I wanted to reflect on something Evliya Chelebi says in the last chapter. He says, "But we should search for the strange and surprising in the world, not within ourselves! To search within, to think so long and hard about our own selves, would only make us unhappy. This is what happend ot the characters in my story: for this reason heroes could never tolerate being themselves, for this reason they always wanted to be someone else" (155). This insight spoke to me. It is a common truth. My mother always tells me that you can't look to others to be happy, that you have to do things for yourself, take care of yourself, to ensure your own happiness. At first I thought my mother's wisdom was being challenged. Later I realized that her argument was only being reinforced. Humans should not look to others, nor should they look within themselves. People need to experience the world on their own, to seek adventure, to create an identity for themselves in order to find happiness. Happiness is a journey, not a destination.

The White Castle

I've noticed that dreams seem to play a large role in the novel. In chapter six, when Hoja and the narrator first sit down to write together, the narrator tells Hoja dreams that he has created in order to gain control. "Hoja was not unaware that these dreams were devilish traps that would drag him into the darkness of a deadly science, bust still he continued to question me, realizing that he lost a bit more of his self-confidence with every question" (75). When the narrator escapes to Heybeli island he has lots of dreams. He dreams of Hoja sailing with dolphins, his mother, and of Hoja dead. Hoja interprets dreams for the Sultan as a form of amusement and foretelling of future events. The sultan once dreams that he is prey on a hunting expedition. Finally, the narrator dreams that he is in a crowd and he sees his mother and fiance; however, the women mistake Hoja for him. This dream is the most painful and telling so far. The narrator realizes just how much he has changed.

I wonder how the dreams will shift as the novel continues. Maybe some past dreams will come true. Maybe the dreams will have a different purpose.

favorite home page

First Post Ever

This is my very first wall post. I'm pretty excited about this.