Eulogy

This class has been something of an odd experience for me. Being a Journalism major has taught me to approach writing with a certain structure in mind. Composing clear and concise sentences. Using simple, yet expressive, prose. I have been taught how to manage my words on the sentence level. This class was more about the feel of writing. While this has been something that I have always been aware of and toyed with in my other writing pursuits it has been something outside the focus of my academic study. Approaching the feel and logic behind discourse was entirely refreshing for me. It reminded me why I decided to pursue a writing intensive major.

If I could make one suggestion to improve the course it would be this: reduce the assigned number of blog posts and increase presence of peer reviewed papers. While blog posts reduce the physical paper load of the class it does not foster the same level of writing analysis that the in class group sessions provided. Reading my words aloud to a group really helped me understand the flow of my argument and I could hear where my paper needed work.

All in all this class was an enjoyable writing class. While I did not always see the connection between lecture and lab, and often doubted any true synergy existed between the two I feel that I learned a great deal. Both teachers were enthusiastic and always had more to say than each day than the allotted time slot allowed.

A Beautiful Failure

Mankind has always sought to capture an idea in time. From petroglyphs on to hieroglyphs and into the modern age of writing man has tried to store and convey experience through the written word. However, even thousands of years of evolution in human discourse have come up short. There is still no way to transcribe the true essence of thought. I think that one of the reasons for this is that as a species we lack the capabilities to truly comprehend any experience entirely. When I attempt to describe a city I am limited by how I perceive the world. My concept of Madison and someone else's can be entirely different. This does not mean that either are less truthful. Both of us are simply limited by our schema of understanding.

Another way in which the written word fails to encapsulate human experience is its inability to truly capture an emotional appeal. Do not misunderstand me, I have been moved by the words of many authors. But, the true heart wrenching agony of a personal loss or the love felt for one's family can never be conveyed with simple language. As a species we have always understood that text has its limits. This is one of the reasons why emoticons, as lackluster as they are, became so popular. It is simply another attempt to embed text with meaning.

I wish that I could visit Earth several hundred years from now to see evolution of human discourse. Just as I am sure man will still be trying to supplement their ability to capture an idea, I am equally sure we shall still fall agonizingly short.

closing statements

In terms of aggregate good done by a class, this class checked out. I very much enjoyed ILS 200; it required me to excel in writing through fun and creative assignments. I enjoyed the assignments a lot actually, and I went beyond the class and stepped up my reading just so I could properly portray my rhetoric; this class helped me see how important portraying what you want to say is, and how to do it. Capturing the philosophy of why we do something is not only important for following through with action; it’s a virtue for the learning process. This was facilitated through this class: Success!

Pathos is an interesting beast. It requires a person who is delivering a message to tailor their presentation towards an appropriate audience in order to disclose their information in the way that they see fit: to lock their message in their viewers mind, just the way they want. Celebrities around the world fall victim towards this in a strange way: how they present them self. They need to be concerned with their actions on a 24/7 basis. Though this might seem unfair to an alien, it makes complete sense to a cognitive human. Google search any of these athletes salaries; with the unique accepting of A-Rod-whom only get's 6 million from his endorsements-the major athletes in the world, and especially tiger woods, derive the majority of their salaries from endorsements, or at least a substantial chunk (40 percent or more). What does this mean? These athletes are the best sales people in the world. Big name companies pay these guys copious amounts of green because they are, for one excellent at their sport, and secondly becuase they have a solid image that they can associate with their company--which in turn leads to sales. When someone like tiger-who over 80% of his salary is based off of his image-get's him self in trouble by doing something that everyone see's as extremely unethical, you better believe everyone is going to here about it. It's only right for the integrity of these companies: the companies essentially responsible for these athletes wealth. Am I saying that anyone who chooses such a profession-one in which requires public light-deserves to have everyone know each intricate detail concerning their life? No, absolutely not, but what I am saying is many athletes accept sponsorships-sponsors which choose them based off of their public image-and it is only fair to these sponsors to maintain their image.

public discourse too pathetic?

On a whole, public discourse, along with most aspects of mainstream media, have become a little too pathetic. While use of pathos or appeals to emotion can be positive for getting more and more people interested in a certain topic, it fails to logically inform these people in order for logical discussion to take place. For example, ask the question of whether or not the U.S. needs health-care reform (uh oh touchy subject). Dramatic stories and situations that appeal to the emotions of Americans could point to positive reinforcement as to why health-care reform is necessary. On the contrary, scare tactics and hypothetical projections could point out negative aspects and repercussions of health-care reform. However, these dramatic appeals do not inform us of the specifications of the reform and what we can expect from it. If facts and information were presented instead of sob stories that have a tendency to dramatically slant our opinions on certain topics, then logical discussion could be had and necessities could be determined. After all, people can believe in health-care reform, but may see it necessary to meet somewhere in the middle of the opinions of the far left and far right. This thought process could be applicable in most topics of public discourse, and would provide a more fair and accurate argument for discussion. Unfortunately, I do not see much light at the end of a very dark tunnel of pathetic appeal, especially because the mainstream media is one of the largest contributors to emotional appeal. No matter what major news channel you look at, all use pathos to sway their viewer to one specific political party whether it be Democrat or Republican. No matter how fair and balanced you think your news channel of choice is, your opinion is most likely slanted because your political affiliation probably matches that of the certain channel you watch. These news channels know their audiences, and use whatever type of pathetic appeal necessary to fit their demographics. Is there a realistic solution to this never ending problem of pathetic appeal? I really hope there is a solution, but I wouldn't cross my fingers.

The Politics of Pathos: Neither Good Nor Bad

It has been argued that discourse today is far too pathetically slanted. Examples of this can be seen most prevalently when watching political pundits but the trend dominates most forms of mass media today (especially television). If this is a good or bad thing is a topic I am extremely split on. On the one hand over dramatizing everything makes participants in discourse reliant on emotion and makes them apt to overlook, or downplay logical arguments. Appeals to emotions have become the norm in modern society. While this is an extremely detrimental side effect, having a pathetically minded populace does have its benefits. Foremost people are much more in tune with their feelings and this does wonders for mental health. Secondly, people become much more engaged in a topic if it tugs at their heartstrings or plays on their fears. Advertisers have been using this technique since Edward Bernays imported it into commerce from his days as a propagandist in South America during WWII. Engagement is the key to interaction and as long as people become involved with discourse this is a start.

While moving towards a more logically minded schema of discourse would be extraordinary it does not seem that this will be the case any time soon. Mass media outlets provide a framework for how people structure their own discourse. We are bombarded by advertisements and other forms of pathetic content literally thousands of times a day. And the way that mass media is shaped today seems to suggest that this trend will only increase in the future. So good or bad this is a framework that is here to stay.

While some may find this future bleak we must understand that this is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history civilizations usually reach a point where discourse is saturated with pathetic appeals. In the United States this has been most prevalent in politics but elsewhere across the globe many civilizations have faced the same conditions. As long as we are able to learn from other cultures (and equally importantly, our own) this is a trend that can be utilized to do tremendous good by encouraging discourse and fostering engagement.

Public Discourse

Public discourse requires a certain balance between pathos, ethos and logos. But in our current form of public discourse is pathos being used more than it should, is the balance becoming unbalanced? Some might say yes, I say it depends. It depends on your perspective. Currently it takes a lot to get people’s attention and weighting a message heavily with pathetic appeals creates something that is hard for people to ignore. Sometimes it is necessary for us to use a strong appeal towards emotion in order to get our point across.

It seems to be necessary to use a strong emotional appeal in order to send a message but should it be necessary? I believe that, in public discourse, pathos, ethos and logos, should remain in balance regardless of what grabs people’s attention. Especially in politics because when politicians use heavy emotional appeals and less logic and ethics we, as an audience, miss out on important information because politicians are only telling us stuff that appeals to our emotions and they are not telling us the whole story. It can be deceiving and honesty is something that we look for in politicians.

I think currently, pathetic appeals are too prevalent in our public discourse, it is often hard to wade through fact and fiction and playing off our emotions makes it even harder. It is too easy to use pathetic appeals to pad your messages, whether it be in politics or something else and I don’t think that is a legitimate reason for its use. When we can successfully fix the balance between pathos, ethos and logos public discourse can truly be effective.

The world of pathos: Tiger woods

I am someone who believes in balance. There is balance in everything that we perceive, feel, and experience. Pathos is no exception to this concept. In this world we dwell in, we have seen exponential growth in technology, globalization, and industrialization all increase on exponential scales; this growth-note that correlation is not always indicative of causation-positively correlates with the patterns of pathos (due to the forces of balance). As it has become more routine to know every single bit of information about the littlest shatoe in a jungle in africa-globalization-the lives of public figures our society cares about, have also been more exposed. This is simply natural and the direct result of balance. The more we know about someone-once again please ignore causation (post-hoc fallacy)-positively correlates-and in this situation causes-with ones salary/worth. This is all due to the power of marketing. If someone is in the public spotlight and mentions a product, it sells. This is simply how this work's, and something like Tiger Wood's privacy hindering because of this movement, is simply just the balancing of an equation. Tiger make's 80 million on MKT deals alone. So essentially what that means is, he gets paid 80 million dollars for his public image. If his public image is disturbed, not only will he loose money, people we know. Look at this mathematically, Good at sports=public image, Public image + being a good citizen = money, Money + being a bad citizen= loss of money. IT BALANCES JUST LIKE AN EQUATION AND THIS IS LIFE!

Pet Peeve

I am annoyed by many of the linguistic foibles afflicting the bible belt of the American Midwest. Every time someone confuses borrow with lend I cringe a little bit inside. People who consistently confuse good with style well have the same effect. I know I am obnoxious when I continually harp on the grammatical difference between these words but a man has to have principles. Borrow and lend are not synonymous, good and well are not interchangeable. However, my biggest pet peeve concerning language is not related to grammar. It is the use of business terms out of context. Using phrases like synergy and other industry buzz words during everyday conversations is incredibly annoying.

What defines a bigwig in a corporate board meeting ostracizes him at a Phish concert. “Crunchy grooves” do not mesh with “advertainment”. My abhorrance for business speak breaking down the cubicle walls to the real world indicates my irrational dislike for phrases out of context. For example, I don’t like suburban, upper middle class kids quoting N.W.A records in their National Honors Society meetings nor corn-fed, Wisconsin bred middle schoolers talking about "shredding the gnar" like brahs and betties.

My aversion to transitional linguistics seems counter intuitive. I usually love all things liminal, or boundary straddling. Asian fusion cuisine, the emergence of extreme sports into mainstream culture, Huxley’s Brave New World and freshmen coeds.

I think my aversion to out of place colloquialisms might actually have everything to do with my love of transitionary artifacts. I love the aforementioned examples because they bridge two worlds, harmoniously finding a new niche. Snowboarding has been able to keep its soul while being pushed to new extremes in the glow of mass consumerism and Indonesian ingredients have benefited from high-end restaurateurs. Conversely, nobody benefits from hearing about “bo-go selling strategies” or “targeting Generica demographics” in the context of a rock concert.

Combining two opposing subjects creates conflict. Conflict is the foundation for any good narrative. Superman needs Lex Luther and Kryptonite; Dr. Jekyll needs Mr. Hyde; and The Giving Tree needed that greedy little kid. But, having business speak in about-the-town vernaculars takes it too far. Lastly, If I never hear the word synergy used outside of a boardroom it will be too soon.

Pet Peeve

Many people find it a pet peeve when people misuse grammar. Maybe someone says "good" when they should have said "well," or they said "stupider" when they should have said "more stupid" - my pet peeve is when someone corrects my or someone else's speech in these types of situations. To me there is nothing more irritating than a grammar snob who is disturbed enough by a misuse of words that they feel the need to publicly correct a violation of grammar. I understand that sometimes a misuse of grammar can get under the skin of even the simplest of people, particularly when someone expresses a word unknown to the present English dictionary, but the necessity to publicly denounce another person's intelligence is quite out of line. Even well educated people who know the rules of grammar will resort to a more casual use of rhetoric from time to time depending on the formality of the situation. In a formal situation, most people understand that grammar use is important because it speaks volumes about your intellect, but in more comfortable situations with friends and family, people should be able to use language they are comfortable with as long as their point is clearly represented. When someone says "I feel pretty good," everyone who speaks English understands the meaning. Is it necessary to correct someone aloud and say, "I think you mean well?" It doesn't make you any smarter or better of a person because you can point out when someone misuses "good," or makes up a word like "stupider," - a twelve year-old child could point out such obvious mistakes. To sum up my thoughts on this issue, I guess what I'm trying to say is that people who take their pet peeves with grammar misuse too far, represent my largest pet peeve of all.

"Easy = True"

It seems that logic is the language of cognitive fluency. Cognitive fluency, being how easy something is to understand, would be able to utilize logic in many ways. For one, with logic comes understanding, if something is misunderstood it must not have been logical, and the goal of having high cognitive fluency is for better understanding therefore logic and cognitive fluency go hand in hand since they both aim to achieve similar or the same goal.

I have never thought of simplicity to be something that humans lean towards but in a way it makes sense and in a way it does not and I think this article addresses both sides of that. Bennet shows this comparison by showing how disfluency can used as opposed to fluency. I like the use of this because it does not make humans seem as simplistic as they would if Bennet would have just used fluency, or simplicity, to describe the way that human minds work the best. This disfluency is used because it causes your brain to think more into something and makes you realize the opposite, or what fluency/simplicity would have made you realize. Bennet’s example of this is with writing down ways to succeed, he says that writing down 3 ways to succeed and writing down 12 ways to fail would equate in the outcome. I think this comparison is very logical because simply knowing ways to succeed gives you a mechanism to use to achieve success, but writing down many ways of failure makes one think of different situations and how one would have to solve those failures. I almost think that this would give someone more of an ability to succeed because they would be equipped to recognize failure and would then be able to fight it.

I do think that in a lot of situations though simplicity would work over disfluency. And Bennet gives examples of this and a lot of them come from media and why we buy the things we do or vote for the people we vote for as Bennet describes. Bennet later describes that we tend to lean toward things that are easier for us, for example rhymes can help us makes sense of things like the example of the aphorism where it was put into equivalent meanings but one rhymed and the other did not, the outcome was that people tended to choose the rhyming one as more true.

I thought the funniest part of the article comes at the beginning with the example of people investing in companies with simpler names. I actually think this may be a little inaccurate, it could play a bit of part but I don’t think it does entirely. I think something as important as investing money, something that can change your future, is not something that most people take or should take advantage of. However it may play a part in deciding between two things that are equivalent in every other way, because sometimes just picking one that your gut is telling you to pick is the best thing to do, and you r gut could be telling you to pick the most simplistic one.

Finally I really like the connection between fluency and familiarity, and how we sometimes strive for that familiarity in order to justify decisions that we make. People feel an attraction towards something that is familiar to them and I think that is just human nature because people become wary in situations that are unfamiliar to them because they do not know what to expect or how to handle some of those situations. The example that Bennet uses to show our appeal toward familiarity is with an experiment where people were just shown different stimuli and people choose the ones that they liked and it just so happened that the ones that people liked the most were ones that they were shown repeatedly.

Cognitive fluency goes much deeper then the surface when it comes to the way people think and people do not necessarily prefer fluency over disfluency in every situation. As we have seen it very much depends on the situation that people are in and what they want to get out of it. And maybe simplicity can be attributed to familiarity more then to itself alone. With all of this information it is easy for one to see that our minds are very complex and having concrete answer to the questions of how they think about things, how they decide or choose things, or why we make the judgments that we make is not possible.

Overall the peace of work was very interesting. Its main thesis being about cognitive fluency, "simply a measure of how easy it is to think about something, and it turns out that people prefer things that are easy to think about to those that are hard." This actually makes a lot of sense to me. In terms of stocks, myself being an active analyst and trader, I had to laugh at their point towards this. I then got to thinking about some of the more well run companies. Take Goldman Sachs for example (goldmen sax pronunciation). It is the the best ran business in the country because of its business model, and their ability to execute successfully strategies... Although Goldman sax is a pretty easy and smooth annunciation, I than got to thinking of other banks, who are very successful but don't share the same title, or perhaps are not even viewed in the same league, and lots of them have rather strange name. take Deutsche bank for an example, pronounced doy-tcha, are their analysts not as smart as Goldman's? Are their ceo's not former business school elite graduates with forward long-term thinking? Absolutly not yet Deutsche bank is not nearly as successfully in attracting customers to their investments, cause: Hard to pronounce name?? That can obviously never be linked to causality, but no one can deny the funny correlation.

Continuing on to their next point about names. This actually makes sense to me. I think of all my profesors that I have had sense college, and the one's names I remember first, and end up remembering in the future, are the most simple and ascetically pleasing. Paul Davis. Being exposed to this concept, I can see from the outside that I simply remember his name because of how simple it is. But, a year or two down the road, when the only professor's name I can remember is his.... will I remember that this is simply because he has a easier to pronounce name than my other professors at the time? The study of Cognitive Fluency thinks not; Their logic is that a few years later, the simple fact that I remembered his name will be linked with the idea that he was probably an influential professor. So looking at this deductively..... People in which you remember their name, made some sort of impact on you- people with easier names, are easier to remember (their names are easier to remember- SO, people with easier names, have a greater chance to make an impact on you... Its not the craziest logic I have ever heard. When speaking about this, I look back at my entire educational experience, in and out side of classes. I must admit there has been more than one occasion where I have seen someone get told something, 3 to four to five times and never take it in. However, one person will come along and say the same thing, just a little bit different, and than all of a sudden it clicks. Cognitive fluency could be a reason of how exactly this is possible.

Lastly in terms of looks, I truthfully could not agree more. On a broad scale there has been many occasions where I have had to make a choice, between a number of different things. Take coats for instance. Just the other day I was looking at three different styles of zip up sweaters made by the same company. All were consistent with the same Sort of patterns, slightly different colors, and the same structure. Thinking about it now, the one I did end up with, the one that at the time I thought was just the most "aesthetically pleasing" was in fact the greatest compilation of all the features all three jackets had to offer. I thought back to many different situations like this, and the logic of Cognitive fluency consistently made me smirk, and shake my head in a up and down vertical motion ( the act of me realizing that this stuff actually makes sense).

In terms of people, Mr. Drake Bennet applies this logic too, "beauty-in-averageness." At first this concept is easy to ignore and shake off. Because when the words looks, and average, are connected, its usually followed by an average response, certainty not beauty. However I than begun to think more in depth. In order to analyze "beauty-in-averageness" you have to throw away your application of the word average, towards beauty. Because our explanation of average is on a quartile median rather than mean scale. EX: If we saw 10 people, rated them from 1-10, the average person would be number 5. This is the type of thinking that needs to be thrown out in order to understand this quote. Now thinking about attractive people in my life, my self as a guy who has interest in only females, I found this hard to apply to the females that I knew. However I than realized that this is impossible, because my embedded and natural opinion of beauty has been consistent for 20 years. So rather than looking at someone I thought was attractive, I than switched rolls, and viewed and analyzed a subject that a mass group of people think is attractive, and I don't, so I looked at a picture of the Beatles. This was a lot easier for me to analyze seeing hows I am not attracted to men. Once again my smile and nod re appeared. They don't necessarily have thick illustrious hair, chiseled jaw lines, or Diamond blue eyes, their just rather average looking to me. They posses traits in their facial structure and hair, that many of their followers can probably relate to. The fact that they are acclaimed to be the greatest band of all time might have a pull, but I think Cognitive fluency can appeal to that too. Who on this planet doesnt listen to music? Who on this planet has never had a wild dream? Who on this planet has never slightly desired to be a rebel? All these traits the beatles excelled in, so many can relate to them, thus making them attractive. Take for instance John Lennon vs the most attractive olympic Freestyle Ski jumper of all time. John Lennon would be drewled over 10 times more than the olympic Freestyle guy (of coarse my opinion). Is this because he was chizeled like a god, no its because he did something that almost everyone can relate to.

The concept itself is extremely interesting and very applicable in my opinion. The way it was presented all in all was good. A philosophical/maybe even scientific phenomenon like this, is very difficult to put on a page in the manner that everyone can agree and understand. Because of this I think the article lacks some logic in some of the questionable explanations, but all in all they did a good job enlightening people to this development

a good job, but possibly not perfect, or Cognitive Fluency might say... Average ;)

There he goes, the leader of the pack, possessing a presence like a giant among dwarfs, and growing his legend triumph by triumph, instilling fear into any brave warrior who challenges his greatness – with a big grin on his face, every Sunday he steps onto the battlefield, battered and beaten, ready to demolish his opponents, shatter records, win games, and strengthen his legacy – a legacy respected by teammates, opponents, and fans alike; he is the gunslinger, he is Brett Favre.

Legacy of Brutality

Nowhere else in the world does an eardrum shattering, teeth chattering and gut busting assortment of gain and reverb laden chord progressions transcribed to an amp through slightly chatter-some rail humbucker pickups from a double necked, ivory fret inlaid, drop-tuned, Gibson Les Paul, Flying V style guitar –overlain with automatic rifle-esque rapid fire kicks from a dangerously taut double bass drum and the sickly melodic, half screamed tirades of a sweaty, oversexed and altogether barbaric leather-lunged crooner– garner as much reverence from a literal legion of hellish demon spawn (mostly black t-shirt clad, pasty face teenagers with the occasional jaded ex-hipster and true blooded thrash metal sociopath) as it does in the Western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula; vengeful gods of all things “heavy” and Cthulhu, dark lord of chaos, discord, madness and patron saint of Black Metal unite to preserve Norway, the land of white face paint, fake blood and troublesome piercings!

Emotions

Emotions are the microphone of the mind as I see it, because they deliver the message of the mind that others are unable to hear, for instance people are going to know what is going on inside your head based upon your emotions on the outside, if you are thinking good thoughts and having a positive experience in life you will act happy, if you are thinking sad thoughts, depression is sure to show, sometimes the microphone doesn’t get turned on and your emotions are in short supply, occasionally the microphone is up far too loud and your emotions blare, and unfortunately there are those times that you get all tangled up in the cord not knowing what you are feeling and confusing your audience in the meantime, but when used correctly your microphone can be just the motivation and inspiration that your audience needs.

to seise to exist?

The phrase, "to seise to exist," - to fail to be alive - draw's many different thoughts, in which might cause one-self to ask, what exactly does this phrase mean to me, which is a very hard question to answer without breaking down the context and meaning of each indivdual word in the phrase, more specifically exist: Is existing a physical state; is existing a mental state in which existing means living, however in this situation, what exactly does living mean: to be physically alive- or perhaps something more deep, which might behoove oneself to ask, am I really living life?

"Expect the Unexpected"

“Expect the Unexpected”

To “expect the unexpected,” was a quote my father originally used to make my baseball team always stay one step ahead. Now that I'm older I realize that he was instilling in all of us, a tool that we can use for the rest of our lives. Originally the quote by Oscar Wilde reads, “To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect.” None of us on the team even knew who Oscar Wilde was at the time. Back then, we thought the quote only applied to baseball. To us it meant to never expect everything to go as planned. Errors are always bound to happen in baseball, so a player should think ahead about what to do to counter those errors in the event one takes place. If we were always thinking ahead and expecting the unexpected, then we would be better baseball players. Now my baseball years are long gone, but I can still fully appreciate the meaning of the quote when dealing with the curve balls life can throw at you at any given moment. I've realized that baseball is just a very elementary level for this quote, and only when you apply it to everyday life can you fully appreciate the entire meaning behind the brief phrase.

In a nut shell, to “expect the unexpected,” is to be prepared for every situation. People cannot live their lives believing everything is going to unfold perfectly to plan. Instincts definitely help, but instincts come more with experience, and a lot of times experience alone cannot prepare people for the crazy situations life can throw at you. Someone with “modern intellect,” as Oscar Wilde would describe, is an individual who has a plan when things go haywire, or in other words have the ability to adapt in unexpected situations. One who can see alternative solutions to alternative outcomes is a true intellectual. Some people may assume that to “expect the unexpected,” is to have a plan for every possible outcome, but this is not necessarily true. The ability to adapt is crucial because one cannot possibly derive every possible outcome of every possible situation. The idea and lesson behind the quote is both true and necessary in the pursuit of success. Though a little cliché, it becomes evident that this quote can be used in an endless variety of life situations. To “expect the unexpected,” is a brief phrase that encompasses an overwhelming truth, and any individual living by this code truly possesses “modern intellect.”

As far as style goes, the quote displays deductive logic, where the premise of truth is validated through the trial and error of all humans both past and present. Also, its use of repetition provides an interesting play on words. “Expect,” and “unexpected,” may sound the same, but these words completely contrast each other. This repetition is meant to emphasize and possibly even dramatize the meaning behind the quote. Although the idea of the quote is somewhat cliché, the words used to emphasize the idea are both fresh and witty. The word choice also leads to alternative conclusions such that if one truly does expect the unexpected, then aren't they assuming they ultimately have a solution no matter what? Is it possible to truly take into account all possible unexpected outcomes and have reactions for each of them, or does expecting the unexpected have more to do with one's flexibility in unfamiliar territory? As I explained before, I am a proponent of the ability to adapt as the quotes ultimate meaning. The quote can be seen many ways, and used in a wide variety of situations, but it is ultimately up to each person to make it their own.

Walking with Friends...

I think “Walking with a friend in the dark is better than walking alone in the light,” says it best when considering our dependency on other people. This quote is saying that going blindly through something with a friend is better than to know exactly where you are going but going there alone. In other words this quote is describing a journey and it could be an emotional journey, a physical journey or even a hypothetical journey and even though you may not know where the journey will take you or how you will get there, if you have a friend you will be ok. And going blindly through this journey with a friend is far better than being able to anticipate what is coming and how you will get there having to get there by yourself.

This quote is by Helen Keller and knowing that, it can take on a whole other meaning. To me in this case it means that Helen Keller would rather be blind and have a friend to go through life then to be able to see, but have no friends. Keller is physically walking through the dark, and with no amount of light would she give up her friends. It is important to understand that even though Keller is “walking in the dark” physically, it is also mental. She is on a mental journey of the mind it is extremely difficult, so having a friend with her to aid her in that journey is also crucial.

I also think it is important to realize that this quote mentions nothing about actually finding an end, because many have heard before that it is not about the destination, it is about the journey. And think in a way this quote is sort of rewriting that. The ones who think only of the destination are likely to go about it in the light and alone. But those who value the journey and learning on the way would rather be in good company regardless if they are fully aware of where there steps will take them.

I think the word choice is also very important in this quote. I like the choice of the word “walking” because to me it is more of place holder for anything you would want to insert there, and it really could be any number of things, it is left up to the interpretation. It could be interpreted by saying “Traveling…,” “Growing…,” “Learning…,” or maybe “Exploring…” It allows the imagination of the reader to turn this saying into whatever he or she needs it to be. Walking in the dark does not get solved by being with someone else, but it makes it easier to figure things out when you have two people there. So instead you have two blind people putting their heads together trying to sort through this “dark” place. In the second part of the quote “light” signifies and end or solution, and that it is “better” to not know where you are headed or how to get there as long as you are with a friend then it is to know exactly where you are going and how to get there but to be alone.

People are dependent on other people. Nobody’s life is fulfilled unless they have friends that help them or are helped. Inductive reasoning is used in this quote by showing us how to go through life. From past experiences it has shown us that we rely on other people and nobody can or even should be or act alone.

The tone of this quote, I think, is empowering. It shows that why should anyone have to go through life alone, when you in reality it is much better to have a friend to assist you and for you to assist them. The sacrifice of knowing where you are going is worthwhile and necessary when comparing whether to have friendship or to be alone. It is inspirational and one is wise to follow it. The diction of this quote is important, because in order to induce a tone of empowerment, the words need to be understandable to greater audience and something that people can relate to, so it does not have a high diction and I think it makes it easier to relate to in that sense. Many people have a lot of pride and think they are capable of doing things alone, and that’s ok if you know what you are doing. But think about whether or not you really do know what you are doing because what if you ended up walking through the dark alone.

V for vendetta

I, Like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence.

This fantastic introspective quotation was derived from the film, V for Vendetta (based off of Alan Moores graphic Novel). This idiom posse’s inductive logic. It was originally coined in the film as a que to the spectators that, the similarities in V’s and EVE’s (The two protagonists in the film) names are not just a silly coincidence, but rather a symbolic meeting of two different people uniting in pursuit of a bigger image, and perhaps the meeting of soul mates. And for me, it’s also the way I apply this little piece of Buddha intellect: as an explanation that certain events might not make sense in the present time, but they still posses context.

This quote was presented and highlighted through spectics. Because “V” is a fictional character, clearly this thought was not derived from himself, but derived from the author’s ideas, Mr. Alan Moore. If Alan Moore, released a statement like this, on a web posting or a blog, it might facilitate creative sparks with whoever reads it, there inlies the problem. From Alan Moore this quote would be quickly forgotten. But, coming from the fictional character V- a freedom fighter from one of the higher selling graphic novels of all time, and a character from the same Blockbuster movie- this quote will be heard numerous times, and becomes something more to its viewers like me. So although this quote may be emphasized and highly marketed through a spectic crazy superhero who harnesses a Guy Fox mask (Guy Fox attempted to blow up Parliament some time ago), it still has meaning and power.

The reason that I like this quote is because it combines many different idioms, “Everything happens for a reason,” “Everyone one has there own unique path.” V’s quote is certainly not the genisis of these idioms, henceforth it they cannot be derived from V’s quote. However, because Mr. Alan More, did such a fantastic job in combining these idealistic ideas into one phrase, I do see the dice quotation as a negative derivative function, (from quotations like “everything happens for a reason,” a true base was reversely derived). Lastly to me, this quote provides hope. Given that god exists, it gives us hope that we have all have a plan and a purpose.

"Ending is Better Than Mending"

Huxley Knows How to Get Under My Skin…In a Good Way

Musings on Thought Terminating Clichés

My background in writing has always taught me to treat clichés as taboo, a cardinal sin tarnishing your journalistic credibility. However, clichés and especially thought-terminating clichés have always been of particular interest to me. A thought-terminating cliché is a saying that dismisses dissenting opinions or validates improper logic, often employed in a clever or almost lyrical sentence structure. Examples of this include sayings like: “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”, “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and “if you’re not with us you’re against us”.

Simple and memorable sayings like this can punctuate narratives and introduce incredibly pleasing rhythms. Aldous Huxley makes extensive use of this type of saying in one of my favorite books, Brave New World. Huxley creates so many catchy little phrases it is almost impossible to choose a singular favorite. One of the more memorable examples of this type of phrase is, “ending is better than mending” (pg. 49, 2006 edition).

To understand the nuances of this saying a little context must be given first. Brave New World is Aldous Huxley’s critique of the way modern civilization is continually trending towards an increasingly unabashed adoption of pain avoidance and consumerism. He does this by creating a dystopian world government set in the distant future where “everyone belongs to everyone else” and the entire system is founded on industrialism and fed by constant consumption. “Ending is better than mending” is a term that epitomizes this schema; the whole system relies on production so it is integral that the upper echelons of this government create a throwaway culture.

“Ending is better than mending”, like most of the phrases in the book, is a short and memorable phrase. Phrases like this usually rely on a simple rhyming scheme to increase their validity. This validation is achieved through the phrases ability to be easily remembered and subsequently repeated. Constant repetition is a way to drive in the subject matter, to the point where it seems second nature and above criticism.

At least that is the purpose of these types of sayings in the novel. However, when I hear singsong phrases like this they produce almost the opposite effect. Not simply the catchy ones, but the entire menagerie of thought terminating clichés, feel incredibly hollow to me. While many of them are so ingrained in daily life that people rarely notice them, I cannot help but prick up at their dismissive and often insubstantial level of analysis.

I must be in the minority because these types of trivializing comments have been around for centuries, despite how much they perturb me at present (maybe it is the masochist in me but this is also why I have find them enthrallingly interesting as well). They have successfully permeated all forms of discourse. They adorn signs of support and protest at liberal and conservative rallies alike. They can be found emblazoned throughout children’s stories concerning fluffy bunnys, in pamphlets proselytizing hatred or simply serving as the catchphrases of popular T.V. characters.

Their wide use and extensive reach is founded in their effectiveness in spreading rhetoric; as in ”(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast” or ”the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience” and not “the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech” (dictionary.com). These types of phrases just brim with possible applications.

Despite my chagrin I must admit that phrases like “ending is better than mending” have a definite time and place. Like in children’s shows or forums where complicated discourse is difficult. Juxtaposed, these types of sayings should have no home in a political, philosophical or educational setting. Discourse is a necessary part of any society and one sentence cannot substitute for a fully thought out argument. While it is able to synthesize a main point into a key phrase its prevalent usage is alarming. If I may be permitted to use a thought terminating cliché to end my tirade as well as denounce thought terminating clichés, it would have to be: thought terminating clichés are bad!

While I feel that I may have strayed too far from my original saying: “ending is better than mending”, it is my humble opinion that Aldous Huxley would forgive me. I think he would enjoy my quibbling with abridged discourse and applaud my efforts. Hopefully my blog moderator does as well.

Pulp Fiction

Quenten Tarentino's 1994, Cannes award winning film, "Pulp Fiction," posses an intricate title. What is your interpretation of this connotative title

TEST POST