The recent studies by Bronson and Merryman exhibit an astounding decline in creativity among the global population. Pundits emphasize the necessity of originality for posterity, for only innovative minds can satisfy the standards of an increasingly technological and complex society. Technological novelties are embraced in this progressive era as necessities to improving living standards and to expediting global integration. The recent studies portend the advent of the commonplace, dull individual who will possess no capacity for adaptation, and this foreboding seems to call for an urgent remedy. Yet, the solution is not as simple as creating classes solely devoted to creativity. In fact, the answer is more nuanced; the best approach to this pressing issue is to revise existing curriculums to offer more comprehensive and holistic experiences.
To revise the curriculum effectively, the definition of "creativity" must be examined before proceeding. Creativity has long formed the image of the brilliant stroke of a brush or the eloquence that produced the hallmark declaration of democracy, "we hold these truths to be self evident...", but creativity expands beyond artistic boundaries. Inventiveness is the ability to solve seemingly impossible problems. This encompasses the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other sciences that are often excluded in the conventional sphere of creativity. An individual's ability to solve a problem in the most expedient and effective manner is a fundamental demonstration of originality. Creativity also entails a measure of social awareness. One of our most remarkable abilities as a species is our ability to empathize. our amazing capacity for imagination allows us to vicariously experience certain events that we have never encountered. Quite evidently, creativity cannot be confined to conventional boundaries. Creativity permeates throughout every small action we perform, whether it be finding a faster route to work or coming up with a way to multi task. Thus, creativity must be included and integrated within our school curriculum, not separated from our routine performances.
To effectively amend our curriculum to address this social issue, the school board must offer more engaging and interactive experiences to students. This entails the removal of drilling or rote memorization of dates, compounds, etc. Though memorization of certain small details is nevertheless necessary, the school board should implant in students the knowledge that a certain field of study cannot be solely characterized by the recollection of details. Instead, the classroom must be engaging, allowing students the opportunity to address the opinions of others and to adjust their own thoughts according to different topics or circumstances. The student board should not treat creativity as a separate sphere of learning and instead as an integral component to a student's learning experience. The separation of inventiveness from traditional subjects shortchanges students and hinders their ability to apply their innovative capacities to fields of math, chemistry, or other sciences that can further supplement their visionary minds.
Not only will the revised curriculum improve the current and future generation's ability to think creatively, it will offer a new meaning to what it means to be "creative". No longer will students feel inept because they are artistically incompetent. They, instead, will have a more holistic view of originality and will be able to apply what they learn more effectively to new problems they encounter.
The discouraging studies have induced a strong fear in our generation. To continue our ineffective methods reassures the study's prediction of a world where everything is commonplace and derivative. However, the solution is not out of our reach. Steady revisions to our curriculum can make individuals more proficient thinkers and intellectuals. We must be cautious to not revert to previous ways and instead to maintain a constant, unfaltering pace in amending our schools. Reframing entire courses is certainly a difficult task, and I do not for a moment suppose that this will immediately solve this gradual decline in inventiveness. However, I see this approach as the most effective method in addressing this issue.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Florence Kelley Rhetorical Strategies Analysis (Question 2)
Florence Kelley's powerful speech piques the emotional and rational centers of our minds. The structural organization of her speech allows for a clear progression in thought and forms an effective cascade of ideas. In addition, Kelley masterfully wields the rhetorical tools to draw in and captivate her listeners. But perhaps the most significant aspect of the speech is the appeal to emotion. Kelley is cognizant that the brief time that is allotted to her must be utilized to its full effect, and what better way to convince an audience then to pick the strings of pathos. Kelley effectively transitions from different titles of inclusion, starting from "mothers" and proceeding to "women", a strategy that offers a much more immersive and inclusive experience. The author also includes a call to action, a calling that invokes the audience's measures of hope and compassion. By utilizing all the devices presented, Kelly weaves together the apathetic and empathetic components of rhetoric to create a cogent address to the public.
The author uses a clear narrative structure, connecting the status quo with a hopeful change of existing circumstances. Kelley's first strategy is exposition; she describes the rapidly increasing "contingent" of child laborers. However, she not only exposes, but also contrasts. Kelley juxtaposes the adult's conditions of relative leisure and the wretched working conditions of the children, throwing the children's predicament in sharp relief; "while we sleep, little girls will be working(29)". Kelley establishes the status quo as deplorable, "evil(65", and in desperate need of change. She does this with a consistent sentence. "Last year, New Jersey took (40", "A good law was repealed(41)" and the rest of her introductory paragraphs impart to the listeners an apathetic tone, void of any florid emotions. The motif of kelley's speech, the little girl toiling at night, consistently proves the necessity of change of the existing circumstances.
Kelley's second half includes the emotional component of the speech. One of her strategies is the transition of titles. She positions the same audience under different names, "mothers(55)", "teachers(55)" and finally, "women(79)" and the conflates all these titles under "we(78)", This transition from separate to all-inclusive titles captures the entire audience. The author also includes the final calling. She exposes the small light at the end of the tunnel and latches onto it as a beacon of hope and change. She admits the slim chances of their success, but claims that they aren't "wholly powerless". This injects the element of hopefulness and transforms her expository speech into a powerful calling
The author uses a clear narrative structure, connecting the status quo with a hopeful change of existing circumstances. Kelley's first strategy is exposition; she describes the rapidly increasing "contingent" of child laborers. However, she not only exposes, but also contrasts. Kelley juxtaposes the adult's conditions of relative leisure and the wretched working conditions of the children, throwing the children's predicament in sharp relief; "while we sleep, little girls will be working(29)". Kelley establishes the status quo as deplorable, "evil(65", and in desperate need of change. She does this with a consistent sentence. "Last year, New Jersey took (40", "A good law was repealed(41)" and the rest of her introductory paragraphs impart to the listeners an apathetic tone, void of any florid emotions. The motif of kelley's speech, the little girl toiling at night, consistently proves the necessity of change of the existing circumstances.
Kelley's second half includes the emotional component of the speech. One of her strategies is the transition of titles. She positions the same audience under different names, "mothers(55)", "teachers(55)" and finally, "women(79)" and the conflates all these titles under "we(78)", This transition from separate to all-inclusive titles captures the entire audience. The author also includes the final calling. She exposes the small light at the end of the tunnel and latches onto it as a beacon of hope and change. She admits the slim chances of their success, but claims that they aren't "wholly powerless". This injects the element of hopefulness and transforms her expository speech into a powerful calling
Locavore Synthesis Essay (Question 1)
The recent surge in the local-market proponents (locavores) introduced questions of nutrition that challenged current standards of nutrition, transportation, and agriculture. The small-scale cultivation system might appeal to many as the panacea for issues regarding health and the domination of our agricultural industry by the few. Yet there is more to the story. The allure of "fresh food" and proximity clouds many issues regarding the local-market system, including the ambiguous characterization of "local" and the way foods are transported. The rise in locavores has far-retching implications, nationally and globally. However, in-depth evaluation exposes the ignored and undiscussed reasons as to why this newfound trend is only sweet on the surface.
The major critique of locavores is the definition of the term "local" Proponents argue that the less distance a food travels, the more it retains its nutritional value. Though this isn't entirely incorrect, it's a partial interpretation of a larger issue. As McWilliams indicates, lambs in New Zealand are produced under relatively congenial environments, whereas lambs in the U.K which many Londoners are tempted to buy due to its proximity, are treated under intense, adverse factory conditions. Quite evidently, the single criterion of distance that locavores hold when shopping for food is very short sighted. The simple-minded view that "near is healthy and far is bad' excludes other significant considerations, including how the product is treated and perhaps even where it's coming from. As Roberts indicates, the source of local foods might simply negate the benefits that arise from close-distance cultivation. On more technical terms, "local" is subject to people's preconceptions and interpretations. In addition, a formal, objective definition of "local" cant' be prescribed because it can conflict with some individual's opinions of what local means
Another issue is the destabilizing force that locavores impose on the globally interdependent economic system. Robert suggests that "decentralized food systems function well in decentralized societies." Our global economy is simply not compatible with the local-farm type system that is the rage in our nation. Forcing locavorism onto a puzzle piece that won't fit can have debilitating implications as results.
The major implication of this locavore trend is that it distorts our view of what healthy, nutritional food is. If, hypothetically, one lives 200 miles from the nearest food source, a distance not usually categorized as "local", is the individual robbed of his/her nutrition? Smith and MacKinnon asserts that the individual doesnt:"There will be nutrional differences, but they'll be marginal". By portraying nutrition on such superficial criteria, locavorism holds the dangerous potential of permanently changing what proper nutrition means. Instead of counting calories or keeping close tabs on what one eats, locavorism tempts the regular Joe to simply attend the local markets and remove the attention and focus on nutrition that he had possessed before the locavore trend. We must be cautious in jumping on this bandwagon. It can, quite frighteningly, make us what we eat: Vegetables.
The major critique of locavores is the definition of the term "local" Proponents argue that the less distance a food travels, the more it retains its nutritional value. Though this isn't entirely incorrect, it's a partial interpretation of a larger issue. As McWilliams indicates, lambs in New Zealand are produced under relatively congenial environments, whereas lambs in the U.K which many Londoners are tempted to buy due to its proximity, are treated under intense, adverse factory conditions. Quite evidently, the single criterion of distance that locavores hold when shopping for food is very short sighted. The simple-minded view that "near is healthy and far is bad' excludes other significant considerations, including how the product is treated and perhaps even where it's coming from. As Roberts indicates, the source of local foods might simply negate the benefits that arise from close-distance cultivation. On more technical terms, "local" is subject to people's preconceptions and interpretations. In addition, a formal, objective definition of "local" cant' be prescribed because it can conflict with some individual's opinions of what local means
Another issue is the destabilizing force that locavores impose on the globally interdependent economic system. Robert suggests that "decentralized food systems function well in decentralized societies." Our global economy is simply not compatible with the local-farm type system that is the rage in our nation. Forcing locavorism onto a puzzle piece that won't fit can have debilitating implications as results.
The major implication of this locavore trend is that it distorts our view of what healthy, nutritional food is. If, hypothetically, one lives 200 miles from the nearest food source, a distance not usually categorized as "local", is the individual robbed of his/her nutrition? Smith and MacKinnon asserts that the individual doesnt:"There will be nutrional differences, but they'll be marginal". By portraying nutrition on such superficial criteria, locavorism holds the dangerous potential of permanently changing what proper nutrition means. Instead of counting calories or keeping close tabs on what one eats, locavorism tempts the regular Joe to simply attend the local markets and remove the attention and focus on nutrition that he had possessed before the locavore trend. We must be cautious in jumping on this bandwagon. It can, quite frighteningly, make us what we eat: Vegetables.
My Experience with The Ministry
Every Sunday I followed a routine. It went as follows. I would wake up approximately at around ten a.m to glance over at my clock to discover that I'm late for my appointment, once again. I resist the urge to retreat into my covers and I'm still amazed at how I fought this impulse for years, so much so that I humbly view myself as particularly resolute when referring to my weekly departures from the sanctuary of my sheets. I fix myself a shabby breakfast, quickly scarf it down, and await the cab ride to my final destination. Where does this all lead to?
For 5 or so years (give or take a year) I was an active member of my local church. Sadly enough, I have recently severed all bonds with my church, an abrupt transition of my life and a shock to my family as well as my ministry. It was a difficult decision, but one not made hastily. I devoted hours reading and learning and contemplating my final decision that seems now like a forgone conclusion.Thus, I write this to offer my views on the ministry and the institutionalization of such a sacred and personal entitlement: the right to believe in a God.
But before I reveal my thoughts on this issue, I must say that I have no intention of offending anyone's religious beliefs. I am aware, as I am writing this, of the contentious nature of speaking publicly on religion and I admit that it will inevitably elicit anger or contempt from some individuals. However, I also request that some time and consideration be spared for my own opinions and alternative convictions.
In my sojourns to the library, I repeatedly tried to substantiate my beliefs with conclusive evidence. So often, the only proof offered for a fantastic belief is the amount of conviction it inspires in its believers. Of course, I wasn't looking for a fossil-type evidence for my beliefs; no such form exists. However, I desired to find a reasonable justification for my faith and in this search, I inevitably learned so much more than I had attending my weekly sermons
But this experience did not sway me into making my final decision. After much contemplation, I realized that I was most repelled by the institutionalization of religion. I realized that in systematizing such a personal and spiritual experience, some "x" factor was lost in the process. The powerful display of conviction in the praise songs and other events had clouded this truth from me, and I was complacent about this reality that I grasped a year ago. After much retrospection, I speculated that the "x" factor was a visceral and raw compassion for the religion; throughout many of the sermons I attended, I realized that many, including myself, were apathetic and uninterested in actually receiving the word.
This is a small highlight into my experience with my ministry. I reasoned that it held a large significance in my life since I broke free from what I felt was a rigidly systematized institution. I had never felt so free than when I renounced my church. Though this will appear as a tragedy to those of faith, I felt as if I had a mind to myself, a privilege of freedom of thought that I have never experienced due to the captivity of religion. I respect my ministry and other institutions of faith. However, I was repelled by the ideological rigidity of institutionalized religion and renounced my church, not on the grounds of its beliefs, but on the grounds of its system.
In my sojourns to the library, I repeatedly tried to substantiate my beliefs with conclusive evidence. So often, the only proof offered for a fantastic belief is the amount of conviction it inspires in its believers. Of course, I wasn't looking for a fossil-type evidence for my beliefs; no such form exists. However, I desired to find a reasonable justification for my faith and in this search, I inevitably learned so much more than I had attending my weekly sermons
But this experience did not sway me into making my final decision. After much contemplation, I realized that I was most repelled by the institutionalization of religion. I realized that in systematizing such a personal and spiritual experience, some "x" factor was lost in the process. The powerful display of conviction in the praise songs and other events had clouded this truth from me, and I was complacent about this reality that I grasped a year ago. After much retrospection, I speculated that the "x" factor was a visceral and raw compassion for the religion; throughout many of the sermons I attended, I realized that many, including myself, were apathetic and uninterested in actually receiving the word.
This is a small highlight into my experience with my ministry. I reasoned that it held a large significance in my life since I broke free from what I felt was a rigidly systematized institution. I had never felt so free than when I renounced my church. Though this will appear as a tragedy to those of faith, I felt as if I had a mind to myself, a privilege of freedom of thought that I have never experienced due to the captivity of religion. I respect my ministry and other institutions of faith. However, I was repelled by the ideological rigidity of institutionalized religion and renounced my church, not on the grounds of its beliefs, but on the grounds of its system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)