PORTFOLIOS DUE TOMORROW, 12/16

I'll be in my office (Student Media Office, SUB II or the HUB, whatever you want to call it) around 9:15. Your portfolios are due between then and 11 a.m., when I'm leaving my office. I will not accept late portfolios. See you tomorrow!

Robert Browning 3-2-1

For my 3-2-1 response I chose to review a poem by Robert Browning called "Confessions". Robert Browning, in general, uses his poetry to reveal deeper meanings through simple context, and in this poem especially, he plays with the reader's perception of reality and fantasy through his references to drug use in a near death experience, which makes it difficult for the reader to determine whether or not the main character is under the influence of drugs or is just experiencing effects of being so close to death. The poem's title lets the reader understand the context of the poem. A man on his death bed is talking to a priest to confess his sins. He is confessing to the priest a love story of his, all the while daydreaming outside the window and referencing the window sill full of prescription drug bottles as he is telling the story. Not only does he offer altered realities for the reader, but the poem offers more than one possible confession that the main character could be knowingly confessing to. One last important point to this poem is the presence of a religious figure with no other references to religion. The narrator does not ask for forgiveness for whichever sin he confesses to, making the reader wonder why the narrator is confessing at all. The last line of the poem, the narrator proclaims how 'sweet' his encounters with the female were; this leads the reader on to think that the confession may not be his relationship with the girl, but something completely different.

In poetry, I prefer having a poet clarify their meaning outside of their poetry, or if included in their poems, have it be subtle. I like to have to re-read a poem at least a couple of times to truly understand it. In whichever case it may be, I'd like to know 1) if Browning's idea of confession in this poem was the narrator's relationship with the girl or drug abuse, and 2) if the narrator's encounter with the girl actually occurred or if the narrator was tripping out because of all of the medications he was on.

One question I have regarding this poem is what seemed to be more obvious? The confession about the 'inappropriate' relationship or the drug abuse? What do people think was the underlying confession in the poem, and if it was in fact a confession at all because Browning did not include the narrator's remorse for either of the possibilities.

321 on Matthea Harvey

Arta Seyedian
11/02/2011
Engh 396

Three things I learned

1.     Matthea Harvey was born in Germany and spent her childhood in the UK before moving to America at the age of 8. She had both an American accent and an English accent, one she used in public and one she used around the house, until she moved out and started consistently using her American accent.

2.     Her collection of poetry was interesting, because it was the first time I've heard of anyone using a particular set boundary as inspiration for writing. For example, she read to the audience a series of poems that were based off of "What if 1 thing didn't exist?" e.g rain and arrows. She also used headlines for world news as a spring board for her poetry, which I found to be a pretty creative way to go about writing.

3.     Matthea Harvey wrote a series of poems called "The Terror of Future" and "The Future of Terror" if I recall correctly, and she employed a style of poetry where she would write a poem using all of the words between ‘Future’ and ‘Terror’.

Two things that need to be clarified

1.  I’d like to know what the name of this style of writing is – she mentioned it briefly, but despite my tremendous capacity for paying attention, I somehow missed it.
2. I want to know why she’s chosen to distance herself from her English heritage. She hints at it in her poem “Our American Husbands” and she talked about how she has lost her British accent. Why is that?

One question I have

1. 1.     How did she start out doing performance poetry and how did she come to the conclusion that that is what she wants to do?

“Phenominal Woman” – Maya Angelou – 3-2

Things I Learned:

I decided to do my response on a poem by Maya Angelou. This poem is a poem about self-confidence and the value of a woman. In order to understand a bit more about the poem I decided to look into Maya Angelou and the context surrounding the poem. It is very helpful to do this when reading a poem from someone you may not know much about, because poems express emotions and feelings which are mostly related to experiences that the writer may have encountered or lived through. Maya Angelou is an American poet and a civil rights activist who worked with people such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. She has also become a recognized spokesperson for women across the world. In one of her works titled, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, she confesses to the world how she was raped by her mother’s boyfriend at 7 years of age. Apparently her uncle’s murdered the man that raped her, and Maya stopped talking for a period of 5 years. As a woman, one can only imagine the negative effects, depression and excruciating fear that can overcome one, when you are taken advantage of. The worst part is Angelou wasn’t even a woman, but an innocent child, who was abused and this is something she will carry with her for the rest of her life. After learning this about Maya, I read the poem again and came to a new perspective on the poem. It gives the woman a strong position, because it’s not just about how she finds herself attractive no matter what, but it provides the reader with hope in a way, because even though what happened to her may have traumatized her for a while, she proves the value of a woman in this poem. She call herself a phenomenal woman, and I think she is because of all she’s overcome and how she’s been able to express herself through her writing.

If you want to read more on her bio, you can click below:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/maya-angelou

Clarification:

I think what’s important about this poem is who wrote it and what they went through, and that’s how I can further connect the true message the poem is trying to send. I went on a blog to see what people thought about the poem, and some people said it was an inspiring poem for women that don’t see themselves as beautiful. This is true, it gives hope for women, but this poem goes past physical characteristics and looks. Looking at Maya’s background, this poem is about a woman’s value, and the characteristics just add to what makes a woman in the views of man, but in reality it’s how you value yourself as a woman in the society we live in.

Question:

I wonder what was going through Maya’s head as she wrote this poem. I also want to know how she was able to openly talk about what happened to her as a child? Does that mean she’s completely overcome that experience? It’s similar to Fiona Apple (who btw is my favorite singer), but she was also raped, and a lot of her music is an ode to the woman and her strengths. My main question is how do you come about being able to openly express these things? I feel I would not be strong enough, but that’s just me and also because I’ve never lived through something like that. I think the final message in this poem, is no matter what, you have to keep going; as a woman in this world, because we are strong individuals with plenty to give.

Objectivism 3-2-1: Interview with Ayn Rand about Philosophy in Her Novels

I watched an interview of Ayn Rand conducted by Mike Wallace in 1959. Ayn Rand is the mother of objectivism and the author of both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Rand’s philosophy according to her is: A philosophy based on objective reality and “the concept that reality exists as an absolute, that man’s mind is his means of perceiving it and that man needs a rational morality”. Listening to her views, I came away with a number of points that she stressed and even more questions regarding objectivism.

1 America needs a new code of morality that is not based on emotion or faith, but logic instead. Objectivism finds that logically, “the highest moral purpose [of man] is his own happiness.”

2 She believes that moral altruism will lead to socialism, dictatorship and financial disaster. Rand says that forcing people to act in an altruistic way or to pay taxes is morally wrong. Everything should be privatized and no one should be bullied into helping others.

3 A complete free market economy separated from government is the only way to save our country from financial ruin.

1 If everyone relies on money to survive and state and social benefits for people in need are taken away, won’t the people in need revolt, protest or become violent? Won’t crime rates soar if people are unable to gain access to what they need to survive and won’t this lead to a lower quality of life for everyone?

2 How can Rand assert that a completely unhindered free market would be a good thing if it has never been tested? I’d like to know how she would explain the poverty and death that could result from relying on those who stand to gain from helping others who have nothing would manifest? Why would people acting in their own best interest have to gain from helping people who need it? If nothing, then what is to come of all the people at the bottom of this economic structure?

Question: Would you want to live in a world where selfishness is stressed and anyone in need would be on their own? Do you think Rand’s philosophy will lead to a better society as she claims or that it would lower our quality of life as a whole?

3-2-1 Reading Response Allen Ginsberg

For my 3-2-1 response I feel like I had to choose another poem by Allen Ginsberg. Every poem that I have read completely fascinates me. He's the kind of poet that if I were listening to him read in a random cafe, I would definitely be snapping my fingers and saying "Yes! I totally get you man." His views on society, the world, and the universe are so insightful. Most of his poems seem like short stories because they are so long, but I can see why. Ginsberg has seen a lot happen throughout the decades in an ever changing America. Allen Ginsberg was, of course, one of the leaders of the beat generation where many young american poets had visions to change societal views post WWll. I read that he had his own style and technique called Ginsbergian. The voice of his poems have a natural flow without much restraint. I suppose that he is the kind of poet whose poetry is meant to be spoken out loud instead of silently read. A lot of his poems also seem to be written as speeches geared towards his audiences. He has a confidence and a strength to his words that can be so convincing and make you really think. The poem that I choe to write about is "Song". It's one of Ginsberg's shorter poems but it makes just as much as an impact as his others, if not more.

The poem starts of by stating "The weight of the world is love" Ginsberg is exppressing his feelings about one of the most universal topics written about among poets and authors. I've learned that no matter the century or the decade you can always find a similarity in subject matter and style in poems. Though Ginsberg says he has his own style, I can see bits of romanticism or transcendentalism being reflected, probably due to the subject matter on the relationship of love and the universal society.
Something else that I learned or noticed is that Allen Ginsberg seems to have this awareness or interest in the word or idea of the machine. He writes about it in this poem-"No rest without love, no sleep without dreams of love- be mad or chill obsessed with angels or machines". It is also mentioned in another one of his poems "Howl" angel headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of the night". I'm guessing in both poems it could be a reference to 1950's industrialism and its influence on society and its obsession with consumerism and materialism.
One point that can be further clarified is his relationship with love and how it society has influenced him. He talks about the universal aspect but I would like to have seem him delve a little more personally. Also what are ways that love has uplifted and ways that love has become the cause of destruction. Also a question to ponder upon-"Is the earth and the beauty of human kind less important to love than the idea of power, wealth and possession"? If there were more people who felt universal compassion instead of their own selfishness and greed, then perhaps we would be in a better position. Love is the strongest force, and whether it is used for good or evil, the outcome will always be great.

3-2-1 David Kahneman's Reading at Poets and Prose

On December 7, 2011, I went to see author Daniel Kahneman at Poets and Prose in D.C. Kahneman is a psychologist and was there to discuss his new book entitled “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” The author is a psychologist who has won a Nobel Prize in Economics, and this book discusses human psychology in relation to economics. Although psychology and what little I know about economics interests me, I went into this reading anticipating the confusion I was sure I was going to have to endure. On the whole, I did manage to grasp a few interesting points from the experience.

1 Kahneman divides the human decision making experience into System 1 and System 2. System 1 is the more emotional aspect of decision-making that comes from prior assumptions and habitual experiences in the past. System 1 is responsible for a lot of mistakes because of all of the assumptions involved in this process. System 2, although more logical, is somewhat lazy and tends to rely on System 1. Most people do not have as much control over System 2 as would be necessary for good decision-making.

2 The second point of Kahneman’s discussion revolved around the idea that humans are rational, which is a fundamental assumption relied upon by economists. The author feels this assumption is false and leads to many problems arising for individuals and society as a whole. Kahneman does not believe in assuming that people are rational, but rather that presuming that we are leads to financial crisis like the one we are facing at the moment. System 1 leads people to be optimistic in their decision making process and this optimism is more powerful than System 2, resulting in many people finding themselves in financial difficulty.

3 Humans need to be more pessimistic and more aware about their emotional judgment calls. He talked about how as humans, we are better at solving other people’s problems and seeing the flaws in other people’s logic than our own. He says that if we can improve upon our judgments of other people, and teach ourselves to become more sophisticated along these lines, society as a whole will improve.

I’d like more explanation about how to improve upon our judgment skills and our System 2 level of functioning. Part of me realizes that this is probably discussed in the book, but that leads me to my next point of clarification.

Kahneman said that although he felt reading his book would be beneficial for people, he doubts it will help improve their decision-making process. He said that writing the book certainly did not help him improve upon his own, but then why read it? He stated that he is a pessimist at heart, so this could be part of his reason for saying so, but I still wanted more clarification about why he feels reading his book is worthwhile.

Question: Can people’s knowledge of their own emotions and decision-making process help improve their wellbeing and society in a broader sense or does it simply make it easier for people to anticipate the consequences of these bad decisions? In other words, are bad decisions inevitable?