Directed Freewrite: Beedles page 96 (31 August 2010)

Thoughts and Ideas in Varying States of Consciousness

            To be able to perceive given information, is consciousness. Consciousness can vary according to the limits of what a person or object can be conscious of. Chalmers says “Wherever we find conscious experience, it exists as one aspect of an information state,” (Chalmers 104). We can only think about and have ideas about what we know. What we are able to perceive, or what we are conscious of, is what gives way into what one thinks.  

            We all have a limited consciousness, which thus translates to meaning that we all have limited ideas or thoughts. We can only think about what we know. We know things through our senses, through our experiences, through being in and taking in the world around us. This is where thoughts and ideas come from. From what we perceive, from what we are conscious of.

Ideas are formulated based off of what one knows. Blind people, for example, are not conscious of color. They cannot have an idea or a thought, about or including, color because they have never perceived this, due to their sight limitations. Those who can see know what color is because they can see it; they can perceive it when it is presented before them. They have been trained and have been given information that when they see color in the world, it is associated with a name, with other objects that color, and with memories. This association leads to be able to think about it, to be able to have ideas about it. Blind people cannot make this perception, thus they are not conscious of color.

This becomes troublesome because it can then be argued that several things have thoughts or ideas, even if they are inanimate, because they are conscious. A thermometer is conscious of heat, thus it has thoughts and ideas of heat, and in return gives humans its “thoughts” on how hot it perceives something to be. Although this would be considered an abstract idea, inanimate objects have thoughts and ideas, although they are limited because they can only think about what they perceive, the same way humans are limited.

Perception is what creates consciousness in varying states, according to the limitations one or something might have. With this consciousness one can formulate thoughts and ideas acquired through this knowledge. Ideas and thoughts can be explained through science, but to truly understand a thought or idea, one must experience it and be able to perceive it. 

Week 2 Blog Reviews

Hillary Cummings:

Concept of “Self”

            I feel you have a valid argument of taking on an online class versus a traditional class. I thought it was creative of you to use the two scenarios as a side by side comparison and I found it effective as a reader; it helped add to the validity the point you were trying to make. Your paper was well organized and your paragraphs transitioned nicely into the next one, this is something many people struggle with, but you were fluid throughout.

One thing you might consider is the usage of the word “you.” Who exactly is “you?” The reader? What if this does not pertain to me as the reader? (I can use” you” in this post because I am specifically addressing you, Hillary.) I had a teacher in high school who stressed this every week so it is drilled into my head! I struggled with this and changing this and using other pronouns or nouns helped my writing significantly, so it is just a food for thought.

Great job!

Without God

            This was a strong argument without being preachy. You gave your opinion and offered support behind it, without trying to push your beliefs onto the reader. I commend that. I like the way you incorporated quotes from the text into your post. I especially liked the opening paragraph with the sudden revolve at the end. It worked effectively because you proved throughout the rest of the paper why you “beg to differ.” There were a few comma errors in a few spots, but that is the only minor thing I saw. Great work!

Armando Teran Jr:

Social Psychology- The Individual Self

            I like how you incorporated your experiences with the two locations of the classroom, it helped add to your credibility because you have experience with both and now have a valid opinion because of it.

Your post was a little jumpy and you somewhat changed your opinion in the last paragraph. I think this is because you had  no clear thesis or topic in your opening paragraph.  I would work on trying to make your posts more fluid. Start with a strong opening paragraph, then supporting paragraphs following after; this will make your arguments and opinions stronger. Good  job!

Religion and Moral Identity  

            I like in your second paragraph how you simply state what it is that you believe. Many people may see this as too blatant, but I see it as a bold statement that you are going to argue for. It is like saying “Here is what I believe, and this is why.” I think it is an interesting take on it. You were a little jumpy in this paper, so once again just work on being more fluid, work on transitioning smoothly into the next paragraph, and I think that will make your papers great. J

Jordan Fluegel:

Can We Be Good Without God?

            This was a short, concise statement of simply your opinion. I think you have a good start for a paper, I just wish you would have argued your point more and backed up your thesis, which you so prominently state in the first sentence. It was difficult to see your viewpoint without reasoning behind it. I think if you developed this more, you would have a great piece. 

26 August 2010: Can we be good without God?

God’s Underlying Role

Many people make claims today that “God is dead,” that society no longer has a need for a so called figure of a higher being entitled “God.” Conyers and Harvey in “Religion and Crime: Do They Go Together?” (62) use research showing that it makes no difference if you are religious or not if one commits a crime. Religious believers, and non-believers alike, commit crimes. Christianity is based on values such as love, charity, and goodness. Because supposedly religious people commit crime, does this mean God has ceased to exist? Because people do good acts, but do not claim to be “religious” or even believe in God, does this constitute a vanishing of God?  Although members of society may not believe in God, or are not even predominantly religiously active, God in the United States is the underlying influence over how we are morally governed, which in result constitutes in overall goodness.

America was founded and built on Christian values that are still in effect today, however faint or subtle they may be. God is the underlying influence due to the Christian morals this country was erected upon.  One example being, Christians believe in the Ten Commandments, a set of commandments given to Moses from God. One of the commandments is “thou shall not kill.” People today, irregardless of what their religious beliefs are or are not, know it is wrong to kill. Because of the influence of God, there are consequences for our negative actions. If we kill we have broken a law of God and of society and we pay the price by being sent to prison. Due to the Christian nature of society, this underlying notion of a God keeps a person in check and is what governs what is right or wrong. Conyers and Harvey said “Rather, certain characteristics related to the activities surrounding religion happen to attract non-criminals. These activities include obedience and frequent attendance at church services” (66-67). What they are saying is that those who regularly attend church have more religious convictions, have a better sense of what is morally right or wrong, and live those beliefs. A practiced religion constitutes certain rules and requirements that govern its believers. What then governs those who believe in God, but do not regularly practice an organized religion? God, the answer is simple. What about those who do not believe in God at all, what or who governs them? The answer is the same, God. Because of his magnitude of influence over previous generations, we are still influenced by Him today and that is what governs society. Without a God, society would be in complete disarray.

Tinder says, “If we turn away from transcendence, from God, what will deliver us from a politically fatal fear and faintheartedness?” (88). God is what gives us a purpose to be good; something to strive for. With belief in a God there is hope that there is a reward in living a good life, thus this leads to people trying their best to do so. The influence of generations past is still in full force today.  God may cease to exist in people’s minds, but his influence still controls and ultimately rules over them.

Works Cited

Conyers, Lisa and Harvey, Philip D.. “Religion and Crime: Do They Go Together.” Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 62-67.

Tinder,Glen. "On the Political Meaning of Christianity." Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 68-88.

The Individual Self Essay (24 August 2010)

Presenting What We Want Perceived

When one thinks of the word ‘self’ they often think of their particular nature or character. Since everyone is just that, one, then it is logical to presume that we all only posses one ‘self’. This is peculiar, if we read into Gergen’s idea of multiphrenia, which basically states that a person’s nature and character is never the same and is a splitting of an individual (54).  Whether people truly know someone in a traditional class versus an online blog class, like this one, is not dependent on location, primarily due to the fact that each place is just another local for a multiphrenia, another face for students to put on due to circumstance. Everyone is a stranger because the concept of self in the present day has nearly ceased to exist and it can be argued that it is obsolete, thus making everyone strangers, regardless of location. No person’s nature and character is the same throughout. Gergen argues that because of technological advances, self has ceased to exist due to things such as the internet and satellite. Furthering and expanding on his objective, it can also be added and argued that is has affected formal interaction as well. There is absolutely no concept of self in today’s society altogether.

Whether through a blog, or meeting someone in a class in person, one only presents what they want to about his or herself. Generally most people only say things to impress others, Goffman says “. . . the individual is likely to present himself in a light that is favorable to him” (45).  People have the option to portray whatever they want about themselves to others, regardless of the validity of what they are saying.  Many so called traditional classes are large lecture classes; often times, students do not even get the opportunity to meet and come to know other students due to the sizeable nature of the class. In an online class, it is virtually the same experience; one does not meet the other students. In this class with a blog, it is just like meeting anyone in person; one can present whatever they would like to the others. People sensor what they want others to know about them and thus it is not necessarily the truth in its entity.  In an online blog class everyone puts on a so called “face” through their blog of what they want others to see them as, not necessarily of what they truly are, just like we are capable of doing with an in person interaction. The reason we are all strangers, regardless of location, is predominantly due to the mere fact that the concept of self in today’s society has ceased to exist unequivocally.

Gergen says “No longer can one securely determine what it is to be a specific kind of person . . . or even a person at all” (58). His argument says that due to the large concourses of faces and personalities each of us puts on with different people and different circumstances, we do not truly have one identity. He goes on to say that “selves become increasingly populated with the character of others . . . .” (54). Instead we are built upon a plethora of identities reliant on the situation, identities that are not truly our own. Then that poses the question, what separates us, from everyone else? If everyone has multiple “selves” how can we possess only one true identity? According to Gergen, we cannot. He says, “The concept of the individual self ceases to be intelligible…” (58). Whether in a traditional classroom setting or through an online class, we cannot come to know one another because there is no true definition of self. No one has a soul identity that they are associated.

When we come in contact with others, we create an allusion for them of what we want them to perceive us as. Because of the technological advances of society of today, the world is in a constant moving whirlwind, that we are caught up in. We mostly only meet people for a concise period of time and due to such fleeting interactions, we lose our sense of identity. We begin to become whatever the situation and others require us to be. Regardless of location, whether in person, or through technology, all we give of ourselves are presentations of what we want others to perceive us as. This presentation changes with every interaction we make, thus dissolving the entire definition of an invariable and constant self. 

Works Cited

Gergen, Kenneth. “The Dissolution of Self.” Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 50-58.

Goffman, Erving. "The Presentation of Self." Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 42-49.

A smidgen more about me...

Hello all, my name is Jessica Chee! My name was derived from “The Man from Snowy River,” ironically, a movie I have never seen because I was too busy with my nose stuck in a book growing up.  I love reading. Books are my escape; characters become people that I vicariously live through, their adventures and stories become my own. I entered ASU as an accounting major because I breezed through high school calculus and figured “As long as there is money, I will have a job.” Let me say this about my first semester as an accounting student: miserable. If I woke up in the morning in the future, and I knew I had to go to work as an accountant, I would never get out of bed. Thus began my self- exploratory journey of what I really wanted to do with my major and ultimately my life. I finally chose to do what I love, English. I am now a college sophomore majoring in secondary education for English and I love it, I do not regret my decision to change my major.

When I think of myself the word “random” automatically pops into mind. I am five feet, ten inches tall (pretty tall for a girl!) and I love wearing cute heels, making me even taller. Everyone in my family is born on a holiday, my birthday being on Valentine’s Day. I am mortified of chickens. I am pretty sure if one touches me, I am going to die a slow and painful death. I just recently married my wonderful husband, Craig Williams, and yes, I know, I am too young. I already got that talk from my father. I am always happy, I love smiling, and I have a loud laugh that is extremely distinct. I like to read, cook, play basketball, and exercise in my spare time. I do not have any dislikes except the wretched bird previously mentioned. Overall I am happy-go-lucky and super excited to continue my second year at Arizona State University!