The assigned readings were interesting. I really loved reading about the "pretext/text/context" ideas. I am very "math brain," and trying to figure out the puzzle of the alphabet was fun for me to think about. The idea that it's not letters, but tiny dots forming the letters was a cool concept. I found the first 2 reading assignments interesting. The others were a little harder for me to follow, but that might have to do that after reading the first 2, my mind was still trying to figure out the alphabet theory. I think that drew most of my attention.
The reading about the "Tibetan Book of the Dead,” I found it crazy to think of having that much free time to meditate. "Faqir left a detailed account of his some seventy plus years of meditation (ranging from 3 to 12 hours daily) which led up to his enlightenment." That's some serious meditation. Sometimes I think that kind of serenity and peace might make me a better mom. But then I just remember the book "5 Minutes Peace" and that sums up the life of a stay home mom. For you mom's out there, a great children's book to make you laugh and sympathize. ha ha.
I, too, think about what it's going to be like when I die. What really will happen and have I really followed the right paths. But, not knowing those answers makes life (to me) exciting. I love not knowing when or how I will die, or what awaits me. I live my life the fullest now, and make the best choices I can. I am a good example (hopefully) to my daughters and hope that I've taught them well. I think if we worry about death or think of it too much, it can consume us and take over "life." It's best to live and learn, then wait and lose out on our best years of our lives.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Secret of Faqir and Nicholas of Cusa
First, the "Nicholas of Cusa" video was crazy. I never fully understood the whole boat thing. Not sure it had any "real" meaning. It's like those art pieces in a gallery, that you would swear was made just so people would ask questions, no real meaning behind it. Maybe I'll watch it again, and I'll understand more. ha ha.
The "Secret of Faqir" was well done. I didn't agree with it though. (I seem to not agree with a lot of the videos. Stubborn in my own ways, I guess.) I thought the idea, "Your real helper is your own self and your own faith," was a good thought. I do agree with that. We are accountable for our own selves and we should be concerned about our own futures, and not judge others. But the next statement I didn't agree with, "You are badly mistaken and believe that somebody without to help you." I think that there is a higher being that guides and directs us. That's what makes us accountable for our own actions, knowing there will be a judgment for them. To say there is no one out there to help us or judge us seems to be a thing to say when you're hoping you won't be accountable for your own actions. It makes me question what they don't want to be judged on. (hum?) This video seemed to be (to me) correct in giving ourselves our own accountability, but wrong (again, to me) to say we have no higher accountability. If that were true, then why punish prisoners, if not to make them accountable for their actions. Isn't that exactly why we do what's right or follow laws and rules, if not to be judged "well" in the next life?
The "Secret of Faqir" was well done. I didn't agree with it though. (I seem to not agree with a lot of the videos. Stubborn in my own ways, I guess.) I thought the idea, "Your real helper is your own self and your own faith," was a good thought. I do agree with that. We are accountable for our own selves and we should be concerned about our own futures, and not judge others. But the next statement I didn't agree with, "You are badly mistaken and believe that somebody without to help you." I think that there is a higher being that guides and directs us. That's what makes us accountable for our own actions, knowing there will be a judgment for them. To say there is no one out there to help us or judge us seems to be a thing to say when you're hoping you won't be accountable for your own actions. It makes me question what they don't want to be judged on. (hum?) This video seemed to be (to me) correct in giving ourselves our own accountability, but wrong (again, to me) to say we have no higher accountability. If that were true, then why punish prisoners, if not to make them accountable for their actions. Isn't that exactly why we do what's right or follow laws and rules, if not to be judged "well" in the next life?
Freeman Dyson
Okay, I have to agree with others, that it was a very hard interview to follow. He used words and terms that were unfamiliar to me. He never seemed to make any sense. I know that I disagree with his ideas, and actually I was never convinced that he fully understood them himself. It did seem that he believed in his ideas, because (to him) they made more sense than believing in God, but he didn't seem to understand the ideas himself. I have to admit, I was very confused most of the time and it was hard to keep my focus. (Again, possible "children in the room" problem. ha ha) He seemed like a nice man who really wanted to be convinced some way. But I was never fully convinced he, himself, was convinced either. But, like I said, I had a hard time following, so I will need to watch it again, (when children in bed) and try to follow his ideas more. The interviewer seemed confused at times, as well. But the interviewer handled everything very well
Expert Lectures with Smith and Miller; Week 2
I really loved these interviews. Even though I absolutely disagree with Smith, I thought his interview was very well done. I thought the interviewer didn't quite agree either, but he handled the interview very well and professional. Smith was a very cute old man who, you can tell, really believes what he said. I found it interesting that he was raised with a faith and because of his nature, he couldn't grasp it and looked somewhere else to get the answers he needed. He, you can tell, has to have complete answers, not the "faith" answers. He didn't like that the religion theory had not real solid structure except for journals and testimonies of others. He needed some solid proof and he, in his opinion, found that through evolution. He is definitely an expert in this area, (obviously) and it would be inevitable to convince him other wise. Even though he found the answers he was looking for, I found his theories and reasons hard for me to believe. If I could have been there in the interview, I would have questioned some of his theories. Such as, his thoughts on the creation or his ideas of our creation. What he found logical, I found inconceivable. Again, even though I disagreed with him, the interview was very informative in what the evolution theory is. I haven't studied it, but I do know my own beliefs. And I still feel I am in the right direction, versus evolution.
In the Ken Miller video, I found this very entertaining. He was an excellent speaker and kept my attention the whole time. I loved all his visuals and stories he had to tell. I don't know if it's because I agreed with what he said, but I enjoyed this speech much more than Smith's. Miller really seemed to know how to connect with his audience. I liked his ideas about religion versus evolution. I loved that he said, "We should teach both sides." It's true. We should allow everyone the right to hear all sides and then discern for themselves. I am a complete "religion" believer and I enjoy hearing all sides of all religions and cultures. It helps me with my testimony of my own religion choices and actually confirms my beliefs even more. That is a great thing about this country, the freedom of religion. By limiting what our children are learning, because we don't believe it, makes our future generations more ignorant and uneducated in all things. We should expand our children's minds and teach them your own beliefs at home. If what you believe in is true, as you feel it is, then there should be no denying that your child will choose the "right" as well. Let them govern themselves and they will choose righteously. The parents of today have a backward idea of forcing things and ideas on their children. Even so much, that they over protect and the children of today are turning out weaker. Because our generation hasn't had to "fight" like some previous generations, we take it for granted and over protect our children. I agree with Miller, that we should teach both sides, all sides, and let the next generations have a better and a more expansive education.
In the Ken Miller video, I found this very entertaining. He was an excellent speaker and kept my attention the whole time. I loved all his visuals and stories he had to tell. I don't know if it's because I agreed with what he said, but I enjoyed this speech much more than Smith's. Miller really seemed to know how to connect with his audience. I liked his ideas about religion versus evolution. I loved that he said, "We should teach both sides." It's true. We should allow everyone the right to hear all sides and then discern for themselves. I am a complete "religion" believer and I enjoy hearing all sides of all religions and cultures. It helps me with my testimony of my own religion choices and actually confirms my beliefs even more. That is a great thing about this country, the freedom of religion. By limiting what our children are learning, because we don't believe it, makes our future generations more ignorant and uneducated in all things. We should expand our children's minds and teach them your own beliefs at home. If what you believe in is true, as you feel it is, then there should be no denying that your child will choose the "right" as well. Let them govern themselves and they will choose righteously. The parents of today have a backward idea of forcing things and ideas on their children. Even so much, that they over protect and the children of today are turning out weaker. Because our generation hasn't had to "fight" like some previous generations, we take it for granted and over protect our children. I agree with Miller, that we should teach both sides, all sides, and let the next generations have a better and a more expansive education.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Required Reading Week 2
I found the reading more interesting this time than the last. I liked the different ways of thinking about physics. I really loved the first reading assisgnment, by David Willey. I loved his views on teaching. I think it's important for all learners to have some sort of visual to help us understand the things being taught. Even the logical learners learn from visuals. I liked reading the different ways to creating the illusions of the magician. I hope we don't all try to do these things now. ha ha.
In reading Paul Kurtz's work, I liked his idea about skepticism. I think it's important to always keep an open mind. I know my husband thinks I'm a very big skeptic, but that's because I don't like to accept what others tell me, without learning for myself. Especially when it seems so far fetched to believe, like the UFO sightings paper. I think we should study religion with science, because they can really help eachother out in furthering both ways. Science has helped religion when they have recovered old artifacts, like the dead sea scrolls. Science has helped in understanding what's written on them. Science and religion can really work together. The problem we come in contact with is when we lose the faith we need to believe our religion, because science is trying to disprove it. That's where the line should be drawn. We shouldn't try so hard to disprove religion, but let the believers do that for themselves as they discover their own beliefs and what they feel is true or not. Religion doesn't try to disprove science, as much as the other way around. That's why religion is so important in life, because you will never disprove it. There's something bigger to it than that.
In reading Paul Kurtz's work, I liked his idea about skepticism. I think it's important to always keep an open mind. I know my husband thinks I'm a very big skeptic, but that's because I don't like to accept what others tell me, without learning for myself. Especially when it seems so far fetched to believe, like the UFO sightings paper. I think we should study religion with science, because they can really help eachother out in furthering both ways. Science has helped religion when they have recovered old artifacts, like the dead sea scrolls. Science has helped in understanding what's written on them. Science and religion can really work together. The problem we come in contact with is when we lose the faith we need to believe our religion, because science is trying to disprove it. That's where the line should be drawn. We shouldn't try so hard to disprove religion, but let the believers do that for themselves as they discover their own beliefs and what they feel is true or not. Religion doesn't try to disprove science, as much as the other way around. That's why religion is so important in life, because you will never disprove it. There's something bigger to it than that.
Critical Thinking Film
This video was very good. I was fully inthralled. I wasn't sure how it was going to go, and the end part was not what I expected. Great use of creativity having it narrated by the someone who becomes the victim. Then we find out what happened to him. Very well thought out.
It's sad to think that these things happen. In all different places. There are so many different "cults" that think they are incharge of "controlling" the world. There are all kinds of gangs that think they need to "rule" society. Let's hope that "karma" comes around to them.
It's sad to think that these things happen. In all different places. There are so many different "cults" that think they are incharge of "controlling" the world. There are all kinds of gangs that think they need to "rule" society. Let's hope that "karma" comes around to them.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Critical Thinking Films
I found the arguments of the speakers very interesting. I liked hearing the points of view of all the speakers. What I didn't like, was how intense those who were opposed to the "religious" theories were. They were very harsh on those that believe in a "higher" being. Being a religious person myself, I found their theories wrong. I don't believe in God because I have proved it, but because I have faith and have felt a spirit testify to me of the truths. That can never be proved with experiments or tests, and they seemed to have a hard time with that thought. They seemed to want to PROVE everything and not excepts things with faith. You can't prove religion to be true, but you can look at evidence and suspect that it might have some truths. A lot of religion has been taught down through generations and through journals and other people's testimonies. We can't prove those to be wrong or right.
I did like when, I think it was Russell, said that "science is no enemy to religion." Religious people can except science, but scientist have a hard time excepting religion and feel they have to "challenge" those that don't believe in the science side of evolution. There will always be those that have to try to change all the religious believers. To change their ways of thinking, but that argument will never end or be determined which is right, at least through theories and science, until the end of the world and we all watch to see who's right. (I think it's the religion. ha ha)
I did like when, I think it was Russell, said that "science is no enemy to religion." Religious people can except science, but scientist have a hard time excepting religion and feel they have to "challenge" those that don't believe in the science side of evolution. There will always be those that have to try to change all the religious believers. To change their ways of thinking, but that argument will never end or be determined which is right, at least through theories and science, until the end of the world and we all watch to see who's right. (I think it's the religion. ha ha)
Required Reading
I have to say some of the reading was a little hard for me to follow, because it was a little boring for me. I had a hard time keeping focus. But it doesn't help that I have 3 daughters under the age 8. So, they like to take my focus.
The few things I did enjoy reading was on the "Nature of Critical Thinking." I liked the definition that John Dewey gave on the nature of reflective thought, as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends." I believe that all our knowledge we gain, whether it's from experiences or books or school, etc., we have to take in thought of how these things pertain to us and how we gained that knowledge. Everything we learn is from someone else's "theories" and "experiences" and we have to learn from our own choices. We have to except all areas of thought. We don't have to "believe" it or agree with it, but there are NO complete answers, only theories.
Another thing I picked out that I liked was, in the "An Instructional Design Project," it gives us some criteria for critical thinking to follow. I liked the ideas of: -differentiate between fact and opinion - be flexible and open minded as you look for explanations, causes, and solutions - stay focused on the whole picture, while examining the specifics. I think these ideas pertain to many things in life as well. We have to know that "my" way is not the ONLY way of thinking. I think that beliefs in religion are completely different. That has to do with faith. But if we look at life that we ALL have opinions, then we might find life a bit more enjoyable and less argumentative.
The few things I did enjoy reading was on the "Nature of Critical Thinking." I liked the definition that John Dewey gave on the nature of reflective thought, as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends." I believe that all our knowledge we gain, whether it's from experiences or books or school, etc., we have to take in thought of how these things pertain to us and how we gained that knowledge. Everything we learn is from someone else's "theories" and "experiences" and we have to learn from our own choices. We have to except all areas of thought. We don't have to "believe" it or agree with it, but there are NO complete answers, only theories.
Another thing I picked out that I liked was, in the "An Instructional Design Project," it gives us some criteria for critical thinking to follow. I liked the ideas of: -differentiate between fact and opinion - be flexible and open minded as you look for explanations, causes, and solutions - stay focused on the whole picture, while examining the specifics. I think these ideas pertain to many things in life as well. We have to know that "my" way is not the ONLY way of thinking. I think that beliefs in religion are completely different. That has to do with faith. But if we look at life that we ALL have opinions, then we might find life a bit more enjoyable and less argumentative.
Expert Lectures
I really found Richard Feynman's interview the MOST interesting. I have a lot of the same
views to thinking. As a child I was curious how our little TV worked, so I took it apart and
saw how the inside looked and how the cables ran, etc. I then learned how to put it back,
when my parents freaked and I got into some trouble. But I have always learned from
figuring it out. My husband calls me a skeptic, but I like thinking of it as Feynman did. I
was just learning about things instead of excepting what other people told me. I have 3
daughters and I love how Feynman's father taught him. It was such a great way to teach.
Not just "because" answers, but teaching ABOUT the bird or other things. My oldest
daughter has always asked questions like this and I hope I have taught her as well as
Feynman's father did. I love that he encouraged the expanded thinking and not just telling
him, "it's a ...thrush."
Bertrand Russell was also an interesting interview. Although a little hard to understand
him, I think his main idea was good. I think, as others have stated also, that you can't
have a true "clear thinking," because you have been influenced by those things and people
around you, whether you know it or not. You can have your own opinions and ideas, but
they are influenced by your life lessons and experiences.
The Karma video was very odd, but very creative. It gave a good view on Karma. I don't
believe we can predict Karma, but we can, after the event occured, see the patterns and
see how a situation could have related to Karma. I do believe that "what goes around,
comes around," but unfortunately, we don't always get to see the results. Such as the
bullies in school or others who may have hurt you, or even who you may have hurt. But
this video did, without any words, (aside from lip reading) show how some perceive
Karma.
views to thinking. As a child I was curious how our little TV worked, so I took it apart and
saw how the inside looked and how the cables ran, etc. I then learned how to put it back,
when my parents freaked and I got into some trouble. But I have always learned from
figuring it out. My husband calls me a skeptic, but I like thinking of it as Feynman did. I
was just learning about things instead of excepting what other people told me. I have 3
daughters and I love how Feynman's father taught him. It was such a great way to teach.
Not just "because" answers, but teaching ABOUT the bird or other things. My oldest
daughter has always asked questions like this and I hope I have taught her as well as
Feynman's father did. I love that he encouraged the expanded thinking and not just telling
him, "it's a ...thrush."
Bertrand Russell was also an interesting interview. Although a little hard to understand
him, I think his main idea was good. I think, as others have stated also, that you can't
have a true "clear thinking," because you have been influenced by those things and people
around you, whether you know it or not. You can have your own opinions and ideas, but
they are influenced by your life lessons and experiences.
The Karma video was very odd, but very creative. It gave a good view on Karma. I don't
believe we can predict Karma, but we can, after the event occured, see the patterns and
see how a situation could have related to Karma. I do believe that "what goes around,
comes around," but unfortunately, we don't always get to see the results. Such as the
bullies in school or others who may have hurt you, or even who you may have hurt. But
this video did, without any words, (aside from lip reading) show how some perceive
Karma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
