As part of being an engineering student at UNC Charlotte, I receive access to these specialty computer labs, called Mosaic Labs, that have computers with engineering software installed on them. It's an excellent service, giving us the tools we require to advance our education. What's more is that it has a whole set of wonderful rules because what lab would not be complete with rules? The number one rule of the Mosaic labs is that no food or drink is allowed. On one hand, I understand this rule. There is a fear of germs being spread, the potential of dirtying the keyboards and mice and the risk of spilling a drink onto the keyboard or computer and thus ruining the machine. Regardless, it's a harsh rule if I cannot even have water in the lab, where I may be stuck working for many hours of the day.
Well, earlier today I had a run-in with rule number one in the Mosaic lab. My Nalgeen water bottle was propped onto the table that I was working at and I was intensely working on a report due at the end of the week when suddenly my screen began to flicker. A moment later a window popped up from the Mosaic service. The message read, "Please remember that no food or drink is allowed within the Mosaic facilities. Please remove the bottle from your desk. Thank you." I had the dreaded sense of being an inmate of a panoptic facility as described by Jeremy Bentham. A supervisor from a remote room has the ability to look through all the camera feeds throughout each Mosaic facility on campus. Not only that, they have the ability to locate the computer that the perpetrator is on and access the computer remotely to give them their warning. If the infractions continue, Mosaic can suspend the perpetrator's account for some amount of time.
Following the incident, I kept my bottle on the floor and behaved. I did have a twinge of anger built up, in which I wanted to pour my water over the keyboard in rebellion, but I knew better. It's interesting that I even had this irrational thought to begin with. Certainly I wouldn't even consider committing such an act if this rule were not in place, controlling where I can and cannot consume food and drink. Due to the existence of these rules, I wanted to feel like a rebellious child just as seen in many rebellious children that have strict parents.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Go Tigers!
Every few weeks, I take a trip down to Clemson, SC to visit my girlfriend over the weekend. As you approach the campus you will find Clemson paw prints on the road, marking that you have entered Clemson territory and Clemson-clad automobiles speeding towards the campus with paw-print stickers and flags flapping from their windows. On days where there is a home game on a Saturday, you feel as if you are a part of some massive pilgrimage to a holy site. I think it's safe to say that football is a defining characteristic of Clemson, given how crazy and dedicated their fans can be.
Most football-crazy schools have traditions and rituals that are performed by the players. At Clemson, the players and staff make an extravagant entrance before the start of the game, which can be seen in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbvtdXHXaLU
You can see from this video of how much excitement is incited by this ritual. The stadium becomes this "ritualized space" for football, filled with orange-garbed fanatics, screaming "GO TIGERS!" Perhaps the most interesting part of the ritual, is that all the players touch the rock halfway down the hill onto the field. It's as if this rock has a power that can turn the tide in their favor before the start of the game. In this week's reading by David Chidester, players often perform ritual actions to control the 'unforseen' (747). This action, performed before the beginning of each home game, has an effect that strengthens the team and if performed correctly can give them the advantage even before the first snap. From an outside perspective, it seems like a silly superstition, however, to those fans and players, touching that rock is an integral part to the game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmeLvrDRQ5c
Most football-crazy schools have traditions and rituals that are performed by the players. At Clemson, the players and staff make an extravagant entrance before the start of the game, which can be seen in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbvtdXHXaLU
You can see from this video of how much excitement is incited by this ritual. The stadium becomes this "ritualized space" for football, filled with orange-garbed fanatics, screaming "GO TIGERS!" Perhaps the most interesting part of the ritual, is that all the players touch the rock halfway down the hill onto the field. It's as if this rock has a power that can turn the tide in their favor before the start of the game. In this week's reading by David Chidester, players often perform ritual actions to control the 'unforseen' (747). This action, performed before the beginning of each home game, has an effect that strengthens the team and if performed correctly can give them the advantage even before the first snap. From an outside perspective, it seems like a silly superstition, however, to those fans and players, touching that rock is an integral part to the game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmeLvrDRQ5c
Monday, November 3, 2014
What is Art?
During the Spring semester of my freshman year of college, I took a visual arts course. Prior to taking the course, I had very limited exposure to fine art, never once taking an art class - well except for culinary arts in high school. Nevertheless, I had mixed feelings of trepidation that this would be a struggle for me to get through and curiosity at a topic that I had not put much thought into. The course consisted of a mixture of lectures and class meetings at art museums in Uptown Charlotte. Among the museums that we visited were the McColl Center, the Mint Museum, the Gantt Center and, my "favorite," the Bechtler Museum.
As the course progressed, I gradually developed an appreciation for the arts, noticing the artists' motivations behind each piece and taking in the aesthetics of these works of art. Everything was fine and dandy until we reached the Bechtler. Modern art has been and continues to be a mystery to me. I understand that artists are always looking for new ways of visually expressing their emotions - and I admit that some of these new expressions are actually personally aesthetically pleasing and meaningful - but when do these works cross the line between a work of art and something that doesn't belong among the great works of art.
This had me thinking of how we consider something to be a work of art. Is it something binary, as in it contains a set of criteria that must be met in order for that particular piece to be considered art? Or is it more subjective and can be viewed differently from person to person. Perhaps in my case, art is in the eyes of the beholder similar to how Mary Douglas defines dirt. In "Classifications and the Philosophical Understanding of Art," Ruth Lorand explains different philosophies behind the classification methods of art and what can be considered art. A major point to take away from this reading is that the concept of art is not binary. We do not simply look at a statue, painting, poem, or novel and decide whether it is art or not. Instead, we would state, "Oh that was a beautiful work by Picasso," or, "This poem is awful!" Art is described based on a qualitative analysis, which means that although I might dislike the modern paintings that depict random colors on a canvas, I still see it as a work of art, although an awful one at that.
As the course progressed, I gradually developed an appreciation for the arts, noticing the artists' motivations behind each piece and taking in the aesthetics of these works of art. Everything was fine and dandy until we reached the Bechtler. Modern art has been and continues to be a mystery to me. I understand that artists are always looking for new ways of visually expressing their emotions - and I admit that some of these new expressions are actually personally aesthetically pleasing and meaningful - but when do these works cross the line between a work of art and something that doesn't belong among the great works of art.
This had me thinking of how we consider something to be a work of art. Is it something binary, as in it contains a set of criteria that must be met in order for that particular piece to be considered art? Or is it more subjective and can be viewed differently from person to person. Perhaps in my case, art is in the eyes of the beholder similar to how Mary Douglas defines dirt. In "Classifications and the Philosophical Understanding of Art," Ruth Lorand explains different philosophies behind the classification methods of art and what can be considered art. A major point to take away from this reading is that the concept of art is not binary. We do not simply look at a statue, painting, poem, or novel and decide whether it is art or not. Instead, we would state, "Oh that was a beautiful work by Picasso," or, "This poem is awful!" Art is described based on a qualitative analysis, which means that although I might dislike the modern paintings that depict random colors on a canvas, I still see it as a work of art, although an awful one at that.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Picky Eaters
Reminiscing about my childhood, I realized that I've consumed a lot of strange foods - well at least strange to the average American. My family were immigrants from Ukraine. Along with their meager belongings, they brought Russian cuisine with them to the U.S.. I've eaten Russian delicacies such as, cow's tongue, borsht (soup made from beets and other vegetables), kholodets (meat jelly), and red caviar. Growing up with these foods seemed very natural for me, however, when I explain these foods to my non-Russian friends, they wrinkle their noses in disgust. One person's delicacy can be another person's disgust.
In Purity and Danger by Mary Douglas, she explains that dirt is a matter of perspective. She says, "There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder (2)." In the case of food, there may be cuisine in China that someone from South America might find revolting and vice versa. Personally, I see bugs as inedible, but this is considered food in certain parts of the world. This has a lot to do with where you were raised, the paradigm that you have lived with for most of your life.
I found an interesting quote from Mary Douglas' work that describes this paradigm, which says, "In chaos of shifting impressions, each of us constructs a stable world in which objects have recognizable shapes (45)." Nowadays, if you visit a major U.S. city, you will be able to find a wide diversity of restaurants. These can be anything from modern gastropubs to Indian restaurants with the hottest food in town. So there is this "chaos" of all these choices that determine where one can eat. There are a variety of people who different food preferences, such as those who are very picky eaters and those who are adventurous and love to explore all the food available in the world. Those who categorize themselves as a picky eater would tend to go to restaurants that are closer to their comfort zone, meaning they will tend to go to the restaurant that supplies the foods that they have eaten for most of their lives. I'm curious if this categorization of people as picky eaters has any correlation to the research that David Pizarro presented in his TED Talk on "The Strange Politics of Disgust." Do picky eaters tend to be more easily disgusted and do they tend more towards the conservative end of the political spectrum? Tangent aside, picky eaters construct a category of food that is safe and familiar for them to eat. Anything that is foreign to them falls outside that category and they rule out eating that food. I think it would be safe to say that picky eaters would place the food that I ate in my childhood outside their edible zone.
I found an interesting quote from Mary Douglas' work that describes this paradigm, which says, "In chaos of shifting impressions, each of us constructs a stable world in which objects have recognizable shapes (45)." Nowadays, if you visit a major U.S. city, you will be able to find a wide diversity of restaurants. These can be anything from modern gastropubs to Indian restaurants with the hottest food in town. So there is this "chaos" of all these choices that determine where one can eat. There are a variety of people who different food preferences, such as those who are very picky eaters and those who are adventurous and love to explore all the food available in the world. Those who categorize themselves as a picky eater would tend to go to restaurants that are closer to their comfort zone, meaning they will tend to go to the restaurant that supplies the foods that they have eaten for most of their lives. I'm curious if this categorization of people as picky eaters has any correlation to the research that David Pizarro presented in his TED Talk on "The Strange Politics of Disgust." Do picky eaters tend to be more easily disgusted and do they tend more towards the conservative end of the political spectrum? Tangent aside, picky eaters construct a category of food that is safe and familiar for them to eat. Anything that is foreign to them falls outside that category and they rule out eating that food. I think it would be safe to say that picky eaters would place the food that I ate in my childhood outside their edible zone.
Monday, October 20, 2014
A Lesson on STD's
I was reading through "Race, Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections," by Anthony Appiah and came across a line that provoked my thoughts to go into a very strange direction. He was simply sharing the dictionary definition of culture, which read, "The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions and all other products of human work and thought." Strangely enough, when my eyes scanned the word "transmitted," my mind went to sexually transmitted diseases (STD's). Then, it took another turn and read "socially transmitted" and I thought, socially transmitted diseases.
Taking this novel idea, I looked it up on Google. One of the first results was from the credible, Urban Dictionary. According to them, a socially transmitted disease is "when someone blogs, tweets, status updates something that brings the viewer/reader out in a rash." This is an interesting definition in that I had initially assumed that socially transmitted diseases would permeate through the realm of twitter and hashtags and other media that begin trends.
The search result below read if obesity is a socially transmitted disease. It summarized research performed on whether food choices were made based on social norms. Their findings were that people did make food choices based on what others chose around them. The article can be found here: http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/is-obesity-a-socially-transmitted-disease-0.
Another result displayed a forum page for I Love Philosophy. The person beginning the forum was interested in socially transmitted diseases. He described STD's as being transmitted through memetic means, which is a terms used to describe evolutionary models for culture information transfer. The term memetic originated from Richard Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene." The person in the forum also suggested that STD's could be spread both through a combination of memetic and genetic means. The forum page can be found here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=180948.
I've decided to make up my own socially transmitted diseases here:
- Hashtagoreia - #Excessive hashtags
- Facebook Fever - Post, Like, Creep and Repeat.
- Selfylis (In case you didn't get this one, it has to do with selfies)
- Hipsteritis B and Hipsteritis C - We refuse to conform to social standards, so we conformed to our own social standards.
So remember, if you are going to go social, use protection!
Taking this novel idea, I looked it up on Google. One of the first results was from the credible, Urban Dictionary. According to them, a socially transmitted disease is "when someone blogs, tweets, status updates something that brings the viewer/reader out in a rash." This is an interesting definition in that I had initially assumed that socially transmitted diseases would permeate through the realm of twitter and hashtags and other media that begin trends.
The search result below read if obesity is a socially transmitted disease. It summarized research performed on whether food choices were made based on social norms. Their findings were that people did make food choices based on what others chose around them. The article can be found here: http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/is-obesity-a-socially-transmitted-disease-0.
Another result displayed a forum page for I Love Philosophy. The person beginning the forum was interested in socially transmitted diseases. He described STD's as being transmitted through memetic means, which is a terms used to describe evolutionary models for culture information transfer. The term memetic originated from Richard Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene." The person in the forum also suggested that STD's could be spread both through a combination of memetic and genetic means. The forum page can be found here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=180948.
I've decided to make up my own socially transmitted diseases here:
- Hashtagoreia - #Excessive hashtags
- Facebook Fever - Post, Like, Creep and Repeat.
- Selfylis (In case you didn't get this one, it has to do with selfies)
- Hipsteritis B and Hipsteritis C - We refuse to conform to social standards, so we conformed to our own social standards.
So remember, if you are going to go social, use protection!
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The Collyer Clutter
There's nothing quite like a clean and orderly household. No clutter on the floor. Pictures of the family and paintings are hung up on the walls with absolute balance. An intricate center-piece of a giraffe sticking its head into a wooden bowl is placed neatly at the center of the dinner table. Everything seems to have its unique place in the house, where only necessary items are kept for their visual "use." This is in stark contrast with the description of the Collyers' mansion home, which included all sorts of junk ranging from mantel clocks to newspaper bundles (Herring 173-174).
Talk about clutter...
The Collyers' mansion is the nightmare for people with OCD. Absolutely no organization, things piled up to the ceiling, complete chaos. Where is the "use" in these items if they are not placed in their appropriate location, such as a mantel clock placed on, oh I don't know...a mantel! It's this seeming irrationality towards the "use" in the everyday objects that the Collyer brothers collected that may give support for the claim that hoarding is a mental disorder, which is appropriately named Collyer Brothers Syndrome (Herring).
However, it is difficult to have absolute evidence to whether the behavior of hoarding is a mental disability. It just could be an effect of environmental factors or the person's state of mind in the moment. I've personally experienced periods of hoarding in times of stress. When I feel my mind all cluttered, my room ends up being an extension of my mind. It becomes hard for me to organize my things or to throw away items that have no use because I suddenly believe that it may have some future use. In the case of the Collyer brothers, their clutter may have been a result of the environment around them - Harlem. The "social disorder" around them imbued itself into their minds and their house became an extension of the social disorder that they saw on the streets of Harlem.
However, it is difficult to have absolute evidence to whether the behavior of hoarding is a mental disability. It just could be an effect of environmental factors or the person's state of mind in the moment. I've personally experienced periods of hoarding in times of stress. When I feel my mind all cluttered, my room ends up being an extension of my mind. It becomes hard for me to organize my things or to throw away items that have no use because I suddenly believe that it may have some future use. In the case of the Collyer brothers, their clutter may have been a result of the environment around them - Harlem. The "social disorder" around them imbued itself into their minds and their house became an extension of the social disorder that they saw on the streets of Harlem.
Got Friends?
Everyone's friends situation is different. Some people may be very popular, having a plethora of friends in all different aspects of their lives. Others may only have a few dependable friends. Depending on how many friends and the types of friends that they may have will determine if they have friend groups. Take an average college student. They may have a close-knit friends circle that they spend most of their time with and feel the closest to. Then, there are the classmate friends; those who are in the same classes as our average college student. It's a very casual relationship, without much of the deep connection that goes along with the close-knit friends group and mostly exists due to the common cause of class. You could say that this type of friendship is built on utility according to Aristotle on Friendship.
Moving further along, the average college student may be involved in campus clubs, which involve another set of friends. This group may have a differing level of connection to the classmates group due to the nature of the commonality between people in this case. For example, if our average college student is part of UNCC Puppet Club, their common interest of puppets with the other members may be more of a personal connection than to their classmates in their anatomy class.
Of course every college student had to pass through high school, which means that there may be a high school friends group. This type of friends group might be group that is slowly dying off for our college student as he/she makes new friends in college. The physical distance between these friends if they all go to different colleges or are on different paths in life lead to this disconnection. The commonality of interests and personality goes away due to the personal growth that each person experiences at their respective colleges.
There is a common theme to what categorizes a friends group and that is commonality. Commonality is the thing that everyone within this group has an interest in or is something that they all participate in together. Without the glue of commonality, a friends group can easily dissolve and lose its identity.
Moving further along, the average college student may be involved in campus clubs, which involve another set of friends. This group may have a differing level of connection to the classmates group due to the nature of the commonality between people in this case. For example, if our average college student is part of UNCC Puppet Club, their common interest of puppets with the other members may be more of a personal connection than to their classmates in their anatomy class.
Of course every college student had to pass through high school, which means that there may be a high school friends group. This type of friends group might be group that is slowly dying off for our college student as he/she makes new friends in college. The physical distance between these friends if they all go to different colleges or are on different paths in life lead to this disconnection. The commonality of interests and personality goes away due to the personal growth that each person experiences at their respective colleges.
There is a common theme to what categorizes a friends group and that is commonality. Commonality is the thing that everyone within this group has an interest in or is something that they all participate in together. Without the glue of commonality, a friends group can easily dissolve and lose its identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)