Social Networks and Social Contracts?

Over two hundred years after the formulation of the Constitution, I realize that I'm held to a social contract that is decidedly based on Locke and eighteenth century. So I must explore, is it still valid and applicable? Check out this site for other opinions. It's true that this government needs the consent of the people to have power, but the abuses of power seem to go largely unchecked by citizens too frustrated with politics to attempt reform. In order for change and reform to occur, those changes have be reviewed and approved by the very bodies and people whom we are trying to reform. And did Locke ever foresee the digital age we now live in? Probably not.

Today we have invented a new social network with Facebook, Twitter, Skype, and many other tools. On one hand, these tools connect us to one another, improve communication and efficiency, and organize and expand our learning. However, this relatively new network in our world is still figuring out what the new social contract is. What is the protocol here? What languages are acceptable? Does the internet place everyone on it, on a level playing field with regards to connections and value of thought? Or do we still have distinctions? Check out this article on this idea for more insights.

* Note: I apologize for the short and late nature of my posts this past week. Personal and family matters have dictated where I needed to concentrate my efforts. Hope you can understand.

Reflections...

I walked into class on August 31st, 2010 excited for what I assumed would be basically an in-depth history class on civilization from the 1500's to the present, Western Civilizations 202. Easy, right? After all, I'd aced all my history AP exams- my kind of class. Wrong. Instead, I got something better. A class that challenges me in the way I think, in the way I think I get knowledge or should acquire it, in the way I research and collect information, and even in the way that I'm starting to analyze and synthesize new information. To be sure, Digital Civilizations is a broad course, so broad that I often walk out of class with a headache in my attempts to wrap my brain around the kind of spectrum and magnitude of the subjects. We've covered everything: science, literature and rhetoric, governments, social groups, economics, digital tools now and future, technological philosophies (which I didn't even know existed!), and much much more. At the same time, the very "broadness" of this course allows me to make connections I wouldn't have made otherwise. So, though I could probably talk for awhile, here is my Top Ten Things I've Learned (so far):

1. My ideas, thoughts, and words have power. In class and in this blog. Not because of who reads it or how many read it, but because I wrote it.
2. The digital tools are a way to expand how I can learn, not to replace other traditions that I find quite valid. (see my post)
3. That a blog can be one thing at once or it can be about various aspects of who I am alternately. This is shown in my posts about my writing, interest in art, class discussion, or more personal reflections on life.
4. Digital technology has it's own language that requires concentrated focus to understand and then to add to it.
5. Both the historical topics of class and the digital component has opened up a world of free education everywhere, from all different perspectives.
6. I've discovered even more so through this class that my learning is a progression. I can change my mind as I learn new things as shown between this post and this one.
7. Consuming isn't enough in our new world. We need to add something meaningful to the discussion, we need to create and connect with others for our ideas to make a difference.
8. By telling myself that I need to be making connections, I will do so. Whether sitting in my Shakespeare class or in Genetics lab. It all matters.
9. I've learned that the only thing truly holding me back from becoming digitally literate was fear. Fear of it being too hard, fear of coming up wanting in comparison to others, and fear of my ideas and identity rejected.
10. And I've learned that I think like me. Not like the professors or the guy who sits next to me, but like myself. I see things and interpret readings differently, but that's what makes this class so amazing. We can come together and discuss and continue the discussion outside of class. And no matter our viewpoints, we are connected by our efforts to learn and grow.

Digital Catch-up

Okay, so thus far in the semester I've been playing with and experimenting with various digital tools and features. And not all require or deserve a blog post. But there are those special ones that need mention.

Cloud computing. I mean, really, how AMAZING is this concept!!!! I use Dropbox, mostly due to another class. Dropbox allows me to create something on my laptop and access it in the computer lab and on my friend's computer and anywhere I want to go! I can change it and save it and allow others to look at it, or even edit it. Particularly, I use this in my magazine class so that our peer editors, head editors, and director can all collaborate on our articles and design ideas. Never again do I have to wait to make an appointment with my editor to get feedback and never will I have "left" my work at home. So cool!

Another one that just makes me excited- creating animation or cartoons. I am not an artsy person with drawing or painting so this was incredibly fun for me. Even if it's silly, it's one more way to share ideas and be creative. Here's one I created.

No Such Thing As A Free Lunch....?

Or, if you don't work you don't eat. It seems we relate this concept to food. Hmm...

As I've read and discussed this idea with several people I find myself seeing a connection between our economic system and our moral ideology. Behind all the competition and self-interest, there is a set of morals that is heavily ingrained in our psyche. Capitalists believe in hard work, in earning what you get by the sweat of your own brow. They, and dare I say we, believe in using our individual talents and capabilities to compete with others. Many capitalists even claim that through this almost individualistic framework they are able to add more to society as a whole, than if they were "clones" in a different society.

So the question this brings to me- what kind of moral system does open source and our emerging ideas of openness create? Will this not create an even greater problem of "free riders"?

Life After Happily Ever After

An excerpt from one of my manuscripts that I wanted to share today. Any and all feedback encouraged.

"Does it bother anyone else how happily ever after is portrayed in the movies? It’s always about the courting and dating and the beginning of love. Not that anything is wrong about the beginning of love; but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Every movie that ended with the proposal or wedding felt like I was being cut short. Maybe the directors and producers think that the audience doesn’t want a movie about the growing old together, the daily falling in love. Facing those moments when you truly have to choose to stay married despite the challenges and frustrations. Handling how you lose yourself so much in another person and then your children that you create a new identity almost. No doubt there is magic and love about finding the person you want to share your life with, but there is surely a different but unique magic in married life. There is certainly magic in the first real fight of married life and even in how you resolve it. Just as there is magic in watching your children learn how to share and tie their shoes and as they astound us with their wisdom. Magic in fighting with teenage and adult children as the bounds of the relationship have to change. Warmth in those calls telling you they are engaged or pregnant or in labor and even those calls telling you their car broke down and one of the grandkids broke his leg jumping off the deck. Magic in finding the house to yourself again except for weekends, holidays, and occasional dinners. Increased love as you watch your children start their families and become good parents and struggle with different problems than you did. And you hopefully get to watch them find the amount of love in a spouse and children that you were able to. What joy there is in spoiling each grandchild! And it’s a unique experience to take your partner to the doctor when their health starts to fail and caring for them as much as you possibly can. And there is a magic in those last years, months, weeks, and days together, when every moment becomes increasingly special. When you can reflect with the love of your life on all the things you built and became. And knowing that every moment you lived with everything you could and loved with every fiber of your being. And finally that minute comes when they slip away from this world to another one. But rarely do we get the whole story. Now we all know it’s not perfect or neat; rather it is messy and complicated and hard. Sometimes life is full or unpleasant surprises, disappointments, and down right horrible things. Life gets twisted or cut short. But it’s every moment of love and marriage that tells the true story, the good times and the bad ones, the fights and the working them out.

"the Other"

In my Shakespeare class we have begun to read The Merchant of Venice and within this play there resides a fascinating character, Shylock. He is a Jewish money-lender in Venice who, though portrayed as the villain, also is the victim of the society he lives in. In literature, such a character is termed "the Other". This character is an outsider in their society, perhaps not just physically, but also intellectually, spiritually, and/or emotionally.

Emmanuel Levinas is the contemporary philosopher that pioneered this idea. He takes it one step further, saying that all aspects of our lives are based on our relationships with "the Other"; the very presence of this person challenges our normal patterns and possession of the world we live in. Basically, those who are different from us almost define us, in what we are not and how we respond to those perceived differences. This reminded me of the idea mentioned in class on Tuesday of "Hobby Horses" from Laurence Sterne's book; it is the concept that we all view the world with our own biases, lenses, quirks, and experiences. An avid athlete will constantly make metaphors to their sport (Kurt is a good example of this). A pilot will always relate experiences to airplanes and such (President Uchtdorf). I tend to view all things in relation to love. I think you get the point.

Furthermore, in the Preliminary Discourse on the Encyclopedia of Diderot, the point is made that " We receive direct knowledge immediately, without any operation of our will; it is the knowledge which finds all the doors of our souls open, so to speak, and enters without resistance and without effort. The mind acquires reflective knowledge by making use of direct knowledge, unifying and combining it." The Royal Society was trying to figure out how to acquire both kinds of knowledge, just as we are today in our universities and chat rooms. I think our challenge, however, is facing "the Other" as we attempt to see other perspectives and paradigms outside our comfort zone.

Triplus, Number Three

This is one of my favorite paintings that I've found in the BYU Museum of Art. Though much richer in person, the red and white cloth and the three different shaped bowls as well as the contents of those bowls, holds me captivated every time I see it. I hope you enjoy it as well.

Picking A Side

• You are either a Mac or a PC.
• You are either Republican or Democrat.
• You are either a capitalist or collectivist.
• You are either Catholic or Protestant.
• You are either cardio or weights.
• You are either an artist or a nerd.
• You are either a rationalist or an empiricist.
  

Really? We live in a society of extremes; a society that says we have to be on one side or the other. Either dominant or recessive. But we aren't like that as people- we try to explore all sides, all angles, all perspectives today. In the development of the new scientific theory, scientists and philosophers polarized between rationalism and empiricism. They fought over whether we can discover with reason alone or whether we need only hard facts. Dustin Wax said, "We get ideas from within ourselves and from without, or more to the point, from the interaction of the two." We can learn from all the various theories, sometimes by reasoning and other times by experimentation. There can be partial or co- dominance. We can learn from both sides and be a combination of them.

Take Off the Training Wheels!

First step: Admit you have a problem. Ok...........I have a problem with authority.

I'm not talking about the rebellious teenager blind rejection of authority. I am definitely in favor of learning from the knowledge of authorities and taking everything they have to offer into consideration. But I want there to come a certain point when I can let traditional authorities stay where they are while I make up my own rules.

Before I graduate and have fancy initials behind my name. Before I am fifty and considered experienced enough to make choices independent of authority opinions.

Because what if I have great ideas now, today, that could change everything, or at least something? And they don't even give me the chance to express them? For example (silly though it may be), I got a paper back recently in an English class and I had made some MLA mistakes in my haste to finish the paper in my hectic week. It was my fault, I understand this. But who is MLA to say that the heading has to be double-spaced? Don't they realize how ridiculous that is, how much precious writing space it wastes?! If my ideas are powerful and true, why should it matter if my comma came before or after the citation? Following the rules for awhile gives us a foundation, teaches us how to walk--but what if I want to dance from class to class instead?!

In class today we discussed the walled garden concept and open government. It is my personal belief that our government has a responsibility, or we've at least implanted one, to take care of it's citizens. For it is the citizens that give our government power, real power. Shouldn't we, as the source of power, be able to know what our government is doing? I don't mean the revelation of government military security at all, in fact, I'm against that. However, if we have good ideas why can't we stand before Congress ourselves instead of letting some fifty-year-old man with fancy letters behind his name present our brillance? Thomas Jefferson studies the ancient politicians and philosophers as well as John Locke in order to develop his own ideas. But then he helped create an entirely new functioning government.

We can use authority to start off and grow, but we have to take off the training wheels and soon. The sooner the better.

I mean, honestly....how ridiculous is this?

On the Shoulders of Giants... Or Little People

G O V E R N M E N T

Isaac Newton once said, "If I see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants who came before." That may work for individual subjects, but nations are a bit different. I mean, Great Britain couldn't stand on Athens's shoulders besides emulating a few elements. What Hobbes, and other philosophers such as John Locke, discovered was that in order for a nation to have true power, it must stand on the support of each citizen. A government may, in fact, be only as powerful as her weakest citizen. Machiavelli chose to see common citizens as pawns in his political game; Hobbes saw them as a tool to expand the nation, and citizens themselves were just finding a tangible voice in their formerly feudal society. Yet in relation to the open software movement, truly open government would allow everyone to contribute to solving the national problems. We wouldn't need a few geniuses to spot the "bugs", but rather with all of us aware and actively involved we could potentially solve issues within our own government.

So is open government true democracy? If so, what problems will we create by allowing all citizens to shape our political scene?

Ripples...

Tuesday in class, Dr. Burton and Dr. Zappala mentioned that they were concerned that we weren't bringing in enough outside reading/research. I couldn't even comment because I was so shocked- I'm spending between two and three hours a day for this class between researching history, technology and other blogs. However, I can't post about everything else I'm viewing and finding or else I would be posting novel length posts four times a day. And if I try to cram all my sources and ideas into a short post it sounds like a list of sources without analysis. So I wanted to take a moment to introduce some things I've been doing outside of class but in relation to the Digital Civilization course.

John Milton has always fascinated me. Maybe it's because he was a forerunner for many of our commonly held notions today. So, several weeks ago when I noticed he was coming up, I decided it was a good time for me to read the famous Paradise Lost (yes, in actual paper form). The past two weeks have been interesting as I've fought with Milton. Can we empathize with Satan? Is that allowed? Yet, I agree with the idea that Satan was an essential part of the plan, enabling the fall and allowing the atonement. In reading Paradise Lost, I discovered Milton wrote an-almost-sequel, Paradise Regained, which is a much shorter poem about when Satan tempts Jesus in the wilderness. To me, these epic poems reflected the climate of the Reformation; it was a time of rethinking traditional doctrines and practices, a time to think for yourself outside the Catholic Church, yet still reflecting and emulating the classics.

Another tangent I've explored a bit is that of the evolution of art. When talking about metadata, data, and the printing press, the idea came up that with format change there is often a cultural change. So I pondered about the change of artistic mediums and formats from oil, charcoal, pastel, ink, pencil, to photographs, clip art, and abstract art. In the Museum of Art, there is currently an exhibit of the First 100 years of Art at BYU. I walked through and couldn't help but see the sections of development. At times, a person or thing is the focal point. Other

times, the style and format is what the artist emphasizes. Now I'm not an artist by any means, but I wonder how technology has revolutionized art? One hundred years ago, a photograph was just that, not a work of art or skill. Now photographs document our lives instead of portraits. We've taken sketches and turned them into cartoons and animation. Recently, several modern/abstract exhibits have been shown. Pipes, a board full of duck sauce packets, foam peanuts, are now all considered art. And our culture has changed along with it. Fascinating.

Truth Shall Set You Free (Or Make You Mad)

Tomorrow in class we will be discussing the Protestant Reformation and free software, specifically the Linux system. Wait? The what system? Yeah, Linux. I looked it up online and got answers of gobledegook. In other words, it didn't make a bit sense to me. Luckily, Dr. Zappala posted some background information that helped me understand the point of the recording. Yet, that initial confusion got me thinking. Eric Raymond is a very smart person giving a factual speech on the Linux. Factual and full of knowledge, but I couldn't connect at all-which alludes to the discussion we've had on the different languages of technology. However, I realized that facts and knowledge are often separated from truth and understanding. With the Catholic Church controlling the Bible and the interpretation of religion, people were getting facts and knowledge but they lacked the personal interaction required to gain understanding. Martin Luther came around (just as Linux did) and told the people that they could have a voice when discussing religion (or computer software). That there were "bugs" in the religious operating system that could not be corrected fast enough by the current set-up of the Catholic Church. So in order to correct those problems, more voices, more discussion, more input is needed. When we interact with something, be it a discussion on religion, literature, chemistry, or computer software, we transition from knowing facts to gaining an understanding of the truth. No wonder we need to interact with new technology in order to gain a true understanding of it!

Screencasting: An Adventure!!!

So, for the groups projects I was assigned Screencasting. A couple problems- 1) I had no idea what that was and 2) my computer resisted all efforts to do this. Not to worry, I have addressed both issues.

What is screencasting? Screencasting is when you create a video of the images on your screen; you see this style in tutorial videos mostly. There are a couple steps to getting the programs to start this. After some exploration of a couple programs, I recommend Jing.

Step 1: Go to the Jing website and download the free version.

Step 2: Once installed on your computer, Jing will have you create a username and password, which it connects to another site called Screencast. Jing helps you capture a screen or video and Screencast stores it and helps you share it.

Step 3: Jing will automatically take you through a tutorial, which I must say from a novice perspective, that is easy and straight-forward.

Step 4: Experiment! Go to a website and take a video of you trying to explain something. Maybe you want to teach your parents about privacy settings on facebook or something like that. You can delete it if you don't like it and try again.

Step 5: Once you save a video or capture, you can share it by clicking a link in Jing or Screencast. It will let your choose whether you want the URL or the embedding code.

This actually took me awhile to figure out, but I hope this helps you know where to go. Here is an example screencast I did of how to create a wordle, inspired by DareMe's post "Power of Words". Enjoy!

2010-09-11_1346

Now You Can Go To Harvard Too!

Technology and the internet has now made not only online databases and libraries available to students around the world, but now you can see lectures online from leading universities. Such as Harvard. Professor Michael Sandel, a professor of political philosophy, has been teaching a course entitled "Justice" for over two decades at Harvard. It addresses moral dilemmas and asks what is the right things to do; the class discusses modern issues of affirmative action, marriage, civil rights, patriotism, and many others. Each week the lecture is posted on his website, Justice with Michael Sandel, and people around the world can watch and add to the discussion.

This video is the introduction to the class.

Gone But Not Forgotten

It's been a year, to the day. I lost a friend of mine I went to high school with to a driver who wasn't paying attention. Throughout high school, we had the majority of classes together. All of our AP classes like Calculus and English and even Orchestra. And we clashed. If I said Shakespeare was English, he would argue he was Italian. And if he said that we only used 25% of our brains, I had to counter with my own claim. We especially disagreed about religion which led to arguments that I'm not proud of. And now he's gone. But is he really? His Facebook page is incredibly active with all of his friends and classmates continually leaving him messages.

It's been two and a half years since I lost my uncle, my hero. But he will never be truly gone for me. He's in everything I do, in every Marine I see, in my grandparents farm, in my career decision, and he is one of the men I compare dates to. 

I share this because of some thoughts prompted by Kurt Witt's "Silly delete key" post on Sept 7th. When we delete something, is it really gone? Just because a word never appears on the screen or in our essay,  it doesn't mean we didn't consider it, that we didn't type it then erase it. Ideas and theories come and go; we constantly create new technologies and then replace them with newer things only weeks or months later. But the old ideas and inventions still exist, even if only in theory. There is no delete key in life, no "take back's", or redo's. Thoughts, once shared, are forever out in the pool of collective thought.

On Saturday, we will mark the 9th anniversary of 9/11. The Twin Towers no longer stand in the heart of New York City, but they did once. The hundreds of people that lost their lives that day may no longer take the subway to work every morning, but they are still influencing us today. These losses, these "old" ideas--they don't just fade away. They become part of us, making us better, reminding us to take them with us into the future. 

More Power of Words

Just as the Gutenberg Bible gave power to the early readers of it's smudged pages, today technology is allowing other people to share powerful words. People who aren't just political figures, religious authorities, celebrities, and educated white men or land owners, are being heard today. This Verizon commercial caught my attention not just because I'm a woman, but because I want to be heard whether I'm married or single, 19 or 43, white, asian, latino, or black. Not only do I want to have my voice be heard--I want it to matter.

Power of Words

We read and discuss and write literature, but why?

Because we believe that words have power; sometimes they have a power in and of themselves, and other times the only power words have is what we give them. At times, who speaks certain words is crucial to their meaning and to how they are understood, such as prophets and apostles. Other times, it is the words alone that prompt us into action. For example: "These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." Who wrote those words? Thomas Paine. Even if you didn't know that, you recognized those words because they catapulted the colonies to revolutionary action.

Words can touch people. Words can change people. What words have changed you?

Humanism: Pride is the Root of All Evil

Petrarch, considered the original Humanist, believed that language and philosophy could be analyzed by a single individual who could divine the meaning of it. Not only did he believe in the study of the classic philosophers and theory, but he held that humans were capable of directing their own learning. (Does that sound like any of our classes? Hmmm) Petrarch thought that none of his peers were equal to him in reading and writing, so he wrote letters to Cicero, Homer, and St. Augustine discussing his thoughts on their writings and theories. In my earlier post, Who Am I To Judge?, I wrestled with the idea that I can't criticize other authors and philosophers. Petrarch disagrees-in fact he believed that we have a duty to analyze and dissect previous literature. For it is only from that exercise will we prove old ideas in error and discover our own theories. Thank you Petrarch- you would've made a great motivational speaker.

Mirandola, further explains that man is indeed a supreme creation because of our agency; we can choose to learn and grow or regress since it isn't mandated for us. Now before you let all this go to your head, do you really think that everything you have is due to your own labors? Do you really believe you are completely independent? Hardly my friends. Part of being human involves relationships and how they add meaning to our actions. Petrarch himself wrote many books and essays, but he also wrote 366 poems for the woman he fell in love with. We do crazy things for people we love because we recognize that love makes us something more than we can be alone.

Forgive me for bringing Harry Potter into this, but J.K. Rowling, though atheist, suggests in the series that love is actually the supreme force at work. It is love that saves Harry as an infant and it is love that ultimately allows Harry to defeat Voldemort because Voldemort cannot see the value of it. Voldemort is the quintessential example of pride- trying one thing after another to further the interests of himself in an effort to gain immortality. Had he gained it, I believe he would've found it very lonely after awhile. In fact, most people we would label "powerful" are only powerful through the support of their followers. Yet, there is another kind of power found in those who understand truth. There is power in knowing who you are and what that means. There is a power is service just as there is in education that all the armies of the world could not lay at our feet.

We live in a world of YOUtube and online search engines that let us celebrate our individual abilities, and honestly I am grateful for what they add to our culture and learning. But looking back at the humanist movement, I feel like I can claim they errored in their rationale. Man in himself is not the measure of all things. Man (and woman) in the way he (she) loves is the measure of all things.

***

A quote from my manuscript: "Nicolas Sparks wrote, "The first time you fall in love, it changes your life forever, and no matter how hard you try, the feelin' never goes away."Because that first love is when you really let someone else into your heart and soul and realize that the meaning of life is wrapped up in a feeling so great it defies accurate description. It's ...the first time you give a part of yourself away, and you can never be the same again."

Utopia...?

The word utopia comes from the Greek work eutopia, literally meaning: the good place that is no place. Why does the human race seem obsessed with creating alternate realities? Is it because the world we live in is so terrible that we crave a more beautiful peaceful world? Or are we just trying desperately to control something, anything at all?

The recent movie, Avatar, shows humans taking over the planet in search of "unobtainium", the very name of which suggests that it cannot be obtained. That actual term is used in science to denote a material that is extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible to make. Yet, in the movie the military is willing to wipe out an entire native civilization for it.

Today we have hundreds of virtual worlds: Sims, World of Warcraft, Toontown, Second Life, Active Worlds, TowerChat, Dreamyville, Whyville, Traveler, The Palace, and many many more. In some of them you go on an amazing adventure in an exotic land, while in others you create a family and go to work and buy a dog; in short, you can become whoever you want to be. Excuse me? Come back to the real world. Sitting in front of a computer screen for hours on end, lost in a fictional world made up by a computer program will not solve your problems. Or the world's problems.

Harriet Beecher Stowe did not just imagine a life without slavery; she wrote a book on the reality in an effort to make changes. Instead of drowning our issues in video games and virtual reality simulations, don't you think we would reach a better world through service and awareness and by facing reality head on?

Becoming a Renaissance Woman (or Man)

Renaissance woman (or man): one who has broad intellectual interests in various fields including art and science; one who strives to learn on more than a superficial level; one invested in personal discovery and creativity; one who controls their own learning and exploration.

As we begin to discuss the Renaissance and New Worldviews, I see an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and true understanding at the root of each new thought, theory, scientist, artist, or even the seemingly average man. What made Copernicus want to study the cosmos? What drove da Vinci to invent and paint? Why did Tyndale take the risks to translate the Bible into English? Or Von Hohenheim to reform chemistry and medicine? How did Palissy come to the conclusion that  fossils were the remains of plants and animals? What made Joseph Smith kneel down to pray in a grove of trees? Why did Gilbert think of the Earth in regard to magnets? And the answer, I believe, comes down to searching for truth.

Being LDS, I believe that there are different levels of truth. Neal A. Maxwell in a talk entitled "Disciple Scholar" states that " there is no democracy among truths, they are not of equal significance." He presents the idea that there are three levels of truth: Descriptions of reality (i.e. airline schedules, exchange rates), proximate or lesser truths consisting of verifiable scientific information (the what and how of the universe), and finally, the ultimate and eternal truths. The second level is always growing and expanding with our study and research, yet it still remains separate from the ultimate truths because of the limitations of humans. Aristotle and Ptolemy believed in the model that stated that the Earth was a place of change and corruption, decay and death, while heaven (they were referring to space as well as the kingdom of gods) is a place of perfection. Since then, the idea of a distinct separation from divinity has perpetuated in science. Now as we are disciple scholars and participants in the new Renaissance of our age, we have the opportunity to change this separation. For everything points to God, from the Milky Way to homologous pairs of chromosomes, from the Mona Lisa and Sistine Chapel style of art to Picasso and cubism. 

The Renaissance men and women were searching for truth and meaning in their world, for explanations to phenomenons and problems. Today many are still searching for those things, but we have the ability to see the divinity within ourselves and connect the proximate truths to the eternal ones in order to bridge that age old separation.

Who Am I To Judge?

So I can already tell that this could get addicting. It reminds me of Jenna from Waitress when she says, " I was addicted to saying things and having them matter to someone."

Ok, I'm sitting in my Shakespeare class yesterday (which I'm way excited about!!!) and we are discussing why in the world people should study Shakespeare in the first place. The discussion covered his amazing use of language, the universal nature of his characters and their relationships, and many other good reasons why the study of Shakespeare is valid. Yet, the question that came to mind during this discussion was : who am I to criticize literature?

In high school, I remember getting lists of required reading and wondering who decided that those books were "classics" and what gave them the right to make that distinction. For instance, I strongly dislike Hemingway, but no matter what I say he will be studied for years to come. On the other hand, I absolutely love L.M. Montgomery but I have yet to find her in a classroom despite her beautiful literature. When I left high school it was a tradition to "sign a block" on the walls of your past teachers. So in my junior English class I wrote on the wall:

What makes a classic a classic? You Do!

Furthermore, as I was sitting in Shakespeare and later in my other Lit class, I decided something. I am not yet experienced enough in anything to play the role of critic, I mean 'he who is without sin can cast the first stone' and I am certainly not in a place to throw even pebbles. Side note- it reminds me of commentators at professional athletic events; I just want to hit the commentators sometimes-if you could do better then get off the sidelines and go play instead of throwing out nasty critique!! So I've come to the conclusion instead that I'm going to interact with the literature, have a conversation with Will Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde and all their characters. Maybe one day, when I have poems and stories published across the world I can look back and critique, but for now I'm just going to fall in love with all these authors I read and think about the consequences of falling in love later.