Author Archives: jenny.he1

I feel that I’m able to be creative pretty often especially when I’m doodling in class or daydreaming. But then again it’s creativity that only I see most of the time and something I don’t really show to anyone else. Another opportunity I get to be creative is when professors assign papers or projects because it still requires me to use my creativity to imagine and think about what my paper/project will look like or to have an idea for it so I have something to start on.
One thing I noticed about “Education and the Changing World of Work” video is that the speaker keeps talking about how important the “left-brain world” was and how much more the “right brain” matters now and how it is more important that the left. I somewhat disagree on this, I think both brains are equally as important and that there should be no time frame in which one part of the brain is more important than the other; they are part of the same important organ. Daniel Pink says that the right brain abilities now matter more. Sure the right brain lets people think of new an creative ideas that no one has ever though of. To make that idea work one must use the left brain’s logic, analytical skills and facts to make sure it’ll work. For example car concepts, people who designs cars first use there right brain to form concept with their creativity but in the end it’s the left brain that makes sure if this concept will work and will not cause any injuries.
Pink also talks about education, though I don’t really pay attention to education policies. I feel that the education system should give children more opportunities to use their creativity and not stress children out with so many facts. From what I remember only in Pre-K up to 2nd grade I had a lot of opportunities to use my creativity. After it was all math, English and history and exams on these topics, not much creativity use for the three.
Lastly, “living with ambiguity” is something I can endure because I believe in life there is a lot of ambiguity. This does not necessary mean I like it. I feel that it is okay to not know something from time to time. An example of ambiguity that I’m okay with is cliffhangers they always make me want to know more and it bothers me the author just leaves the readers off like that. Even so I feel that with this ambiguity it fuels our creativity and lets us create our own ideas from that situation. I do not find it exciting to be confused because I don’t understand how am I suppose to be excited about something I don’t understand?

I was pretty upset when Prof. Kaufmen told the class that the next reading we had to do was from Nathaniel Hawthorne because I’ve actually never liked his writing. I’ve read the Scarlet Letter and excerpts from him but I really disliked how most of his work is depressing.

When I began reading the story I was not really paying attention to the details but when I got to page 266 I was very interested in the outcome of the story. At the end of the story I knew that this ending would because every time I read Hawthorne someone has to die. It’s depressing. When I was reading a story a question arose in my mind and it made a connection to “Hills Like White Elephants”.

Did Jig and Georgiana choose to have what happen to them happen?

In “Hills Like While Elephants” the man seems to give Jig a choice whether or not she wants the abortion. Every time I read the story I feel as if the man is not giving Jig a choice because “I don’t want you to do it if you don’t really want to.” was repeated many times. It’s as if he’s trying to give Jig the guilt trip, trying to make Jig feel guilty about not agreeing with him and ruining their love. The fact that the man knew about the procedure of abortion tells me that he was the one to bring up the idea. Throughout their conversation it seems like the man is nonchalant about Jig not wanting to do it but the man never backs down from the idea of abortion because he says ” I think it’s the best thing to do.”. We only know what the man wants but not Jig. Is that what Jig wanted?

For “The Birth-mark” I felt that it was very similar if not the same as “Hills Like White Elephants”. Aylmer wanted to get rid of Georgiana’s birthmark but he basically forced her to agree to it. Aylmer kept telling Georgiana that he disliked her birthmark and could get rid of it. Georgiana once asked if it was really possible and he got angry at her for doubting him. It turned out to be Aylmer was really obsessed with what he wanted her to be and didn’t care about what she wanted. Even Aylmer’s servant stated that he wouldn’t want to remove it. It seems like Georgiana gave in to what ever Aylmer wanted in the end.

Women at the times that Hawthorne and Hemingway lived in had very little power in society because households were Patriarchal. So I felt that Jig and Georgiana did not have a choice or a say it what was going to happen.

Did the author mean for Jig and Georgiana to have a choice at all?

It was really exciting to hear that we were going to watch a movie in class. At first I thought it would be some boring documentary that the class was going to watch, boy was I wrong. I really liked the film. It was a comedy film that did not have corny jokes, the class actually laugh pretty hard for a few of the jokes.

I enjoyed the movie a lot but while watching it I could not help but to think that there was something more to the movie than the jokes and the funny ‘accidents’ the characters get into. This feeling grew more when Prof. Kaufman asked what this film had to do with happiness. So I asked myself what did this film have to do with happiness?

Well in the film the 5 contestants for the Mayflower Dog Show said they were happy and that if they won the “Best In Show” title they would be even more happy. I did not think the same way. Especially for the Swan couple, they were seeing a psychiatrist because of their dog. Apparently their dog was upset all the time and was hard to handle, which somehow caused the couple to be grumpy and upset too.  Just from the first scene that the Swan couple was introduced I already knew that they were not happy, they seem as if they forced their smile while saying they loved their dog. Near the end of the movie the Swan couple broke down resulting in a disqualification and it seems like I was right about them. In the end they got a new dog and seem genuinely happy.

Another thing I thought that was interesting about the movie was the ending. For the losers they seem to have found happiness outside of the dog show business and went into other areas still related to dogs. As for the Fleck couple it seems that everything is nice because they are now celebrities but Mr. Fleck meets another one of Mrs. Fleck’s old boyfriends. Mr.Fleck reacted the same way he did to the previous his wife’s  ex-boyfriends; he was upset.

In the end the losers are happy and the winners are not? The winners who thought winning would be the best thing in the world to them because it would be like achieving a dream, end up unhappy. While the losers have their dreams of winning crushed are able to find happiness somewhere else.

Does this even make sense at all? Apparently so.

In chapter two of Sigmund Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle he introduces a very interesting topic in which is called “Fort da”. “Fort da” is interesting because it came to be from what he observed from an eighteen month child. Freud describes the child as an obedient, calm and not an intellectual child but the ‘game’ that Freud observes the child playing says otherwise. The game is that the child has a tendency to throw his toys in the corner so that they disappear, but then he pulls the toy back out to make it reappear. Freud says that the child is doing so to relieve the pain he gets when the mother leaves the child.

I agree with this point that Freud makes. Even though the child may not seem to be missing his mother, psychologically he is because of the way he plays the game. The aggressive nature of throwing an object shows that the child is displeased with something in his life (like his mother leaving) and he wants to express that emotion. Even though he throws it in the meaning that he wants the toy to go away (fort), he always pulls the object back and says “da” (there) as if he’s happy to see it again. This brings it back to the point with his mother, when his mother leaves the child accepts the fact that she is leaving but it upsets him so he takes his anger out of something else. He already knows that his mother will return just like his toy and when it does he says “da” which shows a sense of happiness from the child. It is a sense of happiness because the child has found his toy again and to him the object did not completely disappear just like how his mother will come back after leaving for a time and that time he will be happy.

I noticed is that when the child throws away its toy it seems like the child does not forget the image of object is because when he pulls it out again he remembers it and says “da” like “there you are” but the child does not know if the toy is truly there without seeing it again.

This relates the Plato’s allegory of the cave in a way that the prisoners in the cave can just see the shadows but they do not know what they are nor can they tell each other anything about them but the shadow. Just like how the child can see his mother and toy leave him but cannot explain where they went and what they are doing. Both the prisoners and the child cannot achieve true intellect in the eyes of Plato because for the child he only believes in the physical appearance of something to know that it is truly there. As for the prisoners they know an object is there but they do not know what it is, to Plato just knowing that something is physically there does not give one true knowledge of the object.