Well at least I know what I'm doing up this time
Forget everything I ever said about TOK being the coolest thing ever. It kills your brain by making your imagination work too hard on things you already thought you knew about. If I try to translate it into Narnia in this state of mind, Mr Tumnus will go out looking for the White Witch so she can turn him into stone because he is so overwhelmed by
( Read more... )
Therefore my internal dilemma is more like that of one of the Pevensies (I'm thinking Susan or Edmund) hearing about Narnia without having experienced it first. I'm just having trouble coping with so many new ideas. I originally used the example of Tumnus because I feel like I'm being invaded from an unexpected direction with thoughts, and because he has an actual threat he can go chasing.
I think I've heard of Captain Cook before, but never in this much detail. But I'm a bit confused. Did they kill Cook but then honor his bones? Or did they end up killing the Chieftain because everything was all wrong? Obviously this is important to understand the extent of their ability to adapt to change.
See this is what I mean about my state of mind. I'm drawing the wrong conclusions about the fundamental point of the various stories. But I thought of a good explanation of my misguided Tumnus story. What if he's proud that he was able to resist Jadis' orders in that one small way - warning Lucy away - and so this makes him less of a coward. So he goes to her and says exactly what he thinks of her and her nefarious plot, having forgotten that discretion is the greater part of valor. So now she knows about it sooner than she would have and when the four children come through, her squadrons are there waiting for them.
Looking at that paragraph, I wonder what kind of messed-up mind would think of something that leads to the death of faith in Aslan. But the far-reaching effects of one act of bravery is just one example of so many times in history. Like the equal and opposite powers of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, and how no doubt each of them thought there was some kind of "rightness" in their acts. And while all this was going on, the way news is reported shifted dramatically and irreversibly. They had all of the equipment necessary to report stuff on the spot, but it took something horrific and startling to make that kind of ideology even conceivable.
Reply
There's also the issue that Lewis is very intentionally dealing with faith, so when Edmund and Peter and Susan don't believe Lucy it's because they have no empirical evidence. For all the professor says about logic, he's only talking about some chain of reason, but empiricism has no place in the faith that Lewis is trying to promote. They aren't overwhelmed at first because they're simply incredulous. Later, when they experience the new world, they eventually have to be credulous because it's empirical.
With Cook, they killed him because he was a God acting out of turn and trying to throw off the balance, but even when they killed him he was still a God. And the believed that the next year he would come back, even though they had killed him with their own hands - because he was a god. His bones were honored, and people tried touching them, believing they could get some of his godliness from it. Also, with this, the Hawaiian king absorbed his power and self and claimed kinship with the whites - with the kings of the whites in fact.
How strange! I am not sure how to allegorize this TOK stuff because I don't know it so well, I just know bits of anthropology... but I might say that just as the Pevensies are asked to believe in a reality, and they doubt until they are thrown in and even then have trouble accepting the "destiny" there, Tumnus is asked to believe in the reality of a myth come to life, and that his immediate reaction is to turn Lucy in because he feels more the physical immediacy of his own death as punishment rather than any reality of her mythological death. Why should it affect him if it's never affected him before? I think he still doesn't believe she's real or something at that point. I'm not sure if this makes any sense but I'm just trying to figure it out ^^
in conclusion, please tell me you're applying to UChicago, because daaaaaang this is complex awesome thinky stuff and if you're doing this already I think this place's approach to higher education would be perfect for you :D also we could totes hang out, yeah? hee
Reply
I'm going to answer these in opposite order again, because that's the way I roll.
I'm definitely applying to UChicago, because it seems so cool. By the way, what grade are you in? Getting in is a whole other issue, but it looks fun.
Theory of Knowledge...I've honestly never thought this much about it before. It's a bit like philosophy, because it's about the trends that scientists and arithmeticians follow as they're developing theories. But it's also about how we think, what we think, and why we think the way we do. This does not count as psychology because we're not looking at the way the brain works.
We spent a month and a half discussing what it even means to know. Certain phrases imply a higher degree of intimacy with the subject matter. Compare "I know chess is a game" with "I know how to play chess". And faith definitely comes into that. Because even though it's not a valid justification, it is a very real thing in the life of anyone who's ever assumed.
I'm actually not looking at this from an anthropology perspective because we only started the unit. Instead I'm looking at how scientists react when someone (Copernicus, for example) comes up with an idea that contradicts their own model (or paradigm) of the world. Usually they will laugh and say it couldn't possibly work. Eventually the new paradigm gets more followers (like Edmund) and anyone who can't accept it gets left in the dust and is now isolated in her field (Oh, Susan...).
I think we're taking the Mr Tumnus allegory/analogy way too far. At the time that I wrote it, I was really tired but still had a dozen pages to take notes on. I wanted nothing better than to bang my head against a wall. I was saying that if I wrote Narnia at that time, I would have projected my negative feelings onto one of the characters.
The thing about Captain Cook is so much better now that I understand the end. Gods and religion mixed with conquerers and oppression is such a neat event in history in general.
Reply
1. UChicago! I am a third year. And, girl, if you can write about complex ideas like this I am pretty sure you have a good chance to get in :)
2. TOK: - this sounds like something my friend was telling me about Aristotle and, I forget, poetics or nichomachean ethics? anyway, he was talking about what knowledge is. that's really interesting, I like your example.
3. The new-scientific-theory example makes so much sense! I really like it, and it totally works for structuralism!
4. Tumnus - ohhhkay, I get it :) yeah, I wasn't sure where you were trying to go with him, and he's hard to deal with as a character encountering something New.
5. That Captain Cook story is holy cow, like, my favorite. If you get the chance to read the whole book (it's only 80 pages, but it's pretty dense stuff), I think you'd find it really interesting.
Reply
1. U of C. I might be able to write about complex ideas in an informal setting but I can't do it well when it's something that's actually due. As a result, I have less than stunning grades. Also, isn't it one of the most expensive schools in the state/country?
2. I'm not sure what nichomachean ethics are, so I really couldn't tell you about that. We did some Aristole, but I forget what - something about logic probably.
3. What's structuralism?
4. Yeah... I'm not even going to touch Tumnus. I'm more talking about Narnians as a collective. They're part of a community of knowers.
5. OH NO! Don't even start telling me about more books I have to read. Because I want to read all of them and that's just not realistic at this point in my schooling when I'm having trouble keeping up with the reading we already have.
Sorry. I realize that sounds a bit mean and defensive. I really don't mean it like that. I just have another ToK note-taking extravaganza lined up for tonight. Stay tuned for further late-night whining/panicking. ;)
Reply
U of C is expensive, yeah, but it's only actually expensive if you don't qualify for aid - and it is mostly need-based, and they did the best job at helping me out of all the schools I applied to. Never let expense rule out your applying to a school unless you're absolutely certain you're way too rich to get aid - it's not over till your financial aid decision.
Nichomachean Ethics is just a book Aristotle wrote. I never read it either, heh.
Structuralism is the idea that you live in a culture that shapes your view of the world with its categories of thought and relationships between things and all that. And every society has this structure, and every society has comparable structures (based on the same relationships if not the same objects) - it's also sort of like language, in that languages differ through space and through time but each version of a language is translatable because it talks about the same things. The only thing with structuralism is it's rigid and doesn't allow for cultural change. So poststructuralism comes along and explains how change can happen to a cultural structure.
no no I'm sorry! I don't mean to pressure you at all, I just thought I'd let you know what book the Captain Cook story was in if you wanted to look it up (in fact, I did already tell you, it was on the list I gave you when you asked for anthro texts - it's the Marshall Sahlins one). I know how overwhelming even fun or otherwise small things can be when you have work to do. for instance, right now I really shouldn't be answering email but I figured I'd take a little break and do it before I start more homework. good luck with your work!
Reply
Leave a comment