AP Lit Term: The Antagonist

• a person or force opposing the protagonist in a drama or narrative.

Contrary to popular belief, the protagonist is not the most important character in a story. No, it's the antagonist- the villain! It's not about Nathan Drake, Cole MacGrath, or Bruce Wayne. It's about Eddy Raja, Kessler, and the Joker! Without great villains like The Riddler or the Red Hood, we wouldn't have great heroes like Batman and Nightwing! Let's not forget the rare female antagonist; women like Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Cruella DeVille, etc. They're what fuel the stories. They give the heroes a reason for being! The antagonist is very versatile. Depending what the conflict of the piece may be, the antagonist doesn't even have to be human. Anyone ever see the movies Armageddon, Dante's Peak, Twister, or heck, Godzilla? The antagonists in those movies were a meteor, a volcano, a tornado, and a dinosaur-ish monster. The antagonist is a misunderstood creature, and is under-appreciated. If anything, they're good for a laugh. They're so entertaining to watch because everyone knows that their efforts are futile. The villain can never win.

• A slideshow depicting some memorable antagonists. 

• Some of my favorite, villainous moments. 

The Big Question. (Revised and Refined)

• To what extent is Noetic Science valid?

The Big Question.

• Is Noetic Science a reality? And, what exactly is it?

Wow, my spell-check didn't even recognize that "noetic" was an actual word. But, this is a real science, and the term "noetic sciences" was actually coined in 1973. Philosophers such as Plato were using the word "noetic" centuries ago. But, maybe I should attempt to explain what Noetic Science is. This is some pretty heavy stuff, so, I'll do my best. 

• Noetic:  meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding. 
• Science: Systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena.  

To put this as simply as I can, it's like a combination of science of philosophy that's aimed towards discovering or proving the power of the human mind. It mixes two different ways of gaining knowledge. Science is all about studying what you can see and touch. The other half of Noetics is human intuition and instinct. It sounds really crazy. I first heard of Noetic Science while reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. (Fantastic read. It really blew my mind. Pick it up if you ever get the chance.) To list some of the things Dan Brown described:

• Humans can control and manipulate matter by concentrating together on the same thought. 
• A human soul was captured leaving a human body after death.
• Thoughts actually have mass.
• Thoughts control matter the same way gravity does. 

The Noetics Dan Brown describes isn't completely factual, but it isn't completely fictional either. Noetic Science says, basically, consciousness (thought) matters. What a Noetic scientist studies is how the nonphysical (consciousness) influences the physical world around us, like I listed above. There's also an emphasis on the power of collective thinking, and how that affects the world around us. My goodness, the founder of The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), Edgar Mitchell, founded the institute because he felt connected to the rest of the universe after traveling through space on the Apollo 14 mission.  Implications have also been made that our thoughts and beliefs actually influence our experiences, rather than the other way around. It makes enough sense if you think about it. If your girlfriend buys tickets to the new Taylor Lautner movie, and you're dreading the very thought of going, and telling yourself you'll be glad when the experience is over, it pretty much goes without saying that you're not going to have a pleasant experience. See? Thought influences physical experience. 

The topic of Noetics is controversial to say the least, and I'm sure plenty of religious leaders worldwide have turned a blind eye to it. And, that's alright. Just because someone doesn't believe something, it doesn't make it false. Just as if someone says something is true, that's not always the case. That statement that "humans can create reality" just really got me thinking. I'm going to try and treat lightly here. If there is some omnipotent being that created human life, did he or she give us the power to create as they did? Are we our own Gods? Words and phrases keep swimming around in my head, and they all seem to blend together to me, with one meaning. "At-one-ment", "As above, so below", "your body is your temple", the list goes on. 

• As above, so below: meaning, God created human beings in his image of perfection. Does that not make us Godly in some way? Humans have got to be his greatest creation, right? I mean, wow, HIS image. Does he sit above us, watching his creations below, wondering when we'll catch on? Humans have shown that they're capable of great things when using the reasoning skills that were given to us. But, could we have been created to do even more? 
• At-one-ment: more commonly seen simply as atonement. When spelled as "atonement", it just means the Christian science (who says religion and science can't play nice together?) of being at one with God. In light of Noetic theory, could this simply mean being at one with yourself, body and mind? Could it mean being at one with our fellow human beings, connected by some deep, cognitive truth that we don't even fully comprehend? 
• Your body is your temple: a temple being a place of worship. The mind represents heaven, meaning that heaven resides within us, again raising the question, "Are we all Demi-Gods?"   

These are the questions that Noetic Science raises just in me. Who knows what other questions their discoveries are raising, and who knows which of those questions will be answered? Who knows if the world will ever be ready for a definitive "yes" or "no"? 

http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetic_science

http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/noetic-sciences.html

Major Concept

      Last week, we talked about memes, phrases, styles, or behaviors that spread through a culture. I was reminded of this while I was having a conversation with a friend last night via text message. She had texted "SMH", and I had no idea what she was talking about. I thought about trying to act like I knew what she had said, but finally I just had to ask her. I guess it's in human nature to want to fit in. I know Dr. Preston said that memes separate people, but it didn't really hit me until I wasn't part of the in-crowd. It really just made me think about people and how we interact with each other, and how we all seem to be on some sort of quest to be noticed. Then, I thought about how weird it is that we join groups, and that's how we end up identifying ourselves as individuals. That doesn't make much sense, but we do it. We've been doing it forever. Is it still called "labeling"? (Clearly I'm not part of the in-crowd). Memes can either bring individual people together, or they can separate groups of people, but I think we also do that ourselves. You can always ask what someone means when they say something, but something stops us sometimes. It could be embarrassment, or it could be that we're intimidated. I don't know, but I think I've meditated on this too much already. Anyways, my conversation with my friend reminded me of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?". Very funny, and I think it gets the point across.