A Poem Worth Loving

"The Poor Children"
-Victor Hugo


Take heed of this small child of earth;
He is great; he hath in him God most high.
Children before their fleshy birth
Are lights alive in the blue sky.

In our light bitter world of wrong
They come; God gives us them awhile.
His speech is in their stammering tongue,
And his forgiveness in their smile.

Their sweet light rests upon our eyes.
Alas! Their right to joy is plain.
If they are hungry Paradise
Weeps, and, if cold, Heaven thrills with pain.

The want that saps their sinless flower
Speaks judgement on sin's ministers.
Man holds an angel in his power.
Ah! deep in Heaven what thunder stirs,

When God seeks out these tender things
Whom in the shadow where we sleep
He sends us clothed about with wings
And finds them ragged babes that weep!

Time Trial: 40 Minute Open Literature Question Essay.

    I can't help but feel pity and compassion for Victor Frankenstien from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Though his creation was a murderer, it was Frankenstien's actions that drove the creature to kill, and to act like that monster that everyone thought he was.


   Frankenstein's first sin was to experiment with the laws of nature and create life not in the natural way, but by using a beaufitul force of nature to animate a collection of limbs and other body parts that had been very cruedly sewn and stitched together. His second offense was abandoning his creation after seeing what a monstrosity he'd brought into the world. This is neglect and abandonment. A parent would never get away with neglecting a child with physical or mental deformities, and neither should Victor Frankenstien's actions be forgiven. It is a parent's job to guide their children- teach them right from wrong. Victor Frankenstein failed miserably at his duties and obligations as a father. It was this carelessness and abandonment that drove his creation to become and evil mastermind and a true monster.


   Still, I can't help but to feel compassion for the man. The whole story is a flashback, and he's reflecting on the decisions he's made in his life, and most likely regretting them. Mary Shelley used very little dialogue in the story; almost to the point that it becomes painful to read. She goes in depth and describes the torment, the tragedy, and tha pain that he is enduring. In this way, she makes the reader feel and share his pain. She forces the reader to empathise with him, whether they want to or not. At the time that he's telling his story, he's an old man, weary from the suffering he endured as a young man and from the constantly having to stay on the move, running from his past and running from his monster. His actions were reprehensible, but I shed a tear or two for him, and I feel more compassion than contempt for him.

Hamlet Vs. Beowulf: An Essay

Language is used differently in different types of literature to achieve different objectives. Hamlet and Beowulf are two examples of great literature that use language in completely different ways; one to tell an epic story about a hero and his quest for greatness, and the other to tell a story of a man's quest for revenge that ends in tragedy.


The story of Beowulf was an epic that used the English language to describe action and develop a plot line rather than thoroughly develop the characters. Beowulf didn't spend much time contemplating his actions, and we don't know much about what he feels or thinks. We only know what we can infer from his actions. Beowulf was a story meant to be spoken verbally or to be read from a book, so the language had to be used to create imagery and vividly describe those battles in order to create a picture in the minds of the audience.


In Hamlet, Shakespeare used language mostly to create dialogue between characters and to explore the mind of his main character in order to develop his personality: dialogue and characterization are his main uses of language in his play. In contrast with the character Beowulf, Prince Hamlet would make a decision, and then contemplate that decision and the consequences he would have to face before ever making a move. He was a master strategist. We make more of a personal connection with Hamlet and know more about who he is as a person, while at the same time we have no idea what he looks like or how old he is until we almost reach the end of the play, where Shakespeare remedies that fact with one short line of dialogue. Hamlet was meant to be performed and seen by others. Little time was spent describing actions and physical appearances of characters because it was up to the actors to create that image on stage. Instead, Shakespeare very carefully chose specific words for his characters to speak to convey themes and ideas.


Hamlet and Beowulf are both prime examples of how the English language can be used in completely different ways to successfully tell a great story that both entertains and leaves the reader thinking about what they've read after the story is over.

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.