The only indicator that the article that we have that relates to class these days are how we rank to one another, according to the New York Times article. We can now easily hide our class by what we wear. The way that it relates to social injustice is that there is a great distance between the rich and poor. mainly because of the opportunities that arise in the upper fifth compared to the lower fifth. Although the upper fifth has earned the opportunities to do well, where the injustice happens is that the lower fifth dose have the right to get a shot at those opportunities.
In the article there is a interactive scale that ranks the average percentile. When I did this I made my assumptions and here they are: I graduated today from Gonzaga University with my bachelors in civil engineering, with a entry level engineering gig. This would be my ranking, note that this is my best case scenario:
• Occupation - Civil Engineering: 76th percentile
• Education - Bachelors - 91st percentile
• Income - Up to $50,000 a year - 69th percentile
• Wealth- 5,000 to 10,000 a year 29th percentile
• Average -66th percentile
What really brings my average up is my education. Although having a degree from Gonzaga University is not an guarantee that I will be well off. However, it does give me a great opportunity that I would be foolish to not and try and (take over the world) do the best possible job for myself.
I have made many jokes about me being at Gonzaga University and myself, that the suit that accepted my application should was on the way out. However, I am very grateful for my opportunity. My father as a pair of masters from the University of Washington, and my mom has her pair of bachelors from Washington State University (My house is very interesting when the Apple Cup happens). I am clearly standing on the shoulders of giants for my education.
When I first started my college career at Cascadia Community College, I took a class called "College 101- College Strategies." In this class we went over some basic "welcome to college" ideas. My professor, said one thing that has stayed with me is, "Whatever you do, get a bachelors degree. Any degree. My bachelors degree is in English, my masters is in Celtic Catholic Studies, and my doctorate is in the same field. But just having a bachelors has set me up for greatness. When I interview for a job and see the list of qualifications I can clearly state that I have those skills because I have a degree. Also it does not matter qualifications... except for becoming a engineering I kind of shot myself in the foot for that." The main reason that I tell this story that it is the best way I can describe how much education matters in our society. I only hope that I can have an edge on my application and my interviewer is Gonzaga Bulldog fan.
In my service learning, I worked at WCCC, in the after school program. In terms of class, they were truly in the lower percentiles of class. However, the children were did not act like they were in a lower class family. Looking back on my childhood, I always acted just wanted to play and have a good time. I did not understand how much money 50,000 dollars was. I am pretty sure that I have never seen 300 dollars in one place until I was sixteen, where I gathered up donations for the newly founded Archbishop Murphy High School wrestling team.
When we grow up we only know the adjectives that correspond to an income. The only two class identifiers that we have as a kid that are to quantify money is: rich and poor. When we are children we really do not know the different levels. I was neither rich nor poor, my family is a true middle class. So I was completely in the dark about who was rich and who was poor. I feel that the children that I was participating know that they are on the poor side of the class scale than most.
So what does this mean. For me class is still a allusion, it does not exist. As long you are not homeless, we are fighting for our greatness. Sometime being born in the correct family helps, however, that should not be the only factor.
Thanks for the great semester.
-Giles
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Chocolat
The movie Chocolat is a true discussion of what is the meaning behind intentions in our society. The portrait of Vianne Rocher and Comte de Reynaud share a dance that ask the view whom is the protagonist and whom is the antagonist. They each have a very solid ideal of what should happen in society that they are driven to a breaking point when a third party enters. Their images of God, behavior and reality shape the how these main characters are portrayed in the film.
On the surface Vianne Rocher and that Comte de Reynaud are extremely polar opposite characters. Comte as clearly a "cradle Catholic" who has conservative beliefs. He makes sure that the town clearly meets the ideals of God that he had for his entire life. In the film he goes as far as training a man so that is astringed wife would keep the ideal of his marriage alive. He is willing to do whatever it takes to shun people with different belief systems out of his town, in the action of putting up flyers and creating a shroud of not accepting other people. While Vianne is clearly more liberal, accepting. In the begging of the film, the director has the down as very dark place, while she is creating the world's most colorful chocolate shop.
I feel that they are not as different as we are lead to believe in the movie. Vianne Rocher and that Comte de Reynaud are so different, and yet so similar is the image of God and reality. As stated before: the oblivious difference is that Comte goes to the Church, while Vianne is considered an atheist. The time setting of the movie takes place during the season of Lent. A traditional common belief of people think that Lent is time to reflect and fast during the season. However it is quite the opposite: it is a season of changing our action. As Comte de Reynaud fasts during this time he is blinded by the changed in front of him, Vianne. While Vianne Lenten change is Comte de Reynaud, unlike Comte she is quite aware of the change. Vianne just moved into the town and is changing how the citizens taste chocolate. Although the change might be different, they are both experiencing it. Ultimately it is this change that will create the confect in the movie.
Another facet of how they are very similar is how they affect the world around them. As the Comte tries to mold the perfection in the citizens of the town though the Homily. While Vianne affects the progress and undermines the ideal norm of perfection. Changing the Homily, I find very disturbing, The major factor is; he is shaping the word of God. In the movie, he only changes the Homily in a negative manner. The two major ways that he changes is, shunning the chocolate shop and the river commune. The major reason for the shunning of the chocolate shop which Comte is against because of his Lenten fast. During this time Vianne is giving away chocolate to build her business for the future. The second time is when Comte is shunning of the river commune is more of a social justice issue which is forced upon him by the citizens in the town. While Vianne welcomes the river commune into her shop. They have a similar because they both think that good is happening because of their actions. A item to note is that because they both think they are doing good they are affecting each other's reality in a deconstructive manner.
I personally feel the only way to measure goodness is though is though causation, our actions create a cause that affect the people around us. Pure good only happen when pure good was the intent of the person in the first place. Goodness should never be measured in human fallacies nor habits. Every person breaks some sort of religious belief: like celebrating Kosher, or other religious standards. This brings a Paradox into my ideal of goodness, since we never know whom is doing good or not. For myself, I have had the purest intentions for something; alas I was not able to help because they did not lay any trust in me for whatever reason. Whenever good tries to happen there is some party trying to stop the good. This struggle of good and not-good hast to happen or the idea of good would not exist. Both characters sees themselves as good and the other as not-good.
If I was to measure the goodness of Comte de Reynaud and Vianne Rocher, I would say that they are doing not-good. For the reason being is the causation of each characters was to offset one another. The only reason Comte wrote in Homily not to eat chocolate was because he did not like having a chocolate shop open during Lent. With Vianne, the only reason she made whatever she did was for a necessary to survive or to show-up Comte. Comte did not like being shown up, so he tried to show up Vianne. In game theory, this is a classic game of escalation, and the final step was Serge Muscat setting fire to river commune's boats. Which both of them agreed at the end of the movie was a terrible thing. Resulting in tossing Serge Muscat out of the town.
As I said in what my definition of Goodness, Comte de Reynaud is becoming God's Voice which affects the entire town. In which causes a chain reaction that affects the town siding with him in both major issues that he meddles with. His attitudes and beliefs that influence the town are what drive the plot of the movie. Comte de Reynaud is the antagonist because every action that he takes opposes the protagonist, Vianne. The true direct result of Vianne's range of influence is the exact same as Comte. As it the burning of river commune; Comte influenced Serge to become good, while on the other hand, Vianne was influencing Josephine (Serge's wife) to become good.
In conclusion, Chocolat has so much destruction and distortion of what each of the characters think what they thing what is the goodness ideal. Since in the final scene of each of them seeing from each side and agreeing that both of them deep down is "good." We all hope that everyone is good. We must remember we are all similar when we share the range of influence.
On the surface Vianne Rocher and that Comte de Reynaud are extremely polar opposite characters. Comte as clearly a "cradle Catholic" who has conservative beliefs. He makes sure that the town clearly meets the ideals of God that he had for his entire life. In the film he goes as far as training a man so that is astringed wife would keep the ideal of his marriage alive. He is willing to do whatever it takes to shun people with different belief systems out of his town, in the action of putting up flyers and creating a shroud of not accepting other people. While Vianne is clearly more liberal, accepting. In the begging of the film, the director has the down as very dark place, while she is creating the world's most colorful chocolate shop.
I feel that they are not as different as we are lead to believe in the movie. Vianne Rocher and that Comte de Reynaud are so different, and yet so similar is the image of God and reality. As stated before: the oblivious difference is that Comte goes to the Church, while Vianne is considered an atheist. The time setting of the movie takes place during the season of Lent. A traditional common belief of people think that Lent is time to reflect and fast during the season. However it is quite the opposite: it is a season of changing our action. As Comte de Reynaud fasts during this time he is blinded by the changed in front of him, Vianne. While Vianne Lenten change is Comte de Reynaud, unlike Comte she is quite aware of the change. Vianne just moved into the town and is changing how the citizens taste chocolate. Although the change might be different, they are both experiencing it. Ultimately it is this change that will create the confect in the movie.
Another facet of how they are very similar is how they affect the world around them. As the Comte tries to mold the perfection in the citizens of the town though the Homily. While Vianne affects the progress and undermines the ideal norm of perfection. Changing the Homily, I find very disturbing, The major factor is; he is shaping the word of God. In the movie, he only changes the Homily in a negative manner. The two major ways that he changes is, shunning the chocolate shop and the river commune. The major reason for the shunning of the chocolate shop which Comte is against because of his Lenten fast. During this time Vianne is giving away chocolate to build her business for the future. The second time is when Comte is shunning of the river commune is more of a social justice issue which is forced upon him by the citizens in the town. While Vianne welcomes the river commune into her shop. They have a similar because they both think that good is happening because of their actions. A item to note is that because they both think they are doing good they are affecting each other's reality in a deconstructive manner.
I personally feel the only way to measure goodness is though is though causation, our actions create a cause that affect the people around us. Pure good only happen when pure good was the intent of the person in the first place. Goodness should never be measured in human fallacies nor habits. Every person breaks some sort of religious belief: like celebrating Kosher, or other religious standards. This brings a Paradox into my ideal of goodness, since we never know whom is doing good or not. For myself, I have had the purest intentions for something; alas I was not able to help because they did not lay any trust in me for whatever reason. Whenever good tries to happen there is some party trying to stop the good. This struggle of good and not-good hast to happen or the idea of good would not exist. Both characters sees themselves as good and the other as not-good.
If I was to measure the goodness of Comte de Reynaud and Vianne Rocher, I would say that they are doing not-good. For the reason being is the causation of each characters was to offset one another. The only reason Comte wrote in Homily not to eat chocolate was because he did not like having a chocolate shop open during Lent. With Vianne, the only reason she made whatever she did was for a necessary to survive or to show-up Comte. Comte did not like being shown up, so he tried to show up Vianne. In game theory, this is a classic game of escalation, and the final step was Serge Muscat setting fire to river commune's boats. Which both of them agreed at the end of the movie was a terrible thing. Resulting in tossing Serge Muscat out of the town.
As I said in what my definition of Goodness, Comte de Reynaud is becoming God's Voice which affects the entire town. In which causes a chain reaction that affects the town siding with him in both major issues that he meddles with. His attitudes and beliefs that influence the town are what drive the plot of the movie. Comte de Reynaud is the antagonist because every action that he takes opposes the protagonist, Vianne. The true direct result of Vianne's range of influence is the exact same as Comte. As it the burning of river commune; Comte influenced Serge to become good, while on the other hand, Vianne was influencing Josephine (Serge's wife) to become good.
In conclusion, Chocolat has so much destruction and distortion of what each of the characters think what they thing what is the goodness ideal. Since in the final scene of each of them seeing from each side and agreeing that both of them deep down is "good." We all hope that everyone is good. We must remember we are all similar when we share the range of influence.
Course be a changing.
This course has changed how I think about how I react from a externally to a internal from of self. When we were doing form criticism, it show me how the same events can have different intentions when something is deconstructed and asked what each part is adding to the story.
Who Is Jesus, part deux
Who is Jesus: A paragraph.
When I started the year I was more focused on the humanitarian facet of Jesus. Now as the curtain of my first semester at Gonzaga is being drawn closed, I can say that my personal belief of Jesus has faded away. I have listen to more Buddhist teachings, than Christian teachings. Jesus is now to me is just some guy that inspired some great works. For me this means that we are the direct cause of we bring to ourselves. This is very comforting for me, my future is no longer predestined by people telling that God will strike me down with lightning bolts. Instead, I strike myself down.
Who is Jesus: A Sentence.
The calm undertow that is created when we stop reacting to content. (Inspired by Eckhart Tolle)
Who is Jesus: A Word.
Nirvana
* The image is the Spiral over Norway
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)