Reflect on Dr. Lovett's Lecture and text

Miranda Knox. "Image ID: 88073." 1 Oct 2007. Online image. Stock.xchang. 31 Jan 2010.

When I read Oliver Sacks' text, even though I knew similar cases of losing memory, I was shocked and the story made me sad. It is because Jimmie could not share the same time with others, and because he was repeating the same time period over and over again.

However, I was relieved because Jimmie would never know that he was living in "the world of 1945" in 1975.

In the text, Sacks also says:

The horror, typically, is only felt by others -- the patient, unaware, amnesiac for his amnesia, may continue what he is doing, quite unconcerned, and only discover later that he lost not only a day (as is common with ordinary alcoholic 'blackouts'), but half a lifetime, and never knew it. The fact that one can lose the greater part of a lifetime has peculiar, uncanny horror. (Sacks 40)

However, there is another fact that one can completely be a different person, which also has peculiar, uncanny horror.

Dr. Lovett mentioned Phineas Gage's case in his lecture. Phineas had a great damage on his brain because a long iron rod went through his frontal lobes. Although he miraculously survived, since his brain was badly damaged, his personality completely changed. Before the accident, he was very responsible, thoughtful, and friendly person; however, he was no longer himself because he became emotional, stubborn, and short-tempered.

I think that Jimmie and Phineas represent both order and chaos, and it depends on whose point of view that people are seeing them.

Even though they were different from other people because of the brain problems, from their point of view, they did not have any problems. Just like Sacks said that the patients do not feel the fear because they would never know. However, from other people's point of view, since they had a brain problem, their behavior seems to be chaos.

And because it seems to be chaos, I think people feel fear.

Reflect on Benjamin Franklin and body scan

"RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve."

This is the one I tried for a day. I decided not to be negative, to do my assignments, and to concentrate. However, I could accomplish non of them and I could not keep track of them. The text says that Benjamin Franklin tried little by little to accomplish everything because it is hard to do everything at same time.

In my case, I could not accomplish and order myself like Benjamin did. May be it is because I was not used to order myself, and I tried to do too many things in same time.

Chaos can be solved by orders; however, too many orders can make chaos.

Also, the image above is the result of my body log. I did not notice the pain before I tried to scan myself, and even though I felt a little pain, it did not affect to my performance. I think that chaos and order can exist together in same time. Like we read in Night, for one side it may be chaos and for other side it may be order.

Memoir and History

Sanja Gjenero. "Image ID: 637320." 14 Oct 2006. Online image. Stock.xchang. 24 Jan 2010.

Q- The literary genre to which this book belongs is memoir. One might make a case that it is also history. How do these two genres each contribute to the reader’s understanding of Eliezer’s story? Is memoir a good source of historical "fact"? Why/why not?

I think the big difference between memoir and history is that memoir is based on writer's point of view and history does not include someone's point of view. This book, Night, is based on the true story of the Holocaust; however, obviously it is also including writer's, Eliezer’s point of view such as what he felt and thought. Moreover, his position/status as Jewish affects the story. Since history needs to be objective, it shows both side of the Holocaust such as the Nazis' side and Jewish side. However, because Night is written by Eliezer and it is all based on what he saw, heard, and experienced, it only includes Jewish side.

Although memoir tends to be subjective, it sometimes shows detailed information than the history because it is a very broad objective category. I cannot say memoir is always a good source of historical "fact". Since both memoir and history can be falsified, the most important thing is that each person needs to judge carefully that what is a reliable source as a historical fact.

Professor Denis' Lecture

Brit Olam The International Israeli-Jewish Volunteer Movement. 2009. Web. 21 Jan 2010.

Before I attended to professor Denis' lecture, I did not know that "art" had existed during the Holocaust because I thought people could not create something artistic in such a cruel situation. Therefore, I was so surprised with the amount of the drawings, and those drawings had an enough power to tell me how Holocaust was an inhuman act. I cannot find appropriate words to describe them, but the drawings were both beautiful and frightening.

In the lecture, professor Denis mentioned that even though artists were in a horrible situation, they kept drawing because they could give a voice to the deads. Also, he introduced us a quote that "victims' hearts are forever broken and human being should know what happened."

I believe thoes arts have a really strong voice of the victims which we should listen to.

Reflecting on the lecture: Plate 17

David Winn & CFUV 101.9 FM. "Job: a production for Radio." 03 Dec 2009. Web. 17 Jan 2010.

Reflecting on Professor Kather's lecture, I think plate 17 (the picture above) is the most interesting picture because this picture exactly explains the relationship among God, Job, and his three friends. In this picture, Job straightly "sees" God; however, Job's three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are hiding their face in their hands. In the end of the story, God returned everything to Job. On the other hand, God mentioned about Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar that God was very angry because they had not spoke the truth about him (91).

It seemed that three friends did not speak something wrong about God because they explained and insisted to Job to defend God. First I thought Job was the one who did not speak the truth about God because he complained his pain and questioned about the situation. However, I realized that God was angry with them because they spoke as if they knew everything about God. Human cannot know nor understand God because God is beyond human knowledge. To the contrary, Job insisted everything, even pain and complaint, right in front of God's face. I think that was what God implied in his word, "speak the truth about God".

Therefore, because it explains the relationship among God, Job, and his three friends, I think this is the most interesting and important picture.

Second half of Job: Why God was so strict to Job?

- Where do God's anger, sarcasm, and indignation come from? Why is he so emotionally worked up? Analyze the psychology of God and his response to Job.

When I first read the chapter when God finally responses to Job, I was so disappointed because I though God was going to answer Job's question.

In the first round, Job said,

All this I have seen with my own eyes;

my own ears have heard these things.

What you know, I know also;

my mind is as clear as yours.

But I want to speak before God,

to present my case in God's court.

For you smear my wounds with ignorance

and patch my body with lies.

Don't you have any sense?

Will you never shut your mouths? (34)

It is obvious that even though Job was confused because of the sudden punishment, he still believed in God and he was waiting for his word which explains everything. However, God gave a speech full of anger, sarcasm, and indignation, such as, "Where were you when I planned the earth? Tell me, if you are so wise" (79). I was so disappointed with his words, because he did not praise Job of his patience nor did not explain why he needed to suffer.

However, when I considered the situation from God's point of view, I think he answered strictly because he did not want Job to question the situation. I think he wanted Job to accept everything without complaining and questioning. Because that is the only way to prove Job's integrity which God wanted to verify to Accusing Angle. Although Job did not forsake the belief, since God believed in Job, I think he was emotionally provoked when Job questioned the meaning of what God had done to him.

Hello!

Hello. I'm Ayaka.

I'm from Japan and this is my second year in Elmira College.

My major is Speech and Hearing.

Nice to meet you all.