dejesusjms-blog - Tumblr blog

[dejesusjms-blog]

Must Watch

                              I think that film/cinema plays a big role in our society, especially nowadays. Films can portray underlying political issues, changes in the society, and social values. It can portray situations that are happening around us and it can be a source of knowledge as well. Before, I think film portrays real life. However currently, in some way, it’s like the other way around.  Like the other forms of entertainment such as books, music, etc., films also can portray true emotions for it can be a remake of real life events. Because of that, film is appealing to human beings because somehow you could relate to it. This can be negative as well, because in some films, some values are shown there, and what is seen there is sometimes taken negatively. For instance, like in the movie ‘No strings attached’, it shows there that one-night stands are okay and typical, and the viewers of the film might take what was shown and apply it in real life. It shows in the film what you don’t do in real life that you could do. Like it was once not “normal”, but it becomes “normal” since the film helps “promote” it, same goes for violence as well.

  MY ALL-TIME FAVORITES (in no particular order)

1. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

2. The Sixth Sense

3. The Exorcist

4. Se7en

5. Memento

6. Just Married

7. 50 First Dates

8. Click

9. Limitless

10. Serendipity

11. This Means War

12. Cruel Intentions

13. Mean Girls

14. The Hot Chick

15. Drum Line

16. Little Black Book

17. Clueless

18. A Walk to Remember

19. The Pursuit of Happiness

20. Bucket List

21. Finding Nemo

22. Monster's Inc.

23. Fight Club

24. Fast & Furious

25. Honey

26. Legally Blonde

27. Taken

28. Pretty Woman

29. Up

30. Almost Famous

31. Dazed and Confused

32. Moulin Rouge

33. Remember the Titans

34. Battleship

35. The Notebook

36. There’s Something About Mary

37. Law Abiding Citizen

38. Shutter Island

39. The Avengers

40. Parent Trap

41. The Matrix

42. The Dark Knight

43. Miss Congeniality

44. Charlie’s Angels

45. Matilda

46. Duplex

47. Love and Other Drugs

48. Princess Diaries

49. 21

50. Transformers

  And here’s a list of films that I MUST WATCH before I die :| 

1. A Beautiful Mind

2. Gladiator

3. Pearl Harbor

4. Troy

5. Brokeback Mountain

6. Atonement

7. Thor

8. Lord of the Rings

9. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

10. Inception

11. The Bourne Ultimatum

12. Inglourious Basterds

13. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

14. V for Vendetta

15. The Da Vinci Code

16. The Departed

17. To Kill a Mockingbird 

18. The Prestige

19. Black Swan

20. Gone with the Wind

21. Amelie

22. Die Hard

23. Iron Man

24. Forrest Gump

25. Good Will Hunting

26. The Godfather

27. Goodfellas

28. Notting Hill

29. The Usual Suspects

30. 8 Mile

31. My Bestfriend’s Wedding

32. The Shawshank Redemption

33. Pulp Fiction

34. Star Wars

35. Wall-E

36. Casablanca

37. The Beach

38. City of God

39. Braveheart

40. Toy Story

41. Trainspotting

42. Pirates of the Carribean

43. Jaws

44. Pride & Prejudice

45. Ocean’s Eleven

46. Infamous

47. Catch Me If You Can

48. The Wizard of Oz

49. Back to the Future

50. Cinderella Man

[dejesusjms-blog]

Be Like That.

“Altercasting is defined as projecting an identity, (to be assumed by other(s) with whom one is in interaction), which is congruent with one's own goals.”

It is posited as a basic technique of interpersonal control. It is a strategyfor persuading people by forcing them in a social role, so that they will be persuaded to act according to that role. It features the fact that the way in which one acts towards others has a fixed pattern and may restrict what the other can do. Altercasting has a belief that when a person accepts a certain social role, different social pressures arise to make sure the role is enacted. Altercasting is a dominating and influential approach because the social role is a basic everyone’s daily life.

There are two forms of Altercasting. First is Manded Altercasting, which suggests that we “tell” and command people who they are or who they are supposed to be by making an existing role evident, or placing them in a certain specific role, or by asking people to play a role.

One example for this is our current President NoyNoy Aquino. As a president, you are expected to be a good example and a role model. As a president, you should be able to lead the country and do what it takes for the betterment of our country. As a leader, I think the characteristics that are very much needed is supposed to be evident in him. Such as intelligence; Intelligence is important to any leader because of you are intelligent, you would have the capability to make good policies and you would be wise in decisions making. Another one is honesty, a lot of presidents if not all has made a false promise to the people and gave them false hope. If a president stays true and honest to his mission and vision for the country, he’d be a great leader. Next I think is that a leader/president should have good communication skills, or at least will be able to connect with the people, so that they would follow and believe you as well. Doing so brings about a great deal of trust. Charisma could also go with this characteristic. Another one is persistence. A good leader should be persistent with what he/she wants to do with our country. If for example he/she wants to fight poverty, which is a prevailing problem in our country today, he/she should be persistent and keep on seeking ways to do so. Obviously, the president should have the trait of leadership. How could you lead if you don’t have leadership skills anyway? Leading and running a country isn’t an easy job. So most especially in times of trouble, the president should still be able to lead and stay strong. Hence, since Noynoy became president, he is expected to possess these characteristics. However, some issues were brought up against him about not being able to do so. For instance, some think he isn’t credible enough to be a president already. Before he became a president, he wasn’t even able to pass as much bills compared to the other candidates before. He also supported some bills that were against the common good. Another one is the smoking of cigarettes issue. He was seen smoking and that became a fuss because obviously, smoking is bad for people’s health. Again, he should be a role model. So since he’s seen smoking, it questions his “character”. Also, people talked about him buying a new car that is very expensive and people were asking "why", when so much people are in need in this country. Another one that my dad told me was that he also plays like Xbox/ps3. And then I remember the co-workers of my dad saying, “why does he do that? Doesn’t he have so much important things to do?” but in my opinion, it’s not bad. He’s still a human being, who needs some kind of break/rest once in awhile.

    Second is Tact Altercasting, which means that "we put ourselves as senders in a role that “evokes” a natural counter-role for the other". One example I could think of is Jose Rizal. He studied in a well-known school to be accepted during the reign of the Spaniards. I think Rizal’s extensive education truly helped to form and shape him to the person he became. Because during that time, Ateneo Municipal had the “Jesuitical System”. The Jesuitical system of teaching was considered to be more advanced compared to the other colleges during that period.

“Its discipline was rigid and its methods less mechanical. It introduced physical culture as part of its program as well as the cultivation of the arts, such as music, drawing, and painting. It also establishes vocational courses in agriculture, commerce, and mechanics as a religious institute, its principal purpose was to mold the character and the will of the boys to comply more easily with the percepts of the Church. The students heard mass before the beginning of the class, which was opened and closed with prayers.”

SOURCE: 

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Media,%20Culture%20and%20Society/Altercasting.doc/

http://www.joserizal.ph/ed01.html

http://doi.apa.org/?uid=1964-05906-001

[dejesusjms-blog]

Life is Full of Drama.

Burke assumed that life and communication is a drama. His main concern is with a speaker's capability to identify with an audience. If there is an apparent similarity between the speaker and the listener, the audience is more likely to believe that the speaker was "talking sense", and Burke believed that it is the answer to persuasive speaking. In simple terms, to be able to identify or the identification is the mutual ground that exists between the speaker and audience, and without identification, there is no persuasion. Dramatism claims that the communicator must act as if he or she were an actor in a drama, where they are trying to get the audience to accept their view of reality as true. Burke's pentad identifies five crucial elements of our human drama, which are the following: Act, Scene, Agent, Agency, and Purpose.  Using the pentad, we would be able to analyze the ad’s motives of the ad, (motive being defined as the reasons why people do the things they do) which is actually the foundation of dramatism.

  The advertisement above shows the different elements of the dramatistic pentad. First is the Act. The act answers the questions what is happening and what is going on. Burke also sees the act as the basic concept in dramatism. In the ad, it is an advertisement of the brand Van Heusen marketing neckties for men. Second is the Scene. It answers the question where is the act happening. It gives a context of where and when the act was performed. Also, in the process of ‘performance’, meanings and actions are formed within a scene. For this specific advertisement, the scene is probably about men who wears the those neckties and being like masters and women as their “slaves”. It is the idea that when you actually have and wear their product, you’d have the opportunity to indulge having that benefit. Third is the Agent. It is the people who performed the act and what their actual roles are. The agents in this advertisement are the men who profit when the product is purchased, and the women who are like being controlled by men. Fourth is Agency. It is how the agent/s act and what means did the agent use to deliver the speech. I think men act as masters/bosses who controls because as it was shown in the ad, it’s apparently a “man’s world” and as for the women, they are like followers/slaves, living in the world if men. Lastly is the Purpose. It is the goal of the act, why the agents act and what they want from it. The purpose is that the ad would enable men to feel like they have power and that it really is a “man’s world”. They would think that through the use of the Van Heusen product, they will be able to control things, specifically women as seen is the ad. And with those given perks, this would highly encourage men to purchase those neckties.

I don’t think this advertisement would still be appealing, successful, and convincing if it were used today. First, because time has passed, and things have changed in so many ways. Before, men were “greater” beings than women. Gender inequality before was very evident and men were given greater value than women. But nowadays, women are now given equal rights with men (or at least there’s been changes and progress). Women can now lead and do manly jobs. Women aren’t seen as “slaves” anymore. So if that advertisement is used today, it wouldn’t really make an impact. Who are they kidding? The “Man’s World” saying wouldn’t event be applicable and appropriate anymore especially that it may come out as discriminating and sexist.

  SOURCE:

http://stevefournier01.tripod.com/hist/hist-3.html

http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/group/drama.html

http://www.slideshare.net/cianel/dramatism-theory-presentation

[dejesusjms-blog]

Living In Harmony.

Coordinated Management of Meaning theory states that communication is a constitutive process of flowing together. It is a theory built on emotions and other elements that cannot be measured. The Coordinated Management of Meaning suggests communication as a process that allows us to make and manage social reality. It describes how we as communicators make sense of our world, or create meaning.

The first process is Coherence. It explains how meaning is achieved in conversation. Every time we have a dialogue with another person, we anticipate for that new situation. Coherence is having the same understanding and interpretation as others in reference to the same experience. Coherence occurs when we interpret each other’s stories the same way. The next process is Coordination. This concept comprehends that each person has a set of rules that control their behavior. These rules have a big impact on how we want others to see us. Coordination is seeking ways to live instantaneously with others although our experiences might be different from one another.  Lastly is the process of Mystery. Mystery is a concept that depicts everything in a communication interaction that couldn’t be explained or indefinable. Although those are unexpressed, it greatly contributes to the interaction and the way we create our social environment. Coherence, Coordination, and Mystery altogether creates the foundation for our social interactions.

Theorists Pearce and Cronen describe a “hierarchy of meaning,” which illustrates the context of a conversation such as the episode, relationship between each person, identity of the person and the culture. Each component helps us to grasp and relate what occurs in every interaction.

An example of this is one of my conversations with my mother. I was about to leave our house and I was wearing shorts and a tank top. That is considered the episode. It is the concept  in which it is the setting of the conversation. When I was saying bye to her, she  somehow insulted what  I was wearing and asked me if I was serious with what I was going to wear. I knew what she was doing, she was trying to piss me off and make me change my clothes. But I stayed persistent and just went along with it. In the long run, I got pissed off and explained myself. Apparently, for her, I answered back and disrespected her. Well, at least that’s what she thought. My voice was kind of high during that time though. She is my mother, I’m her daughter, and with that relationship, no matter what, I should treat her with respect. A relationship between two people insinuates how language might be interpreted. We actually talked about a lot of things during that conversation and our self-concept/self-identity played a big impact. I’m this independent girl who pretty much wants to get things my way, liberated in different aspects, and as much as I can, I stay honest and voice out my opinion, and when I believe in something, I stand up for it. While she’s this controlling person who is very old-fashioned who couldn’t say what’s on her mind. That played into our conversation because I guess I came out too strong for her, which caused her to think that I was being disrespectful. But honestly, I didn’t mean that. I was just really voicing out what I think. As for culture, I think the age and the gap generation could be related to it. We’re 30+ years apart and we grew up in different generations and environment. During her time, women were very conservative compared to the women today and I think that’s the root cause of our conflict. Also, during their time, they couldn’t speak their minds, which is very different to the kids nowadays. Culture describes networks of shared meaning and values, and apparently we didn’t have this. In simple terms, we couldn’t understand each other. 

The main focus and point of the theory is that people who have conflict can still live together in harmony. For the problem that I had with my mom, I guess we should have been more empathetic. Because empathy allows to achieve coordination. Not only on a cognitive dimension should I be empathetic (which means I just hear what she was saying), I should be empathetic on affection and behavioral dimension as well. Affection which means I could connect with her and that I feel for her, and behavioral which means I do and show the act of caring, Another resolution is being “cosmopolitan”. Cosmopolitan is the characteristic of being open and being able to co-exist with someone whom you may not understand, have conflict, or agree with. Although we have so much differences, we should be able to find a way to live with each other. “Quality of life is directly related to quality of communication.” If I/we change our communication style, we change the quality of life. Thus, we could probably solve our conflict. How people communicate is often more critical than the content of what they say. We should be able to learn to speak in a way that make others want to listen, and be able to listen in a way that makes others want to speak.  I guess I shouldn’t have raised my voice even if I didn’t mean to disrespect her. I should have been more sensitive to her feelings  as well. 

SOURCE: 

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Language%20Theory%20and%20Linguistics/Coordinated_Management_Meaning.doc/

http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/Wheeler.htm

http://www.slideshare.net/ajacob/coordinated-management-of-meaning

http://www.theglaringfacts.com/coordinated-management-of-meaning/

[dejesusjms-blog]

Facade.

Face Negotiation Theory is a theory that explains how different cultures manage conflict and communicates. The theory explains that the origin of conflict is based on identity management on an individual and cultural level. The different faces of individual and cultural identities are described as faces. Face is a concept that exists in all cultures and that people of every culture are concerned with the presentation of their face. The term face is a representation for our public self-image, and how we want others to see us and treat us. it is the projected image of one’s self in a relational situation. Face is also considered a major consideration in conflict management.

I agree about the use of different strategies for conflict management due to different cultures and the differences in perception and attitudes toward the “face”. Because in the theory, it explains and assumes that people of all cultures negotiate over the concept of face. The theory helps explain the cultural differences of responding to conflict.  “For instance, Face-negotiation theory postulates that the face work of people from individualistic cultures like the United States will be strikingly different from the face work of people from collectivistic cultures like Japan or Korea.” According to Ting-Toomey, when the face work is different, the style of handling conflict will vary as well. In short, we’re all different and unique and that’s why we use different strategies for conflict management. Having different culture means having different values, norms, beliefs and traditions. Thus, having different culture has a substantial impact on how people communicate and manage conflict with each other individually, and between groups.

I think my conflict-management style is compromising/integrating and dominating at the same time or depending on the situation. Usually, when I believe in something, I really stand up for it and fight for it. But sometimes in certain situations, I can’t do that all the time especially when the person who I am having a conflict with is close to me. So then I shift to compromising/integrating. Compromising is where you use the give and take of ideas and give conditions and end up with an agreement. It is where you negotiate and pursue a middle way. And integrating is where you solve the problem through open discussion where you have a win-win resolution of conflict. One example of this is before, my special someone and I fought about something. I knew I was right and I knew the truth, but he didn’t want to admit it. And that pissed me off because I don’t like people lying to me. But then I knew I had to compromise with him because I don’t want our “relationship” to end just because of that fight. It wasn’t worth it. So I tried reaching out to him and listen to him with an open mind, and just have a smooth flowing conversation in which we can discuss things (Integration). And during that conversation, he told me wanted to admit it, he just couldn’t right away cause he knows that I will forever use it against him. So I compromised with him. He said sorry sincerely, and I promised that I wouldn’t use what he has done against him and start anew.

I think I use the preventive face work negotiating strategy. It is where communication is designed to protect a person from feelings that threaten personal of group face. I tend to always anticipate what the other person will feel. Like when I ask for a favor from someone, I tend to say sorry before I even say what the favor is because I anticipate that the person will feel hassled, no matter how small the favor might be. Using the preventive face work, I attempt to minimize face-loss even before the threat occurs.

SOURCE:

http://www.mediate.com/articles/the_four_faces_of_face.cfm

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430344/student_view0/chapter26/

[dejesusjms-blog]

Tossing Uncertainty

Uncertainty Reduction Theory attempts to foresee and explain relational development between two individuals. The theory explains how individuals seek to reduce uncertainty between each other during initial interactions, based on self-disclosure. It explains how interpersonal communication is affected by a lack of knowledge and how people use communication to gather information.

  “Axiom 1: As the amount of verbal communication increases, the level of uncertainty in the relationship decreases. As uncertainty decreases, the amount of verbal communication increases.”

 In the TV Series Greek, Cappie and Casey just entered college. They met through a party and their friendship grew.  Evan, Cappie’s best friend was originally the one who spotted Casey first in that party. But they didn’t really click that much. So when Cappie tried his luck, it was better probably because Cassy liked his humor and their conversation was smooth flowing. As Cappie and Casey’s relationship was developing, Cappie became busy with his fraternity brothers. This caused Casey to break up with him and fall in love with Evan. This is because Evan was always there when Cappie wasn’t around. Evan and Casey communicated and spent a lot of time much more than she did with Cappie.

 Given the axiom about verbal, and maybe even nonverbal communication, if Cappie only had given Casey the attention and time that she needed from him, things would have been different.

  “Axiom 6: Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities increase uncertainty.”

  “Axiom 8: Shared communication networks reduce uncertainty, while lack of shared networks increases uncertainty.”

 Also, I think it’s a big factor that Casey’s sorority is partnered with Evan’s fraternity. Their sorority and fraternity is the top in the “Greek System”. With that, their “houses” shared the same interest too, such as partying, boys/girls, winning, and having the best pledges during the rushing for freshmen students. Cassy and Evan was also the future head of their houses. They both had good reputations.

 The theory believes that the more you see that you have something in common with the another person, the less uncertainty you’ll see towards that other person. If the two individuals feel they have some common ground, the less they will feel uncertainty.

                  Casey had a brother who was entering as a freshmen. They weren’t close and it could be seen that it’s because they didn’t share any interest and networks. Her brother was the typical nerdy type of guy, while Casey was the popular kind of girl. They didn’t share any group of friends, and what’s only keeping them to talk is the fact that they’re siblings.

When people interact, they will act to reduce the uncertainty about the other person, seeking ways to predict their behavior. But since Casey and her brother had no efforts in communication, their uncertainty about each other remained.

One example of a movie that follows the axioms is Going The Distance. The story starts from Garrett and Erin meeting and enjoying their company for the whole summer Unfortunately,  Erin had to go back to San Francisco after that. They knew that what happened that summer was just a fling. But even after they part ways already, they still communicated. They talked on the phone often and the fling became a serious relationship. They got to stay together and make the relationship work because of constant verbal communication. And though they lacked the non-verbal warmth part, they still managed to find a way and make it work in different ways.

The Uncertainty Reduction Theory emphasizes that people have a need to reduce uncertainty about others by gaining information about them. And this was fulfilled in the movie as I have said through constant communication because communication reduces uncertainty. Ergo, Erin and Garrett got to know each other better, especially that their relationship was new, and new relationships involve greater uncertainty. Also, according to Charles Berger, getting to know another person can be understood as a process of trying to reduce feelings of uncertainty in the interaction so that both people feel increasingly confident and secure.

SOURCE:

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Interpersonal%20Communication%20and%20Relations/Uncertainty_Reduction_Theory.doc/

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/theory/ur.html

http://www.communicationencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_yr2011_chunk_g978140513199526_ss4-1

[dejesusjms-blog]

Knowing The "I & Me".

The concept of I and Me is used in the Symbolic Interaction theory. So what is Symbolic Interactionism? Symbolic Interactionism is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. Also, it is believed that human beings are best understood in relation to their environment. (Society for More Creative Speech, 1996). Symbolic Interactionism mainly focuses and studies the human group life and conduct. It is an approach that examines behavior and the creation of society through the study of human interaction, roles and language as symbols. This theory has 3 core principles, which are the following: meaning, language and thought. And these principles leads to the conclusion about the creation of a person’s self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997). Through these principles, the self can be framed. 

Society affects behavior through limitations by social standards and values. Basically, people act based on symbolic meanings they find within a given situation. In addition, self-concept also affects behavior. From what I understood, the “I” and the “Me” can be distinguished in a way that the “me” is the gathered understanding of "the generalized other”, while the "I" is more on the personal thoughts and beliefs, also, it is the “I” that creates the individual's individuality. The “me” is the social self, and the “I” is a response to the “me” (Mead, H. 1934). The individual takes the attitude of the “me” or the attitude of the “I” according to situations in which she finds herself. For Mead, “both aspects of the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ are essential to the self in its full expression” (Mead, H. 1934). Both community and individual independence are necessary to identity. The “I” is process breaking through structure. The “me” is a necessary symbolic structure which renders the action of the “I” possible, and “without this structure of things, the life of the self would become impossible” (Mead, H. 1934). 

To create the “self”, it is the combination of both “I” and “Me”. In short, “I” is the person who you think you are and how you see yourself, and “Me” is the person how other people perceive you to be. The “me” is said to be formed by those people surrounding you. As we grow, the “me” forms and progress through interaction.

Ergo, there could be several “Me”. In my case, I have a different “me” with family, friends, relatives, classmates, strangers, etc. Honestly though, there’s not much of a difference.  There is still that basic me that shows how I am with all of them. What I notice the most is the “me” in family and friends. On one hand, when I’m with my family, I’m this super quiet girl who always spend time alone. I rarely share stories with them, and I prefer to just listen. I don’t get to spend so much time with them even when I am home, and I tend to be aloof. On the other hand, with my friends, I still am quiet, but that’s only until I get to know them better. I am more open to them once I trust them. I always spend time with them, but I still have restrictions. I guess the reason why I’m different with my family from my friends is that I feel like I spend more time with my friends and they understand me better. With my family, I guess I grew up having the “middle child syndrome” that’s why out of all my siblings; I’m the “distant” and independent one. In my opinion, my family sees me as this quiet, reserved, quiet, stuck-up, independent girl. While “strangers” or acquaintances might see me the same way my family does. But my friends who really know me see me beyond that. I think that the main reason why I act differently towards my family and friends is because of that fact that I actually feel more comfortable in a sense when I'm with my close friends. I feel like I could be more open to them than my family. Add to that that I feel like they understand me better and what I'm going through without really "judging" me. The “I” is said to be unpredictable and unorganized, and I think that is true because in the “I”, the self is continuously seeking who he/she is.  And have you noticed that whenever people ask you to describe yourself, it’s kind of hard to? It’s because the “I” is indefinable and somewhat abstract. While the “me” is more of an act. Like in every given situation, you already know how you’re going to act depending on the social group you’re with because the “generalized other” shapes how we think and interact socially.

  SOURCE:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/mead

http://www.theglaringfacts.com/symbolic-interactionism-george-herbert-mead/

[dejesusjms-blog]

Cherry-Picking

What the Agenda Theory implies can always be seen and applied in our daily lives, and I bet everyone uses it. No matter how much people feel that the “media” excludes some information, in reality, it is actually necessary because of so many reasons. I believe all of has an agenda, may be it be hidden or all out. All of us have this something that we hide from others, and that only we know (and sometimes, even our very own selves don’t even know it). 

One example of a situation that used to always happen to me in which I only include some information and excluded some is when I was younger, and I was rarely allowed to go out. I would only tell my mom the part where I’m going to the mall or a friend’s house so that I’ll be able to make sure that I’ll be allowed to go. I exclude that part wherein I go somewhere else after the mall or my friend’s house. Another instance in which I become very selective of what I share are online sites. Personally, I try to keep my life private. That’s how I am, and I guess that’s how I want it to be. I remember that time that I had to make a Twitter and a blog account for my Artmusc and Scifict class. I dreaded it. Hahaha. Because I know that in a way, I’ll be revealing something and people would know more about me through that :| That’s why until know, I have never tweeted or wrote anything in my Tumblr that is personal or what’s going on with my life. All I put there are my school requirements. Even with Facebook, I used to have a disabled “wall”, because since friends would write on it, and other people would be able to see and read it, again, I think they will know me better :| I know it sounds pretty funny and crazy, but I guess that’s what I prefer. I tend to be very minimal and protective with anything to do online. You couldn’t see my tagged photos, and not even my list of friends, or even the info’s. Its not that I don’t want people knowing what kind of person I am, it’s just that I am careful with those things. Besides, I’m not really fond of using the Internet, I’d rather talk and know people face-to-face.

[dejesusjms-blog]

Be Careful of What You Say.

There was a time before that my special someone and I always fight, even about the pettiest things. I thought that arguing all the time would be the worst case scenario already, but little did I know that it wasn’t… at least not yet during that time. One day, we were having a fight just like the other days. However, this time, I couldn’t take it anymore. While we were fighting, out of nowhere, I didn’t know what to say anymore, and I just said “I hate you, just leave me alone”. That was the first time that I said those things, and it almost ruined our relationship. I am not really an expressive person through words especially when I feel hurt, and I guess that’s the reason why he was really upset when I said those. In addition to that, he has a really sensitive personality, so it wouldn’t be that hard for him to believe and think that I truly meant what I said. But no, I didn’t. I was just really mad and sad for what he did, but of course I didn’t feel hate for him. And more importantly, I didn’t want him to break up with me. When I said “leave me alone”, I meant it literally. I didn’t intend for him to take what I said in a way that he thought I wanted our relationship to end. I guess what I should have just done during that time was told him that I don’t like what he did and that I felt disrespected and got hurt, because when I said “I hate you”, all of a sudden, it was all my fault already since he had something on me. When I said “…just leave me alone”, what I really wanted was just some time to cool down. Fortunately, we got to sort things out and fix our relationship. From that moment, I always tend to over-analyze the things that I say, because I don’t want that situation to happen again. Although sometimes I think that my over-analyzing behavior gets the best out of me by always feeling reserved.

The “I hate you..” in which I just uttered it is the locutionary act. The demand “…just leave me alone” is a form of an illocutionary act in which I was directing him to do something. And the way he took it, feeling hurt, “leaving” me, and believing what I said is in the perlocutionary act. As an ABCA student, I do believe that learning the concept of Speech Act Theory is very essential. Since I’m in this course, I should be a very good communicator, and knowing the theory would be able to help become more aware, sensitive and conscious of the things I say to avoid misunderstandings, complications, and so that I would be able to send and spread the messages accurately and appropriately. Furthermore, learning about this theory would enhance my communication skills, not just in my course, but I could apply this in my personal life as well.

[dejesusjms-blog]

Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

[dejesusjms-blog]

Sto. Nino in the Philippines

[dejesusjms-blog]

Beyond Humanoid Robots

If you have the means to have your own robot.. what would it do for you (e.g., a nanny, a surrogate child, a mother, a teacher, etc.) and why? What technologically advanced specifications, abilities and qualities would you want it to have?

LIke most mothers, they are very warm, understanding, unconditionally loving, helpful, protective, caring, and so much more other good traits. If I have the means to have my own robot, I would definitely prefer for my robot to be mother-like. In addition to that, it would be great if my robot can be a surrogate mother, so that in the future, my robot can carry a child of my own, because as much as I love kids, I don't really want to undergo all that pregnancy process (well, I can say that at least for now). I would also want my robot to be very smart and knowledgeable in all aspects, so that it can help me with all my curiosity. Basically, my robot would be just like an assistant to me. Being able to help me with all the things I do, if ever I do need help.

In the creation and production of humanoid robots, where do you think science should draw the line at? Should there be a limit at all? Justify your opinion.

Yes, there should be a limit. Though humanoids can be very helpful in making our lives easy, it can bring negative effects too. In my opinion, humans are very unique and special. Thus, I wouldn't want a humanoid robot to be in the exact same level as human beings. Also, we should take note of the disadvantages it can bring. For instance, unemployment. Nowadays, technology/machines has been one of the factors of unemployment, to think that our population is growing so fast. Yes, it can be helpful, but I just think that we should put humans first and do the best and what can benefit us. Humanoids can only be like our assistants, but never replace human beings in terms of work and emotional aspects. I am not against humanoid robots' development, as long as we put ourselves first over them and prioritize our safety.

[dejesusjms-blog]

Reliving Earth

Scenario: You survived a war or natural disaster that wipes out a signficant percentage of the earth's population. The destruction was immense. If you were to make a decision for your co-survivors and yourself, give the TOP THREE (3) things (aspects, etc.) that you would re-establish and develop first to make life sustainable again.

First and foremost, i would prioritize man's basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter and the such because i think that without man's basic necessities to live, they wouldn't be able to function well. These needs are for long term that will surely sustain life again. What is more important than prolonging and sustaining man's life right? 

Next is probably education. We all know being knowledgeable has a big impact on one's life. Not only does it give you an edge over others, but it will help us invent/re-invent things. Education gives us a lot of perks. Through education, we can also learn/re-learn our traditions and can help us live with good moral values. With education, we might even be surprised of what man can do for us to live a sustainable and even better life in all aspects. 

Next is more on agriculture. Agricultural technologies would also make a big impact on making man's life "normal". It would give people jobs, it would also give man the continuous supply of food, as well as salary. I think that it would help give man the cycle of daily living.

[dejesusjms-blog]

Global Crisis and End of the World

If I were asked how I would want the world to end, painless is definitely a top description. Even if it weren't the end of the world, and it's just basically an individual dying because of something, I would appreciate a painless ending. I wouldn't want people to actually anticipate and know about it. Maybe darkness will come like how the night comes, and as it does, people will just die. No pain felt, just sudden loss of life.

Nowadays, our planet is experiencing a lot of problems in the world, especially environmentally, which actually is very alarming because it can lead to our planet's destruction. When I was in high school, Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was shown to us, and it actually bothered me at that moment about the world ending if we don't take care of it and do anything about it.

What is global warming and greenhouse effect all about anyway? Global warming is when the earth heats up and the temperature rises.  It happens when greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane, trap heat and light from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature.  This harms many people, animals, and plants.  The greenhouse effect is when the temperature rises because the sun’s heat and light is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere. The heat and light can get through the atmosphere, but it can’t get out.  As a result, the temperature rises. The greenhouse effect makes the earth appropriate for people to live on.  Without it, the earth would be freezing, or on the other hand it would be burning hot.  Although the greenhouse effect makes the earth able to have people living on it, if there gets to be too many gases, the earth can get unusually warmer, and many plants, animals, and people will die.  I think global warming is one of the utmost environmental crisis, but come to think of it, it can get frustrating because though we know that it is one the crisis we are experiencing globally, I don't think we have ENOUGH knowledge on how to put a permanent solution to this. I think what we know is still very limited.

Nevertheless that doesn’t mean that we, shouldn’t do anything about it. Many things cause global warming.  The government for one is doing many things to help stop global warming in other countries. The government made a law called The Clean Air Act so there is less air pollution. One thing that causes global warming is electrical pollution.  Electricity causes pollution in many ways, some worse than others.  We, as individuals can help decrease global warming in our own little ways. Just by saving energy and electricity can do well already.

Here's a short video where Al Gore explains global warming and greenhouse effect in a short clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4

However, some have argued about Al Gore's film because they have found errors in it. Read more about it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/21/new-documentary-challenges-gores-inconvenient-truth-global-warming/

Oracle Think Quest (n.d) Global Warming. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215471/global_warming.htm

[dejesusjms-blog]

Art as Reality or Illusion?

So what is a good life? Personally, good life for me is when there is a feeling of contentment and satisfaction in all aspects of my life, with happiness surrounding it. If I'm going to be asked whether I'm living a good life with that definition, then I'd say, not YET, because there's so much more in life that I still want to experience and achieve.

Regarding whether I agree with Plato's philosophy of art, I'm somewhat in between. I agree with him that through art, sometimes things loses its essence and real meaning. I think that art can be a threaten without even us noticing it. Cinema, paintings, and especially music can stir up our emotions. All of these uses art, and these forms of art can make a huge impact on our behavior and values. Art could be deceiving and dangerous. Especially that it can lead us away from the truth and what we could see is just an imitation and illusion. However, nowadays, art is being used as an expression of one's self. Art is also used as communication, which makes art very powerful, yet dangerous depending on it's use. 

[dejesusjms-blog]

Thoreau Excerpt (in Repent! Harlequin)

"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, andmen, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it."

- Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Harlan Ellison uses the excerpt from Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" to serve as an introduction to his story “Repent! Harlequin Said the Ticktock Man”. The excerpt represents the connection between an individual and the system that he belongs to, particularly the government or state, and the types of men of which the system is involved. 

The excerpt is some kind of an allusion in which Ellison's opening passage not only delivers the image of the hero into the story; it also introduces the whole idea of civil disobedience.

According to Thoreau, there exist three types of men.

·       The first serve the state with their bodies. They implement “no judgment” and allow themselves to become wagers. Masses were called as the machine by its body because they do anything what the superior would command them without considering any moral conditions. These include the military, “physical laborers” and police and these type of men make up hugest of the three. 

·       The second serve the state with their heads. They serve the state through their intellect. These include politicians and ministers. Commonly, These men form the laws that a government needs to function as a state.

·       The third serve the state with their consciences through resistance or defiance. Consequently, they are commonly treated as antagonists.

  Today, we can still see that these types of men exist in our society. First, we have the government. They are the ones who control the society and they implement rules and regulations for the state to be “sound”.  As for the machines, they are the physical laborers. These are commonly men who build roads, buildings and infrastructures, as well as manufacture the goods that a viable society needs. I think that the real heroes are those who “serve the state with their consciences”.

    McNary, J. (n.d) An Argument For Civil Disobedience. Retrieved from http://www.cbu.edu/Academics/honors/hj2k_disobedience.htm

[dejesusjms-blog]

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut: Good Science Fiction

I believe that Harrison Bergeron is good science fiction. I know every individual's opinion varies and that whether it is a good or weak science fiction can be subjective. However, I have my basis of what is good science fiction. The following are taught to me in my Science Fiction class and that is where I will base some of my judgments. First, Harrison Bergeron is "possible". It considers a future society; one that does not, or even has ever existed. Harrison Bergeron being "possible" goes along with being plausible or believable, and probable. The story was set in a future society in which there is totalitarianism. The government controls everyone so there would be equality. Ironic though, because how can it be equal when there's still someone who has greater power than the rest, specifically in the story which is Handicapper Diana Moon Glamper. The story presented some technological innovations that serve to constrict the society of their full potential. In the present, we have so much new technologies and innovations. I believe that people have so much potential and are very smart in so much ways that it actually makes me believe that in the story is plausible. Besides, even today, the government has a huge power already, and in the future, it could be enough for them to be able to control people. 

Aside from that, the elements of the story definitely made an impact on my judgements too. Also, knowing and researching about the writer of the story, Vonnegut, makes me appreciate the story more. It's very straight, but nonetheless, the story managed to still have a deeper meaning. Reading about the historical context makes me understand the story more. Though he's words were told flat-out, there's so much more to think about in the story. Vonnegut's way of writing also makes the reader think and really want to read his stories.

Here’s a link about Kurt Vonnegut’s take on Science Fiction:

http://www.vonnegutweb.com/archives/arc_scifi.html