24 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/20/10 10:27pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I find this time of year to be bleak. I don’t know quite why.It’s odd because I like this weather the most.I say “Hooray!” for crunchy leaves and crisp outdoor air and warm colors and everything, but other than that, the autumn sensation is rather dull.The mid-October mood for me consists of random bouts of moping and undertones of ho-hum glum.It’s an Eeyore feeling, I think. I blame the fact that we’re fall-break-less. Although we’re at the halfway point, I’m tragically indifferent.After all, there’s still a whole other month to plow through before we reach the rest stop in Turkeyhaven. Sigh. Is that pessimistic or realistic?Regardless, I’ve been trying to figure out how to escape this funk, trying to get back to “happy,” or at least, to “not quite as gruff, and able to cope with the college monotony.”I obviously don’t want to be a miserable, melancholic, Eeyore-human hybrid, so let’s turn to the most contented figure I can think of, the Dalai Lama.Yes, the jolly teachings of Buddhism will guide us. For example, the first Noble Truth: “To live is to suffer.” Happy, happy, happy, right? It’s phrase worthy of any Life is Good t-shirt, for sure.But this dismal Buddhist slogan actually has a hidden message on happiness, despite being strikingly similar to Eeyore’s phraseology.Just think of all those Laughing Buddha figurines.So what’s the secret, Buddhism? Where does happiness come from?Naturally, the Four Noble Truths are just the beginning to a complicated set of teachings.Instead of following the road of yellow brick to acquire our desires, Buddhism has the Eightfold Path.But going along the Buddhist route teaches one to abandon attachments and cravings, not to obtain them.Because without desires, you ideally won’t be distracted by the past or future, you can be content with the here and now, break out of Samsara’s cycle of suffering and rebirth, attain enlightenment in the state of Nirvana, smile a lot, etc.Sounds great, but here’s a problem: I don’t want to do the work. Not now, anyway.And I want to want things: naps, cookies and milk, warm socks, bubble baths, an official fall break. ...Why shouldn’t I want these things?Plus, I’m drained enough this semester as it is. Implementing whatever “Right Intention” means (no. 2 of the Eightfold Path) into my life seems too daunting.With this, let’s drift to Edgar Allan Poe. He might not be as apathetic, but he tends to share my current sense of gloominess.The rapping, tapping raven at the chamber door and the beating heart under the floor boards fit the typical eerie, supernatural Poe style, but I’ve recently come across some other lines from Poe that aren’t so odd.They’re rather down-to-earth. And dare I say ... good-humored?In the obscure text “The Domain of Arnheim,” Poe introduces “the four essential conditions for happiness.”Paraphrased by Charles Baudelaire, these essentials are: “life in the open air, the love of a woman, the indifference to any feeling of ambition and the creation of a new type of beauty.”Pretty straight-forward. But how do we know if these four ingredients for happiness are real? Fear not. We can test Poe’s theory via Eeyore.Eeyore does, in fact, live outdoors, so that’s one point.He might not have the love of a “woman,” but Christopher Robin is close enough, so we’ll count two. And certainly no other Hundred Acre Wood inhabitant is as “indifferent” as Eeyore…But Eeyore only has three out of four. I don’t think he ever attempts to create beauty. Since Eeyore lacks one of these essentials, and is incessantly miserable, Poe’s list (logically) has merit! And it’s so marvelously simple!It rivals the Eightfold Path, at least. Isn’t it possible that Buddhism’s concepts of “Right Livelihood” and “Right Effort” correspond to Poe’s numbers one and three?The reality that “Right Livelihood” actually refers to earning a living legally and peacefully, e.g. no drug dealings or slave trade, is beside the point.Happiness needn’t be so tricky.There are about a billion different means and quotes to steer an old stuffed donkey to happiness, but I think it boils down to not taking everything so seriously.We might not be able to throw our GPA’s out the window, but we can recognize that grades and stress aren’t the meaning of life.So until Thanksgiving, I’m going to kick my autumn angst.That’s right, no more sulking.I’m making my own fall break this weekend and heading home.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(10/06/10 11:43pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I dropped $120 my senior year of high school to answer a series of questions on a personality test. It was a nice change from the SAT monotony. Silly me, I actually paid for this test willingly. It’s designed to help people choose career paths.After a few weeks, I was mailed some nifty charts comparing me (based on my responses) to a range of professional individuals who filled out the same “tests.”The idea was if my answers were similar to a particular career, I would likely be happy with that job. Think of it like a high-class fortune teller armed with scientific reasoning.My results told me that I liked to read, and that I would not bode well in a field relating to science.I agreed with this report, so in my mind, the test worked.But in retrospect, maybe I shouldn’t have been pleased because I’d already known literally everything that it told me about myself.Obviously I’d make a wretched scientist. My idea of a “buckyball” is a giant wad of peanut-butter dunked in chocolate.And I’d love to be Amish for a year.Pretty science-y, huh?Yes, perhaps I romanticize (irrationally, of course) the anti-science sections of religious orthodoxy, but I’m not actually interested in being mentally stuck in the outdated past. Science is good for breaking closed-mindedness.Unfortunately, both science and spirituality have extreme degrees. I’m just looking to float in the happy medium between the two. But where’s the sacred and secular mindsets’ Venn diagram? How do we make that compromise?Should we turn to the pages of Christian Science Monitor for our science/spirituality fix? Join the Church of Scientology? That sure sounds promising. Then again, so does Mystery Science Theater 3000.Lucky for us, Hiroshi Tasaka has some insight on the matter. He calls it “the fusion of science and spirituality.”Tasaka, founder of the worldwide think-tank SophiaBank, outlines three major strategies for this 21st century union, but it’s his thoughts about psychology and meditation — and the “sense of wonder” in both science and spirituality — that resonate with me most.He suggests that the modern psychology of Freud and Jung be paired with “the wisdom of traditional religions and spirituality” that delved into similar questions thousands of years ago.Buddhism especially is known for its exploration into the collective subconscious, and sure enough, a fusion between secular science and spirituality has been forming in the past decade.Neuroscientist Richard Davidson famously studied the effect of meditation on Buddhist monks in 2002 and found evidence that the monks with more than 10,000 hours of meditation had distinct brain structures.Their brains actually morphed into lotus blossoms.Alright, I’m only kidding, but this is still pretty remarkable.Davidson also tested two groups of volunteers from a Wisconsin company. One group received eight weeks of meditation training, while the other acted as the control. The study showed that those in the meditating group had “a pronounced shift in brain activity toward the left, ‘happier,’ frontal cortex.”It’s even been reported that short, 15-minute meditation sessions three times per week can strengthen one’s immune system.It sounds like Zazen 101 should be added to next semester’s shopping cart.In addition to calling attention to the psychology of meditation, Tasaka also urges for a “sense of wonder” to be highlighted in modern science.Don’t the science community’s answers for the creation of the universe inspire just as much awe as the religious traditions’ sacred texts? I don’t mean to be sacrilegious, but can’t religious groups acknowledge that the scientists’ respect for the laws of nature is just their interpretation of the divine?And vice versa, scientists should be able to understand that religious worship is just as much of an appreciation for life as their research.Tasaka proposes that the facts of modern science be taught in religious communities, not to discourage spirituality, but because both sides contain a natural sense of wonder.Teaching modern science should actually foster wonder and awe, not stifle it. Tasaka even claims that learning about science is “one of the best ways for people to gain a religious mind and spirituality in today’s world.”Fusing science and spirituality ought to be encouraged. Isn’t open-mindedness what the two schools of thought are all about? Let’s toy with scientific hypothesizes. Let’s marvel at spiritual phenomenon.They don’t need to be mutually exclusive, rather, science and spirituality should be melding together to form into something greater. We can’t only be “scientists” or only be “religious,” we have to be both. I read that all on my own, the science too.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(09/22/10 11:00pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Facebook in the middle of class. We might not do it ourselves, but we’ve all seen it. Lecture is boring, students opt for Facebook.Woot. Because Facebook gets you to use your brain in ways professor XYZ never will. Facebook gives you skills.Research skills: Who was Bobby’s date for the prom? Detective skills: When did Bobby “get in a relationship with” Jane, and where was their first date? Creeper skills: What kind of posts did Jane leave on Bobby’s wall last year? Friendly hellos or suggestive double entendres?Ah, Facebook. ...it can even teach you how to sow your crops in Farmville.With all the hours college students devote to Facebook studies, it really is a shame that IU hasn’t decided to add Facebook as its own department.Imagine: a minor in Facebook. Most students would be able to fulfill all 18 credit hours in a single week.Maybe it could show up on an unofficial transcript.Course credit or not, at least IU allows students to use Facebook as a necessary extracurricular.Harrisburg University of Science and Technology has taken a different approach entirely. Not only do they ignore the students’ overwhelming interest to explore creeper studies in the classroom, they flat-out blocked Facebook and other social media websites on campus or the week of Sept. 13. What possessed Harrisburg University’s Provost Eric Darr to implement this hellish blackout? What kind of nightmarish punishment is this?Evidently it’s not a punishment at all, rather an “exercise” for students to reflect on how they use social technology. Then they write essays on the “social media exile” experience. Pretty nifty for a technology school to ban social Internet sites, right?Honestly, I think it’s a super idea. I’ve been Facebook-free for more than a year now, and to everyone’s surprise. ...I’m still alive. But what if this little Harrisburg experiment could go bigger? After all, the university only has 800 students, and it operates out of a single 16-story structure. But Harrisburg’s blackout must be somewhat important, if the Tosh.0 website caught wind of it. Or is it merely comical?Jimmy Fallon even made a jab saying the students’ reflection essays will be titled, “We All Have Smart Phones, Dumbass.” Touché, Jimmy. I agree, the ban’s impact couldn’t have been too astronomical, but at least it made an attempt to raise awareness on Facebook-dependency.And if I had a death-wish, I just might suggest that IU try out this challenge.But I’m not saying that. Not really.It seemed to work for Harrisburg, but I have a feeling that IU students know their rights of Facebook freedom and wouldn’t think twice about organizing a campus-wide protest (via Facebook, of course).Harrisburg’s provost raises an interesting point during an interview with National Public Radio. Aware of the exercise’s loopholes, (e.g. borrowing a friend’s phone to check Facebook) Darr is interested in asking the question, “What compelled you to do that?” So, although the sites are still accessible in reality, the “blocking” of the social websites still requires students to think about their motivations. Of course, blocking the social websites is only a temporary means of raising awareness, but Jaron Lanier, a prominent social media critic, might havethe next great idea.Lanier critiques social media, and Time magazine named him one of the most influential people of 2010. Facebook druggies, beware.Lanier suggests that each time a person accesses social media, they should donate a penny to charity.Doing so would make Facebook “into something that’s more conscious and more considered,” Lanier said. I’m all for trying to kick the Facebook habit, but even this penny donation seems far-fetched. It would certainly raise money for good causes, but would this measure even be enough to get people to think twice?I have my doubts.If by some random craziness Facebook did actually add a penny-tax, what would stop some new tech-y college kid to design a twin version of Facebook?It could be called MyFace. And it would be free. As it should be.But with the “freeness” of social media comes responsibility and discretion (think time management).Just a thought: Why not start a real vegetable garden and give real plants to real friends that you see real-face-to-real-face?Wouldn’t that be charming?Why not send an actual Happy Birthday card to a friend whose birth date you actually remember without the help of an e-mail alert?I’m keeping my fingers crossed.Because e-gifts and clip-art are a poor excuse for “thoughtful gifts.”E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(09/09/10 12:09am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m not a big fan of robots.I can tolerate R2D2, but that’s about it. Other robots and droids disturb me. R2D2 isn’t made to look human. He’s just a trash can with lights. It’s cute.So, no, I never saw I, Robot. I don’t really know what happens in Attack of the Clones. And I only saw WALL-E because it was free at the Indiana Memorial Union. But do you remember A.I. Artificial Intelligence? Oddly enough, I do. Haley Joel Osment plays a little android, who, similar to Pinocchio, wants to be a real boy. The movie isn’t bad (I don’t dislike all sci-fi), but Haley’s walking, talking, robotic bear throws me for a loop. His name is Teddy, and I can’t tell whether I like him or not.Today, Sept. 9, is Teddy Bear Day. And I, for one, would much rather have an actual stuffed teddy bear than some teched-out imposter.In theory, the idea of a toy animal coming to life is great. It’s what we were all aiming for as kids when we made our bears, Barbies and Power Rangers talk. But when I watch Teddy, it’s just eerie. After all, he’s not really supposed to be “alive.”It’s the same with Tickle-Me-Elmo. He’s so adorable one minute, yet so akin to a thing possessed the next. A Furby, however, is always just plain creepy.On this special day, we should remember that stuffed animals don’t need to be technologically advanced to be good. The judging is really quite simple: Bears won at the carnie ring-toss are crappy, and bears newly-bought from the store are happy. For me, it’s all about coat-quality and stuffing-content. My childhood teddies had cotton in their bellies, not computers.Let’s be honest: Tickle-Me-Elmo is not cuddly. He’s got a plastic rectangle for a torso. He’s not even that tickle-able. On the 2006 version, you just poke a button, and all of a sudden he’s “rolling” on the ground in hysteria. Not very realistic.The art of the tickle cannot be learned through programmed puppets. Aren’t kids supposed to practice tickling on their weaker siblings?Sigh. On this Teddy Bear Day, I hate to think of all our old, plushy friends suffocating in storage. But that’s just the way it goes. College life doesn’t exactly have use for stuffed animal shrines.Though we may not be in the market for bears, are the children? Will they be playing with Winnie-the-Pooh today, or their $100 robotic dinosaur? At least Roboraptor (yes, this name is real) isn’t trying to hide his true, plastic form under a cheap fur coat. I can respect that, but it’s got a nice loophole, what with being a dinosaur and all. I’d like to say, “It’s just a marching Dino, no big deal,” and relate it to a simple remote-control car, but I can’t. Roboraptor’s jaws are designed to play “pulling games,” and he comes with three special “moods.” It’s superfluous, really. For the low cost of free, can’t a kid imagine these things? Then again, $100 is nothing compared to the $6,251 price tag on the robotic baby harp seal, Paro. He can lift his head, blink his eyes, move his flippers, and even make seal-like noises. But don’t actual seals do all of those things? I wonder if $200 could get me a baby seal off the black market.What really sets this bot apart is its recognition as the “World’s Most Therapeutic Robot.” Being able to pet and talk with Paro acts as a form of animal therapy for patients in extended care facilities. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration certified Paro as a Class II medical device. I understand that Paro can be a soothing companion for elderly patients, but I still have doubts about using robots as substitutes for the real animal therapy programs. As of March, only 40 Paros were being used in U.S. nursing homes anyway. It seems to me that Paro is nothing more than an elaborately expensive version of a Tickle-Me toy. If it actually wants to be viewed as an equivalent alternative to animal therapy, Paro needs to be more affordable. On this Teddy Bear Day, let’s allow ourselves to be nostalgic, instead of future-focused. The not-so-cuddly robots aren’t really offering anything that a child can’t already get from their imagination, or that a senior can’t already obtain from a real service animal. I say we support simplicity and remember that merely hugging a stuffed bear can be enough.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu