Off campus event

For my off-campus event I’d like to consider my trip to the Holocaust museum in Houston during this past semester. First, however, a brief account of my experience with the subject is needed. Being Jewish, I have had much interaction with the subject of the Holocaust. I have read books about it. I have seen films about it. I have completed school art projects on it. I have been to numerous Holocaust museums all over the world and told that I specifically have a responsibility to know and remember what happened. Whether it was in D.C., L.A., or even Jerusalem, the museums were all very moving. We listened to survivors speak at many of them. The thing is, however, these always ended the same way. Of course it was all moving at the time, but, to borrow a line from the film Hotel Rwanda, essentially I just went on eating my dinner. Most often, I was troubled for the rest of the day and then I forgot about it and went on living my life. This past summer, I went to Berlin and visited the concentration camp “Sachsenhausen” with my dad. The camp was mostly turned into a museum and still had many structures standing, including the ovens used to turn dead bodies into ash (much easier to deal with). The end result was fundamentally different from any time after I had seen any of the other museums. I had been where it had happened. Seen that it HAD happened.
It is with this background, therefore, that I went to the Holocaust museum in Houston. I went fully expecting the same experience as I’ve had at every other museum I’ve been to, but, to my surprise, it was different. Put simply, it had a huge impact on me. Suddenly, those people in the pictures could have been killed five feet from where I once stood. Someone… a life… could have frozen to death in the striped uniform on the wall. There was a direct connection between what I had seen in Germany and what I was looking at on the wall. I’m not sure how else to say it, other than, this mattered to me. I didn’t forget what I saw. I took it to memory, thought about it, even wrote about it some in my journal. I thought about religion, belief versus action, life, and what it means to be a fellow human being. All things which I have thought of before, but never in such a dark context and never like this. Perhaps it’s because I’m questioning my religion right now, and yet would certainly have been identified in Nazi Germany as Jewish, whether I liked it or not. It made me realize that who you are is, on some level, inevitable from birth.
Most of all, however, this experience it provided me with the distinction of experienced knowledge versus what can be called “fed knowledge.” “Fed knowledge” is just like it sounds. Facts you retain because they’ve been told to you, in this case, a lot. For me, going to a Jewish school all my life, the epitome of “fed knowledge” is the Holocaust. This is for good reason. The Holocaust was a representation of evil on a scale that has been seemingly unmatched in all human history. Everyone should know that it happened and not allow it to happen again because it was very wrong, very recent, and it would be very bad if it happened again. That being said, I think the only way to really get what happened and why it matters is to go there and see it with your own eyes. In the end, it reinforced my belief that experienced knowledge is more powerful than any fact that is told to you, and as such, should be held at a higher value.

Discussions

Discussions:
First of all, I really enjoyed the style in which Paideia was run this semester. I think we should continue in this way, of everyone bringing in readings of interest. This is simply because, to me, it represents what’s greatest about southwestern. It is the epitome of a liberal arts education and, contrary to some, I believe raw discussion in the manner which we conduct it is incredibly useful. Not only that, but Paideia provides me with an outlet to develop and define my intellectual passions. I think it’s organized enough as is for this and reading from a single book, while certainly more convenient, restricts having such a broad and diverse group of readings and therefore a more narrow view of everyone’s passions.
I think it’s wonderful that we can talk about such a wide range of topics as gene-testing to analyzing the role of passion and humor in the educational process to thinking about what it means to be alive. Furthermore, making connections between these things is beneficial as well and I think clearly occurred.
This semester, I really enjoyed Michelle’s and Katie’s readings in particular. We discussed the very notion of science quite a bit and that was personally useful. To be honest however, I feel like I didn’t do a good enough job with Bryson. This is something I need to work on in general. Not only in regards to the basic ability to articulate my ideas, but specifically in articulating what I am passionate about. I get caught up in my own thoughts and too frequently wind up going in circles. That being said I enjoyed talking about Bryson. Both the content of Bryson itself, as well as the discussion we had on his work, brings to the foreground the issue of knowledge and how it is acquired. It made me realize the faults that are often inherent within our educational system. What is the value of academics versus knowledge gained through personal experience? A question I have constantly been asking with regards to my wonderful physics class.
I think that this is how Paideia is most beneficial for me. It allows me to reaffirm or even discard my beliefs that come from both my classes and knowledge I gain through other means. On some level, the fact that there isn’t such an extensive structure within the program in fact enhances this ability. Perhaps then, it’s beneficial to be purely discussion. With that said, and I wrote about this briefly in the last blog, it is absolutely necessary to read before people come. There’s just no point otherwise because that’s all Paideia is right now… readings and discussions.
As perhaps a final side note, I enjoyed our switch to the Cove media room this past semester. Not only do I like couches, but it reaffirms my belief that a classroom in the typical sense is not a requirement for learning.

End of Semester

Hello all! Yet another semester has come and gone by much too fast and there is, happily, something to show for it. For me, this semester was a mind-altering one. I think about the world differently now than I did before. A fairly arresting notion for me, slightly disconcerting at times, but a change which I more or less welcome. The primary change, I believe, is that I now demand a better understanding of the subject matter with which I am engaged. To quote physicist Richard Feynman,
“ You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing — that’s what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”
Before this in my educational career, I mostly, sadly, went along for the ride. Sure I had questions but they never got to the heart of the issue. To continue Feynman’s illustrious example, I would ask how to say the birds name in German. A valid question but one which doesn’t see the full picture.
Sticking with physics for the moment, I had an important realization about my education the other day. I studied with a friend of mine who is going to be a very good doctor some day. He is very driven. However, I don’t much get his studying habits. He goes through the book, writes down every possible equation, most of which are manipulations of the same equation for specific circumstances, and proceeds to memorize all of them. Now, for a test over three chapters, this is somewhere around twenty to thirty various equations, many with the same variables. This is not how I learn, but I don’t think it’s how my friend learns either. I’m going to ask him next semester to write down as many equations as he can remember and see how many he gets, even if only to satisfy personal curiosity. However, if I had to make a bet, I would put money on him not getting too many down. So the obvious conclusion is that he’s learning it for the test. But then, what’s the point?
For me, my education is at its best when it’s real. When, for example, I’m driving back to school along a curve going 60 miles per hour and am able to calculate the coefficient of kinetic friction which my soda would slide across the dash board. (µ = .281 by the way). Moreover, my education is for me. It’s personal, which is why I liked this semester in Paideia where we each basically shared how our education was personal to all of us. What do we actually think about when we get out of class? What do we come away with? What matters?
I switched majors from biology to philosophy. Even now I’m not sure which had more influence on the other (whether switching majors made me think differently, or whether I was thinking differently, and so I naturally switched majors). I think it more the latter, but it was undoubtedly a combination of the two. Switching majors is not an everyday occurrence certainly, and particularly not after having already spent half my time here. It will have its effects. Thanks to my folks’ intense understanding, graciousness, and dough, I’ll probably be able to take an extra semester for the philosophy capstone. Now, I want to talk specifically about switching majors for a make-up blog, so I won’t go into such great detail on the matter now, but the issue goes hand in hand with the value of Paideia and why I enjoy the program so much. Put briefly, I wouldn’t be a philosophy major if I wasn’t getting a liberal-arts education, perhaps if I wasn’t in Paideia either but that seems to difficult to tell for sure. Now, what is it specifically about Paideia this semester that aided in this transformation? (Because I do indeed think that motivation was behind the very content of what we spoke about).
We certainly spoke a great deal about science and art and their relation to knowledge in general. I really enjoyed how Michelle’s reading on Proust contributed to this idea. I think it should be required reading for all science majors. As we spoke about in the meeting, I think science is misperceived by most and given a tremendous amount of blind faith. I think this is at its clearest in the FJS building. What happened to curiosity? Where’s more of the Bryson-ian questioning of the fundamentals? Science is, of course, based on such questioning, and yet very rarely was it found amongst my peers. It is not about memorizing equations. Memorization is blasphemous to science. It is contrary to its every goal and purpose. It just doesn’t make sense.
And yet such faith in science is widespread, and with it comes the distrust of the humanities. There isn’t room, apparently, for both. Since they seem in contradiction, it is the logical choice to choose one over the other. Bullshit. I understand there are differences in the methods of determining what is and how to best acquire knowledge within each field, but to argue that science is the “objective field,” while the humanities are the “subjective field,” does nothing more than illustrate a severe misunderstanding of the issue as a whole and of science in particular.
Discussions we had in Paideia on the nature of science helped me in two ways. First, simply in that it was an outlet for my own thought, as the discussion on Bryson should indicate. But it’s a two way street, and hearing what others said on Bryson, along with Katie and Michelle’s readings in particular, sparked much thought on the issue of education in general, and more specifically science.
Apart from the very content though, I enjoyed Paideia most this semester because I realized its value specifically in making connections between ideas. These ranged from almost trivially obvious ones that have even so not been made, like biology and life, to frequent ones that are often misperceived such as science and religion. Raw discussion is perfect for this goal and that’s why Paideia is so valuable, even if it isn’t entitled as an honors program.
That said, some small things can be done to improve Paideia. Everybody needs to read. Everybody also needs to get readings in on time. I didn’t get mine in on time, so I don’t have room to talk there, but I did read. I also realized, after reading Katie’s blog that I should have tried to advocate a more provocative view on Bryson. This should be at the foreground for everyone as well. All in all, I think Paideia went well considering Caitlin and Brady are both abroad. Good job all.

Student Forum

The other day I went to the student body forum with some of the members of our Paideia group. I’m glad I went. The forum itself was almost useless. The plan given was quite vague and nothing seemed concrete. The presentation was faulty and towards the end they stopped answering questions for lack of time.
However, going to this forum made me realize that I should become more active in school life, even more active in social events in general. Much of this is because I did not like what was proposed in the majority of the plan and I want to do something about it, but it includes more than this as well. It was a political event for something which, until recently, I had thought I had held no political association. In some sense, it redefined Southwestern for me, for it made me a part of it. Obviously this is true as a student, but it goes deeper than simply attending the university. I have always known that there is a lot that I love about Southwestern, whether it is Paideia, the people, or the fact that I can go from physics to philosophy to Latin American History and somehow manage to make connections between them. I value the liberal arts very much and, before going to the forum, I thought it was perhaps an eccentricity of mine. However, I realized that my fellow peers are clearly just as passionate about it as I am if not more so. Moreover, they realize, as I have not up until now, that they should do something about it if they believe in it. It seems like a simple notion to stand up for what you believe in, but I have honestly kept what I love about Southwestern fairly close to my heart. I thought it was something personal that few would understand. I was wrong.
I’d like to write a little bit on the name change because that was an issue covered in the forum that did intrigue me. First of all, even only after spending two years here, I have become close to Southwestern and as so I am somewhat sentimental to the name. If it were able to not be changed, that would be ideal. However, as Dr. G. discussed, colleges often do better financially after they change their name from one which is regionally based, mainly because they gain a reputation and credibility. So, here lies the question. Do you change the name and sacrifice school pride and history in the name of being able to provide more funding and perhaps a better education? Clearly, I think the alumni as well as most of the current students would not like the name to change. In the end I think they have a valid argument. Why not change the name every time the university starts losing money? Because history matters. Especially history as rich as Southwesterns. Changing an identity means something. On the most basic level, it says we are not satisfied with who we are. I feel like the best way to change this is to go within the system and prove Southwestern’s worth from the inside out, not by changing an external name. Just one of these ways is creating a more defined structure for Paideia, honors program or not, even if that means just getting together to discuss a topic over lunch.

It's good to be back...

For starters, I'd just like to say that I really enjoy Paideia. I think we have a great cohort and an intriguing topic, and I'm really glad to be back.
Although I think our group in particular could probably pass the time talking almost entirely in tangents, perhaps some structure would be a good thing. As I've said, I like the topic of "understanding human behavior." I would like to see more of those handouts that Dr. G gave us (like the one about correlation), since it really is my only exposure to the entire field of psychology. I also agree with Dr. G and would like to relate the topic to each of our fields. I came to Southwestern because I have a lot of interests and this would be a beneficial and seemingly appropriate way to study one topic and satisfy my interdisciplinary cravings.
I would most likely talk about a book I read called, "A Short History of Nearly Everything," by Bill Bryson. I don't get to say this often, maybe this is the only time, but this book changed my life. Simply put, it gave it value. Almost as an encyclopedia, Bryson, typically a travel writer, went around the world to speak to the top scientists in their fields and "figure out science." It's fairly superficial because he's trying to cover "science" in four-hundred pages, but it's filled with fascinating stories and facts about the world in which we live. I think a brief story can illustrate my point best. Last semester I was enrolled in Chemistry. I don't particularly like the subject. For me, it was just learning how to find a lot of different numbers. It was a class entirely on calculations with no significant context. I remember learning about one principle, a fairly famous one as it turns out in the field of quantum mechanics, called the "Pauli Exclusion Principle." We learned its significance only in so far as it helped us draw various diagrams with arrows pointing one way or the other to indicate the spin of the electron. In his book, Bryson mentions the principle and states that it essentially contradicts Einsteins theory of relativity. He goes into more detail on how and why, but what was important to me was that it was given context.
So, in short, it showed me, and I would like to show everybody, that science is more than just crunching numbers and knowing equations. There's something behind all of that that's amazing.

As for civic engagement, I've considered joining SMArT (Science and Math Achiever Teams). It's headed by Dr. Burks and it seems like it would be worthwhile and maybe even fun. At this point, I think doing something individually would be easier. Although I love paideia and like spending time with the group, organizing another civic engagement project seems like too much of a chore. I think a movie or breakfast or something is an easier goal to satisfy group unity.

For the research and creative works requirement, I am going to use my biology capstone. I'm not entirely sure which professor it will be under. I'm hoping either Dr. Todd or Dr. Burks. Depending on the professor, I would be doing very different things. I'm ok with that because my interest within biology is fairly widespread. Dr. Todd would mean a lot of time in the lab, while Dr. Burks might be slightly more focused on field work. The next step would be to speak with each professor, particularly Dr. Burks since she's my advisor as well.

I still am not sure where I want to go for my intercultural studies requirement. All I know is that I want it to be different from here. I want it to be somewhere where I can go exploring. Also, it needs to be somewhere where I can talk to the people and get to know them, see what their life is like. I love Southwestern because it's so small, but sometimes I do feel sheltered and I feel the need to get out and meet new people. That's most basically what I want from my trip abroad. I think I can do that most places, but I need to go talk to Sue Meneke again to really get the ball rolling.

Student Work Symposium

Overall, I thought the student work symposium was awesome. While it took some reflection on my part, I realized that I gained a huge amount of useful information from attending the work symposium. Primarily, I was fascinated by the symposium in general. While taking Dr. Burks’ methods class, she discussed attending these large events and the etiquette that should be prescribed. She had discussed the seemingly mandatory presence at a friends’ poster, so I too went to everyone I know and listened to them speak.
The real influence the event had on me though was reinforcing the belief that Southwestern is first and foremost a place of academia. All of these studies were going on behind my back and only came to me for a few minutes and in the form of a giant poster. What I didn’t see was each of these students working their asses off. The sleepless nights and extended stays in the computer lab must have been present for damn near everybody there. Furthermore, most of these projects were done with a few students and a professor. This, for me, is an essential part to why I came to southwestern. It both excites me and terrifies me. Finally, I am allowed to be a part of some small nugget of academia about which someone in the world somewhere might care. Not even that, but I’ll be spending one on one time with a professor in my field for an entire semester.
This symposium also helped me with my current classes. I’m at the stage where I have to take classes because upper level classes that I want to take have prereqs, such as general chemistry. I hate the class and the subject matter and would like nothing more than to never open my chem. book again. And yet, the symposium helped me realize that I’m not ready to work one on one with a professor yet. There is still much to learn, even if it’s the drive of being persistent.
I did enjoy one poster in particular. A friend of mine, Matthew Dorris, presented on toxicity levels of chromium and lead in dillo dirt. Completed with Dr. Wiegend with whom I’m taking a class now, Matthew showed me the importance of chemistry as a field… even if it is taking metal out of dirt.

Paideia

At first, I was somewhat hesitant about being able to maintain order and keep our agenda going forward. I should have been because it was fairly chaotic. As it turns out however, I didn’t care then and I still don’t. The kids and us both enjoyed hanging out and having fun and also benefited more substantially. Also, more personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the nostalgia that came with playing games like four-square with these kids again. I was fairly disturbed to find all new rules waiting for me though…
The destruction of our plan started almost immediately, when we arrived and they were completely unaware of our meeting for the day. Daniel just rounded up some kids and we went outside and got them into a circle. The first thing we did was a name game, where they would catch a ball, say their name, and throw it to someone else. They were supposed to remember who they threw it to so that we could repeat it and time it. Needless to say, they forgot to whom they had thrown the ball and it disintegrated quickly. We then played mafia which was a disaster. We barely made it through one round since they were all cheating. The funny part was that I could still convince them that they were wrong and all with very little effort. We then played chain tag which was more effective, but eventually died like everything else. We ended up splitting into groups and playing basketball, foursquare, and jackpot.
I realized that improvisation on our part is key. Furthermore, these kids have virtually no attention spans. Is it that hard to imagine that a structured program is the last thing these kids want to listen to. It’s much easier and more effective to connect with them doing something they like to do. Kids don’t give a crap about “conflict resolution” when they are there to have fun. I think the kids both enjoyed and benefited from our presence, if only to make a friend.
I think the sports will be effective during our next meeting. There are a lot of choices, but we may not be able to maintain it even so. I think we will have to be more flexible than last time and understanding that kids will be drifting in and out and going home and moving around. That doesn’t mean that they’re not learning. They are and it’s how kids best learn. It doesn’t take some bullshit program to reach kids. Playing games and correcting them when they’re not sharing and making sure everyone throws to everyone else…. This is how kids best learn.

Ames Lecture

The idea of gender is no doubt complex, however it is also one that I admittedly know too little about. Basically, I don’t really care what anyone wants to see themselves as, whether it is male, female, or anywhere in between. It’s their body and they can do, see, or portray themselves in whichever way they enjoy. With that said, when watching the Ames lecture on transgenderism and citizenship I couldn’t help but get frustrated.
First, of course it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, no matter of what their color, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc… However, I was frustrated when the speakers made their case for how the state was not doing so. They spoke about “state-sponsored” violence towards trans people and gave very specific, even personal examples. The car crash incident that occurred to one of the speakers was particularly moving on one level, but the speaker tried to prove a huge generalization off of it and it didn’t hold up. The fact of the matter is that these acts, even when done by police, are not “state-sponsored.” Instead, it falls under the simple fact that there are some bad people doing bad things. If they were ever caught, they too would go to jail for breaking the law.
I was also didn’t agree with the approach the authors took when discussing the effects of outside opinion on the trans world. They went straight to murder, even though only a dozen people a year die from transgender-related incidents. Of course it’s unfortunate and needs to be stopped, but it shouldn’t have been emphasized when considering the statistics. Therefore, I don’t think the speakers should have focused so much on the murdering of transgender individuals, but rather the discomfort and confusion that is applicable to a much wider group of people. There remains a huge proportion of the public that is simply uncomfortable when confronted with transgendered individuals. As usual, being different still scares the crap out of some people.
With that said, I understand and agree with the main premise of their argument. There’s a problem and something needs to be done about it. It’s a slippery slope from not protecting one group’s rights all the way to mass genocide. We’re obviously far from the latter, but I’d even say we were far from the former as well. I believe much progress has been made, particularly as the speaker suggests, with the relationship of transgender to race. It’s not a matter of the state not protecting these citizens’ rights, but rather a few assholes abusing their power or just blatantly committing crimes. It’s still a hate crime, but with only twelve incidents a year you have to ask the question, how much more likely is it for a transgendered individual to be murdered than it is for me to be murdered for any trait I can state about myself. I’d be willing to bet that twelve people a year die because they’re white, but it would be absurd to say that something needs to be done about it. Overall, I understand the importance of their main point but believe they went about their argument incorrectly.

Brown Symposium

When I first heard about the Brown Symposium topic for this year I was thrilled. On a very basic level, the topic was in my area of study and naturally interested me. More specifically however, I have always been fascinated by the obvious clash of science and religion. However, upon departure to the lectures, my dear friend David informed me that they would be taking place in the Fine Arts building. I stopped dead in my tracks and simply said, more to myself than to anyone else, “Oh shit.” The cause for such an odd statement is simple: Until I went to these lectures, I had not stepped foot inside the Fine Arts building. How I have made it a year and a half without entering such an important building is a mystery to me, however, I had decided to try to avoid the building until the last day of my college career. I understood that the goal was not a very worthy one by any standard, but I felt it appropriate to continue due to the sheer wonder behind managing such a feat. Therefore, as I walked into the Fine Arts building I was feeling a mixture of hesitation, knowing I would be breaking my long-standing tradition, and excitement for the lectures I was about to hear.
Looking back, I almost feel that it would have been more worthwhile for me to have kept my goal up and running and unbroken. While I only went to the first two lectures, I thought both could have been much better. The first lecture, done by Christopher Bader and Paul Froese, was titled “Images of God.” The authors had conducted a survey, “The Baylor Religion Survey,” in which they asked a rather large number of questions on peoples’ beliefs in God. Showing various images of common perceptions of the guy upstairs, the speakers addressed the fact that even the question of “what is God” is difficult to agree upon. They went through the results of their survey and came up with the rather staggering statistic that 88% of Americans believe in some kind of God. I knew the statistic was high, certainly over 50%, however I have trouble believing such a huge number. I enjoyed taking a sample of the survey and seeing the type of questions asked, but apart from that it was a fairly standard lecture on the matter. It was interesting to realize that my view of God was fairly similar to the majority of views in the audience. My God, like many others, is fairly laid-back, compassionate, and merciful, and really does not play a huge role in my day to day life. Obviously however, our audience was quite skewed. What was beneficial for me then, was the link between education and socialization and belief in God. I also enjoyed the speaker’s portrayal of the Baptists, in which he constantly was giving them shit. I already knew that most Americans believed in God and that those beliefs were rarely the same, so I wasn’t so interested. Perhaps the worst part of the lecture, to no fault of the speakers, was the questions asked. It was the same question over and over again: Is this specific aspect addressed in your study, whether it is a specific religion or a twist on the study such as gender. Obviously these specifics were of some significance to the person asking, however all they could say was: “No, we didn’t go into that specific aspect in our study.” Overall, while I gained some knowledge on my own, I found the main focus of the lecture to be too broad and too simple.
I also went to the second lecture, given by Andrew Newberg, entitled “How God Can Change Your Brain.” I enjoyed this lecture slightly more than the first, simply because it dove into a subject that I knew nothing about. I have always wanted to take a psychology course and this lecture assured me that I will before college is over. After taking a crash course in neuroscience, Newberg led us through various experiments that had been conducted. The speaker came at us with an onslaught of diagrams of the human brain mid-prayer, which was hard to follow to say the least. “After the individual was told to think about God, the frontal lobes lit up significantly more than before,” he would say. He would then provide possible meanings behind such a finding. However, I found it difficult to believe that such a command can be done on the spot, particularly with an IV in your arm and God only knows what other types of machinery were on in the background. It is safe to say that the lecture left me with more questions than answers. What is it that makes people believe in God? Are we as a species automatically programmed to do so? All in all, although the lectures were somewhat disappointing, my fascination with the subject remains.

Tuesday's with Morrie

I agreed with many of the general principles aligned in Tuesday’s with Morrie, however I disagreed with some of the philosophy behind them. For starters, I agree with Morrie when he says you can’t know how to live unless you know how to die. Life is too short for regret, so, it’s overstated, but I do believe that you should live each day as if it’s your last. However, whenever I think about this, I always laugh because I never really hold this to heart. If this were the case, then I’d probably go to Vegas, or even more likely, spend my “last day” with my family. It seems to be an impossible request to be honest. So much of our life is spent on working to better our future that we don’t live day-to-day. I’m going to college for four years so that I can go to med school for another four years so that I can get a residency for at least three years so that I can get a job for God knows how many years and earn money, live happily, and retire when I’ll actually get time to live when I’m sixty. Presumably I will like what I’m going to be doing along the way, but it’s still a ridiculous thought. Part of this is just the logistics of the society in which we live. To survive you need food and to get food you need money. However, the greater theme of materialism that is so clearly presented can not be ignored. Few can argue with the fact that our society is incredibly materialistic in nature. Yet the book takes it a step further when Morrie argues that human beings are so wound up with their material possessions that they forget that which is truly valuable: love. After some reflection, I have realized that I pretty much agree with this statement. Don’t get me wrong, I have my dream car as vivid in my mind as much as the next guy (Aston Martin DB 9 in case you were wondering), but at the end of the day it’s just another possession. People’s infatuation with material wealth is not so much a love that comes from acquiring the objects, but lust. Wealth provides an entirely different happiness from that of human interaction. It is superficial and lonesome, whereas relationships, by definition, involve a connection with another person that is often more complex and meaningful than that of a relationship with an object. Thinking mathematically, interacting with another person is like adding another variable to an equation, while interacting with an object is simply adding a constant. Change occurs in accordance with one another to create meaning, or a value, and the variety of change increases tremendously. The effect of a possession is understood. It will change you by ‘X’ amount. The effect of human interaction, however, is never really predictable for our complexity is too great. Every relationship is inherently unique since it’s defined by everything from past experience to present situation to future understanding. If anything, it’s much more fun to get to know another human being than an inanimate object. Unraveling the complexities behind them, let alone the interaction and discussions presented, is infinitely more rewarding.

The Boys and Girls Club

I want this program first and foremost to be mutually beneficial. I want my interactions with the kids to teach me about myself as well as them. I want to enjoy my time with them as much as they do. What I fear most of all is that the program will start to become a burden as opposed to a pleasure. I don’t see this happening just because I already enjoy interacting with kids (part of working at a summer camp is learning to improv with minimal resources). However, just in case, certain measures can be taken to make sure this doesn’t happen. First, there needs to be common ground between us. There also needs to be a way to explore this common ground. I think this can be accomplished through any sort of game present. I think a little friendly competition is always healthy. I’ll try anything and keep it up even if I make a fool of myself. If there are enough people and if there is enough interest, I could also bring a Frisbee and start a game of ultimate. From what I understand, there are already some of these resources present which will make it easier. I think the degree of structure depends on how many kids are present each time. My guess is that there is a norm, but I really can’t begin to guess what it is. If it’s any more than twenty, I think structure is necessary through some sort of group activity. While a one on one interaction would be nice, it is impractical considering our numbers. I think this would be easier managed with other members from the Paideia cohort, but certainly not all of us. It depends on the number of kids that are usually there, but I think three or four should be able to manage well enough. I also think, despite our inability to organize logistics thus far, that it is not an impossible achievement. I think going once a week for two hours or so would be ideal. From my understanding, many people are rather busy and might not be able to make such a commitment. That’s certainly understandable, but hopefully this would act as more of a break than an added chore. Much of what I want to accomplish really depends on the average number of kids that are present, and I’m sure that I’ll find that out during the meeting. I would also like to know what they would do if we weren’t there, or just what typically occurs. Is the primary goal of the program entertaining kids and giving both of us a break, or more one of sitting down and hearing their stories? To be honest, I’m really not too concerned about the program. I think that I’ll enjoy it, whatever it may be. Getting off campus, meeting new people, and doing something out of the ordinary seems easily enjoyable.