Febuary 1st Blog : Cosmic Perspective

In the essay entitled “Cosmic Perspective” by astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the author stresses the importance of astronomy in our human experience. Tyson claims that the cosmic view- all that is humble (spiritual but not religious) and what enables us to see beyond our circumstances- comes with a hidden cost. The author claims that when he pauses and reflects on our expanding universe, sometimes he forgets that people walk this world without food or shelter; and he sometimes forgets that every day someone kills or gets killed in “the name of someone else’s conception of God, and that some people… kill in the name of their nation’s needs or wants,” illustrating the idea that most conflicts, from a homicide to a war or revolution, are caused by preconceived beliefs and instances of servitude (for example: serving in an Army backed by a religiously-ran state of government). Tyson only occasionally “forgets” these things because he believes “however big the world is… the universe is even bigger. A depressing thought to some, but a liberating thought to me” (1071). To assess the prompt of the blog, yes, Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s view and insight can be helpful in day-to-day life. He “forgets” these worldly problems, because he focuses on the immense size and dexterity of the expanding universe around us. In a daily way of putting this, we shouldn’t focus on the small problems that affect us in life, but rather you should respect and understand your cosmic path and recognize that it is microscopic, relative to the rest of space in the known universe. The author claims that he thinks of people “not as the masters of space and time but as participants in a great cosmic chain of being” (1072). According to the astrophysicist, we are not below or above any other organism in nature, but instead “we are one with the rest of nature, fitting neither above nor below, but within,” meaning that even Earth itself is one big organism, and humans impact the world around them because they are not only a part of Earth, but they are also a part of the growing universe (1074). This statement affects our everyday life, because humans need other organisms, life forms and natural elements to simply function as a human being on a daily basis. For example, we require oxygen in our system constantly to survive. But humans forget that we require so much from our environment and we continue to pollute and destroy the very organisms that give us life. Tyson firmly states that he believes the day our knowledge of the cosmos stops expanding, we risk regressing to the primitive view of the universe in which the universe, literally and figuratively, revolves around us. The author explains this statement by claiming “In that bleak world, arms-bearing, resource-hungry people and nations would be prone to act on their ‘low contacted prejudices.’ And that would be the last gasp of human enlightenment” (1077). I agree with many of the intelligent statements Tyson promotes in his paper, but much of what he was saying didn’t seem to be any different than Jill Bolte’s deep appreciation for the immense and vast beauty of the right hemisphere of the brain. In this way, Tyson is enthralled and consumed in the ever expanding universe that surrounds us and that every person has in themselves.

February 1st Post

I dont think that the authors ideas would be helpful for day to day life because he is just talking about space and everything in it. He doesn't give any insight on how life would be easier lived from day to day. While what he is saying is interesting, I dont think it is great advice on how to live. However, I agree with what the professor says which the author disagreed with. When I hear or see things about the universe and how big everything really is, it does in fact make me feel very small. People tend to feel small when they hear that stuff because we don't usually think about the universe and how big it really is. It can actually get scary to think about because we don't know what is out there and if there is life and other things. It is for those reasons and more that I agree with the professor when he says people feel small after watching that show. While his ideas are very fascinating and informative, he gives no true advice to people. He is just being very informative in the way that he tells us his ideas about the world/universe and how he thinks people form their ideas. I think its interesting when he refers to mankind as being not too distant from the animal kingdom. I dont necessarily agree with him. while I think that more people should think about nature in that way so that we can care about it and take care of it, I also think that we should separate ourselves because there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. the line I am referring to is the line that shows our humanity.  Humans need control in order to survive. There is a gap that exists between animals an humans and it is that we are able to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.

Nayem's blog, one minute to the deadline and one with the universe

I think that the cosmic perspective can be helpful in day-to-day life if one is ready to accept this truth. For instance, I only began this assignment thirty minutes ago and was thoroughly freaking out. My mind was creating every possible circumstance that could cause me not to finish the blog in time. I had to read the first sentence three times because I was psyching myself out that badly. How left-hemisphered of me. As soon as I got into the meat of the topic, I was glued to my screen and suddenly, my place in this universe disappeared. I was the knowledge I was receiving. Then for a split moment as I scrolled between pages I caught a glimpse of the time and my heart rate sped up and I thought “nope, no way I can do this.” I came right out of this out-of-body experience I was having. Then I remembered what I was reading about: the colossal whole I am apart of, what is apart of me, how minute this problem of mine was. And before I knew it, I was sucked into the words again. In order to be ready to accept and enjoy the cosmic perspective, one must choose to understand it through their right hemisphere. Otherwise, if understood through the left hemisphere, the mighty truth of the universe would crush their ego, possibly diminishing their self worth, and understanding of life. I had such a thought cross my mind as I read. I thought to myself “I am only looking at the surface of this humungous concept from a telescope thousands of miles away. I could not ever grasp this. I do not have the capacity. I wonder, then, what job I could get that could just keep me happy and fed and naive,” immediately followed by “why am I even thinking about myself? Keep reading.” The difference between both of the perspectives I had whilst reading this article is that I decided I was ready for the information. I decided it was my truth, our truth. I cannot deny or change it. I can only live in my right hemisphere, with the understanding that we are one. I am no more and no less.

Tiny But Mighty

The author of “Cosmic Perspective” has a very unique outlook on the world and the far reaches of the universe. He believes that mankind is apart of something far bigger and greater than ourselves, similar to how bacteria is a significant part of our world. Our world is made up of trillions upon trillions of bacteria, for example “more bacteria live and work in one centimeter of my colon than the number of people who have ever existed in the world” (1072,Tyson). We can see from this example that even the smallest of particles not only have a huge role in our existence, but also connect us to one another. Tyson brought up the point that we has humans think about the values of life and the mysterious unknown, at least once a week if not once a day. I agree with his ideas about mankind being similar to bacteria in the sense that mankind is small part of something bigger and greater than ourselves, and his point that beliefs, thoughts, and values are what connect us as people and keep us connected to the people around us. Tyson’s essay showed me a new perspective about many things, including mankind’s purpose of life and the importance of exploring the unknown.

Beyond the world

After reading The Cosmic Perspective by Neil Degrasse Tyson, I felt tiny, due to the fact that there is so much more around the world than we know. Not just people in the world, but even beyond that. I know first hand, sometimes... maybe all of the time, I can feel as if the world is circling around me, but I remind myself that I'm one person in a world that consists of seven billion people. I understand Tyson is trying to express his thoughts on evolution and how humans can often forget about the process of life and how science works. It really opened my eyes when he brought up chimpanzees and how our brains own so much more knowledge than their species does. I mean, just think about if another species did exist that was much more intelligent then humans, how would we feel? How would life be? Although this is not the case, it is still something to open your mind about and it gives us a sense of imagination and curiosity as to what life would actually be like. He made some key points when he also added how humans don't help our cause when it comes to taking care of the world we live in and the world that will be home to our future relatives down the road. Getting knowledge over these things really can make us better people, because it opens our eyes on issues we usually don't think about on a daily basis.

Feb 1st Blog

Although Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very knowledgeable about astronomy and all the things that go into it, I do not think that his ideas are helpful for day-to-day life.  In his essay, “Cosmic Perspective” Tyson explains to his readers how he personally feels about cosmic views. Tyson believes that “powerful people rarely do all they can to help those who cannot help themselves.” I personally, do not think this is true. Granted, there are many powerful people who do abuse their power, but there are also many more powerful people that use their power for good, and use their power to help the less fortunate people in this world. Tyson also writes in a tone that seems like he is dominant above everyone and he is the only one that is right about this certain field of study. I say this because when he talks about the psychology professor from an Ivy League school, he begins to doubt his expertise and go on to say “it’s the professor, not I, who has misread nature”. This quote helps support my claim because he is basically saying he does not believe his beliefs about space and astronomy could be even one percent wrong.

If you were to look at Noah Charney’s article “This is Your Brain on Art” and Tyson’s essay, “Cosmic Perspective” you would be able to see that their views on this world are very different. This is because Charney offers a more artistic way to look at life and think “outside of the box”. Meanwhile, Taylor looks at the earth and sees that we are not unique, and we are just merely “another planet orbiting the sun”. I think Charney would argue that Earth is a unique place in this universe and there are many things about Earth that make it diverse from every other planet, which is what makes Earth so beautiful.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson's idea of Cosmic Perception in a nutshell explains that contemplating the universe should not make thinkers feel small and insignificant, but rather large and enlightened. He argues that we are "large" enough to be able to grasp the concept of the universe and deeply ponder our purpose, and this is an accomplishment. "The cosmic perspective enables us to see beyond our circumstances, allowing us to transcend the primal search for food, shelter, and sex." (Tyson, 8). It is important to consider these ideas in everyday life in order to see the larger picture of why we exist. This is the kind of thinking that lifts the boundaries between deeply rooted issues such as racism and sexism. Taking a step back and considering our accomplishments and what we can further strive toward can without a doubt make you look at the people around you and feel a deep sense of appreciation for one another. This kind of thinking can also alleviate stress or even sadness in the sense that taking a step outside of your own personal issues and thinking bigger can make trivial issues seem like nonsense. Tyson says "The cosmic perspective reminds us that in space, there is no air, a flag will not wave - an indication that perhaps flag waving and space exploration do not mix," (Tyson, 8). This statements pokes at the sense of ownership that humans feel over accomplishing something before others. When reading that line, I imagined kids screaming "ME ME ME" over each other trying to get the teacher to pick on them to answer the math problem in class. These children don't have the concept of learning and growing together, and rather feel they should compete in a battle of ego's over who may be smarter, or who thinks faster. Everyone wants to win. Cosmic Perspective neglects this idea and says lets empower each other and grow as a community of scholars. This may be a dramatic example, but in essence this is what Tyson was trying to convey in his essay, and I agree that the Cosmic Perspective could be beneficial to anyone willing to think.

My take on the "Cosmic Perspective"

I believe that the information provided in Neil Degrasse Tyson's "Cosmic Perspective", is helpful in day-to-day life. His main idea presented is how insignificant we are compared to the rest of the universe and what goes on in unexplored space. In one part of the text Tyson says, "I forgot that too many people act in wanton disregard for the delicate interplay of earth's atmosphere, oceans, and land, with consequences that our children and our children's children will witness and pay for with their health and well-being". I believe that he's saying that if powerful people around the world could get over themselves and take a look at the state the world is in and going towards and tried to help we could make a big difference in things like global warming. If people could all learn to think as one and deal with the same problems, we potentially solve all of our problems that we have or arise. I believe that Tyson's ideas are similar to Jill Bolte Taylor's Ted Ex talk. It's similar in the way that when Jill Bolte Taylor described what she experienced when she lost the left side of her brain. It enlightened her as she experienced something that maybe not even one percent of people on earth get to and fully recover from it. She realized that there's more to us not just what we can perceive. It's similar in a way to Neil Degrasse Tyson's article in that we are but a spec of the universe, there's more to everything than we will probably ever know. But as one of the smartest people on the planet, link here http://superscholar.org/smartest-people-alive/ , I think we can leave that job to him.

Feb 1 blog

I do not think the author’s ideas are helpful for day-to-day life. I believe this because he argues with an Ivy League professor’s idea. His tone in his writing makes me feel that he feels superior over anyone else’s ideas and that’s not acceptable because anyone can counter argument his opinion. I do agree with the Ivy League professor’s idea that if we look at were we are (for instance we live in in Texas) and then look at the earth from space, then look at the Milky Way, and what is beyond that; we do feel like a speck in the world. Feeling small in a world that is far bigger than ourselves, gives us the idea that there are other problems surrounding us than just our own issues. I feel like this idea is more helpful for day-to-day life rather than thinking that we need to think twice about us as being superior than everything around us. I don’t see how his article could help someone daily. I don’t see any true advice given other than that he believes chimpanzee’s knowledge came from humans. To counter argue that, I thought we evolved from monkeys, resulting in our brains and knowledge come from them. In addition to, we have modified our brains over a very long period of time to become the smartest mammals, or things, on this planet.

         His ideas could be similar to the video we watched about the brain. This author, Tyson, says “the universe is in us,” which is similar to the videos Nirvana. Taylor claims that she felt her “spirit soared free, like a great whale gliding through the sea of silent euphoria.” This is very similar to Tyson’s “we are one with the rest of nature, fitting neither above or below, but within.” This explains that we live on this world, on earth, and that whatever we do to it affects it one way or another. For example, littering. We may not see the affect instantly, but over time, we see an increase in pollution and filth surrounding us, harming animals, bacteria, and ourselves. 

Dinner Conversation

If Jill Taylor and Noah Charney had a conversation over dinner, there for sure would be controversy over what type of thinking would be best for different situations. I feel like Jill Taylor would choose right side thinking over any thinking would be the best, since she believed that thinking that way was the reason she was able to reach nirvana. But as for Noah Charney I feel he would choose bottom-up thinking since he believed that it was better to understand abstract art using bottom-up thinking. In this dinner there would not be a right answer for what thinking would be the best because every day you deal with different obstacles and that might change your view on things and may change the way you have been thinking. But the dinner would be a very interesting conversation that would be a good way of seeing more examples of when to use that particular type of thinking.

Great Minds Think Alike

I think that if all the authors we have learned about thus far were to sit down for dinner, they would share many of the same ideals. Jill Bolte Taylor talks about the power of being present and the beauty that the right hemisphere of our brain has to offer. Although her point of focus is on the benefits of the creative properties of the right side of the brain, I do not think she would underestimate the importance of the left side as well. A. O. Scott also emphasizes the importance of the right-hemisphere by focusing specifically on emotions and their place in our lives when talking about the movie "Inside Out". Noah Charney, on the other hand, talks about the importance of analyzing what we see and engaging deeply with the material by using the left-hemisphere of our brain, specifically in art. Taylor and Scott give us this information to help us engage with the world, while Charney is more concerned with how to engage with art. Howard Rheingold in “Reading Rhetorically” talks about the importance of engaging seriously with text, and this also places emphasis on the left-hemisphere of the brain. I do not think the authors are contradicting each other, they are just focusing on different areas. The difference between Taylor and Scott's views and the other two authors is that the former seem to be focusing on being happy and fulfilled, while the latter two value critical thinking and intellectual competency. I think everyone would agree that both have a place in our lives.

Very Intelligent Dinner

Could you imagine if Jill Bolte Taylor and Noah Chrarney went out for dinner? I believe they would share many common interests and offer some very good advice to each other. They each hold so much knowledge, that it would be hard to believe there would be no debate over certain situations, but the amount of facts and opinions between each side of the argument would be outstanding. Noah Charney uses different techniques to look at art and is a very open minded kind of person. I feel like he thinks outside the box in any kind of situation and offers different ways on how to visualize and understand things. On the other hand, Jill Taylor actually experienced the feeling of not having the left side of her brain, and experienced how it felt when your brain has a constant euphoria feeling. She believes if everyone felt this kind of nirvana, the world would be a better place. I believe they will have a lot in common and will share similar thoughts on life. I honestly think each of them would take notes from each other and offer different perspectives on how to deal with life. This kind of dinner would definitely need a hidden camera, because I'd be very interested to hear what each of them had to say.

Let's Talk About Life Over Dinner?

If these two authors were to sit down for dinner and have a conversation, I think that it would be about life. Although both of the topics that each one of them discussed may not have exactly been on the same scale, they definitely were related when it comes to discussing life, and how we should live in this world. In the article by Noah Charney, which was definitely my favorite, he discusses the intimidation people have behind abstract art. However, he encourages us that this intimidation is normal and very ok, and that when looking at abstract art, it’s about our own perception. How we look at abstract art, whether we see a simple white cloud, or a majestic gate to heaven, it is all about how we feel and think outside the box. Thinking outside the box is very important factor of living our day to day lives, which is something that I feel like Jill Taylor would have a connection to, especially on her idea behind the right side of the brain. She describes her experience with just using her right side as reaching nirvana and having found her inner peace. In order to find that inner peace, sometimes it requires that one steps out of their comfort zone and start thinking outside of the box.

No Right Answer

If you get Charney and Taylor, who both think very differently, there's bound to be some sort of argumentation. The way people view the world varies between everyone, however those who may not be as educated as these two authors might have a more difficult time explaining it. Charney refers to the "bottom-up" and "top-down" methods of thinking. Although effective, according to Jill Taylor, these are not the only thinking processes. Through Taylor's experiences she strongly abides by the "left" and "right hemisphere" thinking. All in all, both authors are correct. There is no "best" way of thinking. People everywhere are not always going to agree with the way you or anyone else perceives it, does that mean he/she is wrong?

Two Liberal Thinkers Sit Down for Dinner

Jill Bolte Taylor, a renowned neroatonomist, is seated across the table from Noah Chaney, a respected art historian, novelist and founder of the Association for Research into Crimes Against Art. Two incredibly well educated people both obsessed with the way a person thinks, would definitely make an interesting dinner conversation. According to both scholars, there are four ways a person thinks. Jill Bolte Taylor would probably engage in the conversation by taking points from her TED Talk video, “My Stroke of Insight” by explaining the two very different, but harmonious parts of the brain: the left hemisphere, and the right. Taylor describes the left hemisphere as being a serial processor that thinks in language and math and helps individualize a person. Unlike the left hemisphere, the right side only uses in the moment, sensory imagery to process the world around it. Chaney would most likely be interested in the difference between both hemispheres and add to the conversation by referring to his article, “This Is Your Brain on Art”. He would explain that top down thinking is when a person uses past personal experience and symbols to process thoughts, while bottom up thinking is used when viewing abstract art, because it strictly utilizes instinctual thinking, and is solely based on years of basic human perception with absolutely no priori knowledge. With that being said, the conversation between these two would continue to be both pleasant and agreeable, yet beneficially knowledgeable. Both professionals would be able to relate to each other’s way of thinking because they have both had experiences that provided them with different views of the world. Taylor’s stroke gave her the opportunity to temporarily see life through the kinesthetic, chatter-free world of the right hemisphere and witness the peace that came from it, forever changing how she perceived life. Chaney was able to learn that in order to see abstract art, one must eliminate an engrained way of thinking and look at it from a different point of view. I can say with confidence that both intellectuals would spend the evening exchanging informed, liberal insight about how to view the world.