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.