Thoreau on Dorms and College Tuition

I stumbled across this humorous piece of criticism while reading 

Henry David Thoreau's magnum opus, Walden... 

Would you agree with him? 

Thoreau on Dorms and College Tuition 

Context: After explaining in great detail how he built his own little hut by Walden Pond (for under $29) and arguing against the vanities of frivolous architecture, Thoreau weighs in on the benefits of "building" one's own education... 

"At Cambridge College the mere rent of a student’s room, which is only a little larger than my own, is thirty dollars each year, though the corporation had the advantage of building thirty-two side by side and under one roof, and the occupant suffers the inconvenience of many and noisy neighbors, and perhaps a residence in the fourth storey. 

I cannot but think that if we had more true wisdom in these respects, not only less education would be needed, because, forsooth, more would already have been acquired, but the pecuniary expense of getting an education would in a great measure vanish. 

Those conveniences which the student requires at Cambridge or elsewhere cost him or somebody else ten times as great a sacrifice of life as they would with proper management on both sides. Those things for which the most money is demanded are never the things which the student most wants. 

Tuition, for instance, is an important item in the term bill, while for the far more valuable education which he gets by associating with the most cultivated of his contemporaries no charge is made. The mode of founding a college is, commonly, to get up a subscription of dollars and cents, and then following blindly the principles of a division of labor to its extreme—a principle which should never be followed but with circumspection—to call in a contractor, who makes this a subject of speculation, and he employs Irishmen or other operatives actually to lay the foundations, while the students that are to be are said to be fitting themselves for it; and for these oversights successive generations have to pay. 

I think that it would be better than this, for the students, or those who desire to be benefited by it, even to lay the foundation themselves. The student who secures his coveted leisure and retirement by systematically shirking any labor necessary to man obtains but an ignoble and unprofitable leisure, defrauding himself of the experience which alone can make leisure fruitful."

Social Media: Icon or Idol

My most recent paper from AP Lang/Comp. Constructive criticism is welcome! 

          There is a significant difference between a real painting and its reproduction on the web or in print. The “real thing” is more engaging than its flatter reprint, isn’t it? The same goes for letters of correspondence. In a world blessed with millisecond communications, a letter from a friend has a comforting warmth that a text message does not carry. You may be able to delete a conversation from your phone without a second thought, but ripping apart a handwritten letter seems nearly barbaric. Yet, as of 2013, the average Joe and plain Jane spent roughly 4-6 hours using social media during the day. The ATUS study from Bureau of Labor Statistics also showed that, between work, school, and other activities, the typical Joe and Jane spent less than two hours a day interacting with their loved ones. According to these numbers, the distant and digital person appears to be more interesting to the average man than the present and palpable one. What applies to the painting and the letter does not seem to apply as readily to people. Why? The answer rests in the nature of social media. Since it encourages an imaginative yet editable image of people rather than a flawed yet realistic one, it not only advocates for the normalcy of digital relationships, but in doing so, risks promoting superficial and unbounded ones.

1. Definition of Terms—

          Since the term “relationship” has an expansive range of meanings and implications, it is first necessary to define and delineate a “relationship” according to its health, strength and value. The Ancient Greeks, not surprisingly, had words such as “icon” and “idol” (εἰκόνος and εἴδωλον) to help describe the differences between a healthy and unhealthy relationship with a created thing. Understood as it was in Medieval Byzantium, an icon is an image, a thing, or a person which represents a real relationship. Like the painting and the letter, it has presence to it—an “umph.” A person’s relationship with an icon was, according to these Hellenic Christians, considered both symbiotic and reverential. Thus, a healthy relationship with someone is “iconic”—it is tangible, substantial, and complete. The word idol, on the other hand, is commonly translated as “phantom:” an image, a thing, or a person which is believed to have an actual presence, but is actually a deceiving mirage. It causes someone to think it is real and that he is connecting with it. Unlike like the icon but like a reproduction or text message, the Hellenic Christians understood the idol as an empty, potentially parasitic, and generally unhealthy relationship. 

          Malcolm Gladwell, an acclaimed author and speaker, wrote about another way to categorize relationships in his article, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” He argues that relationships are different based on the strength of their “ties.” There are weak-tie relationships which are primarily logistical. They provide the summarized, easy-to-access, mini-bio information that allows people to form acquaintances and make efficient connections. A philanthropic campaign can be very successful on the Internet, he claims, because the Internet allows people to exploit “the power of these distant connections with marvelous efficiency.” In these abilities, the weak-tie relationships of social media find their strength. Strong-tie relationships, on the other hand, are much messier and much less efficient, but profoundly more deep and effective. They give the physical closeness, vulnerability, company, sincerity, and well-roundedness that allows people to become friends rather than just “friending” each other on Facebook. These relationships, Gladwell argues, are the kind that start revolutions because while they may take longer to form, their roots go much deeper. Few would deny that meeting their online friends in person is much more meaningful than simply messaging or Skyping them. In light of this, social media clearly falls under the “weak-tie” category, but is it an icon or an idol? In order to answer that question, it is first necessary to see the broad range of relationships social media affects and how it affects them. 

2. The Types of Relationships Social Media Affects—

          Human social networks are elaborately interconnected and one change, such as the use of social media, can have a ripple effect on every relationship in a person’s life—from his work to his wife. It begins with the most familiar and intimate human network: the family. According to Farah Stockman—a journalist for the Boston Globe, a Kenyan school teacher, and a Harvard graduate—there is a significant difference between being “lonely” and “alone.” In her Op-Ed article, “Lonely, or Just Alone?” she explains how company has become an unnecessary commodity in the days where “individuals can meet all their basic needs with one click on a computer.” When we want to know our heritage, she states, “we subscribe to Ancestry.com” rather than spend “an afternoon with grandma.” We are no longer as reliant on our families, and thus, “less willing to make compromises to stay in their good graces.”

          Romantic relationships are equally affected. Nearly every modern couple uses social media to stay in touch, connect, or even show their affection for each other. According to the study “Couples, the Internet, and Social Media” conducted by PEW Research Center, 74% of adults claim the effect of social media on their relationships has been positive, while only 20% claim it has been negative. However, a little under 50% of every adult couple claims that their partner is or has been excessively distracted by social media. If nearly half of every couple experiences this unwanted distraction, then it can be assumed that many more have become either positively or negatively dependent on it—unable to separate their relationship from some aspect of social media.

          In non-family relationships, such as friendships or professional relationships, the effect is more subtle, but possibly more profound. In a video series where YouTubers Benny and Rafi Fine ask a panel of teens about certain issues, such as social media and smartphones, one responded about texting on her phone: “I just block out all my friends!” Then, when asked what most of them would do after the interview, they bashfully admitted they would “check their messages” before anything else. 

          In the professional world, any form of social privacy can be an illusion. David Williams, a writer for Forbes magazine, brings up the endless possibilities of the Deep Web in his article “How Much Is the Internet Really Telling Your Boss,” saying that “many young people are unaware of how easy it is for their parents, prospective employers, or even prospective dates to see everything they’ve posted.” With the Deep Web and even with public search engines, employers can not only scan through a prospective applicant’s social profiles, but find out whether he has “been arrested, filed for a bankruptcy, or been investigated by the SEC.” If someone is an employee, his “public self” does not return to his “private self” on social media—it is on 24/7. 

           Almost all of a person’s external, daily relationships are affected by social media, but his internal relationship with himself is also affected. In her TEDtalk “Connected, but alone?” Sherry Turkle discusses that we are setting ourselves up for “trouble in how we relate to ourselves and our ability for self-reflection.” She describes the internal life of the social media user as slowly growing lonelier as he or she becomes even more “plugged in.” Before, she says, it was “I have a feeling, I want to make a call” and now it is, “I want to have a feeling, I need to send a text.” The origin of social media’s involvement in daily life may seem to come from the outside, finagling its way into the human psyche. The opposite, however, is true. It is a battle from within—it always was. Social media does not dominate people’s lives—they allow it to do so. It is a willing surrender rather than an unavoidable effect.

3. The Spread of Weak-Ties and the Promotion of the Idol—

           Social media, by extending into every human relationship and appealing to the instinctual social desires of humans, has advocated for the normalcy of weak-ties. According to Dr. Ban Siegel from Business Insider’s “How Social Media Is Changing Our Brains and Reshaping Our Relationships,” there is a psychological reason for why social media is so appealing. He explains that the brain is the “social organ of the body” and “the reason social media took off is because the brain is social and people really want to connect with each other.” In his book,The Shallows, Nicholas Carr also argues that technology has shaped our brains and the metaphors we use to describe our lives. Our brains have become the machines they created, turning into “simple signal-processing units, quickly shepherding information into consciousness and then back out again” (119).  Similarly, as Dr. Siegel summarizes, the brain created social media and social media, in turn, shapes the brain.

            Like the industrial machine compared to the craftsman, social media is often more efficient than its nitty-gritty cousin: “face-to-face” conversation. There is no longer a need to go to the store. Everything can be purchased online through mega-warehouses like Amazon. The United States Postal Service is slowly being outdated by emails, e-cards, and online job and college applications, among many other things. With the exception of a few situations, there is rarely a need for a pen and paper if a computer is nearby. People often do not think twice about these minor lifestyle changes and when they do, they appreciate the newfound social efficiency. However, what they fail to realize is how deeply dependent they have become on the products of social media: the ability to create a customized “social self,” the luxury of hiding behind a digital wall, the control of not having to hold an organic conversation. In Sherry Turkle’s New York Times article “The Flight from Conversation,” she describes how social media, with its attractive efficiency and comfortable “distance,” has only fueled our internal desire for intimacy without risk or vulnerability. Technology is even taking on undeniably human jobs, such as therapy, in the form of “sociable robots.” Social media, she says, “provides so many automatic listeners,” but we “have sacrificed conversation for mere connection”—believed and accepted an illusion, an “idol,” as the real thing.

4. The Increasing Normalcy of Weak-Ties—

          Since these weak-ties are becoming increasingly more normal and habitual, relationships are, by consequence, becoming more superficial and unbounded. As Carr elaborates in The Shallows, a medium like social media affects our perception of value and our thought processes. Not surprisingly, it also affects how we relate to people. A neuroscientist who consulted with CBC’s The National told his interviewer that the areas in the brain which experience empathy and emotion “turn-off” when social media is being used. In addition, he affirms that technologies “are not activating these brain areas that are important for self-reflection and reflection on others.”  In essence, the positive social aspects of a person’s mental make-up are weakened when they attempt to use social media. Carr recounts how social media has made him function in new and unseen ways—almost as a merciless, emotionless machine (Ch. 1). Not surprisingly, neuroscience supports this as well. Social media, while more efficient and less risky, removes much of the humanity from social interaction. This is the “catch-22” paradox of social media’s effect on relationships—it provides people with less accountability and yet more liability; more connection and less communion; more socializing and less society.

          We are unknowingly forgetting the value of strong-ties as our minds and habits slowly, sometimes unconsciously, change. By habitually using technologies that support weak-ties, we are both changing and contradicting our instinctual need for real relationships—for strong ties. They are becoming museum pieces. The face-to-face conversation is not as welcome anymore. When Sherry Turkle asked people, "What's wrong with having a conversation?" they responded, “I'll tell you what's wrong with having a conversation! It takes place in real time and you can't control what you're going to say.” People still interact with each other every day—teachers, family members, bosses. They cannot avoid physical contact and connection, but is such a relationship becoming more of an anomaly than digital contact and connection? One teenager, when asked what she would do without her phone said, “I wouldn’t know how to talk to people.” Social media naturally fosters different types of communication styles than the ones which real-time conversations foster. It gives the speaker a filter and a barrier of time, control, and perception, whereas face-to-face conversation is more immediate, more telling, and requires more work from the speaker. In a world where Joe and Jane spend up to six hours on social media and less than two hours physically interacting with people, it seems like the media style of communication will naturally overthrow the real one, the present one. It seems that people no longer attach the same value to strong-ties. Or, if they do attach same value, then they have over-valued weak-ties. They have favored the phantom over the person—the idol over the icon.

5. Methods for Countering An Influx of Weak-Ties and Supporting the Icon—

          The problem may seem immense, but the solution is simple. When the weak-ties of social media overpower strong-tie relationships, when the phantom seems more appealing than the real person, then a person must examine his private life. Being more self-aware, he must become the controller and not the controlled. As Dr. Siegel revealed, every part of the brain and body wants to be social, but what “kind” of social will you let it be? What kinds of relationships do you value—iconic ones or illusions of them? As Turkle encourages: be willing to hold conversation about the topic, understanding the nature of technology as a tool rather than a creature—as separate from the human essence. With this understanding, the use of technology should be tailored to specific circumstances—need versus desire, chastity versus gluttony, and vulnerability versus feigned intimacy. And lastly, the scales require balancing. An idol and phantom reveals the “what” of a person—his external nature; the first layer of his personhood. By its nature, social media often only presents a person as an idol—a shell of what he really is. To be able to see that same person as an “icon”—to understand him for “who” he is in the deepest and most intimate sense—requires the characteristics of a strong-tie relationship: vulnerability, physical closeness, and real conversation. It is the discipline, moderation, veneration, and respect for the human soul which makes a relationship “iconic.”  The “what” cannot become more important than the “who,” the weak-tie more prevalent than the strong-tie, and the idol more preferred to the icon.

6. Conclusion—

          The invention of social media is, by no means, a bad thing—it is a neutral tool bereft of moral value. However, it still has the ability to mold and influence the human psyche, and thus, the nature of human relationships. As an efficient facilitator of “weak-ties,” social media can certainly broaden the horizons of a person’s social life, while simultaneously decreasing his interaction with society as his relationships become less and less “iconic.” The mind, in its desire to be social, oftentimes cannot distinguish between the phantom “what” of a person and his iconic “who” and with that, comes the widespread and constant use of social media. However, with this delightful new phenomenon of expansive networks and instantaneous connections, it is important to understand how gravely social media can damage real human relationships if not used with discretion or awareness. Media, while not the culprit, must still be balanced by the introspection of oneself—a balance which leads to healthy, strong, and iconic relationships without destroying valuable weak-tie relationships. For as R.W. Emerson once pointed out, the “reason why the world lacks unity”—the reason, in this case, that social media has come to be a more negative than positive influence on our relationships—“is, because man is disunited with himself.” To better unite with others, unite with yourself. This is the key to social media.

Works Cited

Aristotle. "Metaphysics." Introduction to Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Modern Library, 1947. N. 237-96. Print. 

"Charts from the American Time Use Survey." United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/#list>

Carr, Nicholas G. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print. 

Damascene, St. John. Three Treaties on the Divine Images. Trans. Andrew Louth. Ed. John Behr. Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 2003. Print. Popular Patristics.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "Nature." The Complete Works. Ed. Edward Emerson. Vol. 1. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1904. Print.

Gladwell, Malcolm. "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-3>

How Social Media Is Affecting Teens. The National. CBC/Radio-Canada, 24 Feb. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2439278127/>.

How Social Media Is Changing Our Brains And Reshaping Our Relationships. Prod. Justin Gmoser. Business Insider. MongoDB, 24 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-impact-brain-relationships-siegel-2014-12>.

Lenhart, Amanda. "Couples, the Internet, and Social Media." PewResearchCenter. Pew Research Center, 11 Feb. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/>

Stockman, Farah. "Nursing Home Holiday — Lonely or Just Alone?" Editorial. Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners, 30 Dec. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/12/29/nursing-home-holiday-lonely-just- alone/ighuLiUS2WiyuymnLx1adN/story.html>

Turkle, Sherry. "The Flight from Conversation." Editorial. New York Times. New York Times Company, 21 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html?_r=0>

Turkle, Sherry. "Connected, but Alone?" TED2012. Feb. 2012. TED. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together?language=en>

Thayer, Joseph. "εἴδωλον." Def. 1497. Thayer's Greek Lexicon. BibleSoft, 2011. Bible Hub. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://biblehub.com/greek/1497.htm> 

Thayer, Joseph. "εἰκών." Def. 1504. Thayer's Greek Lexicon. BibleSoft, 2011. BibleHub. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://biblehub.com/greek/1504.htm>

Williams, David. "How Much Is The Internet Really Telling Your Boss?" Forbes. Forbes.com, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkwilliams/2012/09/12/how-much-is-the-internet-really-telling-your-boss/>

Creative Writing #21, The Concert and the Radio

Can the same sound have different sounds? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7to61_AK1zs

The band settles itself on the stage and the tuning begins—isolated sounds erupt into the air. The clarinet and oboe murmur some sultry tones as the trumpet blares briefly. The string instruments lazily harmonize and I fumble with my dress, pulling the black satin back over my stockingless knees. I tuck a stray hair behind my ear and flip through the program, trying to appear as sophisticated as the blasé crowd surrounding me. The music prepares itself. I prepare myself. Silence drops on the lounge and I glance up. Now, we are both ready. 

No niceties, no introductions. The music begins immediately and Bublé opens the night with Sinatra’s “Learning The Blues.” The brass—sassy and rhythmic. Somehow my heartbeat echoes its uneven staccatos. The piano—edgy and sparkling. My fingers dance on my knee, searching for the chords. The percussion—faithful and familiar. I don’t notice my left foot freely following along. Particles of sound touch everything. They are palpable, tangible. For once, melody materializes and tone actualizes. Sound takes on shape and density. It can be felt and heard. Each pitch hits me differently; each note takes on a distinct color. Puffs of it roll through the room, waves of it tumble across chairs, and streams of it rush over our limbs. The dandelion blare of the trumpet, the purple bop of the drum, the blush throb of the violin and the cobalt ding of the piano. 

****************************

The old truck rumbles along the gravel and I fiddle the rusty knobs on the radio, searching for something other than the news. There, finally—the jazz station. Grandpa refuses to fix the car. It’s too much of a “classic.” Midnight is fast approaching, but he needs a screwdriver from the Walmart ten miles down the road and “no time is better than now.” The radio static fades into “Learning The Blues.” My thumbs tap the steering-wheel rhythmically and I stare blankly at the blackness in front of me. A deer. I brake rapidly and my messy bun falls out and over my face. The trumpet squeals at this point and I sigh, fixing my hair as Bublé sings about “the nights when you don't sleep. . .” Gazing at the boxy mechanism emanating jazz music, I realize that the wavelengths have no effect. They are distant. They are the same. No colors, no textures. They are grey and lifeless--the sound coming out in even chunks rather than boisterous surges. Sameness in each consecutive melody, tone, note. It pleases the ear, but it does not captivate the soul. The song on the radio is only an echo of something past—a song already sung. It is the ghost of music and the afterlife of the musician. Bublé tells me “those blues” will haunt my memory. I smile knowingly and switch the radio off, content to listen to the soprano choir of cicadas, the tenor voice of the cool summer wind, and the percussion of the uneven gravel beneath me. 

The Church Fathers and 1984

The Church Fathers and 1984 

I finally read Orwell’s famous 1984 this semester for AP Lang/Comp. Although I did not find it particularly appealing, I cannot deny the genius of its author. Woven into the delicate paradoxes of the story are countless political, philosophical, ethical, relational, linguistic and metaphysical questions. . . .

Very early on in the novel, I encountered the Party’s official and incredibly paradoxical slogan inscribed on the white walls of the Ministry of Truth (minitru):

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Up until this semester, my knowledge of 1984 was peripheral and limited. I came to it without any expectations or any preconceived notions. When I read the first maxim in this slogan (War is Peace), my initial “connection” was not one which associated the Party with our modern government or with another dystopian reality. Instead, I associated it with the writings of the early Church and Desert Fathers on passions and sin. In all honesty, evil totalitarian slogans and the writings of the Church Fathers do not even belong in the same sentence, but let me explain myself. . . .  

“Conflict is Control”

However, before I do that, let me give some context to the phrase, "War is Peace. . . ."

To begin, the maxim, “War is Peace,” has quite a few interpretations. In one sense, it can be interpreted to mean that constant external strife creates internal stability. War with something “outside” of a country inevitably creates unity within a country. In another sense, it can be interpreted to mean that people are united under a common enemy. The Party creates a sense of “revolution” to purge the old world and to usher in and establish the dynasty of Big Brother. The society’s common enemy is ideological: anything other than what Big Brother permits. Although it seems contradictory, this constant state of social turmoil becomes the social norm. The people define normality and stability—or “peace”—as continuous conflict. Lastly, Oceania (Europe) is always at war, so those born during the days of Big Brother do not remember a time without war. In essence, their idea of peace is equivalent with warfare. The two words take on the same semantic meaning. Warfare means normality and normality means peace. 

However, in all of these cases, “war” or “conflict” is a means of manipulative control. To accept this paradox of “War is Peace” is to accept the idea that war and peace are interdependent and inseparable. With war, comes peace and where peace is achieved, war has taken place or is taking place. In the context of 1984, the maxim “War is Peace” is more honestly translated as “Conflict is Control.”

For Further Reading: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/386688-the-war-therefore-if-we-judge-it-by-the-standards 

“Struggle is Salvation”

Now, I immediately thought of the Church Fathers when I read the words “War is Peace” because of their many teachings on the relationship between spiritual struggle and joy. In a way, they also believe that a kind of external strife creates internal stability. Many of them speak of how to achieve peace by warring with the passions—with sin. According to them, a man does not achieve peace only after warring with his passions, but he achieves peace and joy while warring with them.

St. John of Kronstadt says to “fight against them [the passions] valiantly and vigilantly unto your last breath, looking upon them as dreams of your imagination, as illusions of the spirits of evil.” 

Here, St. John establishes that we do, indeed, “war” against our passions. 

St. Anatoly of Optina writes: “Are you fighting against your passions? Fight, fight, and be good soldiers of Christ! Do not give in to evil and do not be carried away by the weakness of the flesh. During the time of temptation, flee to the Physician, crying out with the Holy Church, our mother: “O God, number me with the thief, the harlot, and the publican (i.e., with the repentant), and save me!”

Here, St. Anatoly also affirms that our interaction with sin should be one of struggle, wrestling, prayer and valiant spiritual effort. 

James 1:2-4 also says, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

Here, James, the brother of Jesus, concludes that trials and tests—the “wars” against sin—are indeed profitable. That they are meant to bring completeness and perfection. 

As the Party does in 1984, the Church Fathers also believe that “War is Peace.” However, what differentiates the two from each other is their understanding of war, of peace, and of humanity. With Big Brother's totalitarian government, war is unpleasant and unavoidable conflict, peace is stability and control, and humanity is without hope or goodness or consciousness. In the writings of the Church Fathers, war with sin is also an unpleasant and unavoidable conflict, but peace is freedom from passions and humanity has hope and the ability to wage a war which can, with God’s grace, be won. 

Creative Writing #20 - The Komboskini

Creative Writing #20 - The Komboskini

Α short piece I wrote for a scholarship application...slightly edited.

(Fr. Justinius, the αγιοταφιτης of Jacob's Well)

It all happened very quickly. I was standing next to the Well of Sychar in West Bank, Israel. A short little monk strained to slide something onto my tiny wrist. Before I could look down, he mumbled something in Greek—a blessing—and jovially tapped my head a few times. When I finally got my wits about me, I looked down. It was a small black bracelet. Many of the youth who visit him receive these bracelets—“komboskini,” as the Greeks call them. It was a common occurrence, but when it happened to me, I cried. 

There is nothing extravagant about it—just 72 tight knots. I know, because I’ve counted them during moments of writer’s block. It is simple, but why is it significant? 

He put it on my left hand. 

Traditionally, cultures elevate the right hand. Even now, blessings are given or received with it. The left hand—the “sinister” hand—is ignored in matters of importance. I'm left-handed. The monk had placed this “blessing” on my writing hand, not my right hand.

I am a writer and a lover of language. Words are what I do best. The gift he gave me blessed the physical source of all my writing: my left hand. 

Of course, the blessing did not magically transform me into an Emerson or an Aristotle. Instead, it reassured me that I was, indeed, on the right path. He broke tradition to show me that I needed to write... what will I write? what should I write? I don't know. I only know that in that tight little room beneath the main church, clouded with the sweet smells of incense and anointing oil, I realized that I must write... something, someday, somewhere, but I must write. 

~Εἰρήνη and Σιώπα, Day #2~

~Εἰρήνη and Σιώπα~

Although school usually gets in the way, today I actually went to bible study at Holy Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church. The discussion was on the Gospel of Mark, specifically the fourth chapter. At the end, after Christ speaks about the parable of the mustard seed, the famous “calming of the seas” scene occurs. . .

There arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And he (Christ) was in the hinder part of the ship, 

asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, 

Master, carest thou not that we perish?

And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, 

“Peace, be still.” 

And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. . .

(Mark 4:37-9)

In Greek, “Peace, be still” is “Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο (Siopa, pephimoso).” Siopa, as seen above, is translated as “peace.” And, yes, that is one translation of it. However, another more accurate translation of the word is “silence” or “hush.” It comes from a verb σιωπάω (siopao) which means “to be quiet, remain silent; to be calm, not agitated.”  It indicates a conscious or unconscious state of rest or peace. 

In essence, the command “Siopa!” means, “do not be restless!” The word itself defines peace apophatically—for what it is not. Peace is not restless.

Throughout the Bible, but especially throughout St. John Chrysostom’s liturgy, another word frequently repeats itself: “Εἰρήνη (Eereni)” or “Peace.” In comparison to Siopa, Eereni defines peace cataphatically—for what it is: “quietness and rest.”

It appears constantly throughout the petitions and litanies which the priest or deacon read before the Gospel during the Liturgy of the Catechumens. During this time, peace is a request. Either the priests or the priests and the congregation ask for peace. 

That is, until the Gospel. At the Gospel, everyone in the congregation stands and the priest says, “Wisdom! Arise! Let us hear the holy Gospel. Peace be to all!” This is one of the first times that eereni is no longer a supplication. It is a gift. It is here that the priest or deacon turns toward the congregation and says, “Εἰρήνη πᾶσι! Peace be to all!”

Why is this significant? It takes place directly before the Liturgy of the Faithful. 

And why is that placement significant? Because of Mark 4! 

(This is an old diagram I used for notes while studying Church architecture quite a few years back…) 

The area where the congregation sits is often called, in architectural and in theological terms, the “nave.” Coming from the latin word for “navis” or “ship,” a nave is simply the main body of a ship. Or, in the case of the Church, the area where the main body of Christ—the congregation—stays during liturgy. Many have said this terminology originated from how the architecture, especially the arch or roof, of the main body of the church resembled the stern and keel of a ship. 

Now if a three year old-boy heard such a thing, he would immediately say, “So the Church is like a ship!” And, us older people would chuckle and say, “It’s not that simple.”  The truth is, neither the three year-old or the adult is entirely right. It is a paradox. It is both that simple and not that simple.

When the disciples, fearing for their lives, woke Christ, He went out of the chamber in which He was sleeping and onto the dock, instructing the raging sea of Galilee to be silent, quiet, calm, and at rest. However, the real restlessness was not in the sea. It was in the hearts of the disciples. His purpose is twofold and one in the same. He meant to bring peace, but to both the sea and to the disciples. 

Similarly, when the priest, as an icon of Christ, turns toward the people before the Gospel and says, “Εἰρήνη πᾶσι! Peace be with you all!” he is doing as Christ did. He is bestowing peace upon the sea of the congregation and calming the rocking ship or, in this case, the tumultuous nave. He is calling for silence, peace, quietness, restfulness and contemplation of the work ahead. The congregation—about to embark into the Liturgy of the Faithful—is asked to lay aside the storms of their lives, all their “earthly cares.” 

“Liturgia” literally means the work of the people. However, work cannot be done when the people are in chaos, when a storm is brewing. When you come to Church, to liturgy, remember that you are safely in the nave and you are no longer in the storm.

Breadcrumb #2: Be at peace. 

(A big thanks to my amazing mother, Priscilla, who held an extensive discussion with me about this on the way back home from Bible study!) 

The Tree of Knowledge: Technology and the Millennial Generation

An essay I wrote yesterday for AP Lang/Comp... Would you agree? Disagree?

The Tree of Knowledge: Technology and the Millennial Generation

            In the beginning, Adam and Eve had a choice: they could eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and have seemingly unlimited knowledge at their fingertips or they could obey God and live without the burden that the knowledge would bring them. In today’s world, people have a choice to open their laptops with a snazzy half-bitten apple on the back and bask in a tsunami of information, eventually drowning in its magnitude—unable to manage or use it correctly. Or, they could take this “tree” of knowledge and use it for the better, knowing when to eat of its fruits and when to abstain. The firstlings of this world and the “millennials” hold something in common with the rest of humanity: a desire for knowledge, but a knack for misusing it. In the digital age, technology is lauded because of its great accomplishments: the computer, sending man to the moon, revolutionary medical advances. Yet, with the influx of technology, the millennial generation seems to fall a step short: lacking depth, simplicity and, in many ways, self-control. Although technology itself is not responsible for the increased ignorance and inabilities of millennials, the misuse of technology is responsible for the disintegration of this generation, revealing the effects that a tool can have in the hands of the untrained or undiscerning.

            Like any tool, technology is a double-edged sword—it can cut both ways: to destroy the mind or to assist it. It is a neutral tool bereft of moral value. Some say, with the advent of Artificial Intelligence, that technology will eventually develop its own moral intelligence based upon logic and reason. Others believe that something created by humans will always remain in the control of humans—subject to their moral integrity or lack thereof. Yet, in the context of technology’s neutral essence, neither opinion is entirely correct. A lifeless tool can be used and still affect the life of its user. However, assuming that technology itself is the cause of the millennial’s plight is not only a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it fails to dig deeper and see the real cause. The tool affects the life of the user, but the use of the tool is where the effect begins. In his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Nicholas Carr wrestles with this paradox between a tool’s neutrality and its positive or negative effect on the human mind. He believes that media not only “supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought (Carr 168).” In its gravity, technology tempts him, but in the end, he is the one who gives in, puddle-jumping from link to link unaware that his focus is floundering. It is the not-so-age-old story of “I’m just going to check my email” and the next two hours are spent playing hopscotch on Pinterest, Facebook, or news articles. A knife is meant to cut, but it is used for both murder and cuisine. Technology is meant to provide information and service, but how do people use it?

            Within an increasingly globalized world, technology has been used for multiple purposes—academia, security, exploration, etc.—but, do its uses outweigh its misuses? In the most positive sense, technology has helped improve life in the areas of general efficiency, personal comfort and information availability. Thanks to it, some of the most grueling tasks are now automated, home life is easier with the advent of the microwave and internet, and very few need a library to find source materials. Surprisingly, people write more now than ever before, according to Clive Thompson, who says that the Generation Y’s encounters with multiple interfaces of language and rhetoric have given them an incredible sense of kairos—“assessing their audience and adapting their technique to best get their point across (Thompson 173).” A popular media theorist, Steven Johnson, even tells the Discover magazine that the millennial generation has become a “regime of competence,” due to the gaming craze that has taught them to navigate, manage and master countless variables (Johnson 172). However, people like Mark Bauerlein passionately disagree that technology has created the new and improved Critical Thinking 2.0, saying that “the mental equipment of the young falls short of their media (Bauerlein 168).” Despite its numerous and helpful applications, a use of technology has ushered in a neglect of other tools. Informational abundance is simultaneously a famine of knowledge and skill. To quote a Pew survey, “56 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds possessed low knowledge levels, while only 22 percent of 50-to-60-year-olds did (Bauerlein 168).” The traditional pillars of acquired knowledge—philosophy and politics, trades and tradition, writing and history—have been discarded, leaving a culture that, as each day passes, moves toward a shallow future, only to forget a rich past.

            The use of technology itself is altering how people have functioned for thousands of years—the lines between perception and reality are blurred, the differences between speed and quality are becoming greater, and the definitions of knowledge and ignorance are skewed. There will always be those who use power (in this case, technology) to prey upon the weak, the ignorant and the vulnerable. But, the true danger of technology rests in people using it without awareness or without approaching it correctly. As the cartoonist Roz Chaste demonstrates in her 2010 cover of The New Yorker, the generation’s focus has shifted and thus their focus is slowly deteriorating (Chaste 174). The perception of social media is not the reality of the world. The speed of internet research does not match the quality of a contemplative walk outside. Convenient knowledge has become an addiction, yet ignorance spreads without temperance. Modern surveillance is unparalleled and yet crime is still rampant. Humanity is creeping toward a second Tower of Babel as globalization creates homogeneity. Pleasure is often overwhelming without a mature understanding of it. For example, a toddler does not understand the consequences of eating his entire birthday cake. Similarly, this generation, when encountered with the novelty of modern technology, is not aware of the consequences of its use and is not capable of using it correctly, without another “tool” or set of “values.” 

            In the end, the millennial generation is drowning because they do not know how to swim in a sea of knowledge. This sea of knowledge—of technology—is innocent, without moral value or conviction. Its tide will rise and fall and it will continue to be the source of life for new ideas, creations, and advances. But, biologically, a human cannot drink from the sea—from salt water—and still live. He must either know that he cannot drink it or he must know how to remove the salt. Similarly, the millennial generation cannot live on technology, but they are unaware that depending on it solely will be to their destruction unless they learn to discern what is and what is not. They have bitten into the apple—eaten the fruit from Tree of Knowledge—but the question is: how will they use it? 

Works Cited

Bauerlein, Mark. The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and

Jeopardizes Our Future (or, Don't Trust Anyone under 30). New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2008. N. pag. Print.

Chast, Roz. "Shelved." New Yorker 18 Oct. 2010: n. pag. Print.

Carr, Nicolas."Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Atlantic 1 July 2008: n. pag. Atlantic. Atlantic

Monthly Group, Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

Johnson, Steven. "Your Brain on Video Games." Discover 24 July 2005: n. pag. Discover.

Kalmbach Publishing. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.Chast, Roz. "Shelved." New Yorker 18 Oct. 2010: n. pag. Print.

Thompson, Clive. "The New Literacy." Wired. Wired, 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.