Andrea Jones

The Poehler lecture this year was about faith and learning.  It is the application of faith to every field of learning.  The speaker was Dr. Shoenbeck.  He is a retired professor that used to work at Concordia.  He helped with the planning of the two semester school year and revised the curriculum during the same time to better suit the new system.  He talked about learning like a rope or cable with all of the disciplines wrapped around the center cable which is faith.  He recommended that the things students learn should be applied to life and that will encourage a student to learn more.  He told a really cute story about how his eight year old granddaughter found an interest in learning.  He then told a story about his son's student who only needed someone to care before he found the will to learn.  My favorite jokes were the pair of Docs, i.e. the Drs Schuler and the mayonnaise on jell-o.  They were both pretty funny.  He had a lot of interesting things to say about other things as well, but I really liked the part about learning being like a cord. 

                In the lector he talked a lot about programs that incorporated all the disciplines and centered them on faith like Honors, the Honors kids that were at the lecture all looked at each other when he mentioned our class.  The things he was talking about do apply to Honors.   It is a class where we study all the generals, but we also apply them to everyday life and the lives of the people around us.  This is a great way to learn because there is no reason to ask, "How does this apply to my life?"  It is interesting to study these things as they apply to our lives because it makes them easier to understand and learn about. 

                It was a very interesting lecture.  There were lots of things that he talked about that applied to the Honors program as a whole and me as a student.  The way he talked about learning is my ideal way to learn.  I used to be one of the students who always wondered about how one subject or another would apply to the things I would be doing in the "real world."  Things that seem useless to me are harder to learn because I cannot find the motivation to work hard on it.  I really liked most of the things he talked about.  It really hit close to home and that made it more interesting to me.

Xia Yang was born in Thailand refugee camp called Van Bineigh.  Her dad left because he had two wives. While she was in the camp she and her family lived in a building made of cement. In the building she remembers living in a small room with her family.  When her family moved to the states her mom was in her early 20s.  They originally lived in California.  They stayed in California until 1998 and then moved to Detroit, then lived there for a year and then moved to the Cities in1999.  When her mom worked she baby-sat her little brothers and sisters. At one point her mom worked the third shift so they would sleep alone.

Pa Itoua Yang's Dad was a professor in Laos and her grandpa worked for the CIA. Her Dad helped people fill out papers for food. He was also the leader of a small town in Laos.  The UN helped dad escape and didn't see him for four years.  Their family had 10 people in it so there were some financial troubles.  They were taken to the US in 2001 the day before September 11.  The US gave her family political asylum. Her dad supported her through High School because she didn't know the language very well.  He was always on her side. 

Xang Lee was born 1988, the same year as me.  His dad was from Thailand and his mother was from Laos.  During the war they went to a refugee camp.  The houses there were made out of wood and had roves made of zinc.  Each family was given food every three days but it wasn't enough.  The food was given by the UN.  Xang came to the US in 1993.  At one point, while they were still in a refugee camp, they left to go live with his paternal grandfather.  They ended up going back though because it was too dangerous.

The girls have to go straight home and cook and do homework.  They can't just stick to one culture because school is different than at home.  Guys have power over the spiritual world.  Girls have power in the spiritual world.  Their parents struggle with speaking English.  They mostly only speak English at work.

I pretty much expected it to be something like this, especially about adjusting.  I had trouble adjusting because we moved a lot, but at least I knew the language.  I took that into account and just figured that they had it way harder than I did.  The part about the girls wanting to stay traditional kind of shocked me.  I couldn't understand why they would want to after they told us how hard it made life for them.  They tried to explain, but I still don't get it. 

Mr. Long Yang said being a refugee is like being dead only still here.  He came here on March twelfth 33 years ago.  He got his associates degree as an electric technician.  He said that then he could fix things in his own house, like his television.  He was kind of hard to understand because he didn't talk very loudly, but his story seemed sadder, to me, than Ms. Choua Thao's. 

Ms. Choua Thao was really fun.  She went to night school for seven years and got a social worker's degree. She told us her name means tornado.  During the war she worked in the hospital. In 1975 she escaped over to Thailand, but went back to North one night.  During that time everyone was looking for her.  The communists really wanted her because she worked with the US government.  She said there were 60 beds per ward and 3-4 nurses in each ward.  She told us about a volleyball game where the players thought they could serve to her and she wouldn't get the ball, but she was a feisty old woman.  At the end of class she told us to do two things.  She told us to go and get a dream and them to be a good advocate for ourselves and our clients.  She wanted us all to work hard toward our goals even if we didn't think we'd make it there.

                This discussion really brought the events into sharper focus.  It's easy to say there was a war, but it's totally different to hear stories from people who took part in it.  The person telling the story also influences how you hear it.  Ms. Thao's stories seemed exciting and humorous while Mr. Yang's stories seemed dangerous and deadly.  There was a difference in the story teller and so the story was different.  This is important to take into consideration.  Someone who has not taken part in something may be able to give you the facts, but only someone who was there can give you the emotion.

                It's been a long time since anyone has told me that I could be the president of the US.  I haven't heard it since I was little.  It was inspiring to hear it again.  It was like I had forgotten that I could work hard and get to a place that was higher than the expectations people have for me.  II really started to think about my dream and I realized that I'd lost it somewhere along the way.  My new goal is to find a dream and work hard towards fulfilling that dream.  After this discussion I feel that my drive has been restored.  Let's see how long it lasts this time.

On Monday night Professor Lee Pao Xiong's told us many interesting facts about the Hmong center.  I had not known that is was also a place to study.  I never even considered it as a place for anything but the museum I thought it was.  Going in was a little weird because I had never been in there before.  I did, however, like the way we were sitting.  I was sitting at the table and during his presentation I felt more like it we were having an interesting after dinner conversation.  The history was a little confusing when Dr. Hillmer was talking, but when Professor Xiong talked about it the sequence of events became a bit clearer. 

                The really interesting part though, was when he told his own story.  Hearing a firsthand account is somehow better than getting it from someone who had to ask someone else.  The later is seen in many books and it takes some of the emotion away from the telling.  The firsthand account that was given had a lot of emotion in it and it felt a little bit more real that way.  I was surprised that he was living with his father and when he told us that sometimes he got food for himself.  I can't imagine doing any of those things at that age.  When he told us about having fired and M-16 I was really shocked.  There really is no way for me to even picture something like that happening to me.  Then when he told us about the General's plan to only evacuate 130 families the only thing I was thinking was, "What a jerk!"  The professor is totally justified in his vehemence in insisting that the general had nothing to do with them being in America. 

                The artifacts in the house were really cool too.  I was thinking that the American dolls were really ironic about the same time it was said.  I almost laughed out loud.  The library is also really cool, and I hope they get some of those things translated soon so I can read them.  They seem like they would be really interesting to read.  It was also kind of neat to walk in and see the karaoke going.  The pictures were really calm and pretty.  Plus the picture over the mantle was really awesome.  I loved the way it shone from the reflection of the light off the gold leaf paint.

                Like I said before this was a way to make what Dr. Hillmer was talking about clearer.  It was probably pretty hard for Dr. Hillmer to fit so much in the limited two hours that we had for his presentation.  Although, without Dr. Hillmer's information it would have been really hard to keep up with Professor Xiong's story.  Each made the other easier to understand and better as a whole. 

                Hearing the story firsthand made it a bit more real in the course of events.  Things in different parts of the world tend to seem unreal and are hard to grasp for me.  When a person who has actually lived through it is presented it seems more real.  It is easy to see how a family could be affected just from listening to the story about how they waited for a long time for his father's plane to land.  Hearing things like this really touches me in a different way than when I just hear it during a lecture or read it in a book.

I drove to the AMC movie theatre in Roseville.  I had heard that the movie was going to be a tear jerker so I had come prepared with a new package of Kleenex.  We got to the theatre and we were talking about what other movies we might want to see some other time.  When we got into the theatre it was already dark and we wanted to find enough seats to sit together.  We did find enough, but we had to ask a couple to please scoot over one so that Dr. Schuler could sit with us too.  Then the movie started.

We were still talking a little bit during the previews, mostly about whether they would be good movies or if we thought we might want to see them.  When the actual movie started we were still kind of talking a little bit.  We would comment on something that was familiar or something that was ridiculous, like that spoiler on the back of the one guy's car.  We also noticed that in the scenes with the gangs they said "f***" all the time.  It got kind of annoying after the nineteenth time they said it.  As the movie wore on I thought it wasn't too bad, but I'd probably not have wanted to see it again.  Another thing I remember was how disgusted his grandkids made me.  They were so snotty and didn't respect him at all.  Every scene with the kids in it made me cringe.  I couldn't get over their behavior.  Then the plot got going a little more.

When I really started to internally panic was as soon as Tao was locked in the stair well.  I sort of knew what was going to happen after that, especially when he gave his dog to the old woman next door.  The one thing I didn't see was the way he would do it without any violence on his part.  The most violent thing he did in the last scene was made a gun with his fingers and pretends to shoot the kids.  This was totally different from the rest of the movie.  He was always really violent and aggressive.  As soon as he took out the cigarette and asked for a light, though, I figured out what he was going to do.  He knew what would happen when he went for the lighter that quickly.  It was a noble sacrifice and fit in with his character development perfectly.  After he died I pretty much just bawled for the rest of it.  I knew what the will would say and that the family would be pissed.  It made me really happy that they included all his language in the will.  I don't know why, except maybe that it made him seem like less of a mythical hero and more like the person he was.

I think this was a great way to learn about immigration and some of the problems that immigrants deal with today.  It's easy to assign the age of immigrants to the time of our grandparents and think only of the refugees and foreigners.  This movie was a modern day immigrant story that exposed prejudice and those who go the extra mile to help their neighbors. 

This movie really made an impact on me.  When I got back to the apartment I didn't want to talk to anyone.  I want in my room and cried for a little while longer, and then I started listening to music.  It was all sad music, but as time wore on I noticed that a lot of the songs I was looking up had some kind of happiness at the end.  I thought about it as the night went on.  I noticed that the movie was a lot like real life.  I don't know if anyone in real life would do what Walt did, but the bitter-sweetness of it.  The end was terribly real.  All over the world senseless violence is carried out and some give their lives to put a stop to it.  It's easy to forget that in the comfort of my living room, but the movie really moved it up to the front of my thoughts.  I know it's only been two days since I've seen the movie but I'm trying to think about the important things more.  I will try and continue doing this, even on the most peaceful of days, so as never to forget the sacrifices people have made for my well being and the well being of people every where.

The discussion was very enlightening.  It was interesting to hear what my classmates had to say about the book.  There were a lot of people who felt like I felt, like there we are a lot better off than we know.  Even the fact that we can't even fathom some of these experiences is a testament to how sheltered and safe our lives have been.  This reminds me of the time last year when the class was talking about the first book I'd even read for Honors called The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne.  That was another book that was hard to relate to and some of the events described in his book were here in America.  I feel like I should appreciate the things I have more.  I have so much that I don't even need to survive, like my stacks of DVDs, that I take the essentials for granted even more than the nonessentials. 

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in American history.  It was written by Thomas Jefferson.  Unlike most of the founders of the United States of America Jefferson was a deist.  This was also the period in history called the Enlightenment.  During this period reason was the main component in all things such as thought, invention, and politics.  Since the writer of the Declaration was influenced by the period he lived in and his beliefs there are influences of deism and Enlightenment concepts within this historical document.  These influences are easily seen in certain phrases and concepts in the Declaration.  These will be discussed by the author in the following paragraphs.  Jefferson was influenced by all three concepts of enlightenment.  He used the concepts of reason, nature, change and progress.  He also used deism.

According to A Short History of Western Civilization the concept of reason stated that, "All assumptions should be subjected to critical and empirical reasoning.  Traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (496).  In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson calls for the people to throw off the rule of the king they had followed their entire lives.  He did this because the king may have been in charge of them traditionally but the king had exceeded the boundaries of reason in the dealings with the American colonies.  The Declaration is in and of itself a call for people to think reasonably and see for themselves that King George was not a good king for them.  This was a critical part of the Declaration because if people had not listened to this part there would have been no rebellion, no revolution, and no America. 

Another concept of Enlightenment was the concept of nature.  "Nature is governed by a few simple and unchangeable laws...A move to nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (Harrison, Sullivan, Sherman 469).  This was also an influence on the Declaration of Independence.  When Thomas Jefferson opens this document he states why it is necessary to separate from England.  He directly uses the words "...Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." (The Declaration of Independence 1).  This is a direct reference to the concept of nature talked about in A short History of Western Civilization.  In short Thomas Jefferson is saying that the Laws of Nature are what entitle the colonies to dissolve the relationship with England. 

There is one last concept of enlightenment the influenced the Declaration of Independence.  Change and Progress was a major influence.  The Declaration of Independence changed the colonies future.  No longer would they be under British control.  They would be their own nation that could declare war, arrange trade agreements, and decide punishments.  The particular passage that influenced the Declaration of Independence is, "Change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison, Sullivan, Sherman 469).  There is a specific passage in the Declaration of Independence.  Assuming the entire document is based on the concepts of enlightenment, specifically reason, the most similar passage to this concept would be in the fourth paragraph where it states, "That whenever and Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute a new Government" (The Declaration of Independence 1). 

The final influence on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence was deism.  In the Dictionary of Christianity in America states that "...deism is essentially a rationalistic religion, which assumes that all men naturally possess the ability to know the universe's Deity through reason, and that the creator of the universe was a rational architect" (1).  The Declaration of Independence's most famous lines is the most obvious form of deism in the document.  "We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (1).  In this passage the Deity is mentioned as the "Creator" (1).  It also references the fact that there are rights the Deity gave to all men, or what was part of the Deity's rational architecture.

Thomas Jefferson and The Declaration of Independence were influenced heavily by concepts of Enlightenment and deism.  This is evident by the numerous passages that directly relate to these topics.  This is no surprise considering the period of history Jefferson lived in and the religion he followed.  It is obvious to this author that these things played a large role in one of the most important documents in American history.

In the    Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas discusses the relationship between reason and revelation.  The term for this is scholastic theology.  This is when a person combines reason and faith so it can be accepted by all people.  This was especially true in the time of Thomas Aquinas when philosophy was a prominent area of learning and Aristotle's works were being rediscovered.  In this particular example of scholastic theology Thomas Aquinas discusses two primary truths.  The first is the first condition: The ability of the mind to know the truth.  The second is the first principle: the principle of non-contradiction.  These two primary truths are used to make plain the fact that the natural order and the spiritual order could balance out, or in other words to show that there could be harmony between faith and reason.

Thomas Aquinas starts out Chapter 7 of Summa Contra Gentiles by discussing how the mind is able to know the truth.  This is the first condition of the three primary truths.  He uses this truth to illustrate that revelation cannot be without reason.  He states that the human brain knows certain things.  With just this knowledge a person cannot understand the Christian faith.  He says, "Now the afore mentioned truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason, never the less those things which are naturally instilled in human reason cannot be opposed to the truth" (333).  This is in reference to the knowledge humans have as part of the natural order.  It is not something that people have been given a revelation about.   There is also knowledge of the spiritual order.  That is knowledge that God gave to people when he made them.  This is what Thomas Aquinas says about the spiritual knowledge, "Now the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God Himself is the author of our nature" (333-334).  In this way it is easy to see that both the natural and spiritual nature of human knowledge can work together.  Since something cannot be true if it does not fit into the spiritual knowledge that was given to humans by God then it is not true.  However, just because the natural knowledge cannot understand does not mean it is false.  For example, though the natural knowledge of the human brain cannot understand fully how Jesus was true God and true man it is a truth that can be understood with the spiritual nature God gave people when He created them.  Since this is true if something is cannot be grasped as true through the spiritual nature it cannot be a Divine Truth from God.

                The next thing Thomas Aquinas talks about in the Summa Contra Gentiles is the first principle: The principle of non-contradiction.  If this principle is not held as truth than a human can learn nothing because the natural knowledge would be unable to grasp a fact without this truth.  The fact that the natural order is not able to understand something if it has a contrary argument is not something that God did.  Thomas Aquinas says, "Our intellect is stayed by contrary arguments, so that it cannot advance to the knowledge of truth" (334).  God also does not give revelations to humans if they are the opposite of the knowledge that is part of the natural order.  This is said in the text by Thomas Aquinas, "Now contrary opinions cannot be together in the same subject.  Therefore God does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge" (334).  Thomas Aquinas is talking about the fact that if something is said to fit into the spiritual knowledge but cannot fit into the natural knowledge it cannot be from God because God would not do something like that to the human race because they would get confused and would never reach the true knowledge.  He says that if, "...whatever arguments are alleged against the teaching of faith, they do not rightly proceed from the first self-evident principles instilled by nature" (334).  This is his way of saying that if the argument a person hears goes against the Old testament or the New Testament (he quotes a verse of the Bible in the previous paragraph) then it cannot possibly in the spiritual order or the natural order of things.

                Thomas Aquinas uses the first contradiction and the first principle to show that there could be harmony between faith and reason.  He did this because he lived in a time when philosophy was a science and Aristotle's works were being rediscovered.  The method he used was called scholastic theology because it combined reason and revelation.  Summa Contra Gentiles was the work of a genius which is evident through its concise arguments that show that faith and reason can be in harmony with one another.

Angelou's "startling truth" is the fact that humans are this world's most beautiful and best treasure, and when people finally come to this truth all wars, violence, and hatred will be over.   I agree with her based on three things.  The first and third could be called subjective truths and the last reason I agree with Maya Angelou is based on an absolute truth.

The first reason I agree with Angelou is because I believe that if people would take care of others before themselves then the world would be a better place.  If a person is on the street and hungry because they have nowhere to go then someone should help them either by taking them to a shelter or even taking them home, depending on a person's comfort level.  If more people put other's needs first then there would not be as many needy people in this country and we could start focusing on how to help other countries with their poverty problems as well.  My belief is a subjective truth because it is personally true for me and may not be true to anyone else.

The absolute truth behind my agreement with Maya Angelou is simple.  If everyone thought everyone else was great and a person was more valued then something like oil or land then there would be no more killing.  If there would be no more killing there would be no way to have a war.  Likewise no one would go hungry because the world would be motivated by the human existence instead of a desire to satiate themselves first.  I believe that this type of world is the kind that Angelou describes and this is absolutely true.

The third reason I agree with Angelou's truth is based on the truth that men were created in the image of God and the first man and woman were perfect.  One of the reasons they were so perfect was because they were in such a relationship where God was number one and then the other person came first.  Adam and Eve knew they were the best part of creation because God them dominion over all the creatures He had made.  In short what Maya Angelou writes is the perfection of the Garden of Eden and the world to come.  This may be called a subjective truth because it is not true for everyone, and it cannot be proven.  To me, however, this truth is absolute.

The reasons I have given for agreeing to Angelou's "startling truth" are subjective and absolute.  The first reason is because I believe in the value of people based on their own humanity.  The second is because God made us in His image and when we get back to that everything will be good again.  The third reason is because if people were valued more than things than there would be no violence, war, or hatred because a life would mean more than an object.

This sentence, like post-modernism, can mean anything.  It can mean that to a person outside of this class the sentence has no particular meaning except what is written.  However, to a person in Honors 101, this sentence and the way they interpret it can mean the difference between a good paper and a bad paper.  On the other hand there are people like the author of this paper who think this sentence and the whole post-modern movement mean nothing.  On short this sentence can mean anything, everything, and nothing. 

First of all this sentence could mean anything at all.  In a conversation it could mean that a person is trying to change an awkward subject or break the ice.  This sentence could mean that it is indeed a superfluous set of words that was thrown together in the spur of the moment.  This would be the definition of the sentence that would most relate to post-modernism.  Post-modernism seems to be a movement that was thrown together on the spur of the moment.  The original term was used for a movement within the artistic world, but the meaning now seems to have been discussed in a large group that could not come up with one definition and so compromised and put many of their ideas together and called it a definition. 

According to that definition everything falls under the category of post-modernism.  A piece of art can still be post-modern, but there is also a new dimension to the definition.  Now knowledge, reason and truth can be put under a post-modern microscope and be judged as good or bad according to the people it marginalizes.  Therefore, post-modernism can be the assumption that a friend's shirt looks pretty. A post-modernist would say that is marginalizing the people who may not looks as pretty in the shirt as a friend does and so the statement uttered would not be a truth.  There is no relative truth because while something may be true in relative to something else the truth could marginalize another and so the truth cannot be true at all.  In these terms post-modernism applies to absolutely everything everyone says or does because it may marginalize another person.

Finally the sentence could in fact mean nothing at all.  That is this author's opinion anyway.  This is how she feels about post-modernism too.  In her opinion the people who came up with post-modernism in the first place were merely trying to keep themselves from the truth.  Truth can be relative, subjective, objective, or absolute.  The way post-modernism tries to make these void is bothersome.  The truth cannot be denied simply because it is not advantageous to a group of people.  Going with that as a stipulation then saying that terrorism is bad would not be a truth according to post-modernism because it does not cast terrorist in a fair light.  Rather a post-modern person would have it said that terrorists are merely misguided in their sense of justice, or that terrorists are people who are being used because they are under educated and do not know any better.  While this may be true it does not mean that terrorism is not still bad.  That is why to this author post-modernism means nothing.  It has no place in her mind and she does not accept it as a truth, absolute or otherwise.

"This sentence serves no logical purpose" is a wonderful illustration of post-modernism because it can mean anything, everything and nothing.  It can mean anything to a person who just happens to read it over the shoulder of an honors student who is doing their paper.  It could mean everything to an honors student who is trying his or her best to relate the sentence to the meaning of post-modernism.  Lastly, it can mean nothing at all to anyone.  To further illustrate the point a picture that most resembles this author's definition of the relation between the sentence and post-modernism has been added.