The Mysterious Case of the Universal Language

 I believe that the Universal Language is the connection between all things. InThe Alchemist, there is a suggestion that there is more than one universal language as seen on page 64, “...maybe he was also learning the universal language that deals with the past and present of all people.” On page 121, it states that “...my horse knows the language of life.” While in this case the word universal was not used before it, the book still suggested two languages that could potentially build up along with others to create the Universal Language. “The world speaks many languages, the boy thought (89). The King of Salem stated that, “All things are one.” Perhaps each of the, respectfully, less significant languages combined are the Universal Language, the unspoken understanding of the threads that links this world together stitch by stitch. Santiago said that people used the Universal Language to communicate but were not aware that they were doing it (49). This suggests that the Universal Language was not something we brought into existence but something eternal, perhaps originating from the remnants of the Soul of the World within every thing and everyone (101). On page 82, The Alchemist states that, “But there was one idea that seemed to repeat itself throughout the books: all things are the manifestation of one thing only.” Clearly, the Universal Language has an origin, but I don't believe it to be only within the Soul of the World because that was suggested to be where men become one with the afterlife (101). As seen with Santiago, the Englishman, and the alchemist, being aware of the Universal Language is something a living person can do. The book also suggested that since Santiago knew the Soul of the World, it allowed him to learn to speak the Universal Language(109).

The idea of having a Universal Language that connects everyone reminds me much of Buddhism because Buddhists, among other things, seek to become one with the world. There is an energy that lives both within us and outside of us that is one and yet, we regard them as separate entities. Personally, I believe that space is much like a puzzle within a puzzle that contains yet another underlying puzzle. Each puzzle piece contains a puzzle in itself and so on and so forth. If this confuses anyone, I will add an image that could help ease your understanding. This combined with the Universal Language to me pointed towards the Universal Language being the expression of unity. I am not sure what omens are yet. I found it interesting when the Englishman said on page 72 that, “Everything in life is an omen.” Perhaps omens are everything and everyone since we are all reactions off of one another whether it be a person or a thing.

Just A Bit Too Personal

1. What is a Personal Legend, and why do you think this will be important in the rest of the book?

Our Personal Legends are the stories of our lives, the intricate tale whose foundations were built upon the threads that stitch our lives together memory be memory, kiss by kiss, tear by tear, thought by thought, love by love. We have these dreams that we either pursue or cast away like useless nothings. Each human being who has lived, lives, or will live will have a life, and it is the story of this life that is their Personal Legend. A person's Personal Legend is their pursuit of themselves. It is how they identify their own beliefs and loves. This is important because this book is a Personal Legend. The Alchemist is how a boy finds himself, and without a Personal Legend, it would never be conveyed properly.

What I Want To Learn (Teach Me How To Write Nonfiction Creatively)

       There's a certain kind of curiosity that comes with learning something that most assume to be already known- their own language. We speak English every day and yet, we don't really know. We don't know every crack and crevice of English nor the history of it. Language is an art form, much like clay or paint. You can mold it to create a masterpiece, a disaster, or something in between. I wish to hone the skill of creative writing in an analytical way.

Nonfiction has fascinated me ever since the day I read my first biography in second grade on Duke Ellington. I've always longed to write but, well, everything I write is over exaggerated and my wording can be a bit pretentious at times despite being unintentional. I want to write in a way that expresses what I mean concisely yet manages to snag all of those secretly craved details. The problem with this is that there is a very fine line between just enough and too much. I would like to learn how to write creative nonfiction in a way that allows me for to keep my writing style but gets to the point.

Writing analytically has never been my strong point considering my tendency to be excessive with adjectives and to make everything philosophical. If unbiased writing is possible to attain, then I wish to attain it. There is a distinct separation in my thoughts and emotions and yet, I struggle with finding it. This reflects in my writing. I think that I need to sort this out in my mind first and yet, maybe writing without emotion could aid me in my goal towards being able to control my emotions. Poetry is also another genre I seek to write better.

I hope we can write and read more poetry. There is a place in my heart reserved for poetry and yet I don't have much knowledge on it. While I do research it outside of school, I would like to learn about it in school too. Plus, you're funny and intelligent. You make me want to learn even more then I do already. Basically, I'd like to write true things in a creative way.

A Reflection On A (Very) Emotional Book.

Wool by Hugh Howey is the kind of book every author should aspire to write like. Not only is it written with flawless grammatical skill, the context also keeps the reader completely entangled. Vivid imagery allowed me to see through the author's eyes and become these characters while somehow managing to stay as myself. The author carefully balanced the connections forged between reader and character just Enoch to where it could still maintain my own perception while also seeing the characters. Each character is very well developed whether they are a side character or a protagonist. The author forced me to be deeply empathetic of these characters. Their pain was my pain. Their struggle was my struggle. Their joy was my joy. Despite the book taking place in an entirely different society, I could relate to at least one of these characters and even if I couldn't relate, I understood how and why they thought the way they did. That is a pretty remarkable achievement.

I cannot say that I connected to a single character because that is not true. I connected to every character whether it was Bernard who wanted to sentence an entire category of people to death or Juliette who just wanted to know what it meant to be alive because some days she wasn't sure if she was really even breathing. Each character had deep, personal struggle that was not revealed in plain sight. You had to think, and think, and think some more until that final epiphany came and everyone heard me say, "Oh!" With Lucas, I truly connected to his struggle to stay true to who he was despite not knowing who he was but only knowing he wasn't who people wanted him to be. He felt like he wasn't the right person in my opinion. Juliette was able to help him see who he was because for me, she symbolizes life. She told him that this was his life and it was who he was. His memories, his thoughts, his emotions, his pain, his joy, his dreams...they are who he is. This book is filled with struggles woven into deeper struggles woven into even deeper struggles until there is nothing left to see but darkness or light. There is either life or death, joy or anger, happiness or sadness. Wool made me question my fundamental beliefs not only in myself but in the world around me and that is why I love this novel.

The FedX Fallacy

The following print advertisement promoted FedX by claiming that two of UPS's trucks fit into one of FedX's.

First off, did anyone else notice that the UPS trucks are clearly a smaller model than the FedX one? In fact, they look to be the exact size if not bigger than FedX express couriers. They purposelessly chose a truck size that would fit twice despite the fact that UPS has an eighteen wheeler vehicle that appears to be a similar size.
Link To image of UPS Eighteen Wheeler
FedX misrepresented the size of UPS trucks to make it seem as if they were substantially smaller than FedX trucks when, in reality, UPS trucks are similar to the same size as their equals in FedX. This is clearly a use of the Texas Sharp Shooter.

Is love like a drug?

2) Write your own persuasive argument using rhetorical devices to convince an audience. Choose any topic that interests you, and write a speech or editorial that employs logos, pathos, and ethos

Love is like a drug due to the fact that it gives a chemical high; has the potential to become an addiction; is perceived to be a good thing despite multiple side affects such as becoming distracted easily, having extreme emotions, and a lack of clarity and logic that results in impaired decision making skills; stimulates certain parts of the brain; can cause a person to grow dependent on their lover; and slight personality shifts. When someone is in love, they get the same sensations as someone on cocaine. “The reason people are so attracted to cocaine is that it activates the area of the brain that makes you feel good,” researcher Arthur Aron, PhD, tells WebMD. “The same reward area is activated when people are experiencing the intense desire of romantic love." If a person can become addicted to cocaine, then why can they not become addicted to love considering that they both wield a similar result? The answer is, they can. "Romantic relationships can lead to the addiction of a specific person such as being obsessed with thinking of that person all the time and the capacity for risk-taking to get to that person. These behaviors are thought to reflect those of someone who is addicted to a drug. The same brain chemicals — large amounts of dopamine and norepinpherine — and the same brain pathways and structures are active when in love, and when being high on crack cocaine. Therefore, this leads to the belief that addictive drugs affect the brain in ways similar to love, Marsh says, which can help explain the painful, withdrawal-like symptoms of a breakup" (Oxytocin).
Like every medicine commercial that plays, there is always that dreaded list of side affects. In a fictional book titled Delirium, the author created a dystopian world that was similar to ours save for the fact that love was considered a disease that must be treated. The one thing that was not fictional about the first installment of the trilogy , however, was her list of symptoms. “Symptoms of Amor Deliria Nervosa
PHASE ONE:
-preoccupation; difficulty focusing
-dry mouth
-perspiration, sweaty palms
-fits of dizziness and disorientation
-reduced mental awareness; racing thoughts; impaired reasoning skills
PHASE TWO:
-periods of euphoria; hysterical laughter and heightened energy
-periods of despair; lethargy
-changes in appetite; rapid weight loss or weight gain
-fixation; loss of other interests
-compromised reasoning skills; distortion of reality
-disruption of sleep patterns; insomnia or constant fatigue
-obsessive thoughts and actions
-paranoia; insecurity
PHASE THREE (CRITICAL):
-difficulty breathing
-pain in the chest, throat or stomach
-complete breakdown of rational faculties; erratic behavior; violent thoughts and fantasies; hallucinations and delusions
PHASE FOUR (FATAL):
-emotional or physical paralysis (partial or total)
-death
If you fear that you or someone you know may have contracted deliria, please call the emergency line toll-free at 1-800-PREVENT to discuss immediate intake and treatment.”
This list of symptoms is realistic but most would laugh at the idea of love being a disease. It is seen as a beautiful thing to most and yet, could it possible be a socially acceptable form of insanity? Perhaps the world will never know. What the world can rely on, though, is facts.
Romantic love activates in the caudate nucleus, via a flood of dopamine at the sight of their loved ones. This means that a person becomes very happy upon seeing the people they love. The more a person is in love, the more tolerable they are to pain. Oxytocin is released while a person is in love and is a vital part of making a deep connection with the person they love. It also triggers the release of domaine when a person feels as if they have found their partner for life. People can often grow dependant on the person they are romantically involved with and substitute that person's emotions with their own. This results in a relationship where even the slightest hurtful remark can cause an extreme reaction from the dependee. The depended either do not realize that this is occurring or, if their love is morally off, they take advantage of the dependee. It's a tough situation because the dependee often times does not realize that this is happening without outside intervention.
Because of the high risk emotional situation that love lives in, people are often different after being in a relationship. The experiences a person has with their lover are highly emotional and, as a result, are much more memorable than an average date. If a relationship is hurtful, a person may have a much more negative outlook on life when it ends. However, a person may argue that people are constantly changing based on their own experiences and that love is just one of these. Both of these are true. While love is one of many experiences that shapes a person's personality, it is also one that has a very large affect on who the person may become one day.

Shylock: A Man Or A Jew?

The Merchant of Venice was written in a time when people were extremely narrow minded. People do not see what they do not want to see even if it staring them straight in the face. It is no wonder that Jews like Shylock were considered to be less humane than Christians. Jews were different, and anything that was different was wrong because it meant change. Shakespeare, however, did not share the same narrow mind as most people of his time. He had an open mind, and that is why this speech is placed so perfectly, an example of not only the future but of how to convince the people of something they do not even know they are being convinced of.

I believe this play to be a tragicomedy and, as such, it permits the usage of Shylock's speech.  If this play had been a comedy, the speech would not have fit in because it would be too, well, tragic. It would not have made people laugh and so the people would be confused by it and possibly angered at the mere idea of sympathizing with a Jew. If this play had been a tragedy, this speech would have been too much. It would have been too tragic and the people would not like it. Since the play was a tragicomedy, Shakespeare's speech right. I have reason to believe that Shakespeare built his entire play around this speech. He portrayed Shylock not as an evil Jew but as a man just like you and I whose spiritual beliefs caused him to plummet downwards.