Paper Outline (Version 1)

Hey guys,

So as you may have seen in my email, I have been pretty sick. This outline is from my original draft. I am skyping with Dr. Phillips in the morning regarding my paper, and plan to post another outline sometime tomorrow when I hopefully feel better and have a chance to work on my paper more. If you read this and want to make comments, feel free, but I won't be offended if you don't (especially since this is super late). Thanks all, and drink your Vitamin C!!!

1. Title: The Maze of the Mind
2. Introduction: What a mind-spinning task it is, to think about the brain. The brain, believed by most to be connected to our mind, controls every aspect of human function, including our mental processes. Yet, when one thinks about thinking, it does not seem like a detailed or calculated function of human survival; thinking is freedom. Many would argue that thinking knows no bounds. If this is accepted as true, then it can be concluded that thinking about the brain, and thus the mind, can be done in a limitless number of ways. But even more mind-spinning than the concept of thinking, is how we are able to convert these thoughts into words. Thoughts do not occur as if there is a typewriter in the brain, with words that can be spoken or written on command. The person doing the thinking must decide which symbols to use to create the words that will best convey the precise ideas that are being calculated and manipulated by the mind. This is the beauty of written language. It is an admirable feat to create writing that is both engaging and thought-provoking. Combining these two facets, the idea of thinking about the brain and the idea of transferring thoughts from mind to paper, is no easy task. The brain has yet to be fully understood by humans, and the mystery of the brain will arguably never be completely solved. For this reason, perspectives on the brain and its existence as a whole are sure to vary and even clash for the rest of time. This is what makes it fascinating to look at literature from earlier times regarding the brain and the mind. Many literary artists have attempted this difficult task over the years, and one of the most interesting places to look at this feat is poetry. Like the mind, poetry is free. Two poets, in particular, captured this idea remarkably well. John Keats and Margaret Cavendish both display eloquent use of language and creative manipulation of words to convey precisely what they perceived the brain to be, and how it functions. By using poetry as a vice, these two authors successfully conveyed to the audience not only their thoughts on the mind, but also the very idea that the mind is a free body of thought, unable to be contained by the physicality of the human body.
3.

Margaret Cavendish’s view of the brain differed tremendously from other people studying science during her time.

Knowledge of the brain during this time was quite trivial. In fact, the mind was a relatively new concept during the 15^th century.

Cavendish drives her point home with the wittiness of her persona throughout the poem.

Through both the comparison of the brain to the ‘squaring a circle’ quandary and the use of clever diction to poke fun at scientists of the time, Margaret Cavendish successfully portrays the image of the brain as a circular mystery.

John Keats poem has quite a different message from that of Cavendish. In “When I have fears that I may cease to be”, Keats conveys the idea that thinking about the mind is a terrifying endeavor.

Keats discusses the idea of the mind being limitless, and his fear seems to stem from the idea that he will run out of time to transfer all of his thoughts from his brain to paper before he dies.

Keats becomes reflective as he discusses the idea of emotion.

Keats ends “When I have fears that I may cease to be” with inarguably one of the greatest fears for mankind: losing your mind.

Much different from Cavendish, Keats followed the traditional Shakespearean sonnet form.

4. Conclusion: The two authors would surely agree that the mind is an unsolvable mystery. More importantly, Cavendish and Keats address two facets of the human mind that amazingly were regarded as valid centuries ago as well as in present day. Cavendish, in revolutionary insight for her time, remarks on the fact that the mind is a mysterious manifestation that should and will remain so, and Keats expresses the fear that results from this very fact. Together the poems of these two authors encompass the undefined and the unknown that is the mind. Through clever diction, vivid imagery, wittiness from Cavendish, and emotional connection to the audience from Keats, the combined efforts of these poets demonstrates the freeness and unbound nature of mind and thought and, most significantly, the fact that it will forever remain this way.

A Dreaming Sensation

            Dreams are one of the most fascinating and extraordinary experiences know to man. Regardless of how many people may claim to be able to read dreams, or people who claim that their dreams make the psychic, dreams have remained a complete mystery, despite research in the field. Advancements have been made using sleep studies, which can predict when a person is dreaming while it is happening relatively well. We know that dreaming occurs during REM sleep, and that the majority of dreaming occurs in early morning, right toward the end of a person’s sleeping. However, we still have yet to understand much about what the content of dreams actually mean. This is what makes it extremely interesting that people can, when asked, generally give a fairly detailed account of many dreams that they have (at least the ones they remember). Even more intriguing is the fact that these details often involve a lot of sensory and emotional information. Yet when you observe someone who is sleeping, there is no physical sign of what they may be dreaming, if they are dreaming at all. This is what makes it so extraordinary that we can experience such strong sensory events through dreams, without actually experiencing any of these things physically with our bodies. And, considering the majority of the population can recall dreaming at one point or another, it is no surprise that science and literature alike have examined this phenomenon for years.

            In Darwin’s Zoonomia, he discusses several of the characteristics of the experience of dreaming that make it truly exceptional. One that I found particularly intriguing was the idea of mental imagery in dreaming affecting the way our eyes adjust to light after we open our eyes. Darwin gives a very interesting example, where he tells the reader to close their eyes and play through their favorite tune or song in their head, and then open their eyes. He describes the very familiar experience of our iris adjusting to the light. Even though it only takes about one second, most people have experienced this sensation and can relate. In a second task, Darwin instructs readers to close their eyes and think about a #D object, namely a white cube, and as you examine the sides with your mind, he talks about having the shape change colors from red, to blue, to green. Surprisingly, when you open your eyes, your iris takes no noticeable amount of time to adjust to the light. I actually tried this myself and was amazed. More importantly, this really got my mind spinning about the idea of sensation and the mind. It would seem that sensation does not 100% rely on sensory input from the outside world. According to Darwin, “it has been shewn, that those motions, which are perpetually excited, as those of the arterial system by the stimulus of the blood, are attended by a great accumulation of sensorial power” (p. 2). We are able to change what we see simply by using the power of our minds and controlling what we focus our attention on mentally! This has extreme implications for writing.

            If one can stimulate sensation simply by focusing attention on a particular thought, this would fuel the idea that one could cause readers to sense something while reading without having them actually see or experience anything. Now, I know this does not seem like a novel idea; after all, writers of the 18^th century were figuring this out, and were beginning to gear their writing toward this idea. However, the specific idea that such sensations can be felt through dreams is still remarkable. Now I realize there are people who claim to have never had a dream before (what a shame). But I believe that taking in to consideration the powerful effect that dreaming can have on the senses could be very useful for a writer, especially in such a case as, for example, for Brown when he wrote Edgar Huntly. Having this knowledge could potentially allow Brown to convey even more through his tale of sleepwalking. If the reader puts themselves in the shoes of the sleepwalker, they may even be able to experience the harshness of fear that can occur when one wakes up from a dream-like experience such as sleepwalking. This could allow a writer to convey even more about what a character is experiencing and, more importantly, could allow readers to put themselves into the dreams of the character.

            One experience that even those who claim to never have experienced a dream while sleeping can relate to is mind wandering, or daydreaming. This can occur at any point from when you’re watching a movie, to when you’re sitting in class, to when you’re at work. It is a mental escape. My first thoughts on mind wandering are that, from what we have read from Darwin about sensations felt when sleeping through dreaming, it could be possible that the attractiveness of the idea of mind wandering to the human consciousness is the fact that it can be stimulating to the senses. In fact, I have even found myself daydreaming just for the simple need to experience some emotion. When in class, daydreaming about the birthday party you are going to attend later could cause happiness. Daydreaming about your significant other could cause elation. Daydreaming could even relieve stress, by letting you take a moment aside to think about all of the things you need to do, and the things you have already accomplished, on your do-to list. I personally find daydreaming to be extremely helpful in this sense, and according to Schooler and Smallwood in “The Restless Mind”, mind wandering can serve this exact purpose. They claim that “mind wandering is a situation in which executive control shifts away from a primary

task to the processing of personal goals” (p. 946). Essentially, the paper discusses mind wandering as a means of problem solving. This is an excellent tool to not only use  as a writer, but to also be aware of as a reader. Mind wandering as an event in a piece of literature can creatively convey the thoughts of a character without explicitly saying “he thought” or “she thinks”. This not only gives the reader more information about the story, but it allows them to put themselves in the character’s shoes. This can come in as an essential vice, and it is important to be able to recognize this type of situation. As an analytical reader, we can look at characters such as Edgar Huntly, who tends to let him mind wander a lot, and examine him both from the outside in terms of the plotline, and the inside in terms of what he reveals about his thoughts.

            Dreaming and Reverie are incredibly useful in literature. These experiences have proven thus far to be, and are most likely destined to forevermore be, experiences of sheer mystery and fascination. Because of this, they will always be an intriguing vice to both write about and read about. The sensory information that  is miraculously conveyed through these experiences make dreaming and reverie the perfect tools for engaging the reader. 

Aer You Srue Yuo're Raeidng Tihs?

Language is one of the most necessary possessions of mankind. Where would we be if we could not communicate with each other? First thought that comes to mind is the biblical story of the Tower of Babel. Mankind was thriving and was drifting from virtue, so God created several languages, and no one could understand each other. Not only did they stop building their “stairway to heaven”, but they scattered all over the world, unable to continue to work together and driven crazy from frustration. Language is a powerful tool; without it, I wouldn’t be writing this blog post.

            In reading Practical Education, “Of Tasks”, I was very bothered by the author’s criticism of the way we learn language. I too find it fascinating that we are able to learn such a complex form of communication, especially when doing so relies on beginning at such an early age as a child. However, the miracle of it is diminished when you simply look around: we can all do it. Yes, there are rare cases of people who cannot learn to read, or people who simply are never exposed to reading. It is clearly not as innate as speech, but definitely is related. There are many words I know only because I was taught them at one point or another, but would never have learned had someone not taken the time to explain the meaning to me. People with a greater vocabulary generally tend to be bigger readers, in my experience.

            I should probably clarify and say that I find language absolutely fascinating. I am not opposed at all to learning more about the way we learn languages. In fact, I think it’s amazing to look deeper in to this topic, especially at brain functions involved in learning to read. However, would I go as far to say that the way we teach children language is “dreadful”, as is proclaimed by Edgeworth? Of course not. Now I suppose I can’t speak from experience; I have never helped a child learn to read. However, I do know that all of these additional symbols suggested by Edgeworth to help children learn to read have never been necessary in the past. In fact, multiple “masters of language” have become who they learning language with simply the letters in the alphabet and lots of experience. Edgeworth undoubtedly learned to read without such symbols. And what research does Edgeworth have to support this claim that additional symbols would serve as an effective teaching tool for reading? As far as I can tell, none (although I believe it would be a fascinating experiment to conduct). I believe it is safe to say that, whether you teach with these additional symbols, or the old-fashioned way, the pupil will have to maintain the same amount of knowledge in their long-term memory, whether it is multiple sounds for the same letter/symbol or multiple markings for the same letter/symbol. Personally, I prefer to marvel over the fact that children have, in general, been taught to read the same way for centuries, and somehow, despite all of the complexities that accompany language (like those pointed out by Edgeworth), we manage to become masters. Not only do we learn the words that we see and hear every day, but we have the capacity to understand words we have never seen before. We even learn to manipulate language using irony, humor, poetry, and many other tools that are truly extraordinary, considering what they are able to accomplish. From the impact of a state of the union speech, to winning the heart of a romantic interest, language has the ability to do phenomenal things. Those who master language above and beyond the level of those around them hold great power. And remembering that we all began with the letter a, is something of wonder.

            On the other hand, this insight by Edgeworth was quite prolific for a children’s novelist of the 1800s. She was able to recognize several aspects of reading 150 years ago that we are still milling over today in our understanding of how the brain works. In Reading in the Brain, “How we Read”, Dehaene discusses how there are two informational pathways for when we read. In one pathway, our eyes take in the words we see and process them, using both rules we know of writing and, more importantly, our experience with those words. Words that we are unfamiliar with are sent down the other pathway, where rules for the alphabet, pronunciation, and general meaning of groupings of letters are processed. This idea is also touched on by Edgeworth when she notes that “The sound of three or four letters together, will immediately become familiar to him; and when any of the less common sounds of the vowels, such as are contained in the second table, and the terminating sounds, tion, ly, &c. occur, they should be read to the child, and should be added to what he has got by rote from time to time” (p. 7). Edgeworth was unknowingly touching on a scientific claim that would still be supported over a century later by Dehaene. This further supports the idea that language is not only essential for survival, but one of the most timeless traits possessed by mankind. Is it innate? I am not equipped to say, although my guess is not even halfway.

            Take the case of Genie, a young girl who was locked in a room with a toilet and minimal human interaction by her parents until she was thirteen years old. She was never taught to speak, never taught to read, and by the time someone finally came to her rescue, it was too late. Genie was never able to come even close to fluently speaking. She learned to speak many words, but could not understand sentence structure, and while she seemed to be making progress for a while, she was never able to fully grasp the concept of language. Eventually she gave up on speaking entirely, and became mute. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4804490&page=1#.Tyo3ylw7WAg

            So what exactly does it take to master language? Clearly it cannot be self-taught. However, is there truly a better way to teach your kids to read? Edgeworth would argue so. Yet child development studies have also shown that devices such as “Baby Einstein” have no significant effect on when a child learns such things as language. So the next question seems to be, to what extent is a child’s ability to learn language innate? Hereditary? Nurtured? Edgeworth also hints at the idea that many children are “turned off” from the idea of reading based on the way it is presented to them. Is this true, or do some kids simply not like reading? I personally love to read, and always have. My parents never forced me to read; I did so because I wanted to. I began reading Lord of the Rings in 3^rd grade, and haven’t been able to put books down for as long as I can remember. My brother, on the other hand, has never been much of a reader. He went to all the same schools as me, and received the same parenting, yet hasn’t even read Harry Potter (I seriously don’t know what’s wrong with the kid…). My opinion is that a good chunk of reading ability comes simply from personality and general individuality. Some kids like it, and some don’t. Now there’s an interesting study for you: Do kids who claim to enjoy reading display more brain activation when reading than those who do not enjoy it as much? fMRI anyone?