Blog - Page 365 of 3415

NCAA Tournament

There’s something surreal about the men’s NCAA basketball tournament. One of the great things about the tournament is the excitement created by the one and out format if you lose. The uncertainty creates a level thrilling basketball that’s only found at the college level. Sixty-four teams will be competing to for a chance at the National Title. The teams can get to the tournament by means of two ways. The first way is to be highly ranked by a system called the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), which was formulated to help the NCAA basketball committee assemble and seed the teams for the tournament. The true selection process by the RPI is unknown but many former selection committee members have acknowledged that it is derived from three components including a team’s winning percentage (25%), its opponent’s winning percentage (50%), and its opponent’s winning percentage (25%). The other possibility of going to the tournament is to win the conference tournament, which teams belong. For those teams who have little hope of getting an at-large bid by the RPI system, they have a chance at the NCAA tournament by winning their conference tournament. Teams all across the nation are scrambling at a shot for this prestigious tournament. The tournament itself is better known as “March Madness.” Sports analysts, commentators, and announcers’ use of metaphoric terminology to help describe, explain, and illustrate why the men’s NCAA basketball tournament is so highly prestigious.

A metaphor allows one to describe a text so that it gives meaning and is understandable to others. Michael Osborn and Douglas Ehninger suggest that that a metaphor functions as a “communicative stimulus that allows a user to identify an idea or object through a sign which generally denotes an entirely different idea or object. Metaphor also functions as a mental response because of the interaction between ideas suggested by the terms usual denotation and its special denotation in the particular context.” Metaphors are critical in describing the event of the NCAA tournament and its importance.

The tournament is generally referred to as “The Big Dance.” This description of the tournament is widely used showing the importance of the event. There are many teams that would give anything to attend this so called “Big Dance.” This term in itself describes the prestige of a team going to the tournament. “Big” is officially known as great in size, and “dance” is officially known as moving one’s body and feet in rhythm. Many sports writers and commentators use these terms when March rolls around. The “Big Dance” was used just as often as the NCAA tournament was used in my research. Dick Vital is one of the commentators who often uses these terms and uses them with extreme intensity stating, “It’s that time of year fans, and here’s who I like in the “Big Dance…”

The pattern of these prestigious metaphors is also apparent in the different levels of the tournament bracket. Any team that advances two games into the tournament are immediately apart of what is normally called the “Sweet Sixteen.” At this point in the tournament, a team has made it to either the West, Midwest, South, or East, semifinals, but “Sweet Sixteen” is typically used as a more convincing term. The next round in the tournament is the separate divisional Championships. Most writers and commentators call this the “Elite Eight.” Another advancement in the tournament would send you into the National Semifinals where only four teams remain. The National Semifinals are better known as the road to the “Final Four.” The National Semifinals would be foreign to most people but the phrase “Final Four” is widely common. A team would then advance to the National Championship after winning a “Final Four” game. There have only been twelve teams in history to win two or more NCAA National Championship titles. UCLA leads with eleven titles, Kentucky with seven, Indiana with five, Duke with three, and North Carolina with three titles leading out the top five teams. The National Title is also known in the sports world as winning the “Crown.” These metaphors are highly known in the sports world including the “Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, and the Crown.”

The next term that is widely used in the sports world describes a team who has had an average regular season and proceeded to upset a higher ranked team in their conference tournament. They try to ride that wave of momentum into the field of sixty-four and hope to upset another higher ranked team in the first and second rounds of the tournament to make it to the “Sweet Sixteen.” These teams are commonly known as the “Cinderella” teams. These teams typically don’t make it farther than the “Sweet Sixteen” where their season comes to an end. A perfect example of a “Cinderella” team would be Gonzaga University. What Gonzaga did was give every other team in the West Coast Conference hope. To most of the college basketball world, it must seem as if Gonzaga magically busted onto the NCAA tournament scene out of nowhere. What Gonzaga accomplished was reaching the “Sweet Sixteen” for the third straight season. Only the two other teams including Duke and Michigan State can say the same. This is why they are generally called “Cinderella” teams. Since Gonzaga has accomplished this feat in the past three years, they are no longer called a “Cinderella” team. If a team completes an upset during the first round but doesn’t go on to win another game they’re just called “One Hit Wonders.” There are also many other metaphors describing this type of team which many people call “David vs. Goliath” success stories. Teams such as Duke or Michigan State are typically known as “Powerhouse” teams. They are called this because of their frequent appearances in the “Big Dance.” A “David vs. Goliath” success story is described when a smaller team such as Temple who had a seed of eleven beats a team such as Florida with a number three seed. Another example would come from last year’s 2001 tournament when number two seeded North Carolina lost to number seven seeded Penn State to advance to the “Sweet Sixteen.”

In particular, I looked at the live coverage of the 2001 NCAA final four and all of its media coverage. There were three games that I researched including the two final four games that consisted of (Arizona versus Michigan State and Duke versus Maryland) and the National Championship game, which hosted Duke versus Arizona. One of the metaphors used to describe the tournament is war. Many commentators often refer to the NCAA tournament in a sense of comparing the competition to aspects of war. On the other hand, this terminology was in no means used in a negative context concerning events that have happened in the past or that are currently affecting us. They use this language of warfare to explain, define, illustrate, and compare the tournament with war. The games are typically referred to as battles. Holly Cross coach Ralph Willard claims, “This is do-or- die basketball for the so called mid-major schools. You have to be tough out there… Set tone and tempo from the start. Fight your way through screens, set good picks, block out strong, and battle on the floor for loose balls.” This statement shows the level of intensity, which the games are being played. Players are also referred to as warriors out on the court. Shane Battier of the Duke blue devils discussing the tournament claimed, “We’ll never wave the white flag… We have too much pride. We know what it’s like to look into the eyes of a surrendering team.” Battier was also described as a “veteran” of the Duke blue devils. This metaphor is used to describe a player who has played for a team for duration such as Battier has done for four years. Many players who have as much talent as Battier end up leaving college early to enter the NBA draft before they finish their college career. During the games of the final four of the 2001 NCAA tournament, many warlike connotations were used. First, Duke was referred to as an “enemy” of their opponent Arizona. This suggests somewhat of a rivalry between the two teams. They were the only two teams out of sixty-four to successfully win five straight games and make it to the National championship. Another term that was used was “bombs.” This terminology referred to Duke’s Jason Williams “dropping bombs” which was used in the manner of him scoring several points consistently. He made four baskets in a row which could have also been taken as him “shooting” very well. Williams was also referred to as being a very “explosive” player. This terminology was used to describe is quickness on the court to drive past his opponents. The use of ‘attack” was used many times to describe players getting rebounds and driving into the lane to score points. For example, Shane Battier was described as “attacking the boards” which means he was getting a lot of rebounds. There were many other terms used in describing the final four such as “war,” “hero,” and “defeat.” These terms are all helpful in describing the tournament and basketball in general so that people can understand it better.

Another typical use of metaphor terminology involves the use of fantasy and myth. The tournament is described as an event that is so prestigious the whole experience is said to be surreal. Many terms related to fantasy and myths are used to describe the tournament. First of all, as I stated earlier, teams that aren’t expected to win are called Cinderella teams. These teams are typically called Cinderella teams because of the success story that was not supposed to have happened. These teams’ success stories are related to the story of Cinderella (hence the name.) The “David and Goliath” success story is another use of metaphor typically describing an underhanded team that beats a more prestigious team in the NCAA tournament. Maryland was the only team who was described this way last year in the finals because they lost to Florida State (the worst team in the ACC) during their last regular season game. Once they were in the tournament, they beat the number one seeded Stanford in the West’s final to advance to the final four while they were only ranked a number three seed in their division. The game was a “David and Goliath” match because Stanford was the number one seed in the West division. The tournament is also referred to as a “dream” for the players. There is only sixty-four teams that get a chance in the tournament and for those teams who win four straight games; they have made it into the “final four” best teams of the nation. Many references were made to the senior players that may or may not get a shot at the next level of the NBA. These players at least got to go out in style if they didn’t have a chance in the draft.

There were also many more metaphors used in covering the tournament that didn’t fit into a specific “bracket.” One of these metaphors described the tournament as a “cornucopia of basketball madness.” This was a way of describing the number of games in which the tournament hosts or showing how so many different teams across the nation were involved in the tournament. The entire tournament is described more often by the two metaphors of “March Madness, The Big Dance, and/or March Mayhem.” First, “March Madness and March Mayhem” describes the one and out style of the tournament if you lose. This puts pressure on the players and coaches because upsets are always bound to happen. “The Big Dance” also describes the tournament’s diversity where teams shuffle to gain spots no matter how they compare to the other team’s strength. This reiterates the fact that so many teams are fighting for the same goal (The NCAA men’s basketball championship.)

Sports analysts, commentators, and announcers use of metaphoric terminology help to describe, explain, and illustrate the why the men’s NCAA basketball tournament is so highly prestigious. Metaphoric categories of war-like and fantasy terminology help in showing why the tournament is so prestigious. The tournament coverage of CBS closes with David Barrett’s piano preamble. The song is also shows how the “thrill of victory and agony of defeat” wraps up the tournament. The power of these metaphors exemplify why the tournament is so important to the players, coaches, and fans of colleges who get a chance to participate.

Bibliography:

Natural to the End

“Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.” – Abraham Lincoln

Loyalty cannot be bought, sold, or traded. Loyalty must be achieved through the admiration of your peers. Loyalty is giving your word and sticking to it – not compromising your morals when the going gets tough or when you are presented a better deal somewhere else. A man who is admirable possesses the traits of loyalty. Crichton is admirable and remains loyal to the end. When the time is right, he parts. Is it natural to remain loyal?

We must first establish a definition of naturalness in the framework of the text. In The Admirable Crichton, whatever is natural is right. English social hierarchy is natural to the characters in the play. Crichton possesses respect for the system, for he immersed himself in it for a great deal of his life. However, his respect does not evolve out of fear or intimidation, rather, out of his understanding of the important role masters and servants naturally play in civilization. Crichton’s immersion into and understanding of the hierarchal system explains the significance of what comes naturally in the play; moreover, it lays the foundation for his loyalty. His position on hierarchy and social order is parallel to the stance Darwin, a British naturalist, established in the 19th century; stating social adaptations, herein to hierarchy, are natural for humans. In Act I, Lord Loam and Lady Mary speak to Crichton regarding the division into classes, and they discuss if these divisions are natural or artificial.

LORD LOAM: […] can’t you see, Crichton that our divisions into classes are artificial, that if we were to return to Nature, which is the aspiration of mylife, all would be equal?

CRICHTON: The divisions into classes, my lord, are not artificial. They are the natural outcome of a civilized (sic) society. (To Lady Mary) There must always be a master and servants in all civilized (sic) communities, my lady, for it is natural, and whatever is natural is right. (Barrie 13)

The characters in the play are familiar with the idea of social order; Crichton understands this circumstance, and he employs the appropriate conditions to reach the top later in the play. He recognizes others follow whoever reaches the top first. In order to reach the top first he relies on his leadership skills, which may not be natural to mankind, but are natural to Crichton.

Leaders are not born. In no doubt, there are some natural endowments that affect relative abilities, but they are not born, they are made. Crichton has studied and understands the English system of hierarchy. His reason for remaining with the family is stated in the following text:

CRICHTON: [To Lady Mary] I should have felt compelled to give notice, my lady, if the master had not had a seat in the Upper House. I cling to that. (12)

Aware of Lord Loam’s appointment in the House of Lords, Crichton’s prolonged stay with the family is due to the prestige he acquires by remaining at hand. For the duration of his ride with the family, he undeniably gains imperative leadership traits and principles.

Leadership is characterized as the art of influencing, directing, guiding, and controlling others in such a way as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in accomplishment of an objective. Crichton acquires the notions listed above, mainly through his study and respect for the system, and moves on to accomplish the objective of filling the natural role of the master. Crichton explains that on the question of leadership – it will settle itself out. It is a matter in which he has nothing to do.

His transition to the head occurs towards the end of Act II, and the issues of birth and guarantees are replaced by skill and ability. His move to the top takes shape rather suddenly on the island, and it does not take long for the others to naturally follow behind him. In a conversation with Treherne, after the brief exit by the family, Crichton explains that the pot he heated is full of Nature, and the others are hungry and will return, for that is what is natural.

His natural succession to the position of commander and the clashes over social philosophies are noticed through dialogue when Crichton speaks to Lady Mary. Notice here, Crichton speaks, and not Lady Mary speaks; contrary to their normal social implications.

LADY MARY: (determined to have it out with him) you are not implying anything so unnatural, I hope, as that if I and my sisters don’t work there will be no dinner for us?

CRICHTON: (brightly) if it is unnatural, my lady, that is the end of

LADY MARY: If? Now I understand. The perfect servant at home

Holds that we are all equal now. I see.

CRICHTON: (earnestly) my lady, I disbelieved in equality at home because it wasagainst nature, and for that same reason I as utterly disbelieve in it on an island. (28)

The pivotal shift in Lady Mary’s point of view of Crichton, a shift in the play as a whole, comes once she recognizes Crichton as being more than a servant, for she recognizes him as a human being. The pivotal transition transpires after she realizes he did everything he could to save their own and Lord Loam’s life.

LADY MARY: You did all a man could do. Indeed I thank you, Crichton. (With some admiration and more wonder) You are a man. (27)

The shift between the social orders juxtaposed in the play, natural and adaptive, is brought to light here. The proposal of individuals being able to adapt to their surroundings and being naturally fit for a specific role in life, flourishes throughout the remainder of the island endeavor.

We have concluded that whatever objective we end up with is right. From Crichton’s point of view, social adaptations to the surroundings are a necessity and natural. We end up in current positions through nature. Crichton is someone certain to succeed on the island; he is a natural for the job. Naturalness is whatever is right.

Now we must examine the course of actions that illustrates Crichton’s loyalty. Productive leaders remain even-tempered and are calm, confident and predictable during a crisis. The key is remaining predictable at all times. His loyalty is observed easily because Crichton is predictable. Others are able to foretell his actions since Crichton is always honest first.

From the beginning Crichton is seen as the loyal servant. In a discussion with Ernest, over the topic of monthly tea-cup gatherings in the servants’ hall with the servants amid the noble, his loyalty is first noted.

ERNEST: […] you don’t approve of his lordship’s compelling his servants to be his equals – once a month?

CRICHTON: It is not for me to, sir, to disapprove of his lordship’s Radical views. (5)

Regardless of Crichton’s contempt for Ernest, he restrains from unfolding the idea as foolish and irrational; acquiescently he states the truth, and his loyalty endures. Crichton’s loyalty shins through during the crisis on the island. His loyalty gains legitimacy through his courageous and predictable actions.

Crichton conquers omnipotence on the island, and his legitimacy climaxes in Act III by his decision to summon a boat; Lord Loam was not aware of the option and even Lady Mary urges him to rethink the decision.

LORD LOAM: A ship – always a ship.

LADY MARY: Father, this is no dream.

LORD LOAM: (clutching him) you are not deceiving me?

CRICHTON: (cheerily) have no fear. I shall bring them back.

LADY MARY: Stop! (She faces him) Don’t you see what it means?

CRICHTON: (firmly) it means that our life on the island has come to a natural end.

LADY MARY: Gov., let the ship go.

CRICHTON: Bill Crichton has got to play the game. (55/56)

Crichton “plays the game” – the game of life; remaining loyal to himself and to the world by doing what is right, what is honest, and what is natural. Loyalty is composed of a special blend of personal traits specific to each individual. Some traits of loyalty include honor, courage, admiration, and commitment. Crichton holds these traits on the conditions that they are important to him, natural to him, and who he is.

Upon returning from the Island, Crichton’s loyalty is put to the test when the memoirs relative to the astonishing island survival are written, yet despite his efforts Crichton receives zero recognition in the memoirs and continues to be a nonentity. In spite of everything, in the end, Crichton’s loyalty remains at hand. While loyalty is a personal trait, some people continue to believe that loyalty can be bought. In Act IV, Catherine explains to Lord Loam how Crichton’s loyalty may well prove compromising for the family.

CATHERINE: (reveling the worst) But suppose Lady Brocklehurst were to get to him and pump him. She is the most terrifying, suspicious old creature in England; and Crichton simply can’t tell a lie. (60)

Quite the opposite do Crichton’s loyalties prove to be. His loyalty continues to serve the family even in the course of interrogations established by Lady Brocklehurst. He could have confessed what occurred on the island and exposed the “real” story for a few minutes or pages of fame and recognition, but remaining loyal to Lord, remaining loyal to his ideals, presents the ultimate fame and recognition to him.

When considering the family’s narcissistic point of view, alas, Crichton is merely remaining loyal to himself. He would not have sold-out the family name in order to prosper from a better deal somewhere else; perhaps someone would fancy a servant so resourceful. People are generally more willing to respect a person who remains loyal to an institution even if they disagree with it, or, at the least, keep their discrepancies private; Crichton understands this and parts gracefully when the time is right.

For a person who is admirable, Crichton is, it is natural for them to remain loyal. Remaining loyal is natural to Crichton. Self-pride and allegiance to ones ideals and values is what loyalty means to him in the play. He realizes the significance of individuals appreciating their adaptive and natural roles in society and continues to serve this theory to the end, until the time is right, then he parts. Loyal to the end.

Bibliography:

Natural Rights And Herbert Croly

“They did it, no doubt, in the name of democracy; but of all perverted conceptions of democracy, one of the most perverted and dangerous is that which identifies it exclusively with a system of natural rights” (Croly 81). To Herbert Croly, in his book The Promise of American Life, God or nature cannot secure individual rights. The entire nation, as a whole, must work to make sure that all of the people have equal rights and equal opportunity.

The American people’s loyalty to the idea of democracy, as they understand it, cannot be questioned. But what it means to them is more of an idea of popular sovereignty. The will of the people determines what the government should or should not do. For Croly, democracy means much more than just popular sovereignty. Although “there can be no democracy where the people do not rule,” a “government by the people is not necessarily democratic” (Croly 179). While individual freedom is important, the whole of a nation must create the future; thus no one person can do it. For this to work there must be equal rights for all individuals.

“A community in which no man or no group of men are granted by law any advantage over their fellow-citizens is the type of the perfect and fruitful democratic state” (Croly 180). The majority of Americans would contend that this arrangement is perfectly fine. Individuals are free to pursue the interests that they want, and all individuals can enjoy any liberties that one person enjoys. Under this arrangement, there should be no room for permanent legal privileges for any class of citizens. Equality is then associated with individual rights, when in reality individual rights do not always mean equality in receiving such rights.

The natural rights philosophy clearly won’t work for Croly. God or nature does not give equal rights and equal opportunity to all. Although all are born with the same rights, not all people are born with ways to attain these rights. Equal rights do not mean equal resources. Americans who believe in the notion of an equal start are “wholly blind to the fact that under a legal system which holds private property sacred there may be equal rights, but there cannot possibly be any equal opportunities for exercising such rights” (Croly 181). Comparative material conditions dramatically affect opportunities. In the current system, a person who is born to privilege starts with an advantage over others born at the same time.

So then, how can a society be built with true equality if natural rights won’t do? Revere those that have truly made it on their own, and have lived the American dream. Those who have merely used the privileges they were born with to achieve the same goals should not be congratulated. Privileges do not translate into rights. Men who are “naturally disposed to be envious and suspicious of others more fortunate than themselves come to confuse their suspicions with a duty to society” (Croly 184). This confusion shifts the blame of American social development from the vagueness of America’s fundamental development, to different social groups. Those that have more money, or are better looking, or live in a different part of town are playing unfair. Instead a truly democratic society must rely on an underlying unity.

Democracy “cannot prevail unless the individuals composing it recognize mutual ties and responsibilities which lie deeper than any differences of interest and idea” (Croly 185). It is not God’s divine will that makes men equal. Men make men equal. Individuals must come together in a sort of brotherhood if they are to be truly free to pursue their destiny. Narrow-mindedness and selfishness must be transformed for genuine equality to exist. For equal rights and equal opportunity to coincide, individuals must be empowered to do their best. To do so would require some individual property rights to be given up to the nation. Only by doing this can private ambition and selfishness be changed into brotherhood. In Croly’s mind only liberty can overcome selfishness, and liberty and thus equality can only come from a nation united in itself. To create a true brotherhood of men, a new Declaration of Independence must be written.

The existing Declaration as is only says that rights are self-evident; it does not say that rights are self-attaining. “The idea of a constructive relation between American nationality and American democracy is in truth equivalent to a new Declaration of Independence. It affirms that the American people are free to organize their political, economic, and social life in the service of a comprehensive, lofty, and far-reaching democratic purpose” (Croly 278). If nothing is done to change the fabric of the United States citizen, then the “independence of spirit vanishes” (Croly 279). For the American people, this point may soon be approaching.

“They must either seize the chance of a better future, or else become a nation which is satisfied in spirit merely to repeat indefinitely the monotonous measures of its own past” (Croly 279). The national government is responsible for the social improvement of its people, but the people must stand united behind the government for it to work. Popular sovereignty is essential to the democratic process; people in themselves, however, are not sovereign so popular sovereignty must then mean “national sovereignty” (Croly 280). The people are sovereign “in so far as they are united in spirit and in purpose; and they are united in so far as they are loyal one to another, to their joint past, and to the Promise of their future” (Croly 280). For democracy to work, people must work together for this Promise and possibly give up pieces of their past or give up wishes for their future. Democracy is not simply the creation and exercising of rights; it has to be a collaborative effort of brotherhood for all people.

Natural rights are simply unchecked individualism and selfish attachments to private property. True and equal rights are not something that nature can give individuals. The belief that rights are given in such a way is destructive to the fabric of American democracy. If the public only believes that rights are given and can be associated with privilege, no one will work for true equality. Men must come together and strive to achieve their goals through helping each other; they must all meet their goals by starting on equal ground. When one individual makes it, he or she should be praised above all others and held up as an example of what true freedom can do. “The common citizen can become something of a saint and something of a hero, not by growing to heroic proportions in his own person, but by the sincere and enthusiastic limitations of heroes and saints, and whether or not he will ever come to such imitation will depend upon the ability of his exceptional fellow-countrymen to offer him acceptable examples of heroism and saintliness” (Croly 454).

Bibliography:

1.Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. New Jersey: Transaction

Publishers, 1993.

Natural philosophy is the orderly investigation of the phenomena of the universe through the use of experimental observation

Natural Philosophy

Natural philosophy is the orderly investigation of the phenomena of the universe through the use of experimental observation and/or logical reasoning. It was introduce by Alexander the Great in his creation of the Library of Alexandria. This gave consent to the pursuit of knowledge and, since Alexander was taught by a natural philosopher, to the study of natural philosophy. In Ancient Greece (480-323 BCE), natural philosophers observed particular things like the phenomena of the natural world, along with abstract things like the nature of reality. These natural philosophers looked for universal principles by which phenomena could be explained, which among these philosophers included Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato. The philosopher, Heraclitus (ca. 545-475 BCE) of Ephesus, believed that flux, or change, was the basic principle of the universe. Parmenides (ca. 515-440 BCE), Heraclitus’ successor, believed that Being is rational, that only what can be thought can exist. Since “nothing” cannot be thought, without thinking of it as something, there is no nothing, there is only Being. Plato (427-347 BCE), who was one of the most powerful thinkers in history, emphasized the immortal and unchallengeable consciousness over the mortal and changeful body. But Plato advanced a new division, favoring the invisible world of Forms, or Ideas, in opposition to the physical world. Evidently, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato used the basic principle of change to explain the nature of the universe.

As interpreted by the later Greek philosophical tradition, Heraclitus stands primarily for the radical thesis that everything is in flux. Born in 545 BCE in Ephesus, a city on the coast of modern Turkey, he was a man of strong and independent philosophical spirit. Unlike the Milesian philosophers whose subject was the material beginning of the world, Heraclitus focused instead on the internal rhythm of nature which moves and regulates things, namely, the Logos (Rule). Heraclitus is the philosopher of the eternal change. He expresses the notion of eternal change in terms of the continuous flow of the river which always renews itself. Although it is likely that he took this thesis to be true, universal flux is too simple a phrase to identify his philosophy. Heraclitus accepted only one material source of natural substances, the fire. He held that fire is the primal element out of which everything else arises. Fire is the origin of all matter, through it things come into being and pass away. Fire itself is the symbol of perpetual change because it transforms a substance into another substance without being a substance itself. “There is something about the nature of fire that gives insight into both the appearance of stability and the fact of change”(Palmer 24). From this vision, he obtained some remarkable conclusions. Change occurs within a range of opposites. The unity of opposites means that opposites cannot exist without each other – there is no day without night, no summer without winter, no warm without cold, no good without bad. Comparing the union of opposites with the contrary tension of a bow and a lyre is perfectly in harmony with his theory of flux and fire. Also, he focused on aspects such as Logos, which ruled change in an orderly manner. This cosmic order made change a rational phenomena rather than the chaotic, random one it appeared to be. The basic principle of change to explain the universe is evident throughout Heraclitus’ beliefs.

Another philosopher, Parmenides believed that Being is rational, that only what can be thought can exist. Since “nothing” cannot be thought, without thinking of it as something, there is no nothing, there is only Being. A Greek philosopher from Elea in southern Italy and founder of the Eleatic school, Parmenides was the most influential of the Presocratic philosophers. He is the first philosopher to insist on a distinction between the world of appearances and reality. Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality, “Being”, thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From this concept of Being, he went on to say that all claims of change or of non-Being are illogical. Given this, it follows that Being is uncreated, indestructible, eternal, and indivisible. Furthermore, Being is spherical, because only a sphere is equally real in all directions. “Being has no holes, because, if Being is, there can’t be any place where Being is not” (Palmer 28). From this argument it follows that motion is impossible because motion would involve Being going from where Being is to where being isn’t, but there can’t be no such place as the place where Being isn’t. In fact, for Parmenides the very idea of empty space was an impossible idea. Either space is a thing, in which case it is something and not nothing, or it is nothing, in which case it does not exist. Because all thought must have an object and because nothing is not an object, the idea of nothing is a self-contradictory idea. Evidently, Parmenides understood that Being is rational, and only what can be thought exists.

One of the most powerful thinkers in history, Plato, emphasized spiritual values and makes ideas, rather than matter, the basis of everything that exists. He supported the invisible world of the Forms, or Ideas, in opposition to the physical world. Plato was born in 427 BCE in Athens from an Aristocratic family. He received the finest education Athens had to offer from Sophocles. Plato “argued for the existence of an ideal world” (Donley). Plato recognized two worlds, the world of Forms, or Ideas, which is the ideal world and the world of Particulars, which is the world we see it as. He saw the particular world, and the things in it, as imperfect copies of the world of Forms or Ideas. These forms are unchangeable and perfect, and are only comprehensible by the use of the intellect or understanding, whereas as the particular world is constantly changing. But indeed, in the particular world, the particular objects we see around us bear only a dim resemblance to the more ultimately real forms of Plato’s world of Forms. Since he reasoned that what we learn about physical objects empirically by means of the senses, we look at them, taste them, listen to them, and so on, he thought that sense experience are not a valid mean. None of the information we gain in this way is reliable or trustworthy, therefore, we don’t have real knowledge of the visible world, just mere opinion. Whereas we learn about the Forms, not by means of the sense, but by means of reason. We don’t need to look at the Forms or listen to them, indeed we cannot do so, we figure out what they are by thinking about them. In a sense knowledge of the forms also enables us to better understand the visible world. When we understand the Forms, we know what the visible world is a pale imitation of. Plato also understood that our physical bodies are a part of the in the world of particular world. Our sense organs, by means of which we learn about the visible world, are also part of our physical body. But our souls are part of the world of Forms, which for Plato is more or less identical with our reason. So one result of coming to learn about the Forms is that we will become less concerned with physical matters and less reliant on our unreliable senses for knowledge. It is obvious that Plato heightened the idea of the world of Forms and the particular world.

Heraclitus, a natural philosopher, argued that everything is in flux. Parmenides, Heraclitus’ successor, understood that Being is rational, that only what can be thought can exist. Since “nothing” cannot be thought, without thinking of it as something, there is no nothing, there is only Being. And Plato recognized our universe as two worlds, the world of Forms, or Ideas, which is the ideal world and the world of Particulars, which is the world we see it as. These natural philosophers sought for universal principles by which phenomena could be explained, which, among these philosophers, included Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato.

Bibliography:

Works Cited

Donley, Jeffery. Plato. Valencia Community College. Orlando. 05 Nov. 2003.

Palmer, Donald. Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made

Lighter. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Nato-North Atlantic Treaty Organization

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been a silent partner on the world stage for more than half of the century and the most successful political-military alliance in history. The United Nations and their peacekeeping efforts have had the spotlight for the past few years. However the driving force behind any successful agreement or, if needed, action on the part of several countries has been because of the strong foundation and experience of NATO and its members. The following report will chronicle the events leading up to the creation of NATO, its first decade, the constant struggle with communism in the decades that proceed, and finally the challenges for NATO today and in the future.

In the years after World War II, a new threat encroached upon the leaders of Western Europe and their hopes of a stable peace. This threat would be from the growing dominance of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in Eastern Europe. The USSR had an increasing appetite for the smaller countries to her west. These aggressive demands for territory and the placing of installations in taken countries fueled the fears of many that the USSR was marching toward a third world war. Britain and France, not wanting to make the mistake again of appeasing this new menace until it was too late, developed the Dunkirk Treaty in 1947. This treaty in essence pledged a common defense against any aggression. The USSR answered this by creating a European Communist organization called the Cominform and it rejected the European Recovery Program, which is commonly known as the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, named for the US Secretary of State, was basically a financial bailout for the European nations. These nations were starving because of the slow and near stopping of the coal and agricultural industries after WWII. The US offered millions of dollars to all of Europe to aid in rebuilding for four reasons. First, Europe had been a great marketplace imports and exports for the US. Second, historically West Germany had been an industrial hub and needed to be brought back to tip-top shape to buffer the expanding USSR. Third, with its increasing mass the USSR was becoming a rival to the US. Lastly, without this aid Western Europe might look to the USSR for help, which would make life a lot tougher for American interests. The year of 1948 was pivotal for Europe. In February, the Communists in Prague staged a coup d’etat and the spring brought the beginning of the Cold War. Immediately after WWII, Germany was divided in to occupation zones by Britain, France, the US, and USSR. The capital of Germany at the time was Berlin, which happened to fall in the Soviet zone. The governing administration located in Berlin fell, because of the obvious reason of “too many cooks spoil the broth”. When this happened, the USSR demanded that Berlin become solely part of the Soviet zone, since its status as capital was ruined. The USSR enforced this ruling by blockading all land routes into and tried to force the other powers out of its respective sectors of Berlin. Eventually the Berlin Blockade was squelched by a military airlift that lasted the rest of the year. The city still remained divided and became known as East (Soviet controlled) and West Berlin. This transgression on the part of the USSR prompted negotiations between Western Europe, the US and Canada that resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty. The language of the North Atlantic Treaty originally consisted of its preamble and fourteen articles. The preamble states that members will promote common values and will “unite their efforts for a collective defense.” The key article of the North Atlantic Treaty is number five (it’s the one that inspired my title) it reads, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them…shall be considered an attack against them all.” Another interesting article is the last one, number fourteen, and it calls for the deposition of the official copies of the treaty to be kept in the US Archives. The US already was establishing itself as the dominant member of an organization that is supposed to be based on equal responsibility. After the ratification of this treaty the structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began. The highest policy-making body in NATO is the North Atlantic Council, which met in Paris until 1967. The council composed of permanent delegates from all members was responsible for general policy, budgetary outlines, intergovernmental consultation and administrative actions. There are two main temporary committees that answer directly to the council. Those are the Secretariat, which handles non-military functions of the alliance (economic, scientific, cultural, and environmental issues), and the Military Committee or the Defense Planning Committee (DPC), which consists of the chiefs of staff of the various armed forces. They meet to discuss military policies, develop defense plans for their respective areas, determine the force requirements, and deploy and exercise the forces under their command. The forces directly below the DPC are the Allied Commands Europe (was first headed by Eisenhower), Atlantic, and Channel and the Regional Planning Group (for North America). To assist in carrying out their global roles, the council and the DPC have established committees to deal with emergencies and the new threat of nuclear power. They meet only in a dire situation. However, until the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, NATO had no real military structure. The Korean War was at first perceived as part of a worldwide Communist offensive beginning in the divided Germany. This perspective lead to the NATO military force that was explained in the preceding paragraph. Within NATO’s first decade the main military and security forces have come from the US. Along with this the US was depended on for the revival of Europe’s economy and polity. The Korean War also brought an overall expansion of the organization. By 1955, Greece, Turkey, and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) had entered as members. The only provisions for West Germany was not allowed to manufacture NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons. With the rearmament of West Germany in progress, the USSR and her allies decided to created a treaty organization of their own. The Warsaw Pact, signed in 1955, combined to powers of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and of course the USSR. The members of this communist alliance were under strict control of the soviets headquartered in Moscow. Key posts in these satellite countries were usually ran by soviet-born or soviet-trained officers and all their equipment was standardized to the regulations of the USSR. The structure of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) was similar to NATO. Two major bodies carried out the policies of the pact. The first was the Political Consultative Committee, which handled all activities except military, and the Unified Command of Pact Armed Forces, which had authority over the troops assigned to certain members. On paper you can see the similarities, but the USSR rule with absolute dominance. When members tried to break away or try to join NATO, the consequences were terrifying. In 1956, Hungary tried to withdrawal from the WTO; the USSR took unilateral military action against the revolt killing 200,000 people. Another member state, Czechoslovakia attempted to leave and was swiftly forced back by a soviet invasion. Albania seemed to find a way out, because of their alliance with China and some other ideological reasons, and broke off in 1968. With the USSR’s undeniable stranglehold on its neighboring countries in place, the race began for total superiority on the global scene over the US and her allies. The main gauge for this was nuclear weapon advances and stockpiles. Who could have the biggest and best in the shortest amount of time and who would dare to use it first? These pressing questions tainted the next three decades and worried some of the other NATO members that the US wouldn’t honor their pledge if the USSR were to do the unspeakable to Western Europe. NATO members tried to keep a positive perspective, but several events caused a sense of dissatisfaction of its worth by the end of the sixties. To begin the decade off the USSR officially blockaded their side of Berlin by erecting the ‘wall’. At first the Berlin Wall consisted only of barbed wire, but people were ‘escaping’ to East Germany, so an actual concrete wall was constructed with all the bells and whistles, like checkpoints with armed guards and minefields. The people of East Germany were prisoners in their own country and were not allowed to contact or visit family. In addition, the withdrawal of France, one of the founding members, in 1966 by President Charles de Gaulle sent shock waves through the organization. Although they continued to contribute to the alliance, they left the governing duties to the other members. Also NATO was pressured by the smaller nation-states to be come members and that would take a lot of funding, time, and focus away from the problems in Eastern Europe. One of the main factors of the late sixties and early seventies was America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. This horrifying war sapped the US economy, morale, and foreign policy prowess. Although the 1970s began with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I), this decade created more disillusionment by world powers as the Soviets continued to rapidly stock their military and nuclear arsenals. In 1979, NATO initiated a dual-track program where new defense efforts were coupled with new efforts in reconciliation and cooperation. Unfortunately, the steps taken by both sides were small and uneventful and usually were retracted within a short time. This brings us to the Reagan years, the eighties, and to the closest watched political tug-a-war in years. This decade opened with a deepening crisis and in 1983 the USSR failed to prevent the deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, sent to counteract the ones they had pointed a Europe’s major cites. It is possible to say that NATO help greatly in dissuading the USSR from following through on attacking Western Europe. The ‘game’ had gotten deadly serious and in 1987 both sides agreed to talks. Out of these talks came the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which not only gave people a sense of relief across the world it also began the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact and the WTO. The change in the wind prompted the Berlin Wall that separated a people for over twenty-five years to be torn down and Germany was finally reunified. The late eighties to the mid-nineties finally saw the beginning of the end to the Cold War. This time also showed the world the success of NATO and the unified efforts of its members in meeting the challenge of the Communists and the WTO. NATO had finally shown itself to be a viable source for communication and resolution between factions instead of war. That became more evident in the 1990s, with the continued depletion of nuclear arsenals on both sides, the dissolving of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, and the continued duties to help return the countries of Eastern Europe to normalcy. An example of this is evident in Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo. These areas and people have been able to strengthen their nationalistic feeling with both encouraging and disastrous results. Through the efforts of the UN and NATO forces a peaceful conclusion may be in the future for this troubled culture. The organization has already placed in the works the inclusion of the Czech Republic (formerly part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, and Poland. These talks are setting the stage for NATO’s most significant expansion. These countries will need modern military training, upgrades on their communications, command, and air defense systems at an estimated cost of between $25 and $35 billion over thirteen years. The members of NATO pay out this money, the US share being approximately $200 million over ten years. There was a time that even the thought of these countries entering NATO peacefully was unheard of. These new members make NATO’s interests in the Balkans even more timely. Over the past few years, the establishment of a long-term stability in the Balkans has fallen on NATO’s already overweighed shoulders. The former Yugoslavia is one area of Europe where the end of the cold war has not brought about the general trend towards openness, democracy and integration that we have seen elsewhere. Ending this anomaly will mean looking beyond the time frame of NATO’s Stabilization Force in Bosnia. Once the parties realize that settling differences peacefully and democratically really is the only viable option, then Bosnia and other countries in the region will have the right to the fullest integration into the international community. In Kosovo, where the world community is facing humanitarian, political and legal dilemmas, a solution must be found that allows the Ethnic Albanians more autonomy within the confines of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In finding such a solution, we must avoid a situation where moral considerations are pitted against international law. And we must remember that a security policy that doesn’t take as its point of reference the needs of humanity, risks suffering the worst possible fate- a slide into irrelevance. In Kosovo’s immediate neighborhood, NATO has helped to provide hope and some stability, as well as assistance in coping with the refugees in Albania and Macedonia. The latter country is hosting a NATO extraction force, ready to support the verification mission deployed in Kosovo. Hopefully, the prospect of long-term stability, coupled with the desire for economic benefits, will draw the entire Balkans back into the European mainstream. None of this will happen without NATO continued belief in “collective security”. To deal with these challenges, there is a need for further improvements in the inter-operability and sustainability of alliance forces. The future of NATO lies in having rapidly deployable capabilities to fulfill an increasing range of missions. The military forces of NATO allies will need to be on the same wavelength; able to move effectively and quickly, to communicate with one another- service to service, as well as ally to ally- in a world where information technologies are becoming part of the modern soldier’s basic kit. Trying to stay as current as possible on NATO’s movements is not an easy job these days. Every hour seems to bring a new page to NATO’s illustrious history. We can only sit back and watch the further developments in the Balkan region and in the other ‘hotspots’ around the world, like Korea, Rwanda, India, and even within the NATO members themselves. Other important issues approach on the horizon that will strongly effect NATO, the unification of Europe, China’s threats to security and the questions of a possible global peace in the millenium. Can NATO meet these challenges? Can it evolve in the shadow of the Cold War? The next few years will unfold an exciting chapter in the history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

WORKS CITED Ergang Ph.D., R., Europe in Our Time (D.C. Heath and Co. 1958) Goldfield, D., Abbott, C., DeJohn Anderson, V., Argersinger, J. & P., Barney, Wm., and Weir, R., The American Journey: A History of the United States: vol. 2; chap. 29, pp. 890 and chap.33, pp. 1031-2 Guehenno, J., trans. by Elliot, V., The End of the Nation-State (UN of Minnesota 1995) Nelan, B., “A Popular Bad Idea”, Time, May 11, 1998 v151 n18 p38 Remington, R., The Warsaw Pact (The MIT Press 1971) Stanley, T., NATO in Transition: The Future of the Atlantic Alliance (Praeger Pub. 1965) Toland, J., The Last Hundred Days (Random House 1966) T. Caspody, A. Millar, , J. Matousek, “NATO’s shaky new triad: the alliance’s three prospective members haven’t made an informed public choice”, The Nation, March 16, 1998 v266 n10 p18(4) “NATO’s New Challenge: What is NATO Without a Cold War?”, Time International, Dec. 10, pg. 50+ “Open Doors: NATO reaches out to Europe’s other half”, Time International, Dec. 10, 1998 p55 Various information including referrals and title graphic attained at www.nato.com

Bibliography:

Bibliography

Word Count: 2494

Native Vs, Euros

Throughout history, the clash of contrasting cultures has never resulted in a positive conclusion, but rather racial segregation and the arrogant use of stereotypes in all aspects of life.

Long before the white man set foot on Canadian and Saskatchewan soil, the Indians, or rather the Native Canadians had been living in North America. When the Europeans came here, there were more than 10 million Indians populating North America and they had been living here for quite some time. It is believed that the first Native Americans arrived during the last ice age, approximately 20,000 – 30,000 years ago through a land bridge across the Bering Sound, from northeastern Siberia into Alaska.

So, when the Europeans started to arrive in the 16th- and 17th-century they were met by Native Americans, and enthusiastically so. The Natives regarded their white-complexioned visitors as something of a marvel. They enjoyed the white man’s clever technology and outlandish dress, such as steel knives and swords, guns and cannons, mirrors, hawksbills and earrings, copper and brass kettles, and so on.

However, conflicts eventually arose. As a starter, the arriving Europeans seemed attuned to another world. They appeared to be oblivious to the rhythms and spirit of nature. Nature to the Europeans, and the Indians detected this, was something of an obstacle, even an enemy. It was also an opportunity. A forest was so many board feet of timber, a beaver colony so many pelts, and a herd of buffalo so many robes and tongues. Even the Indians themselves were a resource, being souls ripe for the Christian plucking.

It was the Europeans’ cultural arrogance, combined with their materialistic view of the land and its animal and plant beings that the Indians found repellent. Europeans were regarded as mechanical, soulless creatures that wielded evil tools and weapons to accomplish mad ends. They believed that the Indian’s rightful land belonged to the Queen, and ignored the fact that the Natives had initially lived in North America for thousands of years before settlers even knew the continent existed.

The Europeans brought with them a desire and will to conquer the new continent for all its richness, and also diseases that hit the Indians hard. Conflicts developed between the Natives and the Invaders, with the Europeans arriving in overwhelming numbers. The Europeans were accustomed to own land and laid claim to it while they considered the Indians to be nomads with no interest to claim land ownership. The conflicts led to many battles and wars. In these wars the Indian tribes were at a great disadvantage because of their modest numbers, nomadic life, lack of advanced weapons, and unwillingness to cooperate, even in their own defense. The Indian’s were then herded into reserves and coerced into signing their land over through the use of unfair treaties.

The Europeans exploited this cultural helplessness. In exchange for items such as firs and beaver pelts to dress the upper-class of settling Europeans, the white people gave the Indian nomads small amounts of land to settle on, called reserves, and useless amounts of paper money that the Indians had no use for. A planned assimilation had already started, causing a growing strife between the white man and the natives. The outburst of society driven stereotyping and racism appeared in no time, and is still prominent in Canada and Saskatchewan.

As children, most of us were given a playground definition of racism. Racism meant assuming bad things about someone just because of the color of his/her skin, and it is the main ingredient in cultural disunity. Think about this: Its definition actually contains three separate components. First, a racist has “bad intent.” Second, a racist makes prejudiced assumptions. And third, a racist targets an unchangeable characteristic about a culture or race.

Let’s begin with the notion of race as an unchangeable characteristic. Race is in our genetic makeup. We did not choose our ancestors, and the Native’s did not choose theirs. The luck of the draw, the miracle of creation, determines a cultures racial heritage. The main part of any liberal culture is respect for these characteristics. We do not deserve to use either praise or slander towards them. No one earns their race, nor can they be blamed for it.

Unchangeable characteristics are only one part of human nature. An individual also has ethnicity, culture, religion, morals, political opinions, beliefs, feelings and traditions, for example. None of these parts of individual identity are directly tied to race. Not even ethnicity and culture are predetermined by race, much less other parts of our identity. For example, a Caucasian may be born in China, and grow up in Chinese culture. In fact, every individual, however influenced by ancestors, family traditions and expectations, is at least capable of creating an independent personal identity. Multiracial individuals are a perfect illustration of this. They do not have a multiracial ethnicity or culture, but rather a personal, individualistic approach to how race affects their identity. The settling Europeans certainly did not understand this; they saw their way of life as superior, and looked down upon the more “primitive” nomadic Indian tribes. Eventually, once established, the European’s developed a fear of the red-skinned Indian culture.

All of these other aspects of identity are changeable, not immutable. Of course, it may be far easier to change our political opinion than our religion, but certain aspects of our identity can be changed easily. Unlike race, they are not genetically determined.

Race is special because we do not choose it. It is the one value you can claim as your own. We can be held responsible, however, for what we do and believe, for how we dress and what we eat, for whom we love and how we love, and for how we worship God or Nature and how we deal out government. Race may be a sacred characteristic of individual identity, but what individuals do and believe is not protected from criticism. When the white man came to Canada for the first time, the natives looked at them with reverence, instead if arrogance and opportunity. On the other hand, the European’s saw the Indians as nothing but savages, ready to be steam-rolled culturally and religiously.

Since the Europeans landed, they (and we) have found it easy to criticize and insult how individuals from other cultures dance, sing, eat, dress and so on. We have the free will to decide what our own conception of ‘the good-life’ is. However, our culture is in no way free from cultural criticism. All cultural norms, from infanticide, spousal abuse and genital mutilation to arranged marriages, pow-wow’s, and eating with utensils, are not free from discussion. If we were to constantly question all of our cultural aspects, it would question our society’s stability.

Let’s look at another part of our definition of racism and why it creates problems between cultures: prima facie assumptions, or prejudice. Prejudice is necessary, but does not fit the full meaning of racism. Everyone is prejudiced, but not everyone is racist. The real racist is irrational, because he comes to conclusions about racial identity due to false assumptions or none at all. For example, someone may say: “All the Indian’s I know are drunks. Here is an Indian I do not know. He must be a drunk.” While this individual is using evidence, personal experience and reason to come to his conclusion, his logic is faulty.

“Bad intent” will show how prejudice is not necessarily racism. In point, the settling European’s were not necessarily racist people when they arrived here, but their intent was immoral from the start. They won the culture clash, and forced the Native culture to lose most of their own racial identity.

But what about those assumptions regarding racial identity that is made with “good intent?” For example, many individuals desire to protect their ethnicity and culture, which comes from their racial identity. To protect their culture, these individuals may decide to protect the purity of their race, as well. So, they push for individuals to marry and reproduce within their own racial kind. Of course, the Indians never even had a chance to do this; they were overwhelmed by the White Culture, and the true roots of their own were nearly lost altogether. Still today the natives struggle for independence, and still today roadblocks are thrown in front of them at every turn by Canada’s white dominated society.

In other words, the Europeans came to this continent with good intentions of their own, but because of the extreme difference between the Native Canadian’s culture and the European’s, the good intent turned to bad intent and led to the destruction of the less-powerful Indian culture, and inevitable racial segregation. These hasty conclusions about “bad” and “good” intent led to more misunderstandings between the two cultures.

How many parents of children do you know that are racially intolerant of the prominent Native population in Regina? Of those, look at how many of the children of those families grow up with the same bitterness and ignorance on the tip of their tongues. Heightened awareness of our diversity breeds heightened awareness of our sharpest oppositions. If improperly handled, diversity can destroy even our most basic sense of unity, and that is why the Europeans could not honour the Native Canadian culture. We no longer even despise their culture, or even try to assimilate them into ours. In order to survive among us, they have adopted our culture. Still, we sweep them under the rug and spit on them in the gutter at every chance; parallel to how the early European’s treated the Natives of early North America and Canada.

The two cultures should be united with one purpose. We should want more than emotional outbursts and intensely hurt feelings. We want an unprejudiced education available to both cultures. If we are to continue seeking an understanding of racism, stereotypes, and prejudices, and abolish the cultural divide, the meaning of these must be accessible to all, regardless of the color of one’s skin. If our early ancestral European settlers had adopted this view, then perhaps we would be living in a unified, unbiased society where both races co-exist as one human.

Bibliography:

Narcolepsy. Sleep is an essential part of our lives

Narcolepsy

Sleep is an essential part of our lives. Those who do appreciate and enjoy sleep often take it for granted. Those who cannot sleep yearn for it, but realize that they will never appreciate its full capacity. Sleep is a part of the human life that also has disorders that terrorize its victims. One such sleep disorder is narcolepsy, this disorder is a bit different from most disorders that disallow sleep, and with narcolepsy you have no control of your sleep. Narcoleptics fall victim to a genetic disorder that makes it almost impossible to control the moments when you fall asleep. They live with knowing that at any time they are susceptible to an uncontrollable and personally embarrassing spell of sudden slumber. My research is aimed at identifying exactly what narcolepsy is, why it works and the certain available treatments of this disorder. The more we understand this disorder, the more equipped we are to deal with it in our lives as psychologists. The symptoms and qualifications for being a narcoleptic will be a large focus of this research only because I feel it important that we understand what qualifies someone as narcoleptic. It is often a misconception of the practitioner that the narcoleptic patient is a schizophrenic, perhaps with the information provided we will be able to avoid these misconceptions in the future.

If there is one part of the life process that we as humans have a less than average understanding of, it is the mystery of sleep. Many of us take for granted the fact that sleep is a complex process that rejuvenates and restores our minds and our bodies. However, like every aspect of the life process, sleep does not present itself to be error free. Sleep comes with a long list of disorders and problems that can affect anyone at any point in their life. Some disorders are genetic and others are developmental but they are all equally horrifying for the victim. One of the more interesting disorders is a genetic neurological disorder called narcolepsy. Narcolepsy is unique and fascinating to the psychological mind, but to the victim it is torturous. It is a disorder that brings with it much embarrassment and stress to the sufferer. Narcoleptics can take comfort however, knowing that although there is no cure for narcolepsy there are a number of successful treatments available. As this research unfolds, narcolepsy will be explained in detail as well as some of its history and treatments. Perhaps by becoming familiar and aware of it, we can better deal with and treat its patients.

Narcolepsy is a genetically based sleep disorder that deals with the mechanisms controlling sleep and waking. Narcolepsy is characterized by sudden extreme spells of sleepiness. This sleepiness is present in even the most well rested narcoleptic. However, this feature alone does not determine or delegate that a patient has narcolepsy. Aside from this sudden sleepiness, the victim must also report cataplexy, sleep paralysis and hypnogogic hallucinations. In order to be considered truly narcoleptic, all of these elements must be present in the individual (Pressman & Orr, 1997). Cataplexy is a sudden loss of muscle control, this loss usually happens while the patient sleeps, however narcoleptics experience this while awake. The cataplexy is as mild as falling to the ground briefly, to not being able to move at all. Hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are the second determinate of narcolepsy. These hallucinations are usually vivid visual or auditory hallucinations, experienced right after or before REM sleep. The narcoleptic will report seeing these images prematurely before REM sets in, or after the patient is awake the hallucination will not stop. Since these hallucinations are so real, often the patient mistakes them for something else and becomes very frightened. The third and final symptom of narcolepsy is called sleep paralysis. This occurs when the patient is waking up from REM sleep, and the normal muscle inhibition fails to end with the end of the REM stage. This leaves the patient awake but unable to move. All three of these symptoms must be present to diagnose a person with narcolepsy. It should also be kept in mind that on the same token, if an individual does possess all three symptoms of narcolepsy, that does not always meant that they are a narcoleptic. Presence of one symptom out of the possible three, will most often be treated as a singular problem not related to narcolepsy (1997).

Hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are a very interesting aspect of the narcoleptic. Aside from the previous definition and explanation of these images, it is necessity that we have a more in depth look at exactly what these hallucinations are. Hypnogogic hallucinations are nothing more than deeply vivid hallucinations that are associated with the onset of REM sleep. Narcoleptics fail to progress through the preceding stages of sleep before reaching REM sleep. This causes the narcoleptic to have these hallucinations right as wakefulness ends, leading to a string of consciousness from the real world right into the dream world (Dement & Vaughan, 1999). The difference in hallucinations is that for the narcoleptic patient these hallucinations are very terrifying and real. In fact, these hallucinations can be so real, that many narcoleptics have reported being completely awake and paralyzed. These hallucinations include such images as animal attacks, strange intruders in the home and some have even reported alien visitation. The most frightening part of these hallucinations is that the patient seems unable to distinguish from hallucination and reality (1999).

These hallucinations lead right into the second symptom of narcolepsy and that symptom is sleep paralysis. Narcoleptics have reported that while having these hallucinations, a type of temporary paralysis sweeps over them. They are unable to speak, move or even roll over (Fritz, 1993). Another part of narcolepsy that is linked to the hallucinations and paralysis is the presence of automatic behaviors. Soon after the sleep paralysis has passed, narcoleptics will often engage in simple everyday tasks such as making the bed. The task is completed but the narcoleptic has no recollection of the event ever happening. This is called an automatic behavior, and this is a problem for the narcoleptic who has images of intruders in the home or alien visitation. These automatic behaviors leave the victim to wonder if the hallucination was actually real. Some narcoleptics question the fact that if they did not do the task than surely the intruder must have completed it in order to not arouse suspicion, others believe that they are insane (1993).

Now that we know about the symptoms of narcolepsy, it is important that we further define the disorder itself and explore the roots of narcolepsy. As stated earlier narcolepsy is the dysfunction of the normal sleep mechanisms in the body. Victims are plagued by uncontrollable sleepiness throughout their day, no matter how much sleep they may have gotten on the previous night. Attacks can occur as a result of mood swings, for example a sudden burst of excitement may cause a victim to slip into a narcoleptic episode. A narcoleptic having an episode will lose all muscle function and appear to be asleep for a period of time, they usually are not easily waken and if they are awaken they are very frightened and remain paralyzed for several minutes. These episodes last between ten to twenty minutes, and they leave the patient feeling refreshed and rested. This however is a false sense of rest, sure enough an hour later the patient is once again consumed by overwhelming sleepiness (Hale, 1981).

What causes such dysfunction in a human, this question is asked over and over again with no definite answer. When narcolepsy was first being studied, many physicians and psychologist simply dismissed narcolepsy as schizophrenia, but since then research has been compiled to lead us away from this misdiagnosis. Evidence now points us to genetics and neurological explanation. In recent studies it has been found that in 99 of 100 narcoleptics, there is a shared genetic marker that is present in the blood of the victims. It is an exclusive genetic marker called DR2. DR2 is a leukocyte antigen, and while it may have a hand in other sleep disorders, it is most specific in narcolepsy (Lavie,

1996). others feel that narcolepsy is result of a biochemical imbalance of the CNS. Researches have begun to look more carefully at the at the presence of the

Neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, a chemical that plays a role in REM sleep. Blood flow in the brain has also been heavily studied as a result of the DR2 theory. After research was done on blood flow and narcolepsy, scientists have in large dismissed the DR2 theory and are focusing more on the brain stem and the increased blood flow through the brain stem that narcoleptics have been found to have (1996).

Due to the genetic nature of narcolepsy there is no cure, but treatments are available and usually successful. In order to treat narcolepsy, the patient must first complete a sleep study, this ensures a proper and accurate diagnosis of the patient. The most common treatment of narcolepsy is the use of antidepressants and stimulants. The stimulant battle the daytime sleepiness while the bulk of the work is done by antidepressants. Antidepressants are used to block the REM paralysis which leads to cataplexy (Dement & Vaughan 1999). In the past amphetamines were widely used to treat narcoleptics, but in the past few years as a result of the drug war and the information that researchers have collected about drug abuse, the use of such drugs has dwindled. The best treatment plan lies in the hands of the individual. They must set their own goals and be willing to achieve them. They must tell the practitioner what they wish to accomplish and the practitioner will draw up a plan to help treat them. They will also provide the necessary pharmaceuticals as well as moral support and help (Hales, 1981).

The knowledge that we have is amazing, but the knowledge that we do not have must be even greater. The more we search for understanding and the right answers, the closer we are to finding them for ourselves. Sleep is a huge mystery that we will only understand better as time goes on and people apply their knowledge. We do not have a cure for narcolepsy but with the proper time and the proper minds we one day could stumble upon it. Until that day, we can only try to understand the mystery of sleep and its many hidden secrets.

Bibliography:

Reference List

Dement, W. C., & Vaughan, C. (1999). The Promise of Sleep. New York, NY: Random House.

Fritz, R. (1993). Sleep Disorders: America’s Hidden Nightmare. Naperville, IL: National Sleep Alert.

Hales, D. (1981). The Complete Book of Sleep: How Your Nights Affect Your Days. London: Addison Wesley.

Lavie, P. (1996). The Enchanted World of Sleep. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pressman, M. R., & Orr, W. C. (Eds). (1997). Understanding Sleep: The Evaluation and Treatment of Sleep Disorders. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Non-Biological Families and Their Relationships

In Erdrich’s “Foreword,” the concept of non-biological families and their relationships are brought to light. The author is telling a story about a period in her life. She married a man who had a son with a disease. She shows us how, although she wasn’t biologically attached to the child, because of her closeness to him and the relationship she created with him, they became a true family that cared and loved each other. This love of a non-biological family is even greater than that of a normal biological family.

In Erdrich’s “Foreword,” we see the best example of how relationships within a family strengthen that family and makes then closer together. This story is so unique because she is not the child’s biological mother. She married a man who had adopted this child and in marrying him she adopted him too. Even with these obstacles, she was able to create a closeness and special bond with the child and keep their family together, with loving care.

The author begins with a tragic story of her child Adam, who suffers from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. He was shoveling the snow and had one of his many seizures. Right away we see her love and special relationship with her child by saying, “Jumping into the snow I felt a moment of obscure gratitude to Michael for letting me go to Adam’s rescue.” In life, when someone has to do something, even if it involves helping a loved one, out of our natural laziness we always try to go out of it, especially when there is someone else to do it for us. Here we see just the opposite. She rushes out first and is thankful that she can be the one that helps and ultimately saves her child. This shows us her love for this child, which is so great and must be from a special bond she has with him.

She goes on to explain how when she got married and ultimately adopted the children, the judge announced it was final. “Adam turned to me with delight and said, “Mom!” not Louise.” This is a very powerful statement. One can feel the emotion going through the author’s body. Her eyes watering with tears of joy and happiness. She is overjoyed with emotion that this child which she loves so much and was able to build a powerful relationship with, loves her back with the same enthusiasm.

Once Michael went out of town and she was left to take care of the children by herself, for the first time. Being that Michael was a parent for more time than Louise, Adam feared him more and thought he could get away with making trouble while she was in charge. The other kids had all finished eating dinner and Adam’s plate was still untouched. She begged and yelled at him to eat, but to no avail. She knew if he did not eat, he would suffer an attack in the morning. She made him his favorite sandwich. Nevertheless, Adam was still being stubborn and did not eat and she did not know what to do. She loved him like her own biological son. She had a special bond and relationship with him, but said “If I can’t help him to survive in the simplest way, how can I be his mother?” She was so upset that her love for him was not enough and she was losing their aura of a family because she could not take care of him. This hurt her so much she began to panic. How can one love someone so much and not be able to help them? It is a scary thought. She goes on to say, “I don’t think I can handle it.” She is afraid that she cannot handle Adam and this hurts her so much because of her love for him. It is like someone you love is dying and you can do nothing to help them. You feel helpless and guilty. This is what she had to go through. This is her love for Adam. He is not her biological child but her closeness and relationship with him is much closer than most Biological mothers and sons, which make them a close and unique family.

We see this same idea of a non-biological relationship in Cheever’s “The Nanny Dilemma.” The author tells a story about a woman named Dominique who is an immigrant to the United States, coming from Trinidad. Like many woman immigrants from there, as well as other Caribbean islands, she got hired to work as a nanny for some rich family living in New York City. She loved this job so much. She had her own apartment, clothes, got paid very well and was part of a family. Of course, she was not literally part of the family she was working for, but she had a special relationship with them. From knowing every move the parents make and what they need, to being a supplemental mother and sometimes a father figure to the children when the parents are not there, that was her job.

Her day starts off with going to the house, finding the parents trying to get ready for work, the kids all screaming and not being taken care of. Quickly, she sends the parents off to work and tends to the children’s needs. She spends most of the day and the early part of the night with the children. As in Erdrich’s “Foreword,” she begins to create a bond with her non-biological kids. Over time she develops a closeness and special relationship with them. They consider her a sub-mom, one that is there during the day and is replaced at night. She loves the children as if they were her own and they love her as if she were their real mother.

She explains however, why she is upset with the parents. She loves the children and knows that the children need to be loved. She says, “They want us to be mother and father to these children . . . they are the ones who brought the kids into the world, but then they don’t have time to raise them. So the kids get attached to you, because you’re the one who’s always there. Then the parents get angry” (Cheever 158-159). Unlike Erdrich, in which Louise has none else to fight with over the child’s love, Dominique has the real parents to deal with. She loves the children like her own, but has to keep a distance because she does not want to upset the parents. This is a hard thing to do. The real downside, however, is when her job is done and she is relieved of her duties because they do not need her anymore. It is like losing a loved one for life. She loved these kids and they loved her, now they are saying goodbye forever. Unlike Erdrich, where they had their whole lives to spend together and Louise was not going anywhere, Dominique says “When you leave, the children can be devastated – and it can break your heart too.”

In Gates’s “Down to Cumberland,” we see this idea of a non-biological family having a closer relationship than that of a biological one. However, the author now shows this point through a different view. We see from this story how a biological family has a very distant relationship, unlike the non-biological families I have mentioned thus far. He starts by saying “I saw the Gateses all together on only two occasions in my childhood, and those were my grandparents’ funeral”(Gates 147). He continues by telling the story of his father’s family, which he only knows from an album full of pictures. He found this album in his grandfather’s trunk, in which each picture tells a story. Every relative had a problem with another one. His grandfather hated his sisters, his father hated his grandmother and so on. He went on to say that even on occasions where they would go down and visit his father’s brothers and sisters, “Daddy would drink a beer and spend a lot of time talking to his old buddies from Carver High School”(Gates 151), and not with his own family. Gates went on to tell of stories where his aunt was engaged to a very nice gentleman. Her fiancé was drafted in the war and never returned home. He ended up marrying some young woman he met in Paris. We see from this that even one of the closest relationships within a family of a husband and wife, wasn’t close enough for them to stay together. Though he mentions that he is close with his mother’s family, we see the main idea of Erdrich’s, that non biological families have closer relationships, since he was not close with his biological family.

Relationships are very powerful things. They can make people happy and sad and sometimes both at the same time. A relationship is a bond that two or more people share with each other. Through a family is one of the strongest forms of relationships. However, a non-biological family has a stronger relationship than that of a biological one. From Erdrich’s “Foreword,” we see this strong relationship with a non-biological family. Though Cheever’s “The Nanny Dilemma” and Gates’s “Down to Cumberland” differ with each other and with Erdrich, they all share this same underlining characteristic. Families have the strongest relationships with each other than any other type of relationship known. Ironically, it is the non-biological families rather than biological ones that are usually more intense and closer.

Bibliography:

Cheever, Susan. “The Nanny Dilemma.” Making Contact: Readings from Home and Abroad. Ed. Carol J. Verburg. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. 155-163.

Erdrich, Louise. “Foreword.” Making Contact: Readings from Home and Abroad. Ed. Carol J. Verburg. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. 137-145.

Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. “Down to Cumberland.” Making Contact: Readings from Home and Abroad. Ed. Carol J. Verburg. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. 146-154

Nikola Tesla

In this modern age of cell phones and palm pilots we often find ourselves relying on technology to make it through the day. How many people can say that they could do without a car or a phone? Indeed we all take a lot of technology for granted. Some of the technology is so pervasive that we tend to forget it is even there. AC powered engines drive numerous machines, vacuum tubes power televisions and monitors, and wireless communication is vital to radio and other mediums. These and a few other simple ideas are the foundation on which everything we use today was built and most of them were invented by one man, almost a hundred years ago. The technology is so common place that few even know the name of the man responsible for it. His name was Nikola Telsa and by 1900 he held over 100 patents on everything from the x-ray to the remote control. Despite his contributions in the field of science he died penniless and virtually unknown. To this day he is overlooked by even the Smithsonian, which displays none of his work. Nikola Tesla, a Serbian immigrant, may have been one the greatest masterminds of the technological century.

Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in small Serbian hamlet near the Austro-Hungarian border. His father was a priest in the Serbian Orthodox Church, a choice he made as an alternative to joining the army. Perhaps it was genetic or perhaps it was his environment but Tesla acquired attributes from his family that would later define him as a genius. His father, being a priest was extremely prodigious, with an acute memory that he passed on to his son. Tesla’s mother was illiterate but despite this she was blessed with an amazingly creative imagination. Tesla was also inspired to succeed after the death of his brother.

In elementary school Nikola showed an amazing aptitude for mathematics. By the time he graduated he could solve complex math problems in his head. He required no drawings, models or experiments, only time to visualize it. Unfortunately Telsa’s high school career was cut short due to a bout with Cholera that nearly killed him. It was during his time in bed that his father told him that he would allow Nikola to go to study electrical engineering at the prestigious Polytechnic Institute in Graz, Austria. Nikola was overjoyed to hear the news and after regaining his health he left for Austria at the age of 19.

It was at the institute that Tesla discovered a problem that would become his obsession for years: alternating currents. During one of his classes a professor was demonstrating a piece of electrical equipment that worked on DC (direct current) power and required a commutator to change the direction of the current. Tesla thought that if he could come up with a way to make the current itself alternate, the commutator would be useless. He remarked to the professor about his plans only to be ridiculed. The judgment didn’t face Nikola one bit and he thought about the problem day and night, sleeping an average of only four hours. The solution still eluded him after leaving Austria to work for the American Telephone and Telegraph Company in Budapest. During his time in Budapest he came up with the idea for the loudspeaker, and in what would become Tesla’s fashion, he failed to patent the idea.

Telsa’s propensity for illness also followed him to Budapest. There he was stricken by a very mysterious illness. Tesla had always had sharp senses, but one day they all seemed to go into overdrive to the point where he was incapable of performing even menial tasks. The sound of a sound of a pocket watch, even several rooms away, became deafening to him. He installed rubber cushions on the feet of his bed to decrease vibrations from people walking nearby, which shook him terribly. Years later he claimed to be able to hear thunder from hundreds of miles away. At the same time Tesla began to manifest symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Before he could eat he had to be sure of the exact volume of his food, which he got by dipping it in water. Any actions he repeated daily (like footsteps in his walk) had to be divisible by three. He would continue to perform the task until he arrived a suitable total. Tesla never shook hands with anyone and never showed any signs of attraction to the opposite sex, or same sex for that matter. Some of Tesla’s compulsions aided him in his lab work. He worked fervently, forgetting to eat or sleep for days at a time. At one point his exhaustion cause him to forget who he was for several days (Neidle, 139).

After he recovered his illness, Tesla was free to solve the problem of AC power. One day, while watching the sun set, Tesla had an epiphany. He immediately drew his plans for the AC induction motor in the sand. That was it, Nikola Tesla had changed electrical engineering and consequently the world forever, now the challenge was to convince others of it. Tesla showed his ideas to numerous influential people in Europe with no luck, no one was interested. After months of failed exhibitions someone suggested that he bring his inventions to Thomas Edison in New York. After having all his belongings stolen, Tesla arrived in America with four cents. Unfortunately, Thomas Edison would do nothing to help Tesla financially. At the time Edison was working to construct DC power plants in many cities around the country. He had a lot riding on the venture and did not want to hear anything about Tesla’s AC schemes. “Hold up! Spare me the nonsense. It’s dangerous. We’re set up for direct current in America. People like it, and it’s all I’ll ever fool with.” Despite their disagreements Edison offered Tesla a job redesigning his DC motors, which were prone to breakdown. A year later Tesla had created a DC motor that was a great improvement over Edison’s previous design. Edison took the motor and never paid Tesla the $50,000 he had promised him (One Story of Nikola Tesla, 2).

Tesla’s efforts did not go unnoticed and those in the academic world soon began discussing the prospects of AC power. Business magnate George Westinghouse, an early advocate of AC power, soon became interested in Nikola’s idea. Westinghouse proceeded to buy the patents for Tesla’s polyphase AC systems and hire him as a consultant. The system was a great success and beat out Edison’s DC systems. Westinghouse implemented the system across the country and even on Niagara Falls. The system is still in use today. In their contract Westinghouse had agreed to pay Tesla two dollars and fifty cents for every AC motor sold. The royalties alone would have made Tesla the richest man in the world at the time. However a smear campaign launched by Edison’s financial backer, J.P. Morgan, scared investors away from Westinghouse, depriving him of the capital he needed to proceed. In an act of friendship, and some would say stupidity, Tesla ripped up the contract between himself and Westinghouse, releasing him from any obligation to pay Tesla. He never again received royalties.

The money he did get from his adventures in AC power did allow him to build his own laboratory in Colorado Springs, CO. The location was especially enticing because Tesla had been offered free electricity by a friend at the local power plant. Tesla seized the opportunity and constructed a 150 foot metal tower at his lab. The idea of the tower was to test his theory of resonant energy. Tesla discovered that the earth, with its molten iron core, was a great conductor for electricity. He could send a pulse of electricity through the earth that would return to him about 1/30th of a second later, but considerably weaker than when it started. To amplify the wave he would just send more electricity out at that exact moment the first returned. He experimented with it for weeks, putting small amounts of energy into his tower. People living around it reported lights in their house coming on spontaneously and sparks would leap from the ground as people walked. This was only the test phase. In the fall of 1899 Tesla turned his machine all the way up. The result was truly dazzling. One hundred and thirty five foot bolts of lightning leapt from the ground to the top of the tower. If the war, and still is, the most powerful man-made power surge in history. Unfortunately the experiment was cut short when Tesla blew out the generator at the power plant. Nonetheless, Tesla’s experiment proved his theory of free energy, the next step was to sell it. Tesla new that people would be reluctant about the idea of free energy so he passed off his idea as new form of transmitting communications, not electricity. The man who had cost Tesla millions of dollars, J.P. Morgan, took him up on the idea and gave him money to build a new laboratory on Long Island, which he called Wardenclyffe. Wardencylffe was wracked by a string of accidents including a fire. Morgan’s interest in the project started to win and as a last ditch effort Telsa informed Morgan that he was not trying to redesign the telegraph, but replace the traditional way of transmitting energy. Morgan withdrew from the project and Tesla never got to bring his idea of free energy to the world.

In try to get himself out of debt Tesla started to experiment with inventions that had military applications. Given Tesla’s past inventions and his genius it is frightening to think what he could have done in a war? This is same man who claimed that he could spilt the earth in two with his resonance machine, and no one ever knew it was joking. Tesla first dabbled with war machines when he invented an automated submarine that was so advanced that it responded to voice commands. He remained humanitarian about the project saying he didn’t invent it so destroy, only to prevent lives from being lost at sea. He proposed his submarine to the government and to J.P. Morgan. The government passed and Morgan agreed only if Tesla would marry his daughter. Tesla passes on the offer. Eventually he ended up getting a contract with the German government to manufacture turbines for use in their submarines. Tesla was forced to give up the contract soon thereafter lest he be charged with treason when World War I broke out. So instead of sulking Tesla dreamed up a new invention that he thought would interest the military: a death ray. He began and finished construction on his death ray in 1908 atop a tower at his Wardencylffe lab. The specifications of the device are shaky at best but from what we can gather from his notes it was an early form of a particle accelerator. The ray focused a beam of energy so concentrated that it wouldn’t scatter over long distances. Tesla couldn’t wait to test his device and one night in 1908 he did. At the time Robert Peary was on a expedition to the North pole and Tesla had told the party that we try to contact them, neglecting to tell them how. On the cool summer night of June the 30th Tesla pointed his death ray out over the Atlantic Ocean to a point near the Peary expedition. He switched the device on and at first it seemed if nothing was happening. The weapon emitted a dim light that was barely visible. It wasn’t until an owl flew into the path of the beam and disintegrated instantly that Tesla knew something was happening. He switched it off and waited for contact from the Peary expedition. The next day in the newspaper he read about an explosion in Siberia that came to be known as the Tunguska event. The explosion flattened trees for five hundred thousand square acres and the event was audible for 620 miles. The explosion was equivalent to 10 to 15 megatons of TNT, and even consequent thermonuclear explosions have not equaled it. Scientists today belie that the explosion was caused by a comet or meteorite fragment that exploded above the surface of the earth although no mineral fragments or impact craters were ever found. Tesla had another explanation. He had missed the Peary expedition and hit Siberia. Luckily no one was killed in the explosion, but Tesla dismantled the device anyway and never put it back together, something which we should all be thankful for (Tesla, 79).

A lack of funds pushed Tesla into obscurity in his later years. He was unable to obtain any patents for his inventions because doing so would require a working model, the money for which just wasn’t there. For this reason all Tesla’s ideas were confined to his notebook. From looking at his notes one can only imagine what he could have done under the right circumstances. He was working on predecessors to voice recognition, the fax machine, and x-rays (“Nikola Tesla”, 1). He even proposed his plan for an “exploring ray” to the War Department during World War I. The board, which included Thomas Edison, dismissed the idea a joke. Ironically a few years later an invention almost identical to Tesla’s helped the allies win World War II, it was called radar.

There are several theories about why Tesla fell from grace like he did. Tesla was not a businessman and looking back it is easy to see that he made some bad financial decisions. His contract with Westinghouse alone would have allowed him to die in luxury, but the most accomplished men are rarely the most brilliant and more often the ones who know how to play the game. Some put Tesla’s downfall in the hands of a few powerful men who conspired to destroy him. Thomas Edison was immensely jealous of Tesla because of his amazing scope and did his best to convince the public that AC power just wouldn’t work. He held public demonstrations in which he electrocuted animals using AC power, a deceptive and cruel ploy. He was jubilant when he found out that Sin Sing prison was using AC power to run its electric chair. J.P. Morgan was the other man who was belied to be active in the anti-Tesla cover up. When Tesla informed Morgan about his plans for free energy, Morgan was so scared by the idea of free distribution of energy that he did what any self-respecting capitalist would have, cut all of Tesla’s funding. In the future he put considerable resources into making sure Tesla would never rethink the idea. Perhaps most amazingly the government became strangely interested in Tesla’s work after his death. The Office of Alien Property illegal seized all his work from his laboratory. Tesla’s paper were just recently released to the public under the freedom of information act (Neidle, 165).

Unfortunately Tesla’s downfall can most probably be attributed to his failing public image due to a surge of outlandish ideas and inventions. Tesla claimed that while working one night in his Colorado Springs laboratory his magnifying tower began to emit a precise series of clicks. Tesla deemed it Morse code and said that it had come from extraterrestrial life on Mars. He began to try to contact the Martians. As far as we know, he was never successful. Tesla dismissed Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity as vague and incoherent. At the same time he worked on his own plans of time travel, teleportation and anti-gravity ships. As this leads one to question how great of a scientist Tesla actually was.

Nikola Tesla died in 1943 at the age of 87. He was penniless and lived in a dilapidated New York hotel room with a flock of pigeons that he considered his only friends. Tesla never married, never even knew the company of a woman. Nikola Tesla died how he had been born, humbly.

It has taken over a hundred years for people to finally rediscover Nikola Tesla’s genius. The inventor had gained almost a cult following among electrical engineers. At least three organizations are devoted to preserving Tesla’s memory. The Nikola Tesla Museum in Belgrade, the Tesla Memorial Society in New York and the International Tesla Society in Colorado Springs. In addition there exists a 1,000-member Tesla Engine Builders Association. Members of the group claim that recent tests on the engine indicate that it could rank as the world’s most efficient gas engine. The Tesla Coil web ring has more than 100 sites where fans of the invention post pictures and videos of electrical displays that make Hollywood pale in comparison (Lange, 2). Tesla Technology Research in Monrovia, California manufactures laboratory grade Tesla coils for use in theme parks, feature films and are an integral part of Ohio State’s high-voltage engineering lab. “Inventors of the modern computer have repeatedly been surprised, when seeking patents, to encounter Tesla’s basic ones already on file,” said Tesla historian Leland Anderson. Some of Tesla’s patents from 1903 contain the basic elements of the logical and circuit element (Lange 4).

By the 1940’s the scientific community regarded Tesla as a mad scientist. Early Superman cartoons feature Superman fighting a villain with electromagnetic terrors named Tesla. Even if some of Tesla’s ideas were completely wrong you cannot ignore all his other contributions to humanity. Slowly people are starting to recognize him as the genius he was. The Supreme Court ruled after his death that he was the legal inventor of the radio, not Guglielmo Marconi who had stolen it from him at a public exhibition. The court also recognized Tesla as the inventor of the vacuum tube, florescent bulb and the X-Ray machine. History books have followed suit. The advent of the internet has made Tesla’s legacy known to millions as well. Perhaps the story of the demolition of his Wardencylffe laboratory serves as the best metaphor for his life. In 1917 the bank foreclosed on the building and it was consigned for demolition. The demotion team succeed in destroying the building but the massive tower on which Tesla had done many of his experiments still stood. They blasted it repeatedly but it still stood proudly. The team gave up and had to return on a later date to try again. Finally they felled the tower but when it hit the ground it did not explode, shatter or even crack.

Bibliography:

Lange, Larry. “Tesla’s Legacy Continues to Electrify Engineers.” EE Times Online. 9 July 1998. 15 March 2001. http://www.eet.com/news/98/1016news/tesla.html

Martin, Thomas. The Inventions Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla. New York: The Electrical Engineer, 1894.

Neidle, Cycle S. Great Immigrants. New York: Twyane Publishers, 1973.

“Nikola Tesla..” Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 1996. 15 March 2001. http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bodgan/tesla/bio.htm.

One Story of Nikola Tesla. 3 May 1999. 15 March 2001. http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/tesla.htm.

Tesla, Nikola. My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla. New York: Hart Brothers, 1982.

Nietzsche Master and Slave Morality

Nietzsche: Master & Slave Morality

Friedrich Nietzsche believed that Christianity, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, democracy and the equal coexistence in power and strength of humans was leading to society’s decay and the rampant acceptance of slave morality. Nietzsche was an advocate of master morality, in which case a strong, ruling class would dominate in a society over the masses in order for humankind to flourish. There have been claims made that the idea of master morality was what inspired Hitler and his Nazi regime, but arguments can be made, using themes from Beyond Good and Evil, that Nietzsche in no way was alluding to such a rule as Hitler’s. To be able to discuss this topic further, one must have a grasp on what Nietzsche is talking about when he refers to slave or master morality. Master morality is so named because it was created by the ruling class, and it essentially considers strength, power, and bravery to be “good”. The “good” was created out of an affirmation and pride of their own power and honor. Additional attributes of those bearing the stamp of master morality are having a hard heart, being egotistical, intolerant and of distinguished origin. Those deemed as “bad” by the “great men” are those who belong to the lower class, who are characteristically common and mediocre in the eyes of the ruling class. Slave morality represents the masses and herds, in other words, the tainted and mediocre class of Nietzsche’s society. This system considered kindness, pity, compassion, and peace as the “good”. Instead of being a product of affirmation, however, the distinction between good and evil is made out of a sense of revenge against the strength of the upper class. Naturally, those deemed as “evil” are those people who belong to the upper class, who are considered characteristically cruel, strange, and dangerous. Nietzsche asserted that humanity must rise “beyond good and evil” and regain respect for nobility and power if they were to excel. Nietzsche wanted a social system with a “leader type”, a genuinely superior ruling class, with slaves as its base at the opposite social extreme. Throughout Nietzsche’s work Beyond Good and Evil, the reader discovers how the different themes apply to his concept of either master or slave morality, and can begin to realize how his ideas contrasted with how Hitler perceived them.

One of the main themes discussed is the idea of religion, specifically Christianity. Nietzsche was an atheist, believing that Christianity blocked the free and spontaneous exercise of human instinct and will in the Western world. He believed that it was a religion of the mediocre created by Jesus who became a slave of his followers, for he was both a god and a man. For once, God, the divine master, was no longer immortal and distinguished, stooping to the level of his flock and dealing with the sentiments (he talks about Jesus’ love) and concerns of the ordinary and common masses. The gentle morality of this faith and the subsequent equality between master (God) and slave (follower) were what made Nietzsche become atheistic towards Christianity. Instead, Nietzsche insisted that the decay of religion (the “death of God”) required that humanity take responsibility for setting its own moral standards.

Another theme addressed was that of the modern age. Nietzsche opposed the modern age because he saw it as sad, fostering a weak and mediocre society (slave morality) in which the ideas of the old and the distinguished were unrecognized. He believed that the modern, industrial, bourgeois society made humans decadent and feeble (slave morality) because it made them victims of the development of the rational faculties at the expense of human will and instinct. Nietzsche saw the destiny of progress as mediocre as well, claiming that it didn’t know what it was or what it wanted. Nietzsche also opposed the common view of the time, namely Social Darwinism, which claimed that through evolution, the biologically superior would survive and the weak would die out, creating a stronger species and society. In Nietzsche’s view, the strong should not have to overcome the weak. Instead, the slaves and masters are each born into their place in society. Life should not be about survival, but rather “will to power”. Men must dominate and make changes, not try to preserve, not even themselves. This reflects the sad period of stagnation that Nietzsche lived in.

Friedrich also included a tirade against women. To Nietzsche, women were naturally second class to men, and they had an instinct for a secondary role. They were equated with Christianity and its slave morality, in other words, the masses. Women (slaves) looked up to their husbands and fathers (masters) for guidance and approval and believed that their love could save anything. Nietzsche believed that treating women as equals would contribute to the downfall of society.

The idea of race or racism was a big part of Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche saw the European man progressing in the way of the herd-like, average, ordinary and the common. He believed that true qualities were passed on from parents and ancestors, placing humans in either the master or slave morality category and that hiding behind education or cultivation could only serve as a temporary tool of deception. Eventually, man would regain his natural place. Nietzsche was not anti-Semitic towards the Jews, instead, he degraded Judaism because it was naturally just as mediocre as the Christian faith. He also hated anti-Semitism, which he equated with slave morality, using jealousy, envy and revenge as tools of the masses.

The last theme I will address is intellectual compromise. Nietzsche hated intellectual compromise. A true leader and intellectual such as he would not degrade himself by associating or discussing with those of inferior views or rank. He felt that pseudo-intellectuals were once again creating a mediocre society by compromising with the weak, the dumb, and the masses. Nietzsche considered these men to be child-brained, irresponsible, sensual, enthusiastic, and essentially bearing all the qualities of slave morality.

Beyond Good and Evil is an extremely powerful text which, due to its many hidden messages, would have affected, reinforced and contributed to Hitler’s fascist ideology, despite a lack of intention to do so on Nietzsche’s part. The themes on religion, the modern age, women, race, and intellectual compromise all draw stunning parallels to Hitler’s Nazi regime. The dissimilarities are also abundant, however, and tend to constitute important elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy that Hitler either misunderstood or forgot to mention intentionally. In my opinion, Nietzsche was not describing or predicting Hitler’s coming because Hitler would have been equated with the slave morality type in Nietzsche’s eyes. However, Nietzsche’s society of slaves and elite masters certainly appealed to Hitler. A leader who creates his own morals, dominates the weak without compromise and is responsible to no one but himself was, in Hitler’s eyes, a self portrayal. Hitler clearly considered himself the “overman” of Nietzsche’s prophecy. Nietzsche was not, however, alluding to Hitler. Master morality says that the powerful are born powerful and distinguished. This is not true in Hitler’s case, having emerged from a modest upbringing. Master morality also dictates that slave morality must exist so that the weak can be dominated by the strong. It does not, however, say that the weak (Jews, Slavs) should be exterminated by the strong (Hitler). Also, master morality condemns Hitler’s pseudo-intellectuality and anti-Semitic belief system. Finally, master morality does not allude to the single rule of one man over society, but rather the rule of an elite group, which deliberates and dominates on a high level as a collective body. Hitler ruled autocratically, disregarding all opposition. What Nietzsche was predicting with his philosophy of master morality is an ideal that has yet to be attained. No ideology or political leader in the 20th century, nor any other individual, has managed to attain the pure image of which he spoke. Should destiny follow its course, the mediocre society will forevermore prevail, preventing any emergence of a ruling class.

Bibliography:

none

NCAA Tournament

Natural to the End

Natural Rights And Herbert Croly

Natural philosophy is the orderly investigation of the phenomena of the universe through the use of experimental observation

Nato-North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Native Vs, Euros

Narcolepsy. Sleep is an essential part of our lives

Non-Biological Families and Their Relationships

Nikola Tesla

Nietzsche Master and Slave Morality

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #

Client #