The following "Room-for-Debate" appeared in yesterday's The New York Times, entitled "Are Research Papers a Waste of Time?". A panel of five weigh in on whether the traditional research paper is relevant in the Internet Age, where information and scholarly material is readily accessible with minimal effort.
All five panelist seem to agree that research papers--when done properly--remain useful for the modern student, especially in the humanities. Will Fitzhugh, the first of the panelist, believes that while the Internet has made facts and arguments more readily available, these elements alone do not make knowledge, either for the student or for others. Rather, "to make knowledge, which is the foundation of learning, it is necessary to apply thought to information, to think about the facts that have been gathered, and this is work only an individual can do." Much as the historian E.H. Carr once wrote sixty years ago, "The facts do not speak for themselves."
While agreeing that the research process, traditionally understood, is of great usefulness to students even today, some argue that the final product of this research need not be a research paper at all. Courtney L. Young, the third panelist, suggests that other assignments may just as usefully fill the role of the research paper, so long as those assignments are founded upon thorough and considered research. Essays, group presentations, and even blogging (woo-woo!) are all suitable substitutes according to Young, who believes that "the core skills to conceive, investigate and execute the work are the same," as those employed in writing a research paper. Why not diversify the range of assignments, if the underlying process remains the same?
Finally, Pamela Ban, the fifth panelist, suggests that when done properly, the research paper is a unique and "unparalleled" challenge. While, "an essay is achievable with much caffeine and an all-nighter...its older sibling, the longer research paper, requires more time understanding sources, forming an original question and proving a thesis. We've found that this process cannot be automated and the Internet is only an aide, providing sources more quickly than scouring library shelves...Learning how to take what is already known and enhance it in a unique way is an unparalleled learning experience that we should not lose." In short, the research paper involves an act of educationally-valuable creation, where facts, arguments, and thought are combined to produce new knowledge.
These are points with which I can readily agree. I use to hate the extended research paper, and even today continue to struggle with them. It took several years of experience just to begin to understand the amount of time, effort, and consolidation such a project required to do well. Even with the internet, research can be difficult, frustrating, and full of dead-ends; these features are not unique to the pre-Internet Age.
Understanding--both for one's self and for others--requires a more-or-less thorough consideration of facts, evidence, and the thoughtful investigations of other intelligent people. If you're going to contribute anything new and interesting to a field, you have to understand the known facts, and the ways that others have interpreted those facts. Without that familiarity, you won't know if what you're thinking has already been thought by someone else, or if what you're thinking truly accords with all the known facts.
Some have argued that research of this type simply encourages conventional thinking, an assertion with which I disagree. I've been reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, a biography of Abraham Lincoln at its heart, but actually a biography of Lincoln, William Seward, Salmon Chase, Edwin Stanton, and Edward Bates in its entirety. Mrs. Goodwin realized that, given all that has been written about Lincoln over the last 140+ years, one way to say something new on the subject would be to consider Lincoln's life within the context of his other rivals for the Republican presidential nomination of 1860. Indeed, "just as a hologram is created through the interference of light from separate sources, so the lives and impressions of those who companioned Lincoln give use a clearer and more dimensional picture of the president himself."
This is a fascinating insight, and has given us a thoughtful and interesting new way in which to view the 16th president. Yet the approach did not spring from a vacuum; it emerged from an enormous body of material about Lincoln and his time. Considering the numerous ways in which others have considered Lincoln, Goodwin decided upon a less-traditional path. The result of thorough, considered research, in this case at least, proved anything but conventional.
The traditional research paper therefore has its place in the modern education of scholars and thinkers. The internet--considered by some as a short-cut to real research--can assist the researcher in tracking down sources and their content, but it cannot bring those sources together in a new and meaningful way. That requires the insight and organization of a thoughtful and well-practiced individual or team.
So in short, students may be turning in crappy research papers these days, but honestly that is nothing new. And its not a good reason to argue that research papers are irrelevant. I agree with Courtney L. Young from above that the traditional research paper is not the only thing we could ask a student to produce while taking on research. The process is the crucial exercise, not the tedium of paper-writing.
All the same, I'm glad these sorts of questions are asked. Happy Monday :).
Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Practical math; is it for everyone?
Sol Garfunkel and David Mumford published an interesting op-ed in yesterday's The New York Times, entitled "How to Fix Our Math Education". They argue that there is no, "single established body of mathematical skills that everyone needs to know to be prepared for 21st-century careers." Rather, different skills find application in different careers, and "our math education should be changed to reflect this fact."
At its heart, Garfunkel and Mumford argue for a more practically-oriented approach to math education, "focused on real-life problems;" for example, "how mortgages are priced, how computers are programmed and how the statistical results of a medical trial are to be understood." In this manner, the quantitative component underlying practical problems in a variety of fields is made more apparent. This emphasis could perhaps more effectively demonstrate to budding math students the connections between math and other fields, such a science, sport, and everyday life. Garfunkel and Mumford call this ability to recognize connections, "Quantitative literacy."
Garfunkel and Mumford make a good point, in that most people will not need to know how to use the quadratic equation, except perhaps to help their 9th grader with homework. And practical math could well make math as a subject more tolerable to the large section of students who growing up found it so much Sanskrit.
Yet for all the perceived benefits of an emphasis on the practical, I wonder where we would be without a healthy dose of the abstract as well. If math was simply useful, what would we fuss about anymore? English perhaps, what with all that grammar and vocabulary. In all seriousness though, would we better off? Would practical math instruction attract talented youngsters to math and engineering fields, for which politicians and education specialists continually advocate?
Garfunkel and Mumford make the point that math should be taught in conjunction with other subjects, especially science and engineering. This makes good sense to me. Too often it seems, people are turned off to careers in such fields solely because of bad experiences with abstract, high school math.
But for all that, I still wonder if something important would be lost if we abandoned the abstract side of mathematics. Would we be doing a disservice to the most talented students by denying them the challenge of higher-level math at a young age? My experience as a friend of several math-oriented folks suggest that you often don't need to teach practical math to the math-savvy; they can already interpret graphs, figure out tip, balance a check-book, and calculate mile-splits in their head.
Yet for those who struggle with math, it is not simply the degree of abstraction that gets them. Often, these folks simply have a hard time using their skills; cashiers who forget how to do basic arithmetic while on the job, or job candidates who forget how to perform a simple percentage problem (cough, cough, me...) might all be well served by a more practical grounding of math. The extra practice and emphasis upon the useful could take a poor math student and make him or her a fair, good, or even great math student.
To adopt this approach for everyone, however, seems inappropriate. Just as some athletes can naturally trainer at a higher intensity than others, some students seem to have an easier time with advanced math than others. That's not to say that slow-starters won't someday reach the elite level. It simply describes what I observed while growing up, which was that some people took to math far more easily than others. These folks probably would not benefit from a practical approach to math. But the vast majority in the same classroom might.
That seems to me to be the most pressing dilemma in the matter.
At its heart, Garfunkel and Mumford argue for a more practically-oriented approach to math education, "focused on real-life problems;" for example, "how mortgages are priced, how computers are programmed and how the statistical results of a medical trial are to be understood." In this manner, the quantitative component underlying practical problems in a variety of fields is made more apparent. This emphasis could perhaps more effectively demonstrate to budding math students the connections between math and other fields, such a science, sport, and everyday life. Garfunkel and Mumford call this ability to recognize connections, "Quantitative literacy."
Garfunkel and Mumford make a good point, in that most people will not need to know how to use the quadratic equation, except perhaps to help their 9th grader with homework. And practical math could well make math as a subject more tolerable to the large section of students who growing up found it so much Sanskrit.
Yet for all the perceived benefits of an emphasis on the practical, I wonder where we would be without a healthy dose of the abstract as well. If math was simply useful, what would we fuss about anymore? English perhaps, what with all that grammar and vocabulary. In all seriousness though, would we better off? Would practical math instruction attract talented youngsters to math and engineering fields, for which politicians and education specialists continually advocate?
Garfunkel and Mumford make the point that math should be taught in conjunction with other subjects, especially science and engineering. This makes good sense to me. Too often it seems, people are turned off to careers in such fields solely because of bad experiences with abstract, high school math.
But for all that, I still wonder if something important would be lost if we abandoned the abstract side of mathematics. Would we be doing a disservice to the most talented students by denying them the challenge of higher-level math at a young age? My experience as a friend of several math-oriented folks suggest that you often don't need to teach practical math to the math-savvy; they can already interpret graphs, figure out tip, balance a check-book, and calculate mile-splits in their head.
Yet for those who struggle with math, it is not simply the degree of abstraction that gets them. Often, these folks simply have a hard time using their skills; cashiers who forget how to do basic arithmetic while on the job, or job candidates who forget how to perform a simple percentage problem (cough, cough, me...) might all be well served by a more practical grounding of math. The extra practice and emphasis upon the useful could take a poor math student and make him or her a fair, good, or even great math student.
To adopt this approach for everyone, however, seems inappropriate. Just as some athletes can naturally trainer at a higher intensity than others, some students seem to have an easier time with advanced math than others. That's not to say that slow-starters won't someday reach the elite level. It simply describes what I observed while growing up, which was that some people took to math far more easily than others. These folks probably would not benefit from a practical approach to math. But the vast majority in the same classroom might.
That seems to me to be the most pressing dilemma in the matter.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Technology and Children
Joel Bakan, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, wrote an op-ed in Sunday's The New York Times describing how the development of the modern, for-profit corporation has undermined children's welfare. While a 700-word op-ed is hardly the place to make a strong case for one's point, still I found Mr. Bakan's argument short of evidence and long on assertion. More importantly, Mr. Bakan seems to make one point at the beginning of the piece, and another at the end. To my mind at least, the first point is far more interesting.
That first point begins with a description of the technological habits of Mr. Bakan's teenagers, about which he, "feels like something is wrong." "Virtual worlds," says Mr. Bakan, and "endless[-] video clips," create teenagers who are increasingly "absorbed by the titillating roil of online social life." One could "dismiss[-]" these "as mere generational prejudices," but Mr. Bakan believes there's reason to think otherwise.
It is at this point which Mr. Bakan and I diverge in our thinking. Mr. Bakan believes that the legal development of the corporation as an entity with similar "rights" and "entitlements" as those typically conferred on people has led to a conflict between corporations and children. There may well be credence to this assertion, though I have also heard reasoned arguments for treating corporations as single entities. Mr. Bakan does not help his case much by turning the argument toward the evils which corporations have rendered upon children through junk-food, violent video games, psychological medicine, and toxic chemical exposure. These points are all worthy matters of consideration, but the reasons they all happen is far more diverse than simply that corporate entities are given similar rights as individuals. But again, an op-ed is not an ideal medium for careful development and exhibition of ideas, so we'll leave it at that.
Yet Mr. Bakan makes an interesting point. After describing the particularly potent effects of modern technology on his children, Bakan asserts that, "There is reason to believe that childhood itself is now in crisis."
When I first read this, I thought, "Oh, okay, the author believes there's something uniquely disturbing about the effect of modern technology on children; not just a generational prejudice, but something fundamentally dangerous." This is a point on which I could very much agree. Modern technology, to speak vaguely, brings with it many benefits and costs. It would not surprise me if these costs were not yet well understood. Intuitively, I believe they could prove far higher for a lot of people than we at present believe. If that proved true, then Mr. Bakan's assertion that "childhood itself is now in crisis" could prove quite accurate.
So that is an alternative direction which Mr. Bakan might have taken. The point is, for-profit initiatives have existed far longer than the modern corporation-with-individual-rights that Mr. Bakan seems to believe is at the heart of a fundamental conflict between the rights of children and those of corporations, yet the place of children in society has improved markedly. The Internet, video games, and other rapidly-evolving wireless technology, however, have only been around the past 15 or 20 years, and their extreme use by children is a more recent phenomenon still. Perhaps there is something fundamentally different about generation gaps today. Perhaps that is reason for concern. Or perhaps not. Something to consider at least.
That first point begins with a description of the technological habits of Mr. Bakan's teenagers, about which he, "feels like something is wrong." "Virtual worlds," says Mr. Bakan, and "endless[-] video clips," create teenagers who are increasingly "absorbed by the titillating roil of online social life." One could "dismiss[-]" these "as mere generational prejudices," but Mr. Bakan believes there's reason to think otherwise.
It is at this point which Mr. Bakan and I diverge in our thinking. Mr. Bakan believes that the legal development of the corporation as an entity with similar "rights" and "entitlements" as those typically conferred on people has led to a conflict between corporations and children. There may well be credence to this assertion, though I have also heard reasoned arguments for treating corporations as single entities. Mr. Bakan does not help his case much by turning the argument toward the evils which corporations have rendered upon children through junk-food, violent video games, psychological medicine, and toxic chemical exposure. These points are all worthy matters of consideration, but the reasons they all happen is far more diverse than simply that corporate entities are given similar rights as individuals. But again, an op-ed is not an ideal medium for careful development and exhibition of ideas, so we'll leave it at that.
Yet Mr. Bakan makes an interesting point. After describing the particularly potent effects of modern technology on his children, Bakan asserts that, "There is reason to believe that childhood itself is now in crisis."
When I first read this, I thought, "Oh, okay, the author believes there's something uniquely disturbing about the effect of modern technology on children; not just a generational prejudice, but something fundamentally dangerous." This is a point on which I could very much agree. Modern technology, to speak vaguely, brings with it many benefits and costs. It would not surprise me if these costs were not yet well understood. Intuitively, I believe they could prove far higher for a lot of people than we at present believe. If that proved true, then Mr. Bakan's assertion that "childhood itself is now in crisis" could prove quite accurate.
So that is an alternative direction which Mr. Bakan might have taken. The point is, for-profit initiatives have existed far longer than the modern corporation-with-individual-rights that Mr. Bakan seems to believe is at the heart of a fundamental conflict between the rights of children and those of corporations, yet the place of children in society has improved markedly. The Internet, video games, and other rapidly-evolving wireless technology, however, have only been around the past 15 or 20 years, and their extreme use by children is a more recent phenomenon still. Perhaps there is something fundamentally different about generation gaps today. Perhaps that is reason for concern. Or perhaps not. Something to consider at least.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
US draws with Mexico 1-1 in Klinsmann's debut
It was a tale of two halves as the US drew even with Mexico in the 73rd minute off a Robby Rogers goal.
The US faced a tough Mexico in the opening half, seeming to play back on their heels as El Tri controlled possession for long stretches. Incidentally, Mexico took the lead off a corner in the 17th minute, when Oribe Peralta caught the ball in the mid-air, and whipped it into the corner of the net.
The US had zero shots on goal in the first half, though they managed to limit the number of quality chances for a Mexican attack playing without injured striker Chicharito Hernandez (concussion).
Steve Cherundelo had the American's first shot off a corner from Landon Donovan in the 56th minute, but headed it right at Mexican keeper Guillermo Osorio.
The inclusion of Juan Agudelo and Brek Shea in the second half seemed to spark the US attack, and their efforts were rewarded in the 73rd minute with a Robbie Rogers goal off Brek Shea's cross. Looking increasingly dangerous as the final minutes ticked away, the US finished in far better form than they started, giving Jurgen Klinsmann a fine first game with the national team.
*As an aside, the German national team defeated Brazil this afternoon 3-2, the first time Germany has defeated A Seleção (the Selection) in 18 years. Italy also knocked off World Champions Spain by a score of 1-0.
The US faced a tough Mexico in the opening half, seeming to play back on their heels as El Tri controlled possession for long stretches. Incidentally, Mexico took the lead off a corner in the 17th minute, when Oribe Peralta caught the ball in the mid-air, and whipped it into the corner of the net.
The US had zero shots on goal in the first half, though they managed to limit the number of quality chances for a Mexican attack playing without injured striker Chicharito Hernandez (concussion).
Steve Cherundelo had the American's first shot off a corner from Landon Donovan in the 56th minute, but headed it right at Mexican keeper Guillermo Osorio.
The inclusion of Juan Agudelo and Brek Shea in the second half seemed to spark the US attack, and their efforts were rewarded in the 73rd minute with a Robbie Rogers goal off Brek Shea's cross. Looking increasingly dangerous as the final minutes ticked away, the US finished in far better form than they started, giving Jurgen Klinsmann a fine first game with the national team.
*As an aside, the German national team defeated Brazil this afternoon 3-2, the first time Germany has defeated A Seleção (the Selection) in 18 years. Italy also knocked off World Champions Spain by a score of 1-0.
The Jürgen Klinsmann-era begins for US Soccer
The US Men's National Team takes on Mexico at 9pm EDT this evening in Philadelphia. The match is significant for at least two reasons: first, it is a rematch of this years' Gold Cup final, where Mexico rallied back to defeat the United States 4-2; and second, it marks the debut of new US coach Jürgen Klinsmann, who took over for former coach Bob Bradley some weeks ago.
Many see the task of rejuvenating a stagnant men's team as a tall order in the short term, but the hiring of Klinsmann on 29 July was met with healthy approval by commentators and fans alike. It is widely known that the US Soccer Federation pursued Klinsmann years ago, but failed to come to terms with the former German international, hiring Bradley instead. Now the Federation "has their man," and hopes he can turn around a program that has proved streaky and unconvincing in several of their recent matches. While the hire is barely two weeks old, many hope the turnaround begins tonight with a positive result against Mexico.
We shall see :)
Many see the task of rejuvenating a stagnant men's team as a tall order in the short term, but the hiring of Klinsmann on 29 July was met with healthy approval by commentators and fans alike. It is widely known that the US Soccer Federation pursued Klinsmann years ago, but failed to come to terms with the former German international, hiring Bradley instead. Now the Federation "has their man," and hopes he can turn around a program that has proved streaky and unconvincing in several of their recent matches. While the hire is barely two weeks old, many hope the turnaround begins tonight with a positive result against Mexico.
We shall see :)
Monday, August 8, 2011
Creative education
Virginia Heffernan published a fascinating entry in Sunday's The New York Times, discussing Cathy N. Davidson's recent book on education, entitled "Now You See It." The title of Ms. Heffernan's piece is Education Needs A Digital-Age Upgrade, stating that upwards of 65% of today's school-aged children will grow-up to do work which today does not yet exist.
The point is startling when you think about it. Imagine a world in which 65% of the employment opportunities do not even exist today. That's a potentially massive shift in the structure of the labor market. But will that leave the many 30+ and middle-aged workers behind? Or will the growth in new employment opportunities simply add to today's market (in other words, there's work available for anyone who wants it)? My sense is that the market for manufacturing jobs will continue to fall, while technology and service positions will continue going higher, but that's only a hunch and beside the point really.
My interest in this matter is in education reform. At the end of her post, Ms. Heffernan suggests that education should focus on students acquiring digital literacy, aiming, "from grade-school on, to contribute to a wide range of wiki projects."
This has the makings of a great idea. One major problem with education (based upon my experience of course), is the emphasis upon grades and tests rather than creation and practical skills. I learned more German writing blogs and creating stories in the language than I ever learned for the sake of a test. My professor had us write dialogues almost everyday, which was a pain in the butt, but it helped with grammar and vocabulary a great deal.
Point is, we had a healthy balance between book-learning and creative expression, and it worked rather well. Technology allows people to contribute their gifts to the world in ways that were not possible even fifteen years ago. As increasingly more employment opportunities today require not only digital literacy but also a healthy dose of creativity, perhaps it would prove beneficial to introduce younger children to such habits earlier in life.
So there's much potential in such reforms, but obviously it would require good people and a sound policy to work. These are not assured. In any case, the spirit of the idea is a good one, and more work is needed to determine precise reforms to improve our schools from their industrial-era format of today. Something to consider.
Happy Monday :)
The point is startling when you think about it. Imagine a world in which 65% of the employment opportunities do not even exist today. That's a potentially massive shift in the structure of the labor market. But will that leave the many 30+ and middle-aged workers behind? Or will the growth in new employment opportunities simply add to today's market (in other words, there's work available for anyone who wants it)? My sense is that the market for manufacturing jobs will continue to fall, while technology and service positions will continue going higher, but that's only a hunch and beside the point really.
My interest in this matter is in education reform. At the end of her post, Ms. Heffernan suggests that education should focus on students acquiring digital literacy, aiming, "from grade-school on, to contribute to a wide range of wiki projects."
This has the makings of a great idea. One major problem with education (based upon my experience of course), is the emphasis upon grades and tests rather than creation and practical skills. I learned more German writing blogs and creating stories in the language than I ever learned for the sake of a test. My professor had us write dialogues almost everyday, which was a pain in the butt, but it helped with grammar and vocabulary a great deal.
Point is, we had a healthy balance between book-learning and creative expression, and it worked rather well. Technology allows people to contribute their gifts to the world in ways that were not possible even fifteen years ago. As increasingly more employment opportunities today require not only digital literacy but also a healthy dose of creativity, perhaps it would prove beneficial to introduce younger children to such habits earlier in life.
So there's much potential in such reforms, but obviously it would require good people and a sound policy to work. These are not assured. In any case, the spirit of the idea is a good one, and more work is needed to determine precise reforms to improve our schools from their industrial-era format of today. Something to consider.
Happy Monday :)
Friday, August 5, 2011
Making progress
These days, I find myself in the middle of several projects. Some may say that it is not good to take on more than a single big project at once, and I would have to agree with them. But circumstances being what they are, I find myself both extremely busy and extremely idle. That may not make sense, but so it seems from my perspective.
Sometimes with projects that take many days, months, or years to complete, it is easy to lose heart in the middle. Much hard work, and many days may go by without any indication that progress is being made. That can wear thin on a person after awhile. Perhaps that is how I feel sometimes, occupied as I am with the current batch of things to do. No mile-markers makes judging progress difficult.
Yet a race that is run, even without mile-markers, still has a finish-line. One has to keep going in order to reach it. Projects that last a long time require many things, but one essential thing, I am learning, is diligence. One has to keep at it, if the project is ever to be finished. Step-by-step; piece-by-piece; things start to come together. A little time, patience, and thought can often go a long way.
So keep at it, and happy Friday :)
Sometimes with projects that take many days, months, or years to complete, it is easy to lose heart in the middle. Much hard work, and many days may go by without any indication that progress is being made. That can wear thin on a person after awhile. Perhaps that is how I feel sometimes, occupied as I am with the current batch of things to do. No mile-markers makes judging progress difficult.
Yet a race that is run, even without mile-markers, still has a finish-line. One has to keep going in order to reach it. Projects that last a long time require many things, but one essential thing, I am learning, is diligence. One has to keep at it, if the project is ever to be finished. Step-by-step; piece-by-piece; things start to come together. A little time, patience, and thought can often go a long way.
So keep at it, and happy Friday :)
Monday, August 1, 2011
An ounce of goodness
After a rather bad recession (the worse they say since the Great Depression), you hear a lot of words being thrown around among citizens, including: "jobs," "wages," growth," "tax-cuts," "tax-hikes," "debt," and "stimulus." Those are but a few. The point is, these sorts of discussions often crowd-out a discourse of a different sort. It's no wonder really, because unemployment, debt, and heavy responsibility are all difficult things with which to live. Yet too often, the press of modern life seems to pull our collective attention away from an idea that most of us implicitly support(a wonder perhaps considering the political debates of our times). Hear me out people. I'm speaking of "goodness."
Pau Casals (1876-1973), a famous celloist and conductor, once said, "Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it."
I've wondered about this line. I think Mr. Casals was right when he said it, but how does one actually do it? Surely it takes courage to act on goodness, but what happens when circumstances make it impossible for us to listen for it? What happens when the environment in which we find ourselves drowns out the faint music of warmth and kindness within ourselves by increasingly effective means?
The world is full of distractions. This isn't new, but technology and mass-communication have the potential to make those distractions harder than ever to look past. Economic stagnation and political uncertainty only add to the problem. There are many things that we are expected with which to concern ourselves. Perhaps we are all overburdened.
What shall we do? Care for people. Pay close attention to our families and friends; neighbors and total strangers. Do they have a need? Do they have some great potential? Are they stuck and require help getting out? When I think of Casals, this is what I imagine. Because let me tell you, it really does take courage to offer a hand to strangers, or perform an act of kindness without any thought of reward. Yet that would seem precisely what the world needs. You might be cheated, or even killed, in the process. But if you listen and have the courage to act, much good may come of it...or not.
Do not be discouraged. These times will past. And we may emerge stronger from it than before. Step-by-step, day-by-day, person-by-person, we may yet offer the world an ounce of goodness if we are but mindful of the chance and bold in action.
Stay mindful, my friends, and Happy August :)
Pau Casals (1876-1973), a famous celloist and conductor, once said, "Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it."
I've wondered about this line. I think Mr. Casals was right when he said it, but how does one actually do it? Surely it takes courage to act on goodness, but what happens when circumstances make it impossible for us to listen for it? What happens when the environment in which we find ourselves drowns out the faint music of warmth and kindness within ourselves by increasingly effective means?
The world is full of distractions. This isn't new, but technology and mass-communication have the potential to make those distractions harder than ever to look past. Economic stagnation and political uncertainty only add to the problem. There are many things that we are expected with which to concern ourselves. Perhaps we are all overburdened.
What shall we do? Care for people. Pay close attention to our families and friends; neighbors and total strangers. Do they have a need? Do they have some great potential? Are they stuck and require help getting out? When I think of Casals, this is what I imagine. Because let me tell you, it really does take courage to offer a hand to strangers, or perform an act of kindness without any thought of reward. Yet that would seem precisely what the world needs. You might be cheated, or even killed, in the process. But if you listen and have the courage to act, much good may come of it...or not.
Do not be discouraged. These times will past. And we may emerge stronger from it than before. Step-by-step, day-by-day, person-by-person, we may yet offer the world an ounce of goodness if we are but mindful of the chance and bold in action.
Stay mindful, my friends, and Happy August :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)