Marcopolo and I

On my previous blog I questioned about what was the purpose of Kublai Khan and Marco polo.  Finally I have the answer.  I kept on reading and I still didn’t understand until we had a discussion in class that made me realize that the explanation was right in front of me, only that I hadn’t realized it. “Kublai Khan does not necessarily believe everything Marco Polo says when he describes the cities visited on his expeditions, but the emperor of the Tartars does continue listening to the young Venetian with greater attention and curiosity than he shows any other messenger or explorer of his.”  (pg. 5) This is the first page of the book, and as I said before this book was just confusing. When I read that paragraph it didn’t mean anything but now it is the essence of the explanation. The reader is Kublai Khan and the Calvino is Marco polo. Weird isn’t it? But it makes it even more exciting.

I would be Kublai Khan due to the fact that I didn’t understand what Calvino was saying, just like Kublai Khan didn’t believe everything Marco polo said, but both of us kept on paying attention to him.  Although I didn’t understand what was going on I kept on reading and the question would still remain but it didn’t matter.  Now that I have the answer I have to pay more attention to what Calvino, or Marco polo is saying, because every little thing that he says, he will be giving us important clues about what is going on. Although this book is confusing I find it more interesting because it makes me be alert about what is going on so I can figure out the figurative meaning. Before it was just a book about weird cities, but now it is an equation that I have to solve. This reminds me about “Slaughter House-Five” in the way that we weren’t sure who was speaking to us. Although I know that it is a person that is passing through all the cities I still haven’t found out who it is. Is the person that is passing through the cities actually the reader who is reading the book but doesn’t get what is happening? I still don’t know. I have seen a pattern in all my blogs, which is that I always have questions. Sometimes having them can be irritating but it also makes the reading more interesting because I always want to find the answers. The answers to my question in this book are all hidden and some may never be answered, but I do look forward on my adventure on answering them.

This is one of the weirdest books I have ever read, I don’t understand what it wants to say but I look forward on finding that out.  I admire the way that Calvino writes, it is unique because it is not clear but when you find out the message you realize that it was right in front of you.  The way that he makes allegories and writes a story about a story makes it even more exciting.

Italo Calvino's, "Invisible Cities" is one word, confusing. As I started to read, I thought that I would somehow understand what was going on but I didn't. It is odd how Calvino starts describing cities right away, that I don't even understand. It is as if he expected for us to understand what he was talking about. But again this book has so many weird things, like the way that one can read it in tow ways. So maytbe Calvino just wants to keep on confusing us and figyure out his mesage on our own. Although it is frusturating, at the same time it is a challenge that I would like to pass. Also how he includes the dialogue between Kublai Khan and Marco Polo. How do these two relate?

I just kept on reading. I read about Isidora, Zirma, Despina and all of the cities had speacial characteristics. The one that grabed most my attention was Anastasia. "When you believe you are enjoying Anastasia wholly when you are only its slave." (pg. 12) How can a city which you believe you are enjoying end up to be one that is destroying you? I hand not understood how this could happen but then I remembered an important word, "allegory". This couldn't be a book just describing crazy cities, it has to have a meaning. That is when I started to think about something in our lives that makes you feel good but is actually destroying you. Drugs.

This book reminds me of Dantes Inferno, because it too was an allegory. It was the path of the life of a man, and I believe "Invisible Cities" is also doing so. " I too am returning from Zirma." (pg 19) That "I" I haven't figured out yet, but I hope I can. This book is one that we have to figure out what everything means, it is all figurative. Although reading it frusturates me because I don't understand clearly what is going on, it intrigues me to find out the meaning. The dialogue that shows up between Kublai Khan and Marcopolo makes my head spin even more because I don't understand the purpose of those two. Kublai Khan doesn't understand well what Marcopolo is saying but he still pays attention to him. And Marcopolo who is a great explorer tells him about the lands that he explors. In a way Marcopolo relates to this book because he would dicover new lands which can be seen as cities that we too as readers are exploring. But I still don't understand what the purpose of their dialogue or there presence in the book is. I would like to find out.

Our Nature

The title of this book is "The Selfish Gene". It will probablly seem dumb that it is until chapter 10 when I understood what Dawkins meant about a gene being selfish. He talks about the "selfish herd." Dawkins states that animals will normally stick together to protect themselves from predators, but that there will always be some that are more likely to be killed. He used the example of when animals line up together, there will always be some that are more vulnerable to being killed. "Unfortunately somebody has to be on the edge, but as far as each individual is concerned it is not going to be him!" This shows how every animal including humans does everything for their own benefit. He showed how animals stay together in order to find more food and fight together in order for it to be less probable that they will be killed. It is not because of support that they are in a herd, but it is for each individuals benefit. Is it the same way with humans? Are we that selfish that we don't even realized what we are doing? Do we just hang in groups so that we are more protected from society? Is it fear that keeps us from doing what we want, and we follow what others do to be protected? Just think about trends. Most people dress in similar ways and there are only few that really use their own style. From a large group they seem weird just because they are different but at the end of the day the weird ones are us who dress like clones.

As I am reading I am starting to dislike even more our "nature" because it seems as if all of us were selfish. It is something that I hadn't thought about before but this book is persuaying me to believe that unfortunately we are. When Dawkins says the frase "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" (Pg. 166) makes me question if we are really good people? Do we just do good deeds so we receive them back? Karma? Or is it really because of good will?

Since I was little my parents taught me values, that I had to be a good person. But am I just a good person because of what I was taught or is it my nature to be good? What would happen if I didn't have values?
Are we the ones that chose how we are or is it the society that surrounds us?

Are we selfish?

More Questions

As I was reading chapter three various things grabbed my attention. "Natural selection" was a term that got me thinking. Dawkins says that we all have the same DNA but the only difference is how the nucleotides are organized. This would be the part of natural selection because it is the way that they organize eachother. But then again, why do they decide to organize eachother a specific way? Who tells them to organize that way?
The nucleotides are like workers in a factory, they keep the factory working but they receive orders from someone to do them. There has to be someone in charge of this, and restating the point of my previous blog it should be God. Leading me to another question, who is God?

What is the purpose of everything in life? Dawkins talks about how DNA is the same for every organism that lives. "Baisically the same kind of a molecule in all of us from bacteria to elephants." (Pg 21) Why was I chosen to be a human? Why is my dog a dog? I know that they are things that we just accept because it is a part of our lives but I can't help going in deeper about the subject.

When I started reading this book I thought that it was going to be boring because it states the same things as my biology class. But as I start reading I find that Dawkins has a techinique that makes me want to be stuck in the book because it makes me ask many questions that I had never thought  about before.

In class we have discussed if genes are the ones responsible for our personality. I argue that genes are the ones that carry out the information of our physical traits. We develope the person that we are through our lives due to the experiences that we go through and the values that we are taught. Just because a persons parents are serial killers, it doesn't mean that the offspring will be too. It is probable that he/she will see it as if it was nothing wrong because it is what they see at home, but it doesn't mean that they too will do what they do. This reminds me of a quote that I saw on my friends's facebook the other day,
"We spend our whole lives becoming ourselves, when we are born as no one else."

While I was reading the book this grabbed my attention: "It means that genes are at least partly responsible for their own survival in the future, because their survival depends on the efficiency of the bodies in which they live and which the helped to build." (Pg. 24) Meaning that genes are the escence of our life but we are the ones in charge of keeping them healthy to be able to pass them on and reproduce so that our population doesn't become extinct. Just because our parents can pass us good genes, it doesn't mean that we are always going to have them in that stage. During our lives we can make great mistakes affecting our bodies, affecting our offspring.

I want to keep on reading this book, its like Dawkins is telling me important facts, but as he does this he makes me wonder if what he says is true. Although it can be frusturating sometimes because there are no answers to my questions, it is exciting to believe that maybe one day there will be.

Religion vs. Genes

Where are we from? That is a question that I ask myself all the time. Its one that everyone asks themselves. Some ask it more than others, but at the end of the day we are all waiting for the answer. As time has passed, historians, scientists, doctors, mathematicians have all found answers to our questions, but to this important one no answer has popped up.

Dawkins gives important information towards this fact. It is interesting how he states everything so direct. He says that we are made up of genes and we are the "survial machines". "The replicators that have survived were the ones that built the survival machines." Pag 19. It is very interesting the way that he uses different key terms for a normal fact. Survival machine=human. We are the "survival machines". It is odd to start thinking of ourselves as machines, as if we were just things walking around, but in a way we are. We live, do the things we need to do and then die. Nobody knows what happens when we do, although I believe in heaven. So its not quite nice to think that we are just machines because they have no souls, and if there is no souls then who goes to heaven?

 There is a God that takes care of all these things. Its true that we are made up of genes, but those genes had to have an escense. And who created them? God.

Faith is an important part of my life, and it is the competition of science. People are making great discoveries and start placing religion aside. They say that there is not a logic explanation for a person to create everything and be the reason for our existence. But again, it isn't logical for there to be all of these explanations without an essence. Therefore, Dawkins is right that we are made up of  genes but they are not the explanation of our existence.

Religion VS Genes

Where are we from? That is a question that I ask myself all the time. Its one that everyone asks themselves. Some ask it more than others, but at the end of the day we are all waiting for the answer. As time has passed, historians, scientists, doctors, mathematicians have all found answers to our questions, but to this important one no answer has popped up.

Dawkins gives important information towards this fact. It is interesting how he states everything so direct. He says that we are made up of genes and we are the "survial machines". "The replicators that have survived were the ones that built the survival machines." Pag 19. It is very interesting the way that he uses different key terms for a normal fact. Survival machine=human. We are the "survival machines". It is odd to start thinking of ourselves as machines, as if we were just things walking around, but in a way we are. We live, do the things we need to do and then die. Nobody knows what happens when we do, although I believe in heaven. So its not quite nice to think that we are just machines because they have no souls, and if there is no souls then who goes to heaven?

 There is a God that takes care of all these things. Its true that we are made up of genes, but those genes had to have an escense. And who created them? God.

Faith is an important part of my life, and it is the competition of science. People are making great discoveries and start placing religion aside. They say that there is not a logic explanation for a person to create everything and be the reason for our existence. But again, it isn't logical for there to be all of these explanations without an essence. Therefore, Dawkins is right that we are made up of  genes but they are not the explanation of our existence.

Active to Passive

1. These bottles cannot be open easily by children.
2. A road was built outside her front door by the government.
3. The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.
4. The changes amazed her when she arrived.
5. Street repairs are being made by construction workers all month long.
6. His retirement will be celebrated with a party.
7. The exam was being discussed by his professors right in front of him.
8. All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son.
9. The hull of the ship was damaged by Corrosion.
10. The homestead was being visited by some children while I was there.