My Portfolio
Welcome to my portfolio. Here you’ll find a selection of my projects for MAIS.
Assignment 1
Reflective Analysis of Theory as Liberatory Practice by Bell Hooks
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 601
Dr Derek Briton
September 7, 2023
Reflective Analysis of Theory as Liberatory Practice by Bell Hooks
This essay annoyed me. On first read, I could not quite articulate why it annoyed me, so I read it a second time. I did not want to read it a second time, because it annoyed me so much in the first read. I read it a third and a fourth time as now I was irritated by my feeling annoyed by it, and needed to investigate specifically why I was having such a negative response.
We have this essay that sets out to describe how theory can be utilized to liberate, and it is not that I disagree with that, discussion has its place. However, the essay points out the ableist, racist, sexist, and classist systems within academia that are far from equitable, but it does so in a linguistically complex manner. The entire essay could have been written in far simpler vernacular and therefore understood by more people, and that would have been an example of an action much needed to further the cause of liberation that Hooks states that she cares so much about.
When I was in my late teens, thanks to ADHD, I would (and still do,) hyper-fixate on a topic periodically, and when I was going through my “read all the classics” fixation, and during a particular obsession with George Orwell, I stumbled upon one of his essays that has stuck with me throughout my life. Politics and the English Language resonated so deeply with me at the time, that I think about it every time I put fingertip to keyboard. I also think about Politics and the English Language when reading an essay on Theory as Liberatory Practice, and I suspect it is why I felt increasingly annoyed with Bell Hooks. It is not so much what Hooks is saying in her essay that is the cause of irritation to me, though she has her moments there too, but it is how she is saying it. If words evoke thought, and action on those words is the intention, (with liberatory in the title, I assume that it is) then surely marketing an essay toward the common masses and making sense of those thoughts to as many people as possible should be the goal.
Orwell, in his essay, calls this use of academic jargon within a political essay “pretentious diction,” and I tend to agree. Is there anything more infuriating than an intelligent human, with a fantastic brain, full of ideas that could change the world, not being able to articulate those ideas so that they are understood by everyone, not just those sitting in academic houses? Language is communication, and if it is not always communicating effectively to the most amount of people, then is it really doing its job-which is ultimately to introduce new concepts to new people? Hooks’ style had me recollect Orwell’s essay, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” (Orwell). I’m no psychologist, but I am a woman, and I know how it feels to fight to take up space, to have to work harder than everyone else in the room in order to be taken seriously in male dominated industries, and to constantly have to prove oneself in a room full of mediocre men, and if I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that Hooks has possibly let those fears slip into her writing and it reads (to me at least) as insincere.
Hooks is far more intelligent and educated than I will ever be, and I am certain that whatever commonality that I share with her with regard to being a woman in the patriarchy, she has experienced far more prejudice than I because she is a black woman, and I am a white woman. My curiosity leads me to wonder if Hooks has ever stopped to question her writing style and taken the time to connect to her true self more fully in what she wants to achieve in her political writing? Is she over-compensating for being an intersectional-marginalized academic and showing us all how smart she is, rather than using her intellect more efficiently? In my advocacy work, both professionally and personally, I know that there is a difference between intellect and wisdom. Intellect in advocacy can be used as a weapon and make people almost afraid to ask questions about a topic for fear that they will appear silly. Intellect can intimidate, and in advocacy, and when fighting for change, education is the desired outcome, intimidation is not. Wisdom is knowing how to use intellect to educate and accommodate the most amount of people at any given time. I think in this essay, Bell Hooks only uses her intellect, and it is disappointing, and it is that disappointment I think that irritates me. The essay is a wasted opportunity. Though I do not blame Hooks, I cannot help but feel that she is trying too hard to prove herself, and that it damages her purpose.
So now that I can clear up my initial irritation at the vernacular used in Hooks’ essay, I turn toward the content. I do not disagree that some discussion and theory must take place for change to materialize. However, I too am tired of talking. Talking does not seem to be getting us anywhere, and as a mother of a daughter I could not have predicted that my daughter would have less rights over her autonomy in the world than I did growing up, but here we are. There will always be people, like me, that are frustrated with lack of action towards common goals. People that are in a hurry to see change before their children inherit the ugly side of society. I related to the woman in Hooks’ feminist circle that was just “tired” of all this talk (p.6). Hooks says that the woman’s response “disturbed” her (6), which I think is a very strong choice of words, and no matter how many times I read this essay it is that line that makes me squirm the most. Hooks response and choice of the word “disturbed” seems condescending, and patronizing. If the woman says she’s tired of talking, then she’s tired of talking, and obviously has spent a lot of time doing so. The woman has obviously moved in circles that are unfamiliar to Hooks. Hooks says that she is not often privy to such conversations with other women. I would suggest that Hooks seek out more of this woman’s acquaintance circle if she wants more enlightening, and theorizing conversation. Like myself, this woman it would seem, has had this discussion in her communities a thousand times before, and its movement that she is now expecting.
The trouble with being a woman that wants to illicit action, is that we are women, holding up most of the sky, at two-thirds the pay, and one-third the appreciation. It is difficult to rally troops because time and responsibilities and exhaustion and emotional traumas take their toll. It can be done, but perhaps we need intellectuals like Hooks to take the lead and turn their intellectual theories into wisdom, and practice. I realize that I have possibly set myself up for disaster here by reflecting somewhat negatively on the writing of a person whose skill is far superior to mine, but this is my honest response to a piece of writing that I so wanted to enjoy. The topic of Hooks essay was exciting to me, but I felt a pervasive snobbery and insincerity from Hooks with each read of it, that I was unable to shake despite much re-reading and much reflection.
Works Cited
Hooks, Bell. (1991). Theory as Liberatory Practice. Feminism in the 90s: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice Conference. The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism
Orwell, George. (1946). Politics and the English Language. https://www.orwellfoundation.com
Assignment 3
Focus Area of Writing and New Media Reflection Essay
On The Way to Computational Thinking by Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 601
Dr Derek Briton
3 October 2023
Focus Area of Writing and New Media Reflection Essay
On The Way to Computational Thinking by Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A
My main area of interest in writing and new media is neurodivergence, so anything related to the brain is of particular interest to me. My daughter is autistic and both she and I have ADHD (amongst other neurodivergent diagnosis.) I write about neurodivergence a great deal in my work, so computational thinking relates directly to my work-life in social media content creation, and in my day-to-day existence.
When writing about a subject like neurodivergence, my goal is always to have as many people as possible read it, and fully comprehend the subject matter. At work I am always thinking in terms of algorithms and search engine optimization when creating new content for a client, and I have carried this over into my personal writing and advocacy work. It is a useful tool in reaching not only a target demographic of people that may be familiar with a subject matter, but also in reaching a new audience that may not be up to speed on a particular topic. Writing is a communication tool, and writing online has the potential to reach as many people, generations, and backgrounds as possible. When attempting to educate the masses on a particular issue, the more the writer knows about how algorithms and marketing work, the better.
Over the last few years, we have witnessed a lack of understanding of the basic principles of science, and critical thinking. We have witnessed how divided a culture can become without understanding. What is the point of having knowledge without the wisdom to know how to use that knowledge to educate as many people as possible? Without wisdom, and computational thinking skills, gaining knowledge for knowledge’s sake and keeping that knowledge within a small section of academia is just ego feeding.
This problem-solving and computational thinking skill has really helped me in my work life, and this has been of particular use when managing people, and in advocacy work. Breaking down a topic into small, and easily digestible parts has for me, been the key to spreading awareness on neurodivergence amongst other issues. Some of my peers are so brilliant in writing these heavily articulated, intellectual answers on the forums, responses so weighted with words that I find myself pulling up the dictionary to make certain that I understand. This is, after all, academia, it is to be expected; however, it is my hope that any of my thoughts, feelings, and insights throughout this course cannot only be fully understood by each person in the class but, also beyond the class. Writing as a tool of communication has been weighing heavily on my mind since starting MAIS 601. Do I concede and start to write for academics, or do I continue to slip in the odd colloquialism, and curse word, as a friendly gesture to the masses that I want on side?
Psychology, media studies, and writing are disciplines that when combined make the most sense for me to pursue as an end goal. I need an acute awareness of psychology and of marketing when writing content for advocacy. If theory in computational thinking is “breaking a big problem or task into smaller parts that can be solved in succession,” (Berry & Fagerjord 6). then for me, in writing, how I can break down theory systematically, and articulate theory so that it is palatable to the most amount of people is my main concern in advocacy work. I would like to always be conscious of ego and ask myself what I want the outcome for my reader to be. Do I want to show how much knowledge I have, or do I want the wisdom to share that knowledge with as many people as possible. For me, the answer will always be the latter.
Works Cited
Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A. (2017). "On the Way to Computational Thinking." In Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age. Polity Press. https://drr2.lib.athabascau.ca/index.php?c=node&m=detail&n=59459
Assignment 4
Critical Reflection: Spacetime is Just a Headset: An Interview with Donald Hoffman
If you enjoy listening to conversations that simultaneously blow your mind, and hurt your head, then this video is for you. This conversation between Donald Hoffman and interviewer Hans Busstra is simply fascinating, and its relaxed tone is very engaging. Donald Hoffman mentions The Matrix so many times in this video that I just re-watched it to make clear the references. Hoffman is attempting to prove, via mathematics, that space-time is not real, and only consciousness is real. Space-time, in this theory is the product of our consciousness, and our consciousness is the only constant. Hoffman uses the analogy of a virtual reality headset to describe space and time being conjured into existence by our own imaginations.
I decided to test Hoffman’s VR theory and travelled the world on an app called Wander. At first you can detach from the game, but it doesn’t take too long (minutes in fact,) to become fully immersed in it. As I walked along the street I grew up on in Wales and travelled back to a house that I once lived in in Italy, I certainly felt as though I was there. I couldn’t feel anything like wind, or rain, or eat a delicious plate of pasta, but with sight alone, I took stock of my emotions as I was visiting these places in VR, and it did have an impact on my feelings. For me, a sighted person, the space-time is a VR headset analogy works. I don’t think it would work without the sense of sight, perhaps a new analogy is needed that includes how those without sight experience this theory. I am also now beyond curious as to how Hoffman would explain his theory to people without sight, as it relies heavily on the sense of vision in the explanation.
If Hoffman is correct, it means that our consciousness has existed before this lifetime and will continue to exist long after this lifetime. There are many trains of thought that this video will send you on, and many of them may be (for want of a better word,) spiritually inclined. The group response to this video and my analysis surprised me in just how spiritually leaning the discussions became. Though I had brushed upon spirituality within this concept, it appears to have made a big impact on those in the group that have belonged to religious institutions. I had an expectation that other aspects of this theory, such as how we explain the concept to accommodate those without sight, or if this impacts a person’s daily life choices were of more interest to me, but it seems it really struck a nerve with people already pre-disposed to seeking spiritual answers. I am more intrigued by the questions that this theory raises and perhaps this is the result of my not having any history with religious doctrine. There were so many questions to choose from to discuss from this video, and the further down the rabbit hole I go with this topic, the more in awe I am about this majestic experience we call life.
My questions to the group were:
1, Does it unnerve you, or liberate you to think that only consciousness is fundamental?
2, If this theory is proven to be true, would it have an impact on how you live your life? (Do you feel more/less significant/insignificant as a human creating their own reality on the fly?)
Works Cited
Spacetime is just a headset: An interview with Donald Hoffman. Nov 6, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Q8kbsrE9o
MAIS-601 Final Assignment
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 601
Dr Derek Briton
December 15, 2023
Reflective Analysis of My MAIS 601 Journey
I have found this class intriguing, challenging, enlightening, and at times frustrating. This is the first group class I have taken after two years of individual study with my undergraduate degree. The change has not been an easy one to make and has raised conflicts within me that I did not know existed. This course has made me think a lot about people and their emotional regulation. I have thought a lot about ego and come face to face with an old pattern that I have of putting other people’s thoughts and feelings before my own. The healthy and unhealthy ways that people communicate in group settings is interesting to me, and I have attempted to be both mindful, and observant of communication strategies. I am from a neurodivergent household, my life is full of making accommodations, and I am a better human for it, but treading the wire of where accommodations end, and entitlement begins has been one of many personal reflections during this course. The subject matter in MAIS-601 has been fascinating, but the nuances of the background content of human interaction has been the unexpected part of this journey.
Making sense of theory was not an altogether new experience for me. I was raised by a scientist and family dinner table discussions often lead towards theory, and philosophy. Theory in my very science-oriented household had no room for nuance. Something is either fact, or not fact based on scientific observation, and any discussion outside of the parameters of current scientific methods would be shut down immediately by my father. Growing up in a household of all females, with a scientist for a father was kind of like observing a rooster in a hen house. Any conversation that steered too far in the direction of creative philosophy, and thinking outside of the limitations of science, would be quickly shut down by a very masculine temper tantrum. The hens learned to back down and keep the peace quite quickly. It was a little daunting to be raised in a house where you are not at liberty to express thoughts and ideas, and it can make a person feel that their contributions to discussions are not valid unless they are the one with the aggressive nature and a PhD. It took me a long time to return to school, and now finding myself in academics and doing a masters, but I still have quite acute imposters syndrome, no doubt a result of my upbringing.
Imagine my delight upon entering forum discussions about the limitations of science. My overwhelming relief to find articles written on the very subject that I have been attempting to communicate for years but have never been able to fully articulate. Reading The Impact of Newell’s “A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies”: Reflection and Analysis by James Welch was like finding ammunition I didn’t realize I had been going into battle without. To read in forums that I was not the only person in the world to question the limitations of science in a worldview was thrilling to say the least. I wanted to learn this quote by heart; “In other words, human beings cannot, as the scientific method claims, obtain a vantage point from which to understand complex systems, because human understanding is imprisoned by its own preconceptions.” (Welch, 197). Science is necessary, but I have always thought that there is nuance in the universe that we may not be able to understand with current science alone. I felt vindicated reading through this first forum, and with that, slightly braver.
However, it was not too long before a dominant ego was to silence me. I have thought long and hard about sharing this next encounter on my journey, but it is an integral part of my personal growth, and I would be doing myself a disservice if I were to dance around it. When a woman reaches a certain age, usually past forty, she becomes very tired. Tired of micro-aggressions, and societal norms, and expectations. Tired of keeping the peace and nurturing (therefore enabling,) those raised as males in the world. Middle age is when women become more fully themselves and they start to shed the weight of other people’s egos and limitations. As a single, working, student, and a parent, time is everything to me. Time is my most valuable asset. I do not have minutes in a day to do with as I choose, let alone hours. The gender disparities with time have been discussed and studied for decades. Women do not have as much leisure time as men. Women in general do more household chores, less paid labour, they raise children and simultaneously take care of ailing parents, all while carrying the weight of the emotional and psychological labour in any given household. (Rubiano-Matulevich, E, & Viollaz, M. (2019). Gender Differences in Time Use. Allocating Time Between the Market and the Household. P.4).
I mention time disparity with gender because it played such a toll on me psychologically in the next part of my MAIS journey. It was time to start and complete our first group project. We had been told by AU that systems would be down for a day during this time, so we had less time than usual. There wasn’t movement within our group at first, so I took the initiative and started to scope out how people wanted to move forward. I initiated some ideas about how to proceed and got the ball rolling. In our group there were three women, including myself, and one man. One of the women engaged and let us know her schedule, and when she would be able to do the readings and share her thoughts. One woman was silent. The one man suggested that we meet via video conference and change the system that we were using (the well thought out AU website) to google. It was here that because of time restraints and equitable practices that I mentioned Occam’s Razor, and that we would perhaps be more productive and efficient if we could just get started in the system laid out before us. The one woman that was participating agreed, the man said that he needed to take some time away to gather his thoughts on the issue and would be in touch after having done so.
Imagine my surprise then, when instead of a transparent conversation in our forum thread, I received an email in my private messages from the man that was taking a time-out. An email describing this man’s feelings, and how hurt they were by my productivity suggestions ensued. A detailed description of how this man was interpreting my suggestions as a personal attack on his ideas. I sat with my mouth open wide for a good half an hour, reading the email, and then going back to the thread for reference. I could not find where or why this person was reading our transparent forum discussion as some kind of personal attack. I am old and tired, and had I received this email in the workplace, I would have forwarded it to the HR department and left it for them to handle. However, this is school, I have made many sacrifices to be here, I am taking a course in interdisciplinary studies, and I must find a way to diffuse this man somehow. This email, and deciding how to respond to it, and how to navigate it, put me in a position where I was spending time wrestling with why this bothered me so much. It took me a while to recognize why I felt so upset by this email, it wasn’t ego, it wasn’t offence, it wasn’t even that this person decided to privately share their feelings. When I got right down to it, I begrudged having to take the time to deal with this. Lack of transparency (not sharing it in our group forum,) felt threatening, because in a collaboration of any kind, transparency is everything. Threatening also, in that if I was continue making reasonable suggestions towards productivity in the forum, then I would have to spend time, energy, and effort into making certain that this man’s ego was not bruised in any way, and that his ideas were celebrated. This is the type of time-consuming nonsense that women have been dealing with for centuries, and I had not realized just how tired of it I am. I was also consumed by the idea that there are people that have the time, energy, and inclination to share their thoughts and feelings with complete strangers, handing the stranger a job to fix their thoughts and feelings, rather than dealing with their own emotional regulation on their own time. I am sure this person is a perfectly decent human being and thinks that this type of emailing is acceptable, and therein is where the conflict lies. It’s not him, it’s me. I do not think it is acceptable to receive unsolicited private emails from people you are working with in a group. I had to ask myself the age-old question of, “Do I want to be right, or do I want to be happy?” I chose happy.
I decided to reply with a simple “I am so sorry that your feelings were hurt, there was no intention of that on my part.” I had already taken the lead on the first project, so I invited him to use his skills with formatting to complete the task and submit it. It all went ok from there. When it came to the second group project, the dread was profound, so I had already decided to remain as silent as possible, wait for this man’s suggestions, say yes to them, no matter what they were, and just get it over with. It was again just the three of us involved in the second group project, and what interested me the most was that my female peer was responding in the same manner that I was. “Yes, that sounds fine.” “Sure, good idea.” I wonder, and I will never know for certain, if she had also been on the receiving end of a private email. My female peer is about my age, and I wonder if she too has learned over the years to just “go along with their ideas,” because we do not have the luxury and entitlement of the time it would take to handle ego in a different way. If you have ever been curious as to why women do not hold more power in the world, I believe that time is the answer. We are yet to start the third and final group activity, and I still don’t know the best way to deal with this conflict. I recognize that this person needs to be put in charge of something to thrive, and perhaps needs to feel that their ideas are the preferred ones. It raises many interdisciplinary issues for me to think about when working in groups. How do we do efficient and productive work, while taking care of individual egos? This, despite the subject matter of the course being fascinating, was where my brain was transfixed during my initial introduction to MAIS – time disparities, and personal egos. I chose to deal with the issue in as peaceful a way as I could think of, but I admit that it does not feel good, or right. I still have work to do to make certain that the next time I encounter this kind of communication, that I handle it differently. I want people to feel good about themselves, but I don’t necessarily want other people’s feelings to be my responsibility. I took it upon myself to make certain this person felt valued and was celebrated after that email, and that takes time and energy, and it takes up brain space that could be better utilized on the task at hand. For me, this enabling is a behavioural pattern that I would like to break.
My individual subject matter for this course was the nature of consciousness. My interest in consciousness is profound and I do tend to hyper-focus on topics like this. I watched the Matrix to view the subject matter in 3D and understand the concepts in story-form, and I spent many hours going down you-tube rabbit holes. It had never occurred to me that a person’s consciousness might not exist within a person’s brain. The idea that consciousness is fundamental and existed long before us and will continue to exist long after us was a theory that resonated and delighted me. (Hoffman, D. 2022. Spacetime is Just a Headset).
Within the forums, these ideas and concepts about consciousness turned to religion. People discussed their gods, and biblical versus were used in the discussions. This turn towards religion at first surprised me in an academic setting. I realized that I tend to disengage from discussions once religion is brought into the equation. I sat with my thoughts on this for a while, pondering why I take myself out of conversations once biblical verse is cited. I realize that throughout my life, though I have many friends from many religious backgrounds, I do not respect religious beliefs. That is hard to say, so let me clear; I respect a person’s right to religious freedom, and I would fight for that right, but I do not respect religious beliefs. I have always considered religion and cults to be one and the same. Often children are indoctrinated into religion from birth, and I have always thought of that as a brainwashing. People can choose to believe whatever they like; I have no objection to that. If belonging to a religious organization adds value to a person’s life, then so be it. However, because I do not respect the thought processes involved in religious faith, I have a difficult time respecting the academic opinions of those that belong to religious institutions. I know it is not very politically correct to say that you do not respect the viewpoint of millions of people that pray to a deity, but it has taken me forty-eight years to figure out that I have this deep-rooted prejudice, and if I am not being honest with myself in this process, (and by necessity, my peers,) then I render the journey pointless.
I have always thought of myself as person without prejudice. I check my privileges often. I advocate against prejudice and discrimination in my work-life, and yet here I find myself grappling with the fact that I do indeed carry a prejudice. I discriminate, and I judge a person’s intellect based on religious orientation. I recognize that if a person belongs to an organized religion, I am not able to fully trust their critical thinking skills. I came to this realization in week 10 of this course, and it did not sit well with me at all. I feel terrible that I will dismiss a person’s opinions on an array of subjects based entirely upon the fact they belong to a religious institution. This is something I am working towards over-coming. I can respect a person’s desire to be inquisitive about the nature of existence, and for want of a better word, the search for spiritual practices, but belonging to religious organizations and taking religious doctrine seriously is where I come a bit undone. I stand ashamed of this bias, and I am attempting to find common intellectual ground with those that I may have, in the past, dismissed as not being big on critical thinking.
In late 2020 my best friend died. So much of this course has reminded me of the conversations that she and I had in the weeks before her death. We discussed death in a way that I had never discussed before. Open, and honest conversations about death that changed the way that I now live. I live with more gratitude for my existence than I ever did before. My friend was not afraid of dying, she had been suffering for a long time, and she was ready to concede, and release, but she was overcome with fear for the loved ones that she would leave behind. She and I discussed the universe and the nature of existence all the time. My last words to her were, “Energy does not die, and you are the brightest light that I have ever known. We will meet again, in some form or another, and when we do, we will recognize each other, just as we did in this lifetime.” At the time, these were just comforting words to a dying beloved friend, but I have thought of them often during this course. If our consciousness is fundamental, and we only believe space and time to be real because we learn object permeance at a young age, (Hoffman) then perhaps there is some shred of truth in my last words to my friend, it certainly would be nice. Though I don’t doubt that humans will be searching for the meaning of life, and existence for all time, I always go back to the words of Brian Cox, “What more do we want? We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.” (Cox, eden.uktv.co.uk).
I have mentioned in previous papers for this course that I always want to write in a way that is understood by as many people as possible. The best way (in my opinion,) to fight capitalism is to educate the masses. During the pandemic we witnessed how many people have very little understanding of the basics of how science works, and we saw that this led to complete chaos, and hateful rhetoric that mostly stems from fear. I perhaps have some inherent working-class guilt about academia, and though I have made many sacrifices to be able to study at this point in my life, I consider it a great privilege. If I am not utilizing all that I have the privilege to learn, and breaking it down into bite size, digestible portions for others, then there is little point for me in garnering knowledge. As a person with ADHD, I often have delayed processing times, and the forums were sometimes too fast for my brain that often has far too many tabs open at once. I needed more time with the ideas and concepts for the subjects to fully resonate. I intentionally tried to challenge the language being used in the forums and cut to the heart of the discussions, to the relatable, and the human aspects of the theory. If we can relate to the theories on offer, and share our experience, and therefore our humanity, then more than just the neuro-typical academics thrive. Again, it was the nuances of interactions in the forums that I was drawn to (and this could be an ADHD thing.) I noticed many women in the forum asking if their question or opinions make sense, when in fact, they make perfect sense. Men rarely do this. It was interesting to witness, these women with brilliant minds doubting themselves, or almost apologizing for having an opinion. I am sure I have done it too. We must do better. It is my hope that having been raised by us, my daughters’ generation will not apologize for their thoughts, opinions, intellect, and leadership skills, and that universities will learn how to accommodate neuro-divergent individuals.
This course has been a wonderful experience. I had not been expecting as many references to The Matrix, and that was a delight, because the more I learn about the universe, and the nature of existence, the more I think that The Matrix writers may have it pegged already. I was not expecting to study consciousness, and as a person that has been trying to wrap their head around quantum physics for years, that was a real treat. Realizing my own prejudices, and short-comings, and working on overcoming them was also an unexpected turn of events. Grappling with how I can make changes to the way I deal with conflict or others’ emotions in a working capacity is on-going, and I recognize that the way I have been handling these situations is enabling, and unhealthy. I have at times been consumed with guilt as I sit around discussing the nature of existence while the world is literally on fire. It has often felt self-indulgent, and egotistical to be discussing these things in an academic environment. I feel tremendous guilt when I am not actively doing things that insight positive change, but instead actively discussing issues. This internal conflict reminds me of the bell hooks article, Theory as a Liberatory Practice, and the woman in her discussion group that was “just tired of all this talk,” and was calling for action. (hooks, b. 1991). However, perhaps this discussing is the way we change the world, by sharing opinions on topics in transparent and safe environments, and then passing along all that we learn as we go about our day, or perhaps, that is how I justify it. It will forever be a mystery how we humans can simultaneously take ourselves so seriously, and yet not seriously at all. There is so much beauty in all the theories we have discussed this semester, the never-ending wonder at the nature of reality and existence is spectacular to be a part of. I hope that I can carry everything that I have learned this semester, keep questioning, and continue finding the heart, and humanity in all the theories that I encounter on my MAIS journey.
Works Cited
Cox, Brain. About Prof Brian Cox. https://eden.uktv.co.uk/people/brian-cox/ Accessed December 15, 2023
Hoffman, Donald. (2022). Spacetime is Just a Headset. An Interview with Donald Hoffman. Essentia Foundation. https://youtu.be/-5Q8kbsrE9o?si=WgolwynsEu-Zrebl Accessed December 15, 2023
hooks, bell. (1991). Theory as Liberatory Practice. Feminism in the 90s: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice Conference. The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism
Rubiano-Matulevich, Elaine, & Viollaz, Mariana. (2019). Gender Differences in Time Use. Allocating Time Between the Market and the Household. World Bank Group. Gender Global Theme.
Accessed December 15, 2023
Wachowski, Lily & Lana. (1999). The Matrix. Warner Bros.
Welsh, James. (2018). The Impact of Newell’s A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies. Reflection and Analysis. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies Vol.36(2), pp. 197.