Annotated Source #19 (2/29)

Nicholson, Marjorie. "The 'New Astronomy' and English Literary Imagination." Studies in Philology 32.3 (1935): 428-462. Print.

• Nicholson here discusses the impact of other various discoveries surrounding the Copernican Revolution, particularly the development of the telescope, and the impact that that had on man's understanding of the universe, and then how that impacted the English Literary Imagination. She pays particularly attention to Donne, whose sonnets and sermons I intend to look at in the course of my research. 

Learning Journal #19 (2/29)

Class on Monday initially seemed to me to be completely irrelevant to my project. However, in the spirit of my previous learning journal post, I decided to change my attitude :)

I don't think there are many ethical concerns in library research, but there may be some as I discuss religion with clergy(/other people?) and as I look for physical representations of man's relationship with God and the universe in churches, cathedrals, etc. In my interviews, it will be important that I show respect for the religious beliefs of others, that I don't hurry to press my own opinions on them, and that I then take what they say and represent them accurately in my research. I will make sure that they know my purposes in asking about their opinions, and that they are okay with being referenced in my work. If they prefer not to be named, or decide that they want no part in my research, that will be something I will have to respect. As I view buildings, it will also be important that I respect them as places of worship. It may not be appropriate to photograph what I see;  I may have to rely on my ability to describe my observations, to write them down on the spot, rather than getting a long-lasting copy for myself.

Ultimately, I think the main principle of ethics is respect of others. Whether it's privacy, personal desires, or religious beliefs, it's important that, as visitors to their portion of the world, we show them perhaps even more respect than we ourselves would expect from them.

Annotated Source & Learning Journal #18

Usher, Peter. "Shakespeare's Support for the New Astronomy." The Oxfordian Vol. 5. 2002: p. 132-146. Web. 27 Feb 2012. <http://www.shakespearedigges.org/ox2.htm>

• Usher here discusses Shakespeare's response, specifically through his plays, to the changing astronomical system. He suggests that Shakespeare employed a telescopic device developed by Thomas Digges that allowed him to build a greater understanding of the universe, which he then makes references to in his plays, most particularly Hamlet. Although I'm not so sure about the conspiracy-theory-esque-ness of this article, it provides many examples of how the various systems would have been referenced in literature. It also suggests that Shakespeare may have been a person who tried to understand the universe, and then portray it in a more palatable form. 
• And it includes the following excellent quote from Richard Stone: "Universally, human beings will resort to narrative to come to grips with a shattered reality."

I had many great opportunities this weekend to discuss my plans for my field study with friends. I've found that I've significantly improved my ability to explain my project concisely and in a way that people understand, although admittedly it sounds rather aloof because using the clearest, concisest words results in a string of longer words used in pretty quick succession. But it's been fun, and people have responded so positively! It feels good to be able to give a small explanation of what I'm interested in, and have people say, "Wow! That sounds really cool!" and then to have some people press for more information about this thing that I'm devoting three months of my life to studying. 

I've been reflecting a lot on how cross-disciplinary my project sometimes feels. It's part science, part literature, part history, part theology, part art. This has been, at times, a bit troubling to me because it seems like I'm spreading myself too thin, trying to incorporate too many topics, and not knowing enough about most of them to be able to develop anything valuable. Similarly (and I swear, this is related) I've experienced a bit of frustration here and there with various class discussions, feeling as though they don't apply to me as much as they do to students who are going to Ghana or India or Mexico, or who are doing projects that are more living-people-centric than mine. (Stay with me ... these are going to come together!)

But what I'm coming to realize, both in terms of my project and in terms of life in general, is that life is not compartmentalized. It isn't organized into little boxes, and you can't just say, "I'm going to look at this box now, and this box only." My dad used to say something to us every time something in our house broke while I or one of my siblings would play with it: "Were you using it for something it wasn't meant to be used for?" The answer was usually, "Yes," and although that's the wrong answer when you're using the dining room chairs to build a climbing tower, it is absolutely the right answer in many other settings. That is, we're allowed to use—and should use—the things we know outside of their "compartment." Mostly because those compartments we imagine don't really exist, but also because it improves our learning. I like to imagine that someone's going to ask me, "Were you using that thing you learned in Christian history class for something that wasn't a Christian history assignment?" or "Were you using that interviewing principle for a personal conversation?" I like to imagine that I will always be saying, "Yes."

I'll be saying "Yes" because that's the best way to learn, and the best way to discover—to bring everything you know to the table so you can answer the questions you have and then ask better ones. So what if my project can incorporate information from many disciplines? Right on! That's how it's supposed to be. So what if I don't use the things I'm learning in exactly the same way that they're being taught to me? Awesome! There are a billion ways to use those principles—can't possibly expect them to be used exactly the same way every single time!

I guess what I'm saying is that this whole field study thing, this whole education thing, this whole life thing ... well, it's actually pretty amorphous, pretty flexible, pretty prone to flowing around rather than being solid and definable. 

And this whole everything? I'm pretty okay with it. :)

Learning Journal #17

Today while I was listening to Averyl's presentation at the Inquiry Conference, I started wondering about another aspect of my project topic that I haven't yet done more than glaze over: the political implications of the Copernican Revolution. Since the theory had so many religious implications, and because Church and State always seem to be getting tangled up in each others affairs, I'd predict that there were definite political implications. While this isn't the focus of my project, I think it's important to try to look at the various aspects of life that would have impacted the literature being produced at the time, which is also something that Averyl pointed out in her presentation. With all the talk of Queen Elizabeth I, I started wondering what she would have thought about it. She was, after all, depicted as patron of Geography and Astronomy...

Queen Elizabeth I as Patron of Geography and Astronomy
(I'm really starting to question how I find things like this ... )

Some preliminary research brought me not only a basic answer to this question, but also rounded up a whole load of other sources for me as well (hoorah!). The short, quick answer is that Elizabeth I might have been quite the fan of Copernicus' theory, but not for any scientific reasons. The theory was out by the time Elizabeth took the throne, but controversy on the topic didn't really spike until after her death. Plus, Copernicus was Polish, not English. Elizabeth was a staunch Protestant, and while the religious implications of the theory impacted Protestants and Catholics alike, it was the Catholic Church that was deeply impacted by Copernicus' theory. Because science had brought the teachings of the Church into question, people began to lose trust in it. This wasn't such a problem for England, which was officially Protestant (thanks to Elizabeth) but for the rest of Western Europe, where the Catholic Church was essentially the unofficial ruler, a problem it was. Without the support of the people, the Church fell. 

So was Elizabeth a Copernicus fan? I can't give a 100% absolutely certain answer here, but if she would have enjoyed watching the Catholic Church lose its power over Western Europe (and I think she would have), then I'd say it's a very definite possibility. 

Annotated Source #17

Herbert, Mary Sidney. The Psalms. (Accessed at http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/marybib.htm)

• Mary Sidney Herbert's translations of some of the psalms will be a great source of information on man's relationship with God as perceived after the Copernican Revolution. This source was specifically suggested to me by Dr. Brandie Siegfried. 

Annotated Source & Learning Journal #16

Edgerton, Samuel Y. The Mirror, the Window, and the Telescope: How Renaissance Linear Perspective Changed Our Vision of the Universe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP. 2009. Print.

• Edgerton approaches the changing view of the universe through the lens of the birth of linear perspective in art. His book combines the concepts of science, art, and therefore also theology. 

Several weeks ago, I was doing random searches on Google Scholar trying to get a start on some sources for my project. In the course of those searches, I came across a quote from the book I've cited above. It reads as follows: 

"Those laws [which govern the material world] lie within the power of understanding of the human mind: God wanted us to perceive them when He created us in His image in order that we may take part in His own thoughts. —Johannes Kepler, 1599" (Edgerton 1)

This quote is, in the first place, absolutely beautiful. I love all the ideas that it encompasses—the importance of learning, the value of man in God's eyes, man's potential to be like God. It's truly wonderful. It also, I think, speaks to the reason I care about this subject, and hails back to one of my first sources, the article by Primack and Abrams, which suggested that in order for humanity to regain touch with the universe, we have to try to understand it and then make that understanding accessible to others. This quote would suggest that each of us has the opportunity and the capability to comprehend the vastness of God's creations; perhaps, even in the gift of that incredible ability, the responsibility and duty to do all that we can to try to understand it.

It's my personal belief that by trying to "take part in His own thoughts" that we are able to draw closer to God. When we are actively trying to learn about the world that He has placed us on, we have the opportunity to see what He sees, and understand, at least in part, as He understands. We become more like God in our quest for knowledge. That's why I'm at college, that's why I'm going on a field study; and, to wax even more philosophical, that's why I'm here on this planet—to become more like God.

"The glory of God is intelligence, 

or, in other words, light and truth."

(D&C 93:36)

 

Annotated Source #15

Hagen, John. "Nicolaus Copernicus." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 22 Feb. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm>.

• This source provides some information regarding how Copernicus' theory was received by the Catholic Church, which will be a starting point for my research of religious responses to the changing concept of the universe. 

Learning Journal #15

A couple of class periods ago, we discussed taking the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test, as a way to try to understand ourselves and how we work better. Since I'm not one to spend the money to take an official MBTI, I decided to take a few of the free online ones. Results were muddled, to say the least:

1. ISFJ [Introverted (I) 57.5% Extroverted (E) 42.5%, Sensing (S) 51.52% Intuitive (N) 48.48%, Feeling (F) 54.29% Thinking (T) 45.71%, Judging (J) 52.78% Perceiving (P) 47.22%] 
2. INFJ [Strength of Preferences %: Introverted 44%, Intuitive 38%, Feeling 12%, Judging 22%]
3. ISTP [E 40% I 60%, S 65% N 35%, T 70% F 30%, J 50% P 50%]

In other words, the only thing that all of them have in common is the Introverted part, and believe me, I didn't need a test to tell me that. After reading more about the various types here, I think the one that is actually most accurate is the INFJ--Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Judging. (All that being said, reading the basic overviews of the 16 types on the Myers-Briggs website left me thinking that each of these is pretty accurate ... So maybe my personality is just especially fluid? I don't know.) But what does this mean for me and my field study?

Introverted

Being introverted is extremely compatible with my project. I foresee a lot of library time in my increasingly-less-distant future, and the fact that I am able to enjoy being alone so thoroughly is going to make that aspect easier, I suspect. That being said, I'm not 100% introvert, and I'm going to need a little bit of human interaction. Getting out of my comfortable introverted zone to get that human interaction, and to make contacts with the people I need to talk to about my project is going to be (for me) a little difficult, especially considering the fact that my whole environment-comfort-zone is going to be some thousands of miles away. Much like the four steps of repentance, the first step of getting out of the introvert's comfort zone is Recognition (and there ends that metaphor). Recognizing that I'm an introvert will help me overcome it as needs be. 

Intuitive

Being intuitive also contributes to my approach to living in London and completing my project. On the one hand, Intuitives are known for thinking more about the future than the past, but I'll definitely be working with the past. However, Intuitives are also attentive to "impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information" that they get. I will definitely be trying to be attentive to meanings, impressions, and patterns that I see in the literature that I read as I try to understand the underlying messages about man's relationship with God that are contained in that literature. At the same time, Intuitives have a tendency to try to work through things mentally, rather than hands-on. I don't want to experience London mentally—I want to be very hands on, and get to know the city and the people in the real world. Knowing that I probably have this tendency, like knowing that I'm introverted, will help me to force myself to go out and experience London.

Feeling
The Feeling aspect of my MBTI results is, I think, going to be of great benefit to me in being immersed in another culture, and in working together in group meetings. I am very concerned with maintaining harmony, and with being tactful. This is one of the things that makes me easygoing, and (as far as I am able to judge) pretty easy to live with (which will be important, since I'll be living with a host family)—I will do anything to keep peace, contentment, harmony, and good feelings churning around between people. The difficulties I foresee coming from this are the possibility that I'll be too soft because it's difficult for me sometimes to express what I perceive as the cold, hard truth, and I struggle with giving criticism (even constructive-going-to-help-your-project criticism) because I don't want anyone to take it personally. However, I think the benefits of being tactful, respectful, and trying to establish harmony will be helpful in building rapport in the various relationships that will be a part of my field study experience.

Judging
This aspect of my personality also melds well with my project, in my opinion. Though it's kind of a difficult concept to understand in the Myers-Briggs context, judging is a quality that reflects my get-it-done desire. It means that I prefer to get things done before I go out and enjoy myself; in other words, I'm going to get all that library time done early in the day before I turn my time over to getting to know London. In some ways, I like my life to be extremely structured. I might have trouble dealing with things not going the way that I want them to ... All that being said, I like to think that I know myself a bit better than the internet does, and although I may prefer judging over perceiving in most cases, I know that I'm very good at adapting to change, and that any wrenches that come into my project won't be life-crushers, but instead obstacles that I will (don't discount the amount of force behind that word) overcome.



Ultimately, I don't think that these personality types are by any means definitive of who I am as a person (a belief that is perhaps fueled by the fact that I got such varied results with each test, and the fact that descriptions of each one seemed to be pretty true of me). It's possible that because I am so comfortable in my general environment right now, I've been able to break out of my typical comfort zones and explore different ways of approaching life, so even though I have certain tendencies, I've still tried to experience things in other ways. I might tend to be a "feeling" person, but I've tried to be more "thinking"; or I'm usually pretty "intuitive", and I've taken the opportunity to be more of a "sensing" person. Going out into the field may be an experience that strips all of that comfort away and chucks me back into the attitude of living according to my most basic preferences. (Note to Self: Take the MBTI again after a week or so in the field and see if my personality "type" changes because I think I might answer some of the questions differently if feeling frequently uncomfortable, uncertain, super-introverted, etc.) I guess what I'm saying is that, to some extent, I won't know how I'll respond to being submerged in another culture until I actually get there. I don't think anyone really does (that's why we have a term for it: culture shock). BUT, realizing that certain aspects of our personalities are just tendencies means that we're not trapped by introversion, or whatever else. They're only preferences, and they are things that we can deal with and overcome to be more capable of doing the things we want to do, such as a field study. :)

Learning Journal #14

Interviewing ... wow. Just wow. Can I stop there? I'd feel totally okay with that because to some extent I feel that my experience is something I can't put entirely into words, but I won't.

I'd guess that my interview was probably fairly different from those conducted by my fellow students. I essentially had someone approach me and offer to discuss a very personal subject with me, which I was very interested to learn more about. The individual I interviewed was eager to talk to me about it, very open, and even verbose in terms of simply giving me information and answering questions I didn't even know to ask, although of course I approached the discussion with some questions prepared. Being that it was an extremely personal topic, I didn't try to probe too far. I usually employed the semi-verbal ("Mmhmm?") and silent tools to allow information to flow. And oh boy, did it flow.

I won't be going into the details of how the discussion went, because I just put all of that in my methods practice assignment. But I did learn a lot, and since I'm thinking in blurbs, this is going to come out in a list.

1. If I were going to do this assignment again, for the purposes of the assignment, I would probably seek someone out with my own particular topic in mind. Although this one was great, extremely enlightening, and very easy for me, if I wanted to get good practice probing, this was not the interview to conduct. I barely had to do anything ... mostly just sit there and let my interviewee speak. I barely had to use any of the probing techniques, so I didn't get a ton of practice there. All that being said, I think in some ways probing is a lot more natural than we think it is.
2. I came to the interview with a few questions written down, but since we were talking about a subject that I didn't know a lot about, there were questions that I didn't know I wanted to ask. Those came out in the course of the interview, and so it was very important that I let my interviewee talk rather than pushing forward with an agenda of questions. I wouldn't have got such good information if I had tried to get quick, simple answers to the questions that I came with.
3. It was very important that I approached this interview with an extremely open mind, because closed-mindedness would not only have prevented me from getting such a great understanding of the subject, and because it probably would have been offensive to my interviewee. My willingness to accept the information that was coming to me without being judgmental or jumping to conclusions helped me to build rapport with my interviewee over the course of the discussion, and led the conversation to much deeper and more meaningful subjects.
4. It was important that I treated the subject matter appropriately. There were times when it was appropriate to laugh and times when I needed to be very serious. Although I was the interviewer, I took cues from my interviewee as to when it was okay to be lighthearted, so as not to be offensive.
5. It was important for me not to get personally involved in the subject of the interview, or bring my own opinions to the table. I had to take a moment and set aside my beliefs and feelings, and for a few minutes allow myself to be fully immersed in what was being said to me. I tried to look at things from my interviewee's perspective.
6. As interviewer, it was important to lead the conversation, and not let my interviewee take the reins. Although my interviewee's answers did lead me to questions I needed to ask, it was very important that I retained the role of interviewer, that I directed the course of the interview.


All in all, I suspect that this interview was not a lot like interviews I'll be doing in the field. People are not going to approach me and essentially offer to discuss their beliefs and opinions with me. They probably will not be so eager to share information, and require such limited probing. Ultimately, it will probably be a lot more difficult than my experience ended up being (although I certainly would love it to be as easy as it was).

Annotated Source #14

Ptolemy, Claudius. Ptolemy's Almagest. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984. Print.

• In keeping with my desire to get as much background information on the different universe systems, I thought it best to read up on the Ptolemaic universe system from Ptolemy himself. This will help me to understand more fully the system that Copernicus shut down with his heliocentric theory, and what the implications of that new discovery would have been. It will also help me understand the Renaissance understanding of the cosmos better, both in terms of showing me what they held on to from Ptolemy, and what they discarded from his theory, if anything. 

Learning Journal #13

Happy Valentine's Day! 

This is probably my favorite holiday (aside from Christmas, obviously) and I think it's just about the most wonderful thing to take a day to celebrate love. In my musings on the subject, I found myself wondering what I would do if I was celebrating the holiday in England. I did a little research, and although the English celebrate with the usual flowers, chocolates, and greeting cards, there are a few especially-English traditions for honoring St. Valentine:

• Writing quixotic lyrics, poems, sonnets, etc.
• Sharing love songs with other people (okay, we do this too, but they reward love songs with treats!)
• Single girls will wake up early in the morning and stand by the window to watch people outside. A long-existing belief holds that the first man she sees on V-day is meant for her! (Wish I had known this this morning!)
• Thanks to Geoff Chaucer, February 14th is believed to mark the first day of birds' mating season, so the day is sometimes known as Birds Wedding Day. The English celebrate by eating baked buns topped with caraway seeds, raisins, and plums. 

Unfortunately for Valentine's Day lovers like me, celebration is pretty quiet. Although they do acknowledge the day, people predominantly don't want to be caught purchasing Valentine's cards, or making a big to-do about it. But I suppose I have no reason to complain, as I'm celebrating Valentine's Day here in the U.S., and not in England. 

What holidays will be happening in England while I'm there? The only summer holiday I could think of is Independence Day ... but I have this odd feeling that they're not very into it. Maybe they don't like fireworks? (Joke, joke, joke.) Of course, the British have their own holidays and celebrations. This year is a special year for British celebrations because it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee! (Which reminds me of The Great Mouse Detective.) Anyways, it's going to be quite the big deal, and I'm excited to get to experience it! The "Central Weekend" will be June 2-5, and major events will include The Big Jubilee Lunch, a day for everyone to have lunch or picnics or whatever with friends and neighbors; the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant, which will involve up to 1,000 boats from around the world and the Commonwealth; the BBC Concert at Buckingham Palace; the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Beacons, which will be a network of 2012 lit beacons; and the Service of Thanksgiving and Carriage Procession, which will be a religious service held at St. Paul's followed by a formal carriage procession. Plus, there will be some great exhibitions open during the time that I'm there—diamonds, fancy things belonging to the Queen, lots of Leonardo da Vinci (not sure about the connection there?) ... but it's going to be so cool! So many opportunities to see so many cool things!

All this time, I thought I'd be more excited about the Olympics (and don't get me wrong, I totally am) ... but after reading more about the Jubilee celebrations, I'm really excited for those too! Sure, I'm not a British citizen, but Americans are like the rowdy grandchildren of Britain, right? So I'm legitimately permitted to be excited, aren't I? Even though Queen Elizabeth isn't my queen? It just occurred to me that we'll probably sing "God Save the Queen" in church that weekend. I'm excited for that. Regardless, it will be a great time to get my participant-observation skills on ... especially the participation part! :)

Annotated Sources #13

Donne, John. The Holy Sonnets

• John Donne's Holy Sonnets is a collection of nineteen sonnets that will discuss man's relationship with God and the universe. Having been written after Copernicus' theory came about, they would certainly have been influenced by both his cosmology and the preexisting cosmology. They will be absolutely useful to my project, and were specifically recommended to me by Dr. Siegfried. 

Learning Journal #12

The source mapping activity on Friday was a great start to the literature review. It was so nice to get a good look at all my sources and see how they really all fit together visually. Even though I know that all my sources lead back to my project in some way, and I know how they all match up with it, it was really nice to actually organize them into sections and see how the work is actually going. Taking a step back and getting a view of the big picture helped me recognize where I am concentrating a lot of attention, and where I need to be filling in holes.

Looking at things as they are right now, I can see how I want to move forward in my research. I want to read some Ptolemy, and really get a sense for how he envisioned the universe. It will be really interesting to compare what Ptolemy said directly with Copernicus' theory. It will also be interesting to see how Ptolemy's theory evolved, and how it was interpreted through a Renaissance lens. 

I also want to delve more into the religious responses, and really get a good look at how the Church responded, both immediately and over time. I want to look at the writings of the clergy at the time. I'll be on the lookout for good sources in my Christian History class, as we'll be discussing the relevant time period in just a few weeks. My professor for that class, Brother Gaskill, is always putting up excellent quotes from primary texts by the early Christian Fathers, and so I think he will pull out a lot of the important names. Of course, I will absolutely do some research on my own, but there's nothing wrong with having a starting point, and he knows so much that I'm sure that class will be very helpful to me, as I hoped it would. 

The last area that I want to especially focus on is the actual capital-L Literary responses to the changing universe. I feel like I've already got a lot of these in line, although I haven't posted them as annotated sources yet. Dr. Siegfried gave me an excellent list of texts, which I believe I've mentioned before on here, and I just need to include them among my official list of sources. All that being said, they're just a starting point and I certainly need to look at quite a few more texts to get a real feel of how the relationship between man, the universe, and God was changing because of Copernicus' theory. (Side story: My world history teacher during my sophomore year of high school taught us little rhymes/hand motions to remember all of the major scientists and philosophers of the Renaissance-and-there-abouts period which we would recite almost every class period during the Renaissance unit, and the one for Copernicus was "Old Sonny (Sun-ny) Copernie said the sun was the center of the universe!" It had a very sing-song-y rhythm to it. But now every time I type "Copernicus," I hear that rhyme in my head and want to call him Old Sonny Copernie.)

Of course, I'll still be doing research in other areas of my project, but these are the places that I want to focus my energies right now. 

Learning Journal #11

Does it ever seem like all of your classes are overlapping in content? This seems to happen to me every semester, and things always seem to overlap on the oddest points. It's happening again this semester, although this time I feel like I've caused it by planning most of my classes to have some relevance to my project. I also wonder if it's partially because I've got my brain so stuck on my project that I'm practically looking for things that relate to it.

This week, I was doing some reading for a creative writing class, and we were reading a personal essay by Lois-Ann Yamanaka called "JohnJohn's World." It's a very poignant piece, but I was particularly struck by one sentence from the essay: "Yes, you are universal. You are the moon and the stars, the oceans and the mountains, the planets and galaxies, a million constellations." My brain was pinging. The inner heavens, just like Marsilio Ficino discusses in his letter! Only here she's using a modern understanding of the scope of the universe! I wanted to point this out to all of my classmates, but (1) it wouldn't have been socially appropriate, and (2) no one else would have cared much, or probably even have understood the tie to Renaissance cosmology (because, as I'm trying to accept, most people don't care about Renaissance cosmology in the slightest).

I guess that's just what's happening to me though—the word "universe" makes me perk up like a dog that's been napping on the living room rug and hears the sound of a car on the street. I can't help it. My project is taking over my brain! But I suppose that's how it should be, isn't it? Even when I started reading an absolutely lovely cancer romance last night (I love cancer romances), things were bouncing off the page saying "I'm relevant to your project!" And just because this part was relevant, and I think it's lovely, I'm going to share it:

"I believe the universe wants to be noticed. I think the universe is improbably biased toward consciousness, that it rewards intelligence in part because the universe enjoys its elegance being observed. And who am I, living in the middle of history, to tell the universe that it—or my observation of it—is temporary?"  - John Green, The Fault in Our Stars

Granted, this isn't Renaissance cosmological theory he's discussing here, but it's still the universe and talking about how people relate to it. I haven't finished the book yet, and so I'm not sure if this concept of the universe wanting to be noticed will come up again, if it will be tied to individuals' relationship with God (though, of course, the concept of an individual's relationship with God is present throughout the book, because, come on, it's a cancer romance, and you just don't talk cancer without talking God because there are people dying left and right, and if it isn't the protagonist believing in God, it's some loony character that spends most of the book making super-Christian comments at random and then ultimately says something super profound to the protagonist at the very end, probably on one or the other's deathbed).

I don't know if I'm just a magnet for this kind of stuff, or what, but it hasn't seemed to me before that much of the more recent (i.e. from the last century or so) stuff I read has said much of anything about the universe. (Astonishing, because it's kind of a (literally) huge deal.) And yet, here I am, reading double how-people-relate-to-the-universe texts in one day, without even intending to. How does that happen? Is it possible that there's a lot more of this out there that I just haven't noticed? Probably. Since I read so much for class, I don't have tons of time for leisure reading, so I'm probably not as up on my recent literature as I could be.

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe these types of references—these random musings about man and the universe and whatnot—are just the beginnings of being able to relate to the universe with a similar depth and intensity that people of the Renaissance were able to enjoy. I suppose it has to start somewhere. Yamanaka's story acknowledges the vastness of the universe, and then contains it within one person—her son. Although this suggests that JohnJohn himself is incredibly vast and complex, it also suggests that the universe is touchable, it is within our grasp. Green's reference to the universe suggests that it is reaching out to us, and that we can have a relationship, even a conversant one, with the universe. If these two stories are indicative of the general feeling that people have towards the universe, even if it's only held generally among creative people, then maybe we're progressing towards that Renaissance-like closeness with our incomprehensibly huge universe.

Annotated Source #12

Galilei, Galileo. Dialogue on the Great World Systems. Trans. Thomas Salusbury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Print.

• Galileo presents arguments for both the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, though ultimately the arguments in favor of the Copernican system are stronger. This source is useful to my project because it outlines arguments in favor of both systems, allowing me to better understand each, and also because it is in itself a response to the Copernican theory, though it is scientific rather than literary. 

Annotated Source #11

Rosen, Edward. "A Full Universe." The Scientific Monthly 63.3 (1946): p. 213-217. Print.

• Rosen's article addresses both Ptolemy's and Copernicus' understandings of the universe, and adds that of Tycho Brahe who felt he had made a compromise between the two systems, though his theory ultimately proved to be unsound. It essentially provides another view on the relationship between the two cosmological systems, and offers a look at the progress after Copernicus, which may give a useful amount of perspective to my project. 

Learning Journal #10

The experience of participant-observing was a fascinating one for me. Spradley's point that we tune out the world around us was a statement that is absolutely true of me most of the time, and I was surprised to see how much there was to notice about what I was watching. The way people walked, what they looked at, what they carried, whether they looked nervous or calm, whether they were going to study some more before taking their tests, or just go straight in... In spite of the rather inevitable dullness (let's be honest here), it was actually quite interesting.

I like to think that there's some aspect of natural curiosity that will enhance my observational skills, simply because everything around me in London will be new. And yet, I don't intend to use this potential truth as an excuse not to hone my observational skills in London. I want to get a feel of London-ness, and the more that I can pack into my brain through detailed observations, the better I'll be able to accomplish that. I really liked the metaphor suggested in class on Monday that we approach observation as if we are doing research for a film. What are the little details that make this interaction/place/moment unique? Those are the things that I think will make my experience in London much more memorable. 

Although I don't see participant observation playing a huge role in my actual research project, I still see myself using those skills extensively while I'm in London. I know I've said it a million times before, but [cue Aerosmith] I don't wanna miss a thing! I want to take full advantage of being there, and participant observation skills are just another tool in my Make-the-Most-Out-of-This-Experience Toolbelt. :)

Learning Journal #9

Yesterday in church, I'll admit to being mildly distracted from everything that was going on, predominantly because I kept relating things that were being talked about (and things that weren't being talked about) to my project. I tried to think of how Renaissance cosmological concepts could be seen in ancient and modern scripture, and found a few interesting parallels.

The first comes from Psalms 8:3-5:

When I consider they heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thous hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and has crowned him with glory and honour. 

I'd expect that the reference to man being "a little lower than the angels" was considered particularly in the development of the Great Chain of Being concept. (Note to self: research the development of the Great Chain of Being concept.) What I love about this scripture is that it shows that the question of man's place among God's creations has been asked for ages upon ages. Although it here suggests that man does possess a high position among the creations of God, the humility of recognizing the extensive grandeur of those other creations is apparent. Renaissance cosmology reflected this mutual elevation and lowness within their picture—the earth was as far as one could get from God, and yet it was the central focus of God's attention.

These same concepts have been reiterated over and over by LDS leaders. Yesterday in Relief Society, we discussed President Uchtdorf's talk for the General Relief Society Broadcast, "Forget Me Not." In the talk, President Uchtdorf references Psalms 8, and adds "Just think of it: You are known and remembered by the most majestic, powerful, and glorious Being in the universe! You are loved by the King of infinite space and everlasting time! He who created and knows the stars knows you and your name—you are the daughters of His kingdom." Then, in General Conference, he delivered a talk called "You Matter to Him." An entire section of the talk referenced man's place within the universe! Here's a huge quote from that talk:

The more we learn about the universe, the more we understand—at least in a small part—what Moses knew. The universe is so large, mysterious, and glorious that it is incomprehensible to the human mind. “Worlds without number have I created,” God said to Moses. The wonders of the night sky are a beautiful testimony of that truth. 

There are few things that have filled me with such breathless awe as flying in the black of night across oceans and continents and looking out my cockpit window upon the infinite glory of millions of stars. 

Astronomers have attempted to count the number of stars in the universe. One group of scientists estimates that the number of stars within range of our telescopes is 10 times greater than all the grains of sand on the world’s beaches and deserts. 

This conclusion has a striking similarity to the declaration of the ancient prophet Enoch: “Were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations. 

Given the vastness of God’s creations, it’s no wonder the great King Benjamin counseled his people to “always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness.”
But even though man is nothing, it fills me with wonder and awe to think that “the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.” 

And while we may look at the vast expanse of the universe and say, “What is man in comparison to the glory of creation?” God Himself said we are the reason He created the universe! His work and glory—the purpose for this magnificent universe—is to save and exalt mankind. In other words, the vast expanse of eternity, the glories and mysteries of infinite space and time are all built for the benefit of ordinary mortals like you and me. Our Heavenly Father created the universe that we might reach our potential as His sons and daughters. 

This is a paradox of man: compared to God, man is nothing; yet we are everything to God. While against the backdrop of infinite creation we may appear to be nothing, we have a spark of eternal fire burning within our breast. We have the incomprehensible promise of exaltation—worlds without end—within our grasp. And it is God’s great desire to help us reach it.

Ideas inextricably related to Renaissance cosmological concepts are certainly alive and well within the LDS Church. I certainly don't know enough about other Christian denominations to know whether or not this is a belief that we share with them. If it is shared, is it exactly the same? Or are there variations to it? I think I'll certainly have to talk to some clergy about this topic, although it won't be the exact focus of my research.

I know that the Roman Catholic Church during the Renaissance was not overly pleased with Copernicus' theory. Grinnell's article, which was my annotated source today, points out that,

"If one glances for a second at seventeenth-century Catholic theology before returning to its Humanist opposition, one notes that the Roman Catholic Church had placed the Copernican treatise on the 'Index of Prohibited Books' not because of its mathematical simplicity, nor because it contradicted scripture (although this was the official reason), but rather because it presented serious difficulties to Aristotelian cosmology. In the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas had reconciled the essentials of Aristotelian cosmology to Augustinian theology, and although Saint Thomas's Summa Theologica was highly controversial (initially condemned both at the University of Paris and at Oxford University), it was finally accepted at the Council of Trent after nearly 20 years of discussion (1545-1563). Having taken so long to agree on an official doctrine (at a time when all of Europe was in turmoil owing to the Protestant Reformation), the Church was eager not to have this doctrine undermined by an astronomical hypothesis of uncertain validity."

I'd like to look more into the Church's response to Copernicus, because it seems that religions eventually accepted the heliocentric view of the universe (though the fight over how it all began is still being hotly contested). How did the early stages of the battle between religion (specifically the Roman Catholic Church) and science really play out? What did Aquinas write in his Summa Theologica? What exactly happened at the Council of Trent? (and a link to records of the council for me to peruse later...)

All of this research is showing me just how much background information there is that I feel like I need to know before I can even begin to look at the actual literary texts that people wrote to respond to the changing universe concept. I certainly won't be able to know all of it before I head off to London. I'm beginning to wonder if there is a way to trim my project question to be even smaller so that I don't risk my brain exploding from information overload (though, if we're discussing ways for one's brain to explode, that'd certainly be one of my top choices). While I want to know as much as I can before I go, I realize that no matter how much I do know, there will always be more information out there that I've missed. Where's the meter that'll tell me I know just enough of all the right stuff? The truth is, there isn't one. I'm just going to have to figure it out by myself, and try to be as prepared as possible (sans-exploded-brains).

Annotated Source #10

Grinnell, George J. "Heaven and Earth Reconciled: The Common Vision of Renaissance Art and Science." Leonardo 21.2 (1988): p. 195-199. Print.

• Grinell's article addresses the impact of Copernicus' discovery on art, science, and religion. He writes, "The Copernican Revolution was not so much a revolution in astronomy as it was a revolution in theology, a revolution in which not only scientists and theologians participated, but also artists" (196). He also discusses Galileo's response to Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, and the concept of ennobling and perfecting the earth, which seems to be an interesting way to negotiate the decentralization of the earth through Copernicus' heliocentric theory. 

Learning Journal #8

In class on Monday, we had the opportunity to discuss some of the topics that I brought up in my previous learning journal, which was really exciting for me. Normally I expect to wait for some time before I get answers to my questions, but not this time! We spent some time thinking and writing about what a typical day will look like for us. Although I don't know what exactly to expect, and don't know exactly where I'm living or how much time it'll take to get places, or any of the nitty-gritty details, I really tried to imagine what I want a typical day to look like. I'm afraid I'm going to want to be horribly scheduled (I've kind of got an Achilles' heel with schedules. I barely get nicked once, and kabloom, I'm history. [Ten points for anyone who can identify the source of that phrase.]) So here's a basic outline of how I want to spend my time: I want to get up early, but not too early. I can't function at all with too little sleep, so I'm thinking I'll get up around seven. I love morning air, and I love watching cities wake up, so I think I'll plan on walking every morning for a half an hour or so. Studying is obviously a must, so I will plan on spending three or so hours in the library before lunch, at which point I will definitely break and eat. (Remember how I can't function without a lot of sleep? I can't function without food very well either.) I'll expect to spend a couple hours every day synthesizing my research and writing, but whether that will be in the afternoon or evening probably depends most on what other things I'll be doing. I figure that's a place where I can be flexible, as long as I take time each week to plan those synthesis hours. In my free time, I want to explore the city. I want to see the sights, smell the smells, hear the sounds. I absolutely want to see some plays. ... I'm beginning to feel like I'm daydreaming, so I'll just go ahead and stop right here.

I was going to try to connect this with today's reading, but I really just can't figure how I'd ever do that, since today's reading was all about English dress codes. My favorite part was when Fox writes, "We English are at our sartorial best when we have strict, formal rules and traditions to follow - when we are either literally or effectively 'in uniform'. Left to our own devices, we flounder and fail, having little or no natural sense of style or elegance - suffering from, as George Orwell put it, an 'almost general deadness to aesthetic issues.'" My first thought? "I'm going to fit in so well!" At least, to some extent. I really thought that Fox made an interesting point here, that the English are very well suited to following rules, but remain rather lost without them. It hails back to a previous paragraph in which she points out that "national identity is about rules, and lack of rules is symptomatic of loss of identity." This simply makes sense, because how can you say that something is English, or Tibetan, or Swedish if there's no rule defining it, even an unwritten one? It's essentially impossible to ascribe something to a culture without there being a definite boundary, or rule, that separates it from something else. 

I can't help but wonder how this applies to other means of identification. Naturally, I'm trying to think about how this applies to my research topic, and the ideas that are coming to my mind begin here: rules are rules because they are rules, by which I mean, of course (wink), that the stability and enforceability of a rule is what gives it clout and makes it dependable. You can establish identity upon rules because rules have a tendency to stay the same, or at least not change very frequently. In terms of Renaissance cosmology, there were very definite rules and structure. And then Copernicus came along with his theory, and suddenly we're dealing with a universal (and by that, I suppose I mean both the universe and in the sense of all the people) identity crisis. The rules have changed. The universe has shifted from around us. Who are we? What is this universe thing now? Who is God? Where is He? If we aren't the center of His creation, where do we belong? What is our place? Is God mindful of us? I imagine that these are the types of questions people would have been asking. I just want to know how they answered them, or how they tried to answer them. It seems to me as though this realization that we weren't the physical center of the universe permanently dislodged our identity. The scope of the universe has expanded so far beyond our understanding and ability to comprehend that it seems like a vast, lawless void where nothing is stable. If there aren't any rules, or we can't understand them, then how can the universe be something we can depend on? How can we identify ourselves within it?

Of course, my personal religious beliefs tell me that there are definitely rules to the universe, and that we simply can't comprehend all of them right now. I believe that God is physically located somewhere out there, and that, though we may not be the physical center of His creations, we are the emotional center and the purpose of all of the wild and wonderful things He has created. However, like I've pointed out, I don't think these beliefs of mine are shared by the majority of people in the world. Perhaps we, as humankind, simply got too busy building our identity on the rules of what we could see, instead of rules of faith. 

In one of the books I've looked at for one of my sources, Jamie James explains what I'm trying to say very nice and concisely. He writes: 

As scientific observation accumulated information ... the universe revealed itself to be far more complicated than anyone had imagined. The assumption throughout centuries of science had been that there was a logic underlying the apparent chaos of creation, but that human perception was too clouded and fallacious to discern it. By the nineteenth century science had abandoned that position ... An abrupt conceptual turnabout had taken place: whereas Plato had taught that anything the eye could see was illusory, modern science teaches that the only things that do exist are those we can see and touch (even if we "see" them with radio signals, or "touch" them with remote robotic devices. (James 5)

Essentially, we (humanity) got caught up in rules, in the stability of observable facts, and because there's so much that we can't take in, we can't find those facts we need to build rules. And without rules, we lose a sense of identity and purpose. 

Can I just point out that it's suddenly no surprise to me why I love the Renaissance so much—those people are my kind of people, their beliefs are so much better aligned with my own (in some respects) than those of the modern world. I am beyond thrilled to see how they negotiated their shifting place in the universe. 

Annotated Source #9

McColley, Grant. "The Seventeenth-Century Doctrine of a Plurality of Worlds." Annals of Science 1.4 (1936): p. 385-430. Print.

• This article discusses one of the emerging concepts of the 17th century after Copernicus' heliocentric theory. It focuses specifically on the idea that there could be other worlds/universes like the one we inhabit, and that these many worlds could cover an infinite amount of space. It also addresses the impact that possible theories of these infinite worlds would have on individuals' perceptions of God. McColley argues that perceptions established during the 17th century because of Copernicus' discovery were retained at least into the early 19th century, though he believes that they have largely lost their place at his time in the 1930s. 

Annotated Source #8

McColley, Grant. "The Universe of De Revolutionibus." Isis 30.3 (1939): p. 452-472. Print.

• McColley's article addresses the impact of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus in context. It particularly outlines how this related to the Medieval/Renaissance relationship to God. McColley writes, "To expand the mundane universe in the sixteenth century was to encroach upon the infinite realm which the age assigned to Deity; to remove its boundary was also to remove the barrier which set apart this universe and the celestial world of God; to remove the boundary and to expand indefinitely the eighth sphere was to bring together in one cosmos both the mundane and heavenly worlds" (455). It essentially directly addresses my topic. 

Learning Journal #7

Our discussion on time last class was very interesting, though I'll admit that I couldn't help thinking about how selfish we are about when we want time to be treated monochronically or polychronically (particularly in doctor's offices). I was especially interested in how we look at time as a tangible commodity, as if it is something that we can order and control and divide and allot, when the fact of the matter is that time will continue on its merry way, whether we are able to organize ourselves and our lives in a way that will allow us to go to bed at night feeling that we accomplished what we set out to accomplish, or not.

In light of this, how am I going to organize my life to maximize the weeks I have in London? How many hours will I dedicate to libraries, to writing, to museums, to entertainment, to exploring the city and London culture? What's reasonable to expect? What's reasonable to expect in terms of pre-departure planning?

The discussion on time also led me to think about different variants of monochronic or polychronic time. Don't people in different areas do monochronicity differently? I assume they would, and that makes me wonder how American monochronicity might be different from English monochronicity, and how would I figure it out? How do you notice differences in how people think of time? My non-anthropologist brain is struggling right now trying to figure out where one would even begin!

In exploring various London-related things, I found a small gem of a blog today called Tired of London, Tired of Life. The blogger posts a new thing to do in London every single day, and has been doing this since 2008, which is pretty impressive. Although I'm certain that I'll already be swamped with the huge number of touristy things there are to do, and the desire to simply explore, this may end up being a great resource for finding cool little things to do. Besides that, most of them appear to be free. Another useful-looking website is Londonist—even more things to see and explore!

My biggest concern right now: How on earth will I ever have the time to do everything I want to do??