-- OHW I SEE. this one is my master piece. well i did not create the view but i took a picture of it and it's amazing ♥ i love how it looks like. *AHEM. the nature seems too photogenic for this stuff. hahaha! :))
Friday, October 22, 2010
I AM A GREENAHOLIC CREATURE (: ♥
-- OHW I SEE. this one is my master piece. well i did not create the view but i took a picture of it and it's amazing ♥ i love how it looks like. *AHEM. the nature seems too photogenic for this stuff. hahaha! :))
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
THANK GOD :)
i love him so much and losing him is never in my plan :(
i swear. i don't know how i'd handle things without his presence. it not that i depend on him but because my life is his life now :((( i love him so much.
THANK GOD: ) we're okay. soooo okay :))))
i swear. i don't know how i'd handle things without his presence. it not that i depend on him but because my life is his life now :((( i love him so much.
THANK GOD: ) we're okay. soooo okay :))))
Friday, October 15, 2010
graabee nga soc sci!
ka harsh ni sir ;( tskkk. pausabun mi :( mura jud byag lalim. sya nalang smung pwesto nu? errrrr! pagminamalas nga naman. hahaisssss* GRabbe ka sir ha/ kung kanus'a na ang end didto pka nag echus2. errrr! i haaaate youooou for now :(((
SOCIAL SCIENCE as EXAM :) post.post *
Kimberly R. Sollano October 16, 2010
BSED ENGLISH 1 Social Science 1
CED 1 – 5 MWF/ 8:00-9:00 AM
The Comprachicos
I. SUMMARY
The comprapequeños or also known as Comprachicos, were unusual and horrible creatures are bound to be known for the seventh century, being ignored in the eighteen century and unknown today. These people buy and sell children to make it a monster for an enjoyment matter for the people. An art of what they called and it was whole science. Instead of making it as harmonious and in a straight glance, they make a mess attempt but in the eyes of connoisseurs it was all perfect.
The practice of degrading man leads one to practice of deforming him. Thus for them, Deformity completes the task of political suppression. The comprachicos had a talent to disfigure and it is better to disfigure than to kill. The comprachicos did remove their face but instead they removed his memory as they could to be and make them numb for the pain they get from operations and suppressed pain. In china it was different yet the deformity process is sill obtained. The child with an age of 2 or 3 years old is put into vases until it expands and their bones and faces are compressed unto the vase and when one judges that a monster has been made, they break the vases and the child comes out in a shape of a vase.
This ingenuity practiced by most of today’s educators is being compared to comprachicos but only on the mind of the young children. They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to its contours. They placed him into a “Progressive” nursery school to adjust him to society. The Progressive nursery schools start a child’s education at the age of three. Their view of a child’s needs is anti cognitive and anti conceptual. They say that a child of that age claims to play and not ready to acquire the natural desire to learn because a child’s life is crucial to the cognitive development.
It was said that the subconscious is an integrating mechanism. Man’s conscious mind observes and establishes connections among his experiences; the subconscious integrates the connections and makes them become automatic. A mind’s cognitive development involves a continual process of automatization. The process of forming, intergrating and using concepts is not an automatic, but a volitional process. It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned. This skill is does not pertain to the particular content of a man’s knowledge at any given age, but to the method by which he acquires and organizes knowledge – the method by which his mind deals with it’s content. The child’s answers are habitual that makes it automatized. A child is eager to learn his new experiences and would gladly understand it by himself. He even develops the implicit equivalent of two fundamental premises the metaphysics – the cornerstones of his future sense of life and epistemology – which he is able to grasp such concepts consciously. Studies show that at the age of seven, a child acquires the capacity to develop a vast conceptual context which will accompany and illuminate his every experience.
With every glimpse of desire, the comparison of being to early to go to preschools is much pressuring to the part of the children making them to understand things too difficult and the possible way to make a child more ready is to let him go to school at the age of five up.
II. REACTION/CRITIQUE
I agree with Rand’s of the pack and conformity and collectivism and her view that the "problem children" often have the best chance to get through school with their reason in tact.
I somehow agree to Rand’s pro attitude and to what Rand said that children should start learning abstract ideas. I go for her many specific examples like those which are about how methods of teaching are nonsense, or negate the educational philosophy the teachers claim to follow. I disagree with her that most of the effects and meaning of teaching methods can be distinguished by looking at them and reasoning about them. I think that the bulk of what's done to kids is more elusive than that. And I think kids are bouncy and such methods, alone, are not enough to have the affects schools do have.
I don’t agree with her by saying that mistakes of the size aren’t made innocently. I don’t agree with her evaluation that many parents want to get their kids out of their hair, and don't think carefully about what sort of place they are sending their kids, and also don't have thoughtful, rational discussions with their kids.
Rand takes a fairly nature oriented position on some aspects of the nature/nurture debate. She does talk a lot about how education matters, but she also seems to think being more or less intelligent is innate. Rand sometimes appeals to "the evidence" or "scientific research" but fails to cite it or explain what research was done and how it is capable of reaching the conclusion it reaches. This is scientism, but it's mild and she provides arguments for all her conclusions.
Rand overestimates how much teachers hurt children *intentionally*. She thinks they somewhat plan for it. Alright, some do, but they don't actually know how to plan for things and then make them happen, so their planning hardly matters. Rand makes a comment that if they cared about the children they'd notice certain policies are harming children and stop or revise them, and concludes they don't care about children's well being. I disagree with that. I don't think they know how to evaluate what works and what doesn't. Doing that takes skill which they don't have. They have no idea if they are doing harm or not. I don't want to absolve them of all guilt, or even any guilt -- they do see crying children, and they definitely know that many children dislike much of what they do -- but let's not assume they know, plan, or intend more than they do. They are clueless and helpless, and have a mix of callous disregard; superficial, tender love and caring; some meanness; and for many teachers, especially the younger ones, only occasional hatred of the children. Many teachers have given up and don't think about what they are doing.
Rand says schools and culture used to be better and more rational, and the comprachicos only gained control quite recently, and the current educators had a better education themselves. I disagree. Rand doesn't go into detail here. It's true that schools have changed in some ways, and their explicit rhetoric has changed, but I see no reason to think their basic effect has changed. Perhaps Rand is going too much on the schools' explicit messages. If anything, school has gotten better. People are smarter now, and more capable; we can tell because they deal with more complex lives, have more possessions which are more complicated (like computers), there are more knowledge workers, and GDP per capita is much higher. And schools have had reforms, e.g. with corporal punishment. And we now have more and better sources of information (TV, internet, more books, etc).
Perhaps my favorite part is on page 197:
At the age of three, when his mind is almost as plastic as his bones, when his need and desire to know are more intense than they will ever be again, a child is delivered -- by a Progressive nursery school -- into the midst of a pack of children as helplessly ignorant as himself. He is not merely left without cognitive guidance -- he is actively discouraged and prevented from pursuing cognitive tasks. He wants to learn; he is told to play. Why? No answer is given.. He is made to understand -- by the emotional vibrations permeating the atmosphere of the place, by every crude or subtle means available to the adults whom he cannot understand -- that the most important thing in this peculiar world is not to know, but to get along with the pack. Why? No answer is given.
He does not know what to do; he is told to do anything he feels like. He picks up a toy; it is snatched away from him by another child; he is told that he must learn to share. Why? No answer is given. He sits alone in a corner; he is told that he must join the others. Why? No answer is given. He approaches a group, reaches for their toys and is punched in the nose. He cries, in angry bewilderment; the teacher throws her arms around him and gushes that she loves him.
I think Rand's comment that loneliness is only for people who have something of value to share, but can't find any equals to share it with, is insightful. She says the emotion that drives conformists to "belong" is fear. I'm not so sure about that. I think fear plays a role, but there are many other issues, such as not knowing what else to do, and thinking non-conformity is morally wrong.
III. CONCLUSION
Schools are somehow traumatic in terms of having preschool. It would merely affect a child’s growth for he/she might not be ready to some points of his/her life. Thus, it is somehow part of growing up yet pressures and other thing that makes it so difficult for a child to learn at an early age is quite reasonable. It is not the right thing to do. Ages of three or maybe four is so difficult for a child to learn more not only because his/her mind is to young for stuffs like learning but also because as a of this age, he is bound to learn things limited in a way that he/she could enjoy his childish years. This is not an automatic process yet it is a learning one. We can’t make a child learn if in his younger age, he is used to play with toys and is relaxed. Yes it is a continuing process but that does not mean that we are made to make them follow without any given reason. If that’s the case, we are just making this difficult for him to adjust having those questions still unanswered and is left all blank.
BSED ENGLISH 1 Social Science 1
CED 1 – 5 MWF/ 8:00-9:00 AM
The Comprachicos
I. SUMMARY
The comprapequeños or also known as Comprachicos, were unusual and horrible creatures are bound to be known for the seventh century, being ignored in the eighteen century and unknown today. These people buy and sell children to make it a monster for an enjoyment matter for the people. An art of what they called and it was whole science. Instead of making it as harmonious and in a straight glance, they make a mess attempt but in the eyes of connoisseurs it was all perfect.
The practice of degrading man leads one to practice of deforming him. Thus for them, Deformity completes the task of political suppression. The comprachicos had a talent to disfigure and it is better to disfigure than to kill. The comprachicos did remove their face but instead they removed his memory as they could to be and make them numb for the pain they get from operations and suppressed pain. In china it was different yet the deformity process is sill obtained. The child with an age of 2 or 3 years old is put into vases until it expands and their bones and faces are compressed unto the vase and when one judges that a monster has been made, they break the vases and the child comes out in a shape of a vase.
This ingenuity practiced by most of today’s educators is being compared to comprachicos but only on the mind of the young children. They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to its contours. They placed him into a “Progressive” nursery school to adjust him to society. The Progressive nursery schools start a child’s education at the age of three. Their view of a child’s needs is anti cognitive and anti conceptual. They say that a child of that age claims to play and not ready to acquire the natural desire to learn because a child’s life is crucial to the cognitive development.
It was said that the subconscious is an integrating mechanism. Man’s conscious mind observes and establishes connections among his experiences; the subconscious integrates the connections and makes them become automatic. A mind’s cognitive development involves a continual process of automatization. The process of forming, intergrating and using concepts is not an automatic, but a volitional process. It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned. This skill is does not pertain to the particular content of a man’s knowledge at any given age, but to the method by which he acquires and organizes knowledge – the method by which his mind deals with it’s content. The child’s answers are habitual that makes it automatized. A child is eager to learn his new experiences and would gladly understand it by himself. He even develops the implicit equivalent of two fundamental premises the metaphysics – the cornerstones of his future sense of life and epistemology – which he is able to grasp such concepts consciously. Studies show that at the age of seven, a child acquires the capacity to develop a vast conceptual context which will accompany and illuminate his every experience.
With every glimpse of desire, the comparison of being to early to go to preschools is much pressuring to the part of the children making them to understand things too difficult and the possible way to make a child more ready is to let him go to school at the age of five up.
II. REACTION/CRITIQUE
I agree with Rand’s of the pack and conformity and collectivism and her view that the "problem children" often have the best chance to get through school with their reason in tact.
I somehow agree to Rand’s pro attitude and to what Rand said that children should start learning abstract ideas. I go for her many specific examples like those which are about how methods of teaching are nonsense, or negate the educational philosophy the teachers claim to follow. I disagree with her that most of the effects and meaning of teaching methods can be distinguished by looking at them and reasoning about them. I think that the bulk of what's done to kids is more elusive than that. And I think kids are bouncy and such methods, alone, are not enough to have the affects schools do have.
I don’t agree with her by saying that mistakes of the size aren’t made innocently. I don’t agree with her evaluation that many parents want to get their kids out of their hair, and don't think carefully about what sort of place they are sending their kids, and also don't have thoughtful, rational discussions with their kids.
Rand takes a fairly nature oriented position on some aspects of the nature/nurture debate. She does talk a lot about how education matters, but she also seems to think being more or less intelligent is innate. Rand sometimes appeals to "the evidence" or "scientific research" but fails to cite it or explain what research was done and how it is capable of reaching the conclusion it reaches. This is scientism, but it's mild and she provides arguments for all her conclusions.
Rand overestimates how much teachers hurt children *intentionally*. She thinks they somewhat plan for it. Alright, some do, but they don't actually know how to plan for things and then make them happen, so their planning hardly matters. Rand makes a comment that if they cared about the children they'd notice certain policies are harming children and stop or revise them, and concludes they don't care about children's well being. I disagree with that. I don't think they know how to evaluate what works and what doesn't. Doing that takes skill which they don't have. They have no idea if they are doing harm or not. I don't want to absolve them of all guilt, or even any guilt -- they do see crying children, and they definitely know that many children dislike much of what they do -- but let's not assume they know, plan, or intend more than they do. They are clueless and helpless, and have a mix of callous disregard; superficial, tender love and caring; some meanness; and for many teachers, especially the younger ones, only occasional hatred of the children. Many teachers have given up and don't think about what they are doing.
Rand says schools and culture used to be better and more rational, and the comprachicos only gained control quite recently, and the current educators had a better education themselves. I disagree. Rand doesn't go into detail here. It's true that schools have changed in some ways, and their explicit rhetoric has changed, but I see no reason to think their basic effect has changed. Perhaps Rand is going too much on the schools' explicit messages. If anything, school has gotten better. People are smarter now, and more capable; we can tell because they deal with more complex lives, have more possessions which are more complicated (like computers), there are more knowledge workers, and GDP per capita is much higher. And schools have had reforms, e.g. with corporal punishment. And we now have more and better sources of information (TV, internet, more books, etc).
Perhaps my favorite part is on page 197:
At the age of three, when his mind is almost as plastic as his bones, when his need and desire to know are more intense than they will ever be again, a child is delivered -- by a Progressive nursery school -- into the midst of a pack of children as helplessly ignorant as himself. He is not merely left without cognitive guidance -- he is actively discouraged and prevented from pursuing cognitive tasks. He wants to learn; he is told to play. Why? No answer is given.. He is made to understand -- by the emotional vibrations permeating the atmosphere of the place, by every crude or subtle means available to the adults whom he cannot understand -- that the most important thing in this peculiar world is not to know, but to get along with the pack. Why? No answer is given.
He does not know what to do; he is told to do anything he feels like. He picks up a toy; it is snatched away from him by another child; he is told that he must learn to share. Why? No answer is given. He sits alone in a corner; he is told that he must join the others. Why? No answer is given. He approaches a group, reaches for their toys and is punched in the nose. He cries, in angry bewilderment; the teacher throws her arms around him and gushes that she loves him.
I think Rand's comment that loneliness is only for people who have something of value to share, but can't find any equals to share it with, is insightful. She says the emotion that drives conformists to "belong" is fear. I'm not so sure about that. I think fear plays a role, but there are many other issues, such as not knowing what else to do, and thinking non-conformity is morally wrong.
III. CONCLUSION
Schools are somehow traumatic in terms of having preschool. It would merely affect a child’s growth for he/she might not be ready to some points of his/her life. Thus, it is somehow part of growing up yet pressures and other thing that makes it so difficult for a child to learn at an early age is quite reasonable. It is not the right thing to do. Ages of three or maybe four is so difficult for a child to learn more not only because his/her mind is to young for stuffs like learning but also because as a of this age, he is bound to learn things limited in a way that he/she could enjoy his childish years. This is not an automatic process yet it is a learning one. We can’t make a child learn if in his younger age, he is used to play with toys and is relaxed. Yes it is a continuing process but that does not mean that we are made to make them follow without any given reason. If that’s the case, we are just making this difficult for him to adjust having those questions still unanswered and is left all blank.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Pangako, Magpakailanman ♥
Simpleng kagustuhan, kasiyahan at kaligayahan nais kong makamtan
Nais kong punan ang aking pagkatao
Upang sa bawat paglipas ng panahon,
kasawian ay mapunan ng pagbabago.
Noong una'y di ko akalain
Ikaw na ang turing ko lamang ay isa sa mga matalik kong kaibigan
Ay siyang magpupuno ng aking kakulangan
Sa di sinasadyang mundo nati'y pinagtagpo
puso nati'y pinag-isa't pinatibok.
At sa bawat araw na lumilipas
Tanging ikaw, o ang pangalan mo'y nasa puso't isipan
Salamat sa mga pangakong di mo binitiwan
Sadyang kay saya nitong aking nadarama
Pinapangarap na tayo'y lumigaya ng magkasama
Kay sarap isipin, o kay sarap damhin
Ikaw ang laging tanaw ng aking pangarap
Sana ay ikaw na nga magpakailanman
Sa bawat bulong ng aking labi
Nais kong ipadama ang haplos ng aking pag-ibig
Sa bawat araw na kita'y iniibig
Walang katumbas iyon sa pag'alis mo ng pait
Lahat lahat ginawa mo na
Sadyang napaibig mo ng lubos
Pangako ko sayo, ako'y narito lamang
Handang maging sayo,
MAGPAKAILANMAN :) ♥♥
Saturday, October 2, 2010
thankful :))
i am super duper thankful i have this guy :) without him saun na lang ang akung pagkamalipayun? dli mapulusan. i am deeply inlove with my boyfriend right now. and having him was a total sent from above ;) ilovehimsomuch :)
- forever. PROMISE ♥♥ 071910
- forever. PROMISE ♥♥ 071910
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)