could someone help me with this topic? i must write an essay for&against but i have no idea for arrguments… please help me. thanks for all answer
You can write an essay for or against implementing school uniform policy, but you can’t write for or against this statement. You have to write whether you agree or disagree.
Are you supposed to write «for or against» about a particular issue? If so, you need a different topic. However, if you are allowed to write whether you «agree or disagree» with the statement, you can write that you agree, because capitalism and digital technology have caused people to get accustomed to instant satisfaction.
You can say that businesses try to satisfy people quicker than their competitors can, and you can say that technology has spoiled us!
Does that help?
Philosophically, it is the argument whether «patience» as a virtue is worth cultivating anymore; when technology has «evolved» the world to the point that we can demand and expect instant gratification in everything, and every time. The latter argument implying that fundamentals such as «patience» are from an earlier schools of thought, and need not apply in the newer(evolutionary) understanding of the world.
EF_Kevin thanks! 😉 U’re right. i must agree or disagree with topic and give some <2-3> argumets confirming it. now i know it isn’t exactly essay, but something like mini-presentation. you know about what i say? firstlly i present a topic. secoundly say why i agree <2-3 arguments> and on next paragraph why i dissagree. in conclusion say what is my opinion. and i must present it on the forum of the class . when i finish they are asking me questions.
ps. sorry for my english but i’m from poland and I am still studying :PPP 🙂
and in my county is 7:32 p.m 😛
Here is some more on «patience»; first from an evolutionist’s point of view —
People were advised to cultivate patience, so that things that were in process, would complete, having gone through the stages, or steps they were designed to or known to have. Point to understand being, that were you already aware of the time each stage of the process would take, you wouldn’t need «patience». You need patience only when you do not know what’s going on, and must keep yourself from becoming agitated; as when, your child or your sibling isn’t back from somewhere and it’s past the time that they were expected to be. Patience is a schooling of the mind.
Interestingly, the non-evolutionary idea of patience goes further. It says, that it is due to the effort the individual makes, and effort here is not the usual kind of exerting ourselves, but often in some other fashion, maybe holding thoughts of anxiety at bay by focusing on something at a deeper level, that we cause the «forces in nature» to set things to happen as per our will. So patience is a force of its own kind.
I hope the presentation is a success! When you write the 3 reasons to agree, it will be important to read about this term «the MTV generation.» What is meant by it? Does it just mean the same as «kids these days»…?
I almost think it is distracting to call them «the MTV Generation.» However, it implies commercialism because you see commercials on TV… so I think commercialism should be oe of the reasons.
Rajiv, the evolutionary explanation for patience is interesting! I think, though, that making a connection between patience and «uncertainty» is not necessarily necessary. Also, could we have evolved patience? Actually, in this crazy world of capitalism I see a different process going on: survival of the fittest means survival of the most competitive businesses, and the most competitive businesses are the ones that give satisfaction quickest — thereby dimininishing the need for patience.
Kevin I was hoping you would’ve picked on the latter explaination of patience — the force in nature — to comment upon. What do you think of that? Have you come across this idea before?
Your arguments might also look at what it means to have patience. For instance, people of the MTV generation might have no patience when it comes to waiting for a web page to load, because they are used to high-speed internet. However, they might still have patience for something they expect to take a long time. So, if they were trying to master, say, the art of origami, they might patiently put in hours of practice without complaining. In other words, is patience really just a matter of expectation, with the younger generation having greater expectations of many things happening faster? Or, is it that they can no longer take the time to do anything unless it has immediate payoff? And if so, is this perhaps a different problem than a mere lack of patience?
It says, that it is due to the effort the individual makes… that we cause the «forces in nature» to set things to happen as per our will. So patience is a force of its own kind.
Oh, I actually had not understood at first, but I do now. I like it. Daoism is my favorite spiritual tradition, and in Daoism it is said, «Do nothing, and nothing will be left undone.»
If indeed circumstances are such that doing nothing and holding still is the best course of action, then patience can be the most effective action. I guess that includes any situation for which patience is necessary.
Mayb the opposite of patience is restlessness. Or recklessness.
But I wonder if you notice, that even in what you have quoted, or rather in your explanation of it, you are falling short of admitting to an action happening simply because you have that thought in your mind. As though an intelligence, over yours, recognizes it and then acts it on your behalf.
And this is again, simply because of a certain mental attitude you have when you are patient, a little humble, a little accepting that other things of which you may not be aware of, in the larger play of events within which yours is a part, need to be carried through. This is more like when a teacher might notice the student who sits and waits patiently to have his question answered.
The opposite of the «squeaky wheel».
when a teacher might notice the student who sits and waits patiently to have his question answered
You have more faith in teachers than I do. Still, the «squeaky wheel» versus «proud nail» metaphors probably capture the essential difference between the cultures that came up with them as well as anything.
an action happening simply because you have that thought in your mind. As though an intelligence, over yours, recognizes it and then acts it on your behalf.
That reminds me of a conversation that Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra once had about «manifesting an apple.» To me, it seems perfectly likely that a thought in my mind can affect material reality. That is because, as I discussed in another thread, it seems to me very likely that material reality springs forth from consciousness rather than vise versa.
It explains a lot. For example, magic. You describe a patient mind as one that is conducive to magic, and Zen Master Taisen Deshimaru describes a similar state of mind resulting from the practice of fasting. In his limited English, or perhaps it was someone’s translation, he explains, «Supernatural powers are not so difficult. However, eat a little bit of food and you lose them.»
Anyway, I think it is logical to believe that a patient state of mind can make magic possible. That would make no sense if I thought that physical matter somehow came to life and evolved into us, but it makes perfect sense if I see all this stuff, this wonderland, as imagery being projected by consciousness.
Something completely different: Also, Eckhart Tolle mentions people who say to him that he seems so «patient,» and he says, «I don’t feel that I am being patient,» because he is forever enjoying the fulness of the present moment.
I too am a great believer in magic. After all, who among us hasn’t cast magic missile at a squirrel just to watch it jump? And how is one supposed to kill trolls without a good fireball spell? In fact, you might want to drop by your local cleric’s and see about picking up a «reverse insanity» scroll or two. Mighty useful spell, that.
Normally I would avoid engaging in purely scathing ridicule, but really, what else is one to do in these sorts of situations? There is no way to argue against magic, no rational arguments that can ever convince. Yet, saying nothing seems dangerous, because those who read your post might think you were being serious. Of course, I know that you are really just joking, that you have no intention, say, of jumping off of a fifty story building because you believe magic will allow you to float to the ground, or of drinking cyanide because you believe you can cast «antidote» on yourself, as in an 8-bit video game. But, even the brightest of American teens tend not to recognize that A Modest Proposal is satire. Who knows what insidious corrupting influence your seemingly innocent jest might have such people? Moreover, such «magic» as one finds today generally has its roots in the suggestibility of those who dabble in it, making such glib talk especially risky.
Surely there are enough psychological benefits to meditation, and to the practice of other rituals with their roots in eastern philosophy, that they can be easily defended without recourse to the supernatural?
I’m in good company: Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Anthony DeMello, Father Paul Cho, Rhonda Byrne, just to name a few.
All it is is being spiritual. What you are ridiculing is spirituality in general. All it is is believing in the possibility of something more than the simplicity on the surface of things. If you do not believe in anything «magic,» then you certainly cannot believe in continuing your experience after the body dies.
Like I explained before, in this reality NOTHING is as it seems. The world seems flat, and it is round. The planet seems motionless, but we all know that it is flying around in space. Even molecules consist of particles whizzing around in vast space.
And the only reason you are even here to refute my idea is because you magically found yourself here!
It’s pretty bold for someone who can’t explain his own existence to make fun of someone for considering all the possibilities. If you discovered that life really did work much like the way dreams work, you would not even be surprised!
But no! You can just go on scoffing at people who are starting to see through the illusion, and enjoy the smug satisfaction of playing the role of the scientific one!
But scientists have to come up with hypotheses to explain what they do not yet understand. You do not yet know the answer to th Big Question, but somehow you feel justified in making fun of… of… magic. You feel justified in making fun of my hypothesis about the Magic Origin of Things, even though you do not have a hypothesis of your own!
How can anyone who has appeared into this crazy reality not believe in magic. The very foundation of life in the universe is nothing short of magic. If you want to make a hypothesis that can bring us closer to an answer to the Big Question (i.e. about the magical beginning of life in the universe), then you have to talk in terms of things that are magic — even though some people will take advantage of the opportunity to make fun of you.
Oh, I have no objection to spirituality, to believing in something greater, for psychological comfort. As a psychological technique for clearing and focusing the mind, spirituality is very useful. What I object to is genuine belief, the sort that people kill for. A parent who prays for the recovery of a sick child is devout. A parent who refuses to take the child to the hospital because he believes God will magically heal her (or that the power of his prayer will) is criminally negligent and guilty of homicide. In fact, I was just reading about such cases when I read your earlier post, which probably accounts for much of the vehemence in my reply.
There is an old saying — if you talk to God, you are spiritual; if God talks to you, you are insane.
And really, if I’m wrong, I am at least easy to convince — just jump off of a fifty story building without a parachute or other technological aid and float safely to the ground using magic, and I’ll happily concede that magic exists, and that all of my previous posts were mistaken.
I have no objection to spirituality, to believing in something greater, for psychological comfort.
I do! Self-deception for the sake of comfort will not get me any closer to knowing the best use to make of my time as a human. I want no self-deception, only insight into the real magic that made life possible.
As a psychological technique for clearing and focusing the mind, spirituality is very useful.
Spirituality is reduced to a technique? Maybe you mean meditation. With meditation, I clear the mind to see if any insights come naturally, like memories of things long-forgotten — innate knowledge that some have experienced and called the «small, still voice of God.»
As for your criticism of spiritual «science» and stubbornness that compels people to deny their children medical care, I agree with you. It is just like something you said about not wanting to jump out a window and depend on magic. Bill Hicks once said (of a guy who thought he could fly and jumped out a window), «Why didn’t he try taking off from the ground first? You don’t see ducks lining up to take the elevator, do you?» ha ha…
So, I agree with you that self-deception is bad.
if you talk to God, you are spiritual; if God talks to you, you are insane.
How do you know this? This is exactly where you overstep your limitations. You found yourself alive in the world, and perhaps you encountered parents and other beings. If, in old age, you encounter even more beings during this crazy trip, those encounters will be no weirder than any of your other encounters.
As for proving the existence of magic, I’ll do something even more impressive than jumping off a building. I’ll simply point out that, in this reality in which energy cannot be created or destroyed, and in which matter cannot appear without cause out of nothingness, we are all spontaneously here.
Because of that, you have to accept the reality of «magic.» You have to accept the fact that there are forces at work that you do not understand. You don’t know exactly what to make of all this, but you do know one thing: Whatever the true nature of reality is, it’s is not what it seems!
You know that reality is fundamentally different from the cause-and-effect system proposed by material science… otherwise we would not be here! So, do not be surprised when you suddenly wake up to a reality that is completely different from the one you have gotten so accustomed to, so confident in.
So, you will not attempt to perform any acts of magic that put you at any risk should you fail, nor do you believe that people should be allowed to rely on magic to save their children when technology is available that could save them instead. Yet you claim to believe in magic? I see you have only been playing devil’s advocate, then, as your actions and other beliefs clearly indicate that your claim to believe in magic is some sort of jest. That’s a relief. As to the rest of your argument, I’m afraid it isn’t very convincing. All you have shown is that, at some point, several billion years ago, the laws of reality as we know them didn’t exist yet. This doesn’t prove that they somehow don’t really exist now. Just because we don’t know how something came about doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. If I see a plow rusting in the woods, I don’t say to myself, «I don’t know how the plow got here — it must not really exist at all.» Nor, when lightning strikes, do I say to myself. «I do not know how clouds could produce lightning, which is nothing at all like the clouds themselves. There are forces at work that I don’t understand. Clearly, lightning is a form of magic, or maybe an expression of the anger of gods.» Of course, for hundreds of thousands of years, people did think that, and worshiped sky gods, and had their buildings burnt flat by lighting strikes for their troubles. Then, someone thought that maybe lightning could be explained, and studied it. Now, buildings in areas prone to lightning strikes have lightning rods. The sky gods have no followers, but far fewer buildings burn.
Oh, man, I seriously am considering hitting you with a magic missile.
What you wrote… all good points. I am glad that you mentioned things like lightening, because it actually supports the point I have been trying to make. We call things «magic» when we do not understand them, and when we understand them we no longer call them magic. In the same way we figured out about lightening, we might figure out other things. That is WHY you should not make fun of my use of the word magic. We have to stay open to the possibilities.
By scoffing at the idea of magic, you reveal that you believe that nothing is possible that we do not already understand. It is easy to make fun of a little-kid word like magic, but admit that it is wrong to assume we know everything there is to know. If you agree with that, you «believe in magic.» I’m very serious about this.
The original point I was trying to make was that — and this is very fascinating to me — it is appropriate to use the word «magic.»
You can’t deny that the very foundation of this material universe defies our understanding.
As you mentioned, the fact that matter exists now proves that
at some point […] the laws of reality as we know them didn’t exist
Consider the implications of that!! That means that all this could change in crazy ways. It means that nothing is certain — not even death. In fact, there is no logical reason for us to even age!
Your experience might continue after the body dies. That sure would be «magic», but like you said, «magic» existed billions of years ago to form the very universe you are standing in. My original point was that, interestingly, «magic» is not a silly, little-kid word. This universe was founded on something inexplicable. «Something inexplicable» is a good definition for magic.
Can we agree that, if the laws of nature can change, that anything is possible? Can we agree that it is POSSIBLE that consciousness is more fundamental than matter and that, therefore, it is POSSIBLE that expectation can influence the unfolding of events? (although you may not agree that it is probable). Can we agree that it is POSSIBLE before we proceed?
And do you understand what I mean about the notion that consciousness may be more fundamental than matter?
We can certainly agree that it is possible. But is it possible in the way that say, it is possible that more people will post in this forum, or is it possible in the way that it is possible to win the lottery, or is it possible in the way that it is possible for a solid marble statue to wave at you? All three things are possible, but the last item is so improbable that we think of it as being impossible, and are justified in doing so. So, probability matters, because after a certain point, something can become so improbable that it essentially is impossible, given the constraints of time and space.
Also, it is possible that we are all brains in vats.
Hey, I just came back to the computer because I thought of your argument in a new way and wanted to say I respect everything you are saying. I looked at my posts from your perspective. Your comical responses (ridiculing my post) are exactly the way I would respond to, for example, people who would opt for magic over medicine for their kids.
We have been having two different discussions! Isn’t that always the way.
Anyway, you’ll have to wait til tomorrow when I will reveal the great significance of what you and I just agreed about: That it is possible that consciousness is more fundamental than matter. (you did not comment on that. Say something to let me know you know what I mean.)
Tomorrow I’ll make an argument that, at that time you mentioned (i.e. billions of years ago), it may have been CONSCIOUSNESS rather than MATTER that magically came into existence. I’ll make an argument that it is at least AS probable that consciousness is what came first. That would mean that your experience probably does not end when the body dies! So, stay tuned.
I said before that you clearly didn’t mean it when you said you believed in magic, because by your own admission you don’t act as if you do. Your general spiritual belief that consciousness is more fundamental than matter is a very reassuring one, as it helps you cope psychologically with your awareness of your own mortality. I respect that — we all have to come up with some way of dealing with it. I would argue, though, that doing so is, and should be, an act that involves cognitive dissonance. That is, it involves believing something in theory that we know in practice isn’t true. Or, we believe in it the same way we believe in the story of Icarus, as something whose literal truth is unimportant to its meaning. So, in some sense I do believe the story of Icarus, even though I know it isn’t true. When contemplating matters of courage versus arrogant foolishness, the story is meaningful and useful. When contemplating matters of aerodynamics and atmospheric realities, the story is rightfully ignored.
Some people, though, don’t believe in the spiritual and religious like this. They *really* believe, and so will let their children die, or blow themselves up, or do any of a thousand other crazy things, because they have chosen to accept the metaphorical and illusory as literal truth.
The discussion seems to have gone astray. I’m going to bring it back to the original question.
For a presentation such as this, the teacher wants simply to see that you can cogently express an understanding of both sides of the question. If you are still studying English, it will be especially important to keep it simple and not get distracted by questions such as how to define the MTV generation or whether patience is a virtue.
State simply and clearly two reasons why you believe the current generation has less patience. Then say «on the other hand,» and give one reason why that may not be true. For example, you might state that the internet has made students less willing to take the time to read whole books or that being able to shop online has made people more impatient when they have to wait in lines. As an opposing idea, you might raise the possibility that young people always seem impatient to their elders or that it is the nature of adolescence to want things quickly.
Next, take up each of your points in turn and explain it, giving details or examples from your own life.
Finally, restate your thesis, again stating the two reasons you think young people today are more impatient and the one reason that might not be true.
Because it is always complicated to give «for» and «against» arguments in the same presentation and because you are working in a second language, I think it will be most important for you to «keep it simple.» Good luck!
it involves believing something in theory that we know in practice isn’t true.
What!? This is just an elaborate way of saying, «no, I don’t believe that it could be consciousness that spontaneously came into existence instead of matter.»
But I am trying to get you to admit that it is equally probable that, when this explosion that is the universe «began», it was something being dreamed; I’m trying to get you to admit that, even though it seems at first glance like a spontaneously-existing material universe made conscious life forms possible, it is JUST AS PROBABLE that spontaneously existing consciousness made a dream of a material universe possible.
Do you have any argument against the assertion that they are equally probable? (We don’t know how matter & consciousness appeared in the universe, but as I said before, if matter spontaneously existed it would have to also somehow develop consciousness, whereas if consciousness spontaneously existed it would certainly have a dream.)
the teacher wants simply to see that you can cogently express an understanding of both sides of the question.
What came to mind for me was that, although the Internet and other technology diminish patience by providing quick answers and satisfaction, people also need to be patient in order to sit at the computer for hours each day. Is that something that might help you? Thanks, by the way, for starting this great conversation! Let’s see some of your writing, and we’ll help you improve it.
Do you have any argument against the assertion that they are equally probable?
Two, actually. First, the world behaves as if matter were primary. That is, we cannot bend reality to our will, as in the Matrix. Second, consciousness is merely a property of a certain type of matter, namely our brains. It seems to me that a property of matter has to come after matter, however it got started.
it will be especially important to keep it simple and not get distracted by questions such as how to define the MTV generation or whether patience is a virtue.
I would say that it is definitely easier to keep it simple if you first define your key terms in the introduction. I’m not sure how you could agree or disagree with the statement that «People of MTV generation have no patience.» without first deciding what was meant by «people of the MTV generation», and «patience.» For instance, does the prompt also apply to the millennial generation (1982-2001), which would presumably have been even more influenced by the Internet? Or was there something about those born just before that makes them more likely to suffer from a lack of patience than people born just after them? Notice that this question only arises if you research the term «MTV generation» and find out that it does not mean «kids today» but rather people born around 1980 or so, i.e. people who are now hitting 30.
I’m excited about the possibility that you are about to get the same great insight that I got from reading Dr. Chopra’s books. Your last response set the stage for me to perhaps finally explain this notion in a way that makes you see it in a new way. Here it is, below! I am excited about possibly changing your ideas about reality and convincing you of the possibility of something that can rightly be called an afterlife.
the world behaves as if matter were primary. That is, we cannot bend reality to our will, as in the Matrix. Second, consciousness is merely a property of a certain type of matter, namely our brains. It seems to me that a property of matter has to come after matter, however it got started.
You can’t bend dreams to your will either. Some dreams, like some lives, even become nightmares. Dreams are great examples to explain my argument, because they present us with situations where consciousness makes things seem to exist when they actually don’t. If there were no such thing as dreams, it would be very hard for me to explain myself in this discussion.
While you are saying that consciousness is a property of matter, I am saying that the reverse might be true. The apparent matter in a dream is a property of consciousness. We are consciousness existing. We are consciousness dreaming. There is no reason to expect that you should be able to bend the illusion to your will; the extent to which you can control the illusion is the extent to which you can see through it. Consciousness has created a dream for itself; otherwise it would not be conscious.
It seems that consciousness and material both exist in the universe. I’m saying that maybe ONLY consciousness exists.
The very point that I have been trying to make is that, if consciousness was primary, the world would still seem as though matter was primary. Do you agree? Obviously it SEEMS like matter makes consciousness possible; I’m saying that it would seem that way even if consciousness was primary. To me, it seems much more plausible that consciousness is primary. That means this dream might be followed by more dreams.
I grant your second point but not your first. I admit that the world might appear the same way if consciousness were primary, much the way the sun seems to revolve around the earth even though it doesn’t. However, I deny your assertion that we cannot bend dreams to our will. We most certainly can. Once you are aware that you are dreaming, you can do whatever you like in a dream. So, if you were to achieve a state of enlightenment through meditation, and were to become aware that consciousness were primary rather than matter, then you really should be able to leap off of tall buildings, or manifest an apple. That people don’t do these things, and fairly consistently, still therefore seems to me to be a strong case against your argument.
Also, what do you mean by consciousness? Because I thought that consciousness didn’t do anything. Our conscious minds don’t create dreams, for instance. For that matter, one could argue that consciousness is merely an artifact of intelligence. That is, an intelligent being will become conscious as a result of the exercise of its intelligence. However, the consciousness may not be a particular asset, or even useful for anything. It may even be a weakness, an unfortunate cost that must be paid for the really useful thing (intelligence) much as feces are the unfortunate by-product of our metabolic system, something we have to produce in order to get the really useful thing (energy). This seems to be a particularly good analogy, actually. So, why are you arguing that a phenomenon that, for all we can tell, is the mental equivalent of feces, should be treated as a primary force in the universe?
Once you are aware that you are dreaming, … then you really should be able to leap off of tall buildings, or manifest an apple.
Awesome! And part of my argument is that the possibilities may be unlimited for those of us who «become aware that we are dreaming.» In fact, my attitudes can even influence subsequent dreams. However, this is rare. It is rare for me to become aware that I am dreaming, just as it is rare for Buddhists and Daoists to experience the drastic change called enlightenment.
Most importantly, the higher level of awareness might be important for influencing what happens in the «afterlife.» Imagine how ironic it would be if indeed expectation influenced subsequent life-dreams. Then all the realistic people, the atheists, would end up being less pragmatic than even those people with blind faith. The people with blind faith have clear visions of their afterlife, and, if it is true that consciousness is fundamental and that reality is like a «projection»… well, you know what I mean.
The stakes are high! Maybe it DOES matter what you expect about «afterlife.» Isn’t that always the way?! Life is so ironic; it would be too simple if the realists were right! It just rings true to me that, perhaps, we are able to control «It.»
That people don’t do these things, and fairly consistently, still therefore seems to me to be a strong case against your argument.
Yep, there’s the rub. I am not trying to make my case seem stronger than it actually is. And yet, if this reality is so illusory, perhaps the real miracles and whatnot are things that take place within someone’s subjective experience. Moreover, there are many things that seem miraculous in real life, and oh my, does Deepak Chopra present great examples of miracle healings and phenomena. Gives me chills.
Yet, it is also true that we often deceive ourselves, and furthermore, as Buddhism continued to be practiced over the years, I am sure that much quackery existed in its ranks as well. But IF it is possible for me to control the dream in some way… or if it is possible for me to see through the illusion… well, I want to explore that possibility because I’ll do anything I can to have a chance at figuring out the answer to the Big Question.
I realy liked your description of how your experience of dreams transforms when you realize you are dreaming. That has only happened a few times in my life.
Also, what do you mean by consciousness?
You gave some interesting commentary about «consciousness.» the way I am using the word, it could be interchangeable with «intelligence.» I think you already know how I am using the word. I sure do not presume to be able to define it. I use the word «consciousness» to refer to «awareness» or «intelligence» that is not of the sort that depends on a brain.
Maybe that sounds silly to you, but I am using the word «consciousness» like the way I use the word dream — just as models for conveying a concept. Obviously, for you and me, we only know «consciousness» and «dreams» of the sort that depend on physical brains.
But I think you know what I mean by «consciousness» when I say «consciousness that may be more fundamental than matter.» The reason I think you know what I mean is because you talked about «brains in vats» and other notions that hint at the possibility that this material world might be illusory. What I mean by consciousness is a formless … well… consciousness that, if it spontaneously existed INSTEAD of the material reality that seems to spontaneously exist and become alive, would make things appear the way they do. Consciousness that would project a world of form.
Remember: If substance magically appeared, it would also have to magically become «alive» (i.e. conscious), but if it had been INTELLIGENCE that magically appeared, it would definitely have a «dream,» an experience.
Reflect on that, and you might start to feel confident in the possibility that you do not just become worm food when this body dies. I mean, I am a pretty smart person, and it really seems more plausible, rings more true, (but certainly not certain), that we are conscious ENTITIES that for some reason cannot fathom eternity, and so we are limited to «dreams» in which «death» seems to loom on the horizon. To me, it seems plausible that all this weird matter (molecules?! Come on! Obviously this is a dream! Stars?! Come on! Get real! and look at the sunset. I live at the ocean, and when I look at it I see a crazy kind of heaven, something that could only be dreamed up.)
So, if you had to bet fifty bucks, would you bet that your experience continues when the body dies? You may as well say yes, because if you bet against it and win, you won’t even be able to collect the money from me when the bet is settled. 🙂
I sure do not presume to be able to define it.
«consciousness that may be more fundamental than matter.»
Hmmmm . . . you want me to agree that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, but you cannot tell what consciousness is, nor do you have the ability to define it. Well, now, how about if I said to you, say, do you believe that glorschampf is better in a kitchen than set of knives? You might reply, what is glorschampf? And if I in turn said «I cannot explain it to you, or define the term, but I think you know what I mean»how then would you respond? Presumably, you would say something along the lines of «I know what knives are, and how they are used, and from my own experience can say that they are useful in the kitchen. As for this glorschampf, I do not know what you mean by it, and moreover, by your own admission, you do not what you mean by it. Not only can I not agree with your assertion, but I strongly suspect that it isn’t even a meaningful statement that I should take seriously.
Now, at the moment I see no difference between the circumstances in my example and the ones in our present circumstances. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you use the term «consciousness.» You said it was that which had dreams, yet argue that we rarely have conscious control of dreams. You say it is synonymous with intelligence, but I would have said that it seems rather to be a by-product of intelligence, and not a very useful one in many cases. Then you stated that any intelligence would dream, yet I see no reason why this should be, either. Since, by your own admission, you cannot define it yourself, I am not quite sure why you should think I can somehow define it for you, or that, if I could, my definition would be one you would agree with. If you want me to agree that consciousness can be more fundamental than matter, you are first going to have to explain to me what consciousness is. I suppose if anything, I would think of consciousness as the equivalent of software, and the brain as the equivalent of the hardware that runs it. I don’t understand how you could have software with no material medium to record it, or that could run itself without hardware, and it seems to me that this is what you are asking me to believe — that software came about and dreamt the hardware it needed to run into existence. I find that difficult to accept, for reasons that should be obvious.
I’m all for open discussion and intelligent conversation, in the appropriate time and place, but is that place in this thread?
Tangents can keep things interesting when they’re sparse and spontaneous; however, when you try forcefully as a rule, to get off point, and the posts in the thread no longer bear any resemblance to the mother post which birthed them, it’s not very fair to the person who has seen their request for advice/constructive criticism devolve into an inconsiderate, deviant slugfest of words.
We responded fully to both of the thread owner’s posts. The thread has since become a rather extended digression, I admit, but those of us participating are enjoying it, and the original poster has not been harmed. I could see your point if the person who opened the thread had posted an essay that got lost in the shuffle, but she didn’t — she merely gave the topic in her first post, then the instructions for the assignment in her second. You know how little help we generally give people who do that anyway. Usually, that sort of thing is followed by a comment to the effect of either «google the topic and do some research» or else «we’re not here to do the work for you. Try your best in a first draft and post it here.» Given that, I’d say that the conversation, before it got off-topic, probably got her more advice than she would otherwise have received without actually posting any of her own work for revision.
It’s possible that people who come to this site don’t know the way the site works, since the instructions aren’t to be found anwyhwere.
Why not add it somewhere that if you want the best possible experience, show up with some work in hand already (or whatever rule the owners of this site deem appropriate)?
That way, there would be no ambiguity about which threads are worth replying to, and which are not.
If you have the rules posted somewhere easy to see, and in a way that’s easy to read, I bet some people who would have originally posted with the instructions for their assignment and no more, will now make that first post with some workable material.
I don’t know how you’d exactly measure this, but I’m pretty sure that you’d see a statistically significant decline in «lazy threads» lets call them, if you were clear about what is expected of a person submitting for review/help.
If you don’t post those rules, and just «naturally» assume that a person is lazy or a slacker trying to get others to do his/her work, you are making a very speculative assumption.
Once you have the guidelines in plain view, you can rest a little easier in knowing that you at least gave it a shot.
Otherwise, I could be a person unfamiliar with English and taking a developmental English class; the teacher says we’re going to work on «essays» and to «keep an eye out for the instructions» — it’s not making much sense to me, so I bang out «Essay help» in google and on the second page, 8th link down, I find this site.
I don’t know much except that we are supposed to do something with essays, and these «instruction» words are especially important.
I type all that I know and I’m desperate for help, the internet being my last resort.
I hit «Post Reply» and I’m either redirected to google or given a half-hearted reply, which will soon degenerate into the product of a mentality that «why should we care — this person is a slacker — it shouldn’t matter that I wipe my cleats with this joke of a first post, since this person is not genuine about contributing some effort.»
In actuality you’ve spurned a really great person who is hopelessly lost when it comes to this foreign language «English», and how to write essays according to the rules that govern the same.
To be fair, the site’s purpose would seem to be self-evident, so much so that, in the very first FAQ section of the site (which isn’t that hard to find, btw) one of the students posted the following «The purpose of this site lies in its own name: essayforum. If you have an essay, you should post it here in order to receive comments.» Moreover, this category is called «Essay Writing Feedback,» which likewise suggests that one should post an essay here, in hopes of getting feedback on it.
Besides, we don’t spurn people who post «lazy» threads — we just tell them to research their topic, take their best shot at a draft, and post it here, which is advice I stand by. Many of them do this, and find the site quite useful. Some don’t, for whatever reason.
I would also venture to say that students who just post the instructions without even asking a question, or who just want someone to give them «ideas» or «arguments» are in fact being lazy. After all, if they know enough to track down this site using Google, then they know enough to be able to track down at least some ideas and arguments on their own. They may not realize they are being lazy, and there may be other factors involved, such as shyness, or fear of not expressing themselves well in a second language, but they have still got to make an effort to come up with something on their own if they want meaningful feedback. I don’t doubt that this is tougher for some than for others, but that doesn’t alter what is required one whit.
you want me to agree that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, but you cannot tell what consciousness is, nor do you have the ability to define it.
No, no, nevermind all that! You know it cannot be defined. Can a fish define water if it has no objective way of observing it?
It is not important for me to define consciousness. What is important is for us to have a common understanding of a certain concept, a notion: What if all this material seems to be real, not because it is «real» but because it is being projected by creative beings.
We do not know much for sure about reality, but we do know that creative, conscious beings exist. All this could be the virtual reality contrived by creative entities.
The point I wanted to make was that there is another possibility, a possibility other than the simple acceptance of Things as They Seem. As they seem, things suggest that our experience stops when the body dies. However, as Eckhart Tole wrote, «The dreamer is not the person. The person is part of the dream.»
As for this glorschampf, I do not know what you mean by it, and moreover, by your own admission, you do not what you mean by it.
Your face is a glorschampf.
Then you stated that any intelligence would dream, yet I see no reason why this should be, either.
Yes, well, like I said above, we do not know if any of this is real, but we do know that creative, conscious beings exist. While you are fussing over definitions, I am trying to make use of these words to convey an idea — one that is quite simple, actually: We know that conscious beings exist, and we know that they experience a world of form. What if the conscious beings are actually formless, timeless beings that project a world of form to serve as the
hardware it needed to run into existence.
I mean, if it is possible for material to spontaneously start existing, and if it is possible for it to «come to life» like Frosty the Snowman, then surely it is possible for formless, timeless beings to «dream up» experiences in a world of form.
Again, it is entirely possible that our experience stops when we die, but I just wanted to point out this other possibility. To me, this notion has the ring of truth.
This ranting «slugfest» inspired me to read Hawkings’ A Brief History of Time, and on page 18 he mentions that a philosopher named Berkely believed all objects in space and time to be illusions. He must have gotten the same insights I got. Another philosopher, Johnson, represented in this thread by Sean, said, «I refute it thus,» and he stubbed his toe on a stone.
Ha ha. Of course all this is «real.» It’s as real as anything in a world where everything is fleeting, fading, impermanent forms.
Did beings collectively create the world, or did the world make life forms possible? Whatever the case may be, we know that our ability to understand ultimate reality is limited. My guess is that conscious beings dream up worlds of form, and apparently they do not fully understand it. They have no objective view of it, just as fish have no objective views of water.
What if all this material seems to be real, not because it is «real» but because it is being projected by creative beings.
But the very phrase creative beings implies that they are made of matter. That is, «being» implies a physical existence. Reality might be a matrix-like illusion, but the illusion must ultimately run on some physical reality that isn’t.
While you are fussing over definitions, I am trying to make use of these words to convey an idea
But how do expect to use words to do that if you do not first establish what the words mean?
Your face is a glorschampf.
Another philosopher, Johnson, represented in this thread by Sean, said, «I refute it thus,» and he stubbed his toe on a stone.
Oh, no. If it had been me, I would have said, «I refute it thus,» then knocked Berkley over the head with the stone. Since the stone, and his head, are both merely illusions, he would have had no reason to protest.
Ha ha, well, the thing about definitions is that… they are imperfect. Words are imperfect SYMBOLS for things, and some words symbolize concepts, so…
James Mitose said, «Words are a difficult means of communication.»
Anyway, my issue is that some realistic, science-loving intellectuals dismiss all ideas of an afterlife as a bunch of self-deception and hogwash. I have been trying to find the right words to convey the idea that THIS present-life, with red-orange sunsets and weird creatures, is just as far-fetched as the idea of an after-life. My reasoning is sort of like, «Wow, after seeing my spontaneous existence in this strange, inexplicable wonderland, I’ll believe just about anything!»
I heard a story about a mystic who asked, «Why are you believing this rumor about death?» ha ha!! a rumor…
Being so realistic and clear thinking, if before you experienced life as a human I had suggested to you that life forms could appear in an otherwise empty universe, you would not have believed it. Would you really be that surprised if, on your death bed, this dream spilled into another dream? Would you really be surprised if, after your body and mind change in the next 10 years, a memory of previous lives started to come back to you? In a reality this zany, anything can happen.
Add to that the fact that, for many people, reality may well have transformed completely from their subjective points of view, and they would not even have been able to explain it in a way the rest of us could believe or understand! (see the above rant about the limitations of language).
All the phenomena that you can talk about realistically, and the facts that make it seem as though your experience will end when the body dies… they all depend on the notion that matter came before consciousness and made consciousness possible.
If we define consciousness as «awareness», there would need to be something to be aware of. You say there can be no consciousness without matter to be aware of, so matter must have come first. I say there can be no consciousness without matter to be aware of, so consciousness would certainly have dreamed up a world of matter.
Anyway, my issue is that some realistic, science-loving intellectuals dismiss all ideas of an afterlife as a bunch of self-deception and hogwash.
I read somewhere that people generally tend to want to believe in an afterlife because they can’t imagine not existing anymore. So, when they think of death as not leading to an afterlife, they imagine themselves sliding, not into oblivion, but into a state where they continue to exist as floating disembodied in darkness forever. If that were what death as oblivion really meant, then any conception of a different afterlife would be better than that. But that isn’t what oblivion means. Oblivion means complete cessation of consciousness, of all pain, sadness, anxiety, etc. It’s not really something to be afraid of. In fact, I think most people fear the pain of dying, rather than death itself. So, I suppose, I have no psychological investment in the idea of an afterlife, and it is a difficult concept to believe in without that.
I say there can be no consciousness without matter to be aware of, so consciousness would certainly have dreamed up a world of matter.
But, consciousness could not have existed to dream up a world of matter unless matter already existed, if in fact it is true that there can be no consciousness without matter.
Well, yes, no consciousness without matter. But SOMETHING began to exist without having been caused. Some people believe all this was created by a god, but then you must try to fathom how the god came into existence. Was it matter or consciousness that spontaneously came into existence? That is the real question. But I’m getting repetitive now with that point.
My crazy quest has been to convince you that it is actually not far fetched to think that an afterlife is a possibility. Dawkins and Bill Maher and others who point out certain silliness inadvertently cause many people to group «afterlife» together with «god-concepts.» Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say.
There is a rumor, you know, that meditation practitioners sometimes experience a sudden change in their experience of reality, a sudden «enlightenment» that leaves them actually experiencing one wholeness, experiencing themselves not as the separate, dying person but as everything-all-at-once.
I would like to suddenly see through this illusion that makes me think I am a separate, slowly dying individual. It would be great to suddenly «remember» my existence independent of the person.
Hmmm . . . let’s try a different approach.
Is reality more fundamental than illusion? For instance, can we trust our sense more often than not? If I see a car coming down the road, it could be an actual car, or it could be a mirage or an hallucination. Now, which is it more likely to be — an actual car, or a mirage? I don’t know about you, but most of the cars I have seen, and bothered to test, have been real, rather than mirages and hallucinations. So, let us assume, then, that, if you are being honest rather than playing devil’s advocate, that you will admit that the number of real cars we encounter is much greater than the number of illusory ones.
Not being Socrates, I won’t make us go through the same example only with computers, tables, chairs, horses, and the like. I’ll just go with the idea that reality is more fundamental than illusion.
Now, which is more common — to experience yourself as a separate, slowly dying individual, or to experience yourself as being at one with everything? As you attribute the latter to something that only occurs during periods of extensive mediation, and as I assume you spend more time not meditating than meditating, then I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you will be forced to answer that you more often experience yourself as a separate person than as one with the universe. So, which, then, is more likely to be real and which the illusion?
Put another way, you are saying that for some reason, our perceptions are all wrong and misguided. This is certainly possible, but it seems exceedingly unlikely. The only reasonable scenario that would permit for this would be if we were being deliberately deceived, as by Descartes demon or the computer from the Matrix. And even then, the deceiver would have to possess most of the attributes you claim are illusory in our case, to be able to perpetrate the deception.
That is quite an interesting statement.
Indian philosophy offers an explanation here. That unlikely as it appears, deliberate deception is precisely the intention. And the deciever is Maya. It has three qualities and everything — everything other than consciousness is Maya, and it’s three qualities.
The moot point being that Maya, cannot be understood, since our minds too are only it’s components. Depending on what we may be talking about, the definitions of these qualities come across a shade different. The actuality of things, is the Satva quality. Our extrapolations, is the Rajas quality of our minds. The last, negative and dark, is Tamas.
It is the first, the actuality of things which we want to be most concerned with. We seek the light and Satva, also interpreted as truth, is the way. Though it isn’t itself consciousness — that being us.
I know all this adds up only to definitions and in no way explains anything; but one way I think about this is that, quite independently you’ve come to a definition which is a fundamental concept in another philosophy. It’s like coming up to a door and not going in.
Could you explain Maya in more detail? I am uncertain of how you intend this concept to be interpreted. Is Maya supposed to be a god, or the universe itself, or some combination of both? And is Maya conscious? If so, why would Maya choose to be deceptive? If not, how does Maya arise so to create a situation in which there are conscious beings who are deceived by the world around them?
Vague terror, ha ha. Yes indeed. Dull terror. Frantic, an existential emergency.
Ha ha, so, you keep asking what the Big Question is, but that remark revealed that you know what it is, the Question I’m talking about.
How silly: A kid grows up being told about Old Testament stuff and going through rituals at church, and then s/he grows older and finds it all to be silly. Disillusioned, the kid asserts his/her atheism. Having taken on «atheism» as part of the developing identity, the kid disregards the Big Question.
My brother went through that common process, and he said he gets annoyed when people even talk about the Big Question. «Why talk about what can’t be known?» he asks, exasperated, but how does he know it can’t be known?
Haven’t you ever tried to remember something, but you couldn’t, and then it suddenly came back to you? Thre are unanswered questions in this reality, and life is long… you may yet remember something!!!
And I heard a rumor that meditation leads to certain transformation.
But what I still want to emphasize is that the question of whether or not there is a spaghetti monster and the question of whether or not our experience continues after this body dies are two different questions.
I agree with you that some people are silly to believe certain fairy tales. BUT for a long time I’ve been arguing that it is possible for our experience to continue after the body dies. What do you think?
Work in small groups. Prepare your ideas on one of the topics below and then discuss it together. Use the expressions in Speak Out. — Работайте небольшими группами
Подготовьте свои идеи по одной из тем ниже, а затем обсудите их вместе. Используйте выражения в разделе Выскажитесь.
1. The MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction. — У поколения MTV нет терпения. Они хотят мгновенного удовлетворения.
2. Imagination without skill gives us modern art. (Tom Stoppard) — Воображение без мастерства дает нам современное искусство. (Том Стоппард)
One of my good friends recently expressed to me his concern with the narrow-minded fixation of a large sector of our society on pop-culture. It’s time to take a stand against it, he suggested. While I understand his frustration, I wonder if it’s an issue that can actually be fought at a grass-roots level.
The pop-culture that has been spoon-fed to the MTV Generation is not easily shrugged off. It is more than a simple channel broadcast to a single segment of the population. Pop-culture is the product of well-researched marketing married to group psychology.
The media, like every other venture, is about making money. Individual journalists and entertainers may feel that the value of the media is its artistic expression, but owners and shareholders care mainly about profit gains and less about art. And it can be no other way, as companies run by nonchalant do-gooders are pushed aside by unscrupulous tycoons because that’s the reality of life.
In a society where freedom of opinion and expression are valued to the point of being worshipped, the pop-culture syndrome we find today is almost inevitable—since the people willing to speak what they want in a way that the public generally wants to hear it is going to thrive. The irony is that the so-called freedom of speech and opinion quickly gets gobbled up into a form of promoting anything and everything that humans want while making it ever more difficult for the public to find a desire to seriously address the important issues facing society.
It takes a simple example to illustrate this: What percentage of young adults spend time watching national news during any given day… and what percentage of those same young adults spend time during those same given days sitting in front of the television watching MTV and Entertainment Tonight (or other like programs)?
We ought to feel a sense of satisfaction that we live in a free society where we have the rights to speak and hear anything we wish. However, we ought also understand that a sense of responsibility comes with that freedom. Just because I have the right to watch whatever I want whenever I want, I do myself no good by saturating my time with unproductive programs that do little more than offer instantaneous self-gratification while giving me a false sense of incompleteness in my life—many pop-culture programs mislead viewers into thinking that they are entitled to «the good life” just because they happen to be alive.
I am in no way endorsing the suppression of the freedom of press. Far from it. What I am endorsing is a that people understand the need for moderation and variety. Watching MTV isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But watching MTV for hours a day, several days a week, is a bad thing. The same for any other media-outlet for pop-culture. Doing so can only narrow your mind and suppress your ability to appreciate the variety of art and human subjects available in our world.
Publishers and network executives understand the appetite of the MTV Generation. They feel they are only giving the public what it wants. But they are only seeing a part of the picture—they fail to see (or actively ignore) the side where their products often influence the public to further feed on their shows and magazines. In a way, pop-culture is an addictive drug. And it’s a drug that many young people cannot escape—they find pop-culture magazines at the checkout lanes in all stores; they hear pop-music every time they turn on the radio; pop-culture blares from nearly every channel on their TV. It’s on billboards as they drive down the roads.
Pop-culture is a marketing machine, one meant to capture people who have yet to fortify their inner selves with enough character to fight instincts. And once hooked, people have no desire to break free. The evidence is there every time you go to a checkout lane in your local grocery store—notice how much room there is for tabloid magazines devoted to the sex lives of celebrities, and notice how many substantive publications you find like National Geographic.
I have no deep answer to this issue. I doubt you can convince too many people to change their lifestyles. My only answer is that I try to keep my kids away from pop-culture as much as possible. I know they are going to run into it in their lives… but my hope is that by the time they become adults, they will already see past it as a ploy to get their money and enslave their lives in the guise of «freedom of expression».
OBRAZOVALKA.COM — образовательный портал
Наш сайт это площадка для образовательных консультаций, вопросов и ответов для школьников и студентов .
На вопросы могут отвечать также любые пользователи, в том числе и педагоги.
Консультацию по вопросам и домашним заданиям может получить любой школьник или студент.
Вербицкая М. В. Forward. Английский язык для 10 класса. Unit 6 It’s showtime! – Шоу начинается!
Read, listen and talk about culture and entertainment. — Читайте, слушайте и говорите о культуре и развлечениях.
Practise indirect questions. — Практика косвенных вопросов.
Focus on participating in conversations. — Сосредоточьтесь на участии в разговорах.
Write a film review. — Напишите обзор фильма.
A) Woman: Excuse me, sorry to bother you, but 2. do you happen to know where the toilets are? This place is so big and I can’t find them. — Извините, что беспокою вас, но вы случайно не знаете, где находятся туалеты? Это место так велико, и я не могу их найти.
Jens: Erm … yes, it’s very big. — Эмм … да, оно очень большое.
Woman: No, I mean, do you know where the toilets are? — Нет, я имею в виду, ты знаешь, где находятся туалеты?
Jens: Sorry? — Извините?
Woman: Where are the toilets? — Где туалеты?
Jens: Oh, the toilets. No, I don’t know. — О, туалеты. Нет, я не знаю.
B) Man: Excuse me, 3. do you think I could have a look at your programme? — Простите, как вы думаете, я мог бы взглянуть на вашу программу?
Jens: Good? Er … Oh, yes, … sure … . It is a good programme. — Хорошо? Э-э … О, да, … конечно …. Это хорошая программа.
Man: Yes, but, could I have a look at your programme? — Да, но я мог бы взглянуть на вашу программу?
Jens: Oh, yes, of course. Here you are. — Да, конечно. Вот.
C) Jens: Could you give me change for a £ 20 note? — Не могли бы вы дать мне сдачу с банкноты в 20 фунтов стерлингов?
Girl: No, sorry, I can’t. — Нет, извините, я не могу.
Jens: Thanks anyway. Eh, excuse me, 4. I wonder if you could give me change for a twenty-pound note, please. I need it for the drinks machine. — Спасибо, в любом случае. Эх, извините, интересно, можете ли вы дать мне сдачу с двадцати фунтов, пожалуйста. Мне нужно это для машины с напитками.
Man: I think so … yes, here you are. — Я думаю … да, вот.
Jens: Thanks. — Спасибо.
D) Jens: Excuse me, 1. do you know how much it costs to get in? — Извините, знаете ли вы, сколько стоит вход?
Sharon: It’s free. — Это бесплатно.
Jens: Really? That’s great. — Правда? Замечательно.
Sharon: Where are you from? Your English is really good. — Откуда вы? Ваш английский действительно хорош.
Jens: Thanks, I’m from Denmark. My name is Jens. Would you mind telling me what your name is? — Спасибо, я из Дании. Меня зовут Йенс. Не могли бы вы сказать мне, как зовут вас?
Sharon: I’m Sharon … — Я Шарон …
GRAMMAR AND SPEAKING
Ex. 1 You are visiting a capital city. In groups, decide what you would like to do from the list below. — Вы посещаете столицу. В группах решите, что вы хотели бы сделать из списка ниже.
• Museums (science, fashion, history) — Музеи (наука, мода, история)
• Art galleries (traditional, modern) — Художественные галереи (традиционные, современные)
• Live music (pop/rock, jazz, classical) — Живая музыка (поп / рок, джаз, классика)
• Theatre (comedy, drama, opera) — Театр (комедия, драма, опера)
Ex. 2 Work in pairs. Look at the photos and read dialogues A-D. Which of the cultural activities in Exercise 1 is Jens enjoying? — Работайте парами. Посмотрите на фотографии и прочитайте диалоги A-D. Каким из культурных мероприятий в Упражнении 1 наслаждается Йенс?
Ex. 3 Complete dialogues A-D with sentences 1-4. Then listen and check. — Дополните диалог A-D предложениями 1-4. Затем послушайте и проверьте.
D-1. do you know how much it costs to get in — Знаете ли вы, сколько стоит вход
A-2. do you happen to know where the toilets are — Знаете ли вы, где находятся туалеты?
B-3. do you think I could have a look at your programme — Как вы думаете, я мог бы взглянуть на вашу программу
C-4. I wonder if you could give me change for a twenty-pound note — Интересно, можете ли вы дать мне сдачу с двадцати фунтов
Work it out
Ex. 4 Match direct questions a-d with indirect questions 1-4 in Exercise 3. — Сопоставьте прямые вопросы a-d с косвенными вопросами 1-4 в Упражнении 3.
2-a Where are the toilets? — Где туалеты?
3-b Could I have a look at your programme? — Могу ли я взглянуть на вашу программу?
4-с Could you give me change for a twenty- pound note? — Не могли бы вы дать мне сдачу двадцати фунтов?
1-d How much does it cost to get in? — Сколько стоит войти?
Check it out
Indirect questions — Косвенные вопросы
We use indirect questions to be more polite and hesitant when we — Мы используем косвенные вопросы, чтобы быть более вежливыми и нерешительными, когда мы:
• ask someone to do something for us; — попросим кого-то сделать что-то для нас;
• want to find out some information. — хотим узнать какую-то информацию.
With indirect questions we use — С косвенными вопросами мы используем:
• affirmative word order; — утвердительный порядок слов;
• if/whether with yes/no questions; — слова if/whether в общих вопросах.
• when, where, what with wh- questions; — вопросительные слова when, where, what в специальных вопросах.
• introductory phrases such as — вводные фразы, такие как: Do you think — Как вы думаете /I wonder — Интересно/ Do you know — знаете ли вы /Do you happen to know – вы случайно не знаете/ I don’t know — Я не знаю /I’d like to know — я хотел бы знать /Are you sure — Ты уверен /Can anyone tell me — Может ли кто-нибудь сказать мне /Could you tell me — Не могли бы вы сказать мне /Would you mind telling me — Не могли бы вы рассказать мне /Have you any idea — У вас есть идея /Do you remember? — Вы помните?
Ex. 5 Write indirect questions. Use the questions and the phrases in brackets to help you. — Напишите косвенные вопросы. Используйте вопросы и фразы в скобках, чтобы помочь вам.
1. What are they talking about? — Have you any idea what they are talking about? — О чем они говорят? — У вас есть идеи, о чем они говорят?
2. Was it really a good idea to give Shirley singing lessons? — I wonder if it was really a good idea to give Shirley singing lessons? — Было ли действительно хорошей идеей давать уроки по пению Ширли? — Интересно, было ли это действительно хорошей идеей, чтобы дать Ширли уроки пения?
3. How does it finish? — Can anyone tell me how it finishes? — Как это заканчивается? — Может ли кто-нибудь сказать мне, как это заканчивается?
4. Have we come to the right place? — Are you sure we have come to the right place? — Пришли ли мы в нужное место? — Ты уверен, что мы пришли в нужное место?
5. Why did Juliet kill herself? — I’d like to know why Juliet killed herself? — Почему Джульетта убила себя? -Я хотел бы знать, почему Джульетта убила себя?
Ex. 6 Work in pairs. Match two of the indirect questions in Exercise 5 to the cartoons below. — Работайте парами. Сопоставьте два из косвенных вопросов в упражнении 5 с приведенными ниже мультфильмами.
Ex. 7 Write indirect questions. Use the questions and the phrases in brackets. Then listen and check. — Напишите косвенные вопросы. Используйте вопросы и фразы в скобках. Затем послушайте и проверьте.
1. Could you do me a favour? — Do you think you could do me a favour? — Можете ли вы сделать мне одолжение? -Ты думаешь, что сможешь сделать мне одолжение?
2. Could you wake me up in an hour? — I wonder if you could wake me up in an hour? — Не могли бы вы разбудить меня через час? — Интересно, вы могли бы разбудить меня через час?
3. Why do we go out together? — I’ve no idea why we go out together? — Почему мы собираемся вместе? — Я понятия не имею, почему мы вместе?
4. What did we do in the last class? — Do you remember what we did in the last class? — Что мы делали на последнем уроке? — Ты помнишь, что мы делали на последнем уроке?
5. When do we use indirect questions? — Could you tell me when we use indirect questions? — . Когда мы используем косвенные вопросы? — Не могли бы вы рассказать мне, когда мы используем косвенные вопросы?
6. What time is it? — Do you know what time it is? — Сколько сейчас времени? — Ты знаешь сколько время?
Ex. 8 In pairs, complete the indirect questions with the words in brackets. — В парах напишите косвенные вопросы со словами в скобках.
1. In a cinema. Ask the ticket seller about the finishing time of the film you want to see. — I wonder if you could tell me what time the film finishes. — В кинотеатре. Спросите продавца билетов о времени окончания фильма, который вы хотите увидеть. — Интересно, можете ли вы рассказать мне, в какое время фильм заканчивается.
2. In a restaurant. Ask the waiter for some salt. — Do you think you could bring me some salt? — В ресторане. Спросите у официанта соль. — Как вы думаете, вы могли бы принести мне немного соли?
3. In an art gallery. Ask an attendant for directions to the Renaissance section. — Could you tell me where the Renaissance section is? — В художественной галерее. Спросите помощника о дороге в раздел «Возрождение». — Не могли бы вы рассказать мне, где находится раздел «Возрождение»?
4. At home. The film has already started. Ask about the action so far. — Would you mind telling me what action has happened? — Дома. Фильм уже начался. Спросите о действии, что происходили до сих пор. — Не могли бы вы сказать мне, что произошло?
5. In an English class. Ask if anyone knows Shakespeare’s birthplace. — Can anyone tell me where Shakespeare was born? – На уроке английского. Спросите, знает ли кто-нибудь место рождения Шекспира. — Может ли кто-нибудь сказать мне, где родился Шекспир?
Ex. 9 In pairs, roleplay the conversation. Use indirect questions. Student A, look at page 118. Student B, look at page 119. — В парах разыграйте разговор. Используйте косвенные вопросы. Студент A, посмотрите на странице 118. Студент B, посмотрите на стр. 119.
Student A, follow the instructions. — Студент A, следуйте инструкциям.
You are a foreign student in London. You’re waiting in a queue to buy theatre tickets. You have a newspaper. The person in front of you has a theatre guide to What’s on in London. — Вы — иностранный студент в Лондоне. Вы ждете в очереди, чтобы купить билеты в театр. У вас есть газета. У человека перед вами есть руководство по театру о том, что идет в Лондоне.
• Ask him/her if you can borrow his/her theatre guide. — Спросите его / ее, можете ли вы взять его / ее театральный гид.
• Accept his/her request and find out if there is a student discount on theatre tickets. — Примите его / ее запрос и выясните, есть ли студенческая скидка на билеты в театр.
• Find out his/her name and where he/she is from and ask him/her what play he/she is going to buy tickets for. — Узнайте ее/его имя и место, откуда он или она, и спросите его, на какую пьесу он или она собирается купить билеты.
You start the conversation. — Вы начинаете разговор.
Student B, follow the instructions. — Студент B, следуйте инструкциям.
You are a foreign student in London. You are waiting in a queue to buy theatre tickets. You have a theatre guide to What’s on in London. The person behind you in the queue starts talking to you. — Вы — иностранный студент в Лондоне. Вы ждете в очереди, чтобы купить билеты в театр. У вас есть руководство по театру о том, что идет в Лондоне. Человек, стоящий за вами в очереди, начинает разговаривать с вами.
• Accept his/her request and ask him/her to lend you his/her newspaper. — Примите его / ее просьбу и попросите его одолжить вам его/ее газету.
• Tell him/her there is a discount for students. Then find out his/her name and where he/she is from. — Скажите ему, что у студентов есть скидка. Затем узнайте его / ее имя и откуда он.
• Explain that you want to see the musical I love life! and invite him/her to go to the theatre with you. — Объясните, что вы хотите увидеть мюзикл Я люблю жизнь! И пригласите его / ее пойти в театр вместе с вами.
Student A starts the conversation. — Студент А начинает разговор.
READING AND VOCABULARY
Ex. 1 Work in pairs. Look at the photos, the fact box and the newspaper extract and answer the questions. Use Speak Out on page 29 to help you. — Работайте парами. Посмотрите фотографии, блок фактов и газетный отрывок и ответьте на вопросы. Используйте раздел Выскажитесь на стр. 29, чтобы помочь вам.
1. What issue does the material deal with? — С какими проблемами связан материал?
2. How is the information in the fact box and in the newspaper article related to the photos? — Как информация в блоке фактов и в газетной статье связана с фотографиями?
3. What kind of damage can hurricanes cause? — Какого рода ущерб могут нанести ураганы?
4. How can we help people who have suffered natural disasters? — Как мы можем помочь людям, пострадавшим от стихийных бедствий?
5. There appear to be more natural disasters than before. Why could that be? — По-видимому, сейчас больше стихийных бедствий, чем раньше. Почему это может быть?
Ex. 2 Read the article on page 53 quickly and choose the most appropriate title. — Быстро прочитайте статью на странице 53 и выберите наиболее подходящий заголовок.
a Disaster in New Orleans — Катастрофа в Новом Орлеане
b We will survive — Мы выживем
с The show must go on — Шоу должно продолжаться
Monday, 29 August 2005
Hurricane Katrina Hits New Orleans
Hurricane Katrina has hit New Orleans with winds of 200 kilometres per hour. The levees which protect the city have broken and the waters of Lake Pontchartrain are pouring through the streets. Large areas of the city have been flooded and emergency services are looking for survivors.
Понедельник, 29 августа 2005 г.
Ураган Катрина достигла Новый Орлеан
Ураган «Катрина» попал в Новый Орлеан со скоростью 200 километров в час. Дамбы, которые защищают город, сломались, и воды озера Понтчартрен полились по улицам. Большие районы города были затоплены, а службы скорой помощи ищут выживших.
Ex. 3 Read the article again. Are the statements true or false? Listen and check. — Прочтите статью еще раз. Являются ли утверждения истинными или ложными? Послушай и проверь.
F-1. One week after Hurricane Katrina everyone had left New Orleans. — Через неделю после урагана Катрина все покинули Новый Орлеан.
T-2. The writer compares Katrina to a bomb. — Писатель сравнивает Катрину с бомбой.
F-3. By February 2006 most of the inhabitants of New Orleans had returned home. — К февралю 2006 года большинство жителей Нового Орлеана вернулись домой.
T-4. Not everyone agreed it was a good idea to celebrate Mardi Gras so soon after Katrina. — Не все согласились, что было бы неплохо отпраздновать Марди Гра (Масленица) сразу после Катрины.
F-5. There were no references to the Hurricane in the parades. — В парадах не было ссылок на ураган.
T-6. The author is impressed by the reaction of the people of New Orleans to the disaster. — Автор впечатлен реакцией народа Нового Орлеана на катастрофу.
Ex. 4 Put these words from the text in the correct categories. — Поместите эти слова из текста в правильные категории.
artist – художник, audience – аудитория, band – группа, concert – концерт, drawings – рисунки, exhibition – выставка, festival – фестиваль, frames – кадры, galleries – галереи, group – группа, guitarist – гитарист, play (n) – пьеса, performance – выступление, playwright – драматург, portraits – портреты, sculptor – скульптор, sculptures – скульптуры, songwriter – автор песен, stage – сцена, venue — место встречи
Ex. 5 Work in pairs. What kinds of music are mentioned in the text? Can you think of any more? Make a list and compare it with another pair’s. — Работайте парами. Какие виды музыки упоминаются в тексте? Вы можете больше придумать? Составьте список и сравните его с другой парой.
New Orleans, Louisiana — Новый Орлеан, Луизиана
• 1718 — New Orleans is founded by the French. — 1718 — Новый Орлеан основан французами.
• 1803 — Napoleon sells Louisiana to the USA for about $15 million. — 1803 — Наполеон продает Луизиану США примерно за 15 миллионов долларов.
• 1838 — The first Mardi Gras takes place. — 1838 — Первый Марди Гра (Масленица).
• About 1900 — a new style of music is born — jazz! — Около 1900 года — новый стиль музыки рождается — джаз!
• Many famous musicians such as Louis Armstrong and Lenny Kravitz were born in New Orleans. — Многие знаменитые музыканты, такие как Луи Армстронг и Ленни Кравиц, родились в Новом Орлеане.
• Population of New Orleans — Население Нового Орлеана:
— August 2005, before Hurricane Katrina — 484,000. — август 2005 года, до урагана Катрина — 484 000 человек.
— February 2006 — almost 200,000. — февраль 2006 года — почти 200 000.
New Orleans. Tuesday, 28 February 2006
I went to New Orleans only a week after Hurricane Katrina. Many streets were still under water and the city was a sad and lonely place. There was no music to be heard, only the sound of helicopters as rescuers searched for survivors. More than a thousand people had died. Tens of thousands had lost their homes. Perhaps four hundred thousand had fled.
The devastation was terrible: street after street of ruined houses and wrecked cars, dirty refrigerators under rotting trees. The city that many considered to be the most beautiful in North America looked as though it had been hit by a neutron bomb.
Six months later and it’s Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Mardi Gras is French for Fat Tuesday and it’s the culmination of twelve days of parties and parades. A celebration of life, food and fun. The city is full of people in masks and costumes, spectacular floats drive along the streets, jazz bands play outside grocery stores. Music has returned to New Orleans.
There are not as many people as usual but that’s hardly surprising. Less than half the population has returned home since Katrina and much of the city is still a disaster zone. What might seem surprising is that there is anyone celebrating at all. Samuel Spears, a refugee in Houston, is angry, ‘I can’t go home, but they can have a parade? That’s ridiculous!’ However, Rob Clemenz, a lawyer wearing a clown costume, believes that the festivities will help the city to recover. ‘We have to laugh. We need joy.’
(отрывок из текста)
Новый Орлеан. Вторник, 28 февраля 2006 г.
Я отправился в Новый Орлеан только через неделю после урагана Катрина. Многие улицы все еще были под водой, и город был грустным и одиноким местом. Не было музыки, которую можно было услышать, только звук вертолетов, когда спасатели искали выживших. Скончалось более тысячи человек. Десятки тысяч людей потеряли свои дома. Возможно, четыреста тысяч бежали.
Разрушение было ужасным: улица за улицей разрушенных домов и разрушенных машин, грязных холодильников под гниющими деревьями. Город, который многие считали самым красивым в Северной Америке, выглядел так, будто он был поражен нейтронной бомбой.
Шесть месяцев спустя, была Марди Гра в Новом Орлеане. Марди Гра является французским названием для Жирного Вторника, и это является кульминацией двенадцати дней вечеринок и парадов. Празднование жизни, еды и веселья. Город полон людей в масках и костюмах, захватывающие телеги едут по улицам, джазовые группы играют за пределами продуктовых магазинов. Музыка вернулась в Новый Орлеан.
Не так много людей, как обычно, но это не удивительно. Менее половины населения вернулись домой, так как Катрина и большая часть города по-прежнему являются зоной бедствия. Что может показаться удивительным, так это то, что кто-то вообще празднует. Сэмюэл Спирс, беженец в Хьюстоне, злится: «Я не могу идти домой, а у них может быть парад? Это смешно!» Однако Роб Клеменц, адвокат в костюме клоуна, считает, что торжества помогут городу оправиться. «Мы должны смеяться. Нам нужна радость».
Катрина не была забыта на парадах.
Есть люди с шляпами, которые похожи на штормовые крыши, а другие с грязными линиями на брюках, как наводнения по сторонам их домов, и группа, одетая как слепые с тростями и темными очками. На их майках находятся слова «инспектор дамбы».
Но в Новом Орлеане есть больше, чем Марди Гра. Поэт-песенник Боб Дилан однажды сказал, что Новый Орлеан — это стихотворение. Это город культуры, город искусства, и музыка в его сердце. Это место рождения джаза и дом замечательного сочетания фанка, R’n’B, кантри, регги и хип-хопа.
Французский квартал снова оживлен. На одной стороне улицы рок-группа играет концерт, с другой — блюз-певец дает представление, чтобы заставить вас плакать, и на сцене в зале Кленовый Лист джазовый гитарист держит свою аудиторию. Художники продают рисунки и портреты без рам на улицах. Скульптор собрал обломки разбитых зданий и использовал их, чтобы сделать фантастические скульптуры в парке. Десять художественных галерей в Складском районе недавно провели четырехдневную выставку, чтобы показать, что они снова заняты делом.
И это не остановится на Марди Гра. В конце марта проходит ежегодный фестиваль в честь драматурга Теннесси Уильямса, который поставил свою пьесу «Трамвай по имени Желание» во французском квартале. И в конце апреля фестиваль джаза и наследия пройдет, как обычно. Все это подытожено слоганом на майке. В нем говорится: «Катрина не смыла наш дух». И это правда. Дух этого удивительного города, радость музыки и жизненная сила пережили ураган.
SPEAK OUT | Giving and justifying opinions — Выскажитесь | Предоставление и обоснование мнений
Giving opinions — Предоставление мнений
In my opinion — По моему мнению
If you ask me — Если ты спросишь меня
To be honest, — Если честно,
It seems to me — Мне кажется
As far as I’m concerned — Что касается меня
Frankly — Откровенно
Personally, I believe — Лично я считаю
Justifying opinions — Обоснование мнений
Everybody knows that — Всем известно, что
The reason why … is … – Причина в том
I mean — Я имею в виду
The thing is — Дело в том
Look at – Посмотрите на
If you think about it — Если вы думаете об этом
SPEAK OUT | Agreeing and disagreeing — Выскажитесь | Согласия и несогласия
Informal — Neutral/Formal — Неформальный — Нейтральный / Формальный
Agreeing — Согласие
You are dead right. — Absolutely! – Ты чертовски прав. — Абсолютно!
That’s so true. — That’s a good point! — Это правда. — Неплохо подмечено!
No doubt about it. — I coudn’t agree more. — В этом нет сомнений. – Я не могу согласиться больше.
Partial agreement — Частичное соглашение
Well, maybe, but … — That may be true but — Ну, может быть, но … — Это может быть правдой, но
You’ve got a point, but … — I agree with you up to a point. — У тебя есть точка зрения, но … — Я с тобой согласен в этом.
Disagreeing — Несогласие
Come off it! — I totally disagree with you. – Прекрати! — Я совершенно не согласен с тобой.
No way! — I’m afraid I can’t agree with you. — Ни за что! — Боюсь, я не могу согласиться с тобой.
Ex. 6 Choose the correct words. — Выберите правильные слова.
1. Although the main 1) venue was destroyed in a fire, the music 2) festival was a great success. The organisers built a temporary 3) stage in the local park and the 4) bands were able to perform there. — Хотя основное место было разрушено огнем, музыкальный фестиваль был большим успехом. Организаторы построили временную сцену в местном парке, и группы смогли выступить там.
2. A small metal 5) sculpture has been stolen from the modern art 6) exhibition in the Warehouse gallery. — Небольшая металлическая скульптура была украдена с выставки современного искусства в галерее Склад.
3. After the first 7) performance of her new play, the 8) playwright spoke to the 9) audience for more than an hour. — После первого исполнения ее новой пьесы, драматург разговаривал с аудиторией более часа.
Ex. 7 Work in groups and discuss one of the questions below. Use Speak Out. — Работайте в группах и обсудите один из вопросов ниже. Используйте раздел Выскажитесь.
1. Do you think it was right to celebrate Mardi Gras so soon after Hurricane Katrina? — Считаете ли вы правильным праздновать Марди Гра сразу после урагана Катрина?
2. Can you think of any times when it is better to give in than to carry on? Choose from the ideas below — Можете ли вы подумать о том, когда лучше сдаться, чем продолжать? Выберите из приведенных ниже идей:
a fight – борьба, a war – война, a sporting match — спортивный матч, an exam – экзамен, a job – работа, a journey — путешествие
LISTENING AND SPEAKING
Ex. 1 Work in pairs and answer the questions. — Работайте парами и ответьте на вопросы.
1. Where are the women? — Где женщины?
2. What do you think they are talking about? — Как вы думаете, о чем они говорят?
3. Why do you think the works of art are called The Modern World? — Почему, по вашему мнению, произведения искусства называются Современный мир?
4. Which work of art do you prefer? Why? — Какое произведение искусства вы предпочитаете? Почему?
Ex. 2 Listen to the conversation between Jun and Vanessa. Which photo corresponds to the exhibit they see? — Прослушайте разговор между Джун и Ванессой. Какая фотография соответствует экспонату, который они видят? — 2
Ex. 3 Listen again. Are the statements true, false or is there no information? — Послушайте еще раз. Являются ли утверждения истинными, ложными или нет информации?
F-1. Both Jun and Vanessa love modern art. — И Джун, и Ванесса любят современное искусство.
T-2. Jun’s boyfriend is an artist. — Парень Джун — художник.
T-3. Jun has been to this gallery before. — Джун была в этой галерее раньше.
F-4. They find The Modern World very easily. — Они очень легко находят «Современный мир».
T-5. Vanessa doesn’t understand its meaning. — Ванесса не понимает ее смысла.
T-6. Jun thinks the empty space represents the emptiness of modem life. – Джун думает, что пустое пространство представляет пустоту современной жизни.
Ex. 4 Listen and choose the best answers. — Послушайте и выберите наилучшие ответы.
1. When Damian arrives, he doesn’t talk much. — Когда Дамиан приходит, он не говорит много.
2. Vanessa tells Damian she thinks The Modern World is interesting. — Ванесса рассказывает Дамиану, что она думает, что «Современный мир» интересен.
3. When Jun tells Damian how much she loves his work of art, he wonders where it is. — Когда Джун рассказывает Дамиану, как сильно она любит его произведение искусства, он задается вопросом, где оно.
4. Damian is angry because The Modern World isn’t there. — Дамиан злится, потому что Современного мира нет.
5. When Damian goes away, Vanessa laughs at what Jun says. — Когда Дамиан уходит, Ванесса смеется над тем, что говорит Джун.
Ex. 5 In pairs, decide what has happened to The Modern World. Listen and check. — В парах решите, что случилось с «Современным миром». Послушай и проверь.
The cleaners threw it out. They thought it was just a pile of rubbish. — Уборщики выбросили его. Они думали, что это просто куча мусора.
Ex. 6 Listen and decide if the speaker is enthusiastic or ironic. — Послушайте и решите, является ли говорящий восторженным или ироничным.
ironic — 1. It’s really great! — Это действительно здорово!
enthusiastic — 2. It’s absolutely wonderful! — Это абсолютно замечательно!
enthusiastic — 3. How fantastic! — Как фантастично!
ironic — 4. Amazing! — Удивительно!
enthusiastic — 5. I love it! — Мне это нравится!
ironic — 6. It’s very interesting! — Это очень интересно!
Ex. 7 Work in groups. Look at page 117. Use the expressions to discuss the works of art. — Работа в группах. Посмотрите на страницу 117. Используйте выражения для обсуждения произведений искусства.
Work in groups. Use the expressions below to discuss the works of art. — Работайте в группах. Используйте приведенные ниже выражения для обсуждения произведений искусства.
What do you think it means? — Как вы думаете, что это значит?
I’m not sure — Я не уверен
I really like the — Мне очень нравится
I think the artist is saying that — Я думаю, художник говорит, что
It reminds me of — Это мне напоминает о
I don’t get it — Я не понимаю
A What do you think of the sculpture by Jaroslav Rona? — Что вы думаете о скульптуре Ярослава Рона?
В I think it’s fantastic! — Я думаю, это фантастика!
С What do you think it means? — Как вы думаете, что это значит?
SPEAKING AND LISTENING
Ex. 1 Work in pairs. Describe the picture and answer the questions. — Работайте парами. Опишите картинку и ответьте на вопросы.
1. What kind of performance is this? – Что это за представление?
2. Do you enjoy going to performances like this? — Вам нравится ходить на такие спектакли?
Ex. 2 Listen to the conversation. Match the speakers Kelly, Sebastian and Brendan with statements 1-8. — Послушайте разговор. Совместите говорящих Келли, Себастьяна и Брендана с предложениями 1-8.
1. Sebastian suggests going to an opera. — предлагает поехать в оперу.
2. Brendan says young people don’t go to operas. — говорит, что молодые люди не ходят в оперы.
3. Brendan points out that opera isn’t as popular as other forms of entertainment. — указывает, что опера не так популярна, как другие виды развлечений.
4. Sebastian claims young people aren’t educated to enjoy opera. — утверждает, что молодые люди не получают образование наслаждаясь оперой.
5. Kelly thinks opera is too expensive for young people. — думает, что опера слишком дорога для молодых людей.
6. Brendan complains about the length of some operas. — жалуется на продолжительность некоторых опер.
7. Brendan says young people are too impatient to enjoy operas. — говорит, что молодые люди слишком нетерпеливы, чтобы наслаждаться операми.
8. Kelly finds it strange that people sing to each other in operas and musicals. — находит странным, что люди поют друг другу в опере и мюзиклах.
Ex. 3 Complete Speak Out with headings a-f. Then listen again and check your answers. — Дополните раздел Выскажитесь заголовками a-f. Затем послушайте снова и проверьте свои ответы.
6-a Asking for explanation — Запрашивать объяснение
5-b Asking for repetition — Требуется повторение
3-с Clarifying your message — Уточнение вашего сообщения
4-d Encouraging others to speak — Поощряя других говорить
2-e Politely interrupting — Вежливое прерывание
1-f Holding attention — Удержание внимания
SPEAK OUT | Participating in conversations — Выскажитесь | Участие в разговорах
1) f Holding attention — Удержание внимания
Excuse me, can I say something? — Извините, могу я что-то сказать?
That’s a good point, but — Это хороший момент, но
Do you know what I think/(dis)like/find strange about — Знаете ли вы, что я думаю / (не) нравится / нахожу странным
2) e Politely interrupting — Вежливое прерывание
Just a second, I haven’t finished. — Секунду, я еще не закончил.
Hold on! Let me finish! – Подождите! Позвольте мне закончить!
3) с Clarifying your message — Уточнение вашего сообщения
What I mean is — Я имею в виду
The thing is — Дело в том, что
Let me put it another way. — Позвольте мне сказать по-другому.
4) d Encouraging others to speak — Поощряя других говорить
Do you see what I mean? — Вы видите, что я имею в виду?
What do you think? — Как вы думаете?
Why don’t you tell us what you think/your opinion? — Почему бы вам не рассказать нам, что вы думаете / ваше мнение?
5) b Asking for repetition — Требуется повторение
I’m sorry, I didn’t get that. Could you say it again? — Извините, я этого не понял. Не могли бы вы повторить это?
Sorry, I wasn’t listening. Do you think you could repeat that? — Извините, я не слушал. Как вы думаете, вы могли бы повторить это?
6) a Asking for explanation — Запрашивать объяснение
Do you mean … ? — Ты имеешь ввиду … ?
I’m not sure what you mean. — Я не уверен, что вы имеете в виду.
Are you saying … ? — Ты говоришь … ?
Ex. 4 Complete the conversation with one word in each gap. Then look at Speak Out to check your answers. — Завершите разговор одним словом в каждом промежутке. Затем посмотрите на раздел Выскажитесь, чтобы проверить свои ответы.
Sebastian: So, Brendan … Why don’t you 1) tell us what you think? — Итак, Брендан … Почему бы тебе не сказать нам, что ты думаешь?
Brendan: It was better than I expected. — Это было лучше, чем я ожидал.
Kelly: Are you 2) saying that you enjoyed the opera? – Ты говоришь, что тебе понравилась опера?
Brendan: Well, I’m not going to buy a season ticket, but it was alright, I suppose. — Ну, я не собираюсь покупать абонемент, но все было хорошо, я полагаю.
Sebastian: I’m sorry, I didn’t 3) get that. Could you say it again? — Извини, я не понял. Не мог бы ты повторить это?
Brendan: Well, yeah, I kind of enjoyed it, but the second act was a bit hard to believe. Do you 4) see what I mean? — Ну, да, мне это понравилось, но второму акту было немного сложно поверить. Ты понимаешь, что я имею в виду?
Kelly: Not really. — Не совсем.
Brendan: Well, 5) what I mean is why didn’t he tell her the truth? — Ну, я имею в виду, почему он не сказал ей правду?
Sebastian: She won’t let him. She keeps asking … — Она не позволит ему. Она продолжает спрашивать
Brendan: That’s a good 6) point, but … — Это хорошая точка зрения, но
Sebastian: Hold on! 7) let me finish! She keeps asking questions, and he doesn’t want to hurt her. — Подожди! Позволь мне закончить! Она продолжает задавать вопросы, и он не хочет причинять ей боль.
Brendan: Yeah, I suppose it makes sense. — Да, я полагаю, это имеет смысл.
Kelly: Do you 8) know what I think? — Ты знаешь, что я думаю?
Sebastian: What? — Что?
Kelly: Madame Butterfly has got a new fan. — У мадам Баттерфляй появился новый веер. (или поклонник?)
Ex. 5 Work in small groups. Prepare your ideas on one of the topics below and then discuss it together. Use the expressions in Speak Out. — Работайте небольшими группами. Подготовьте свои идеи по одной из тем ниже, а затем обсудите их вместе. Используйте выражения в разделе Выскажитесь.
1. The MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction. — У поколения MTV нет терпения. Они хотят мгновенного удовлетворения.
2. Imagination without skill gives us modern art. (Tom Stoppard) — Воображение без мастерства дает нам современное искусство. (Том Стоппард)
Ex. 1 Check the meaning of the adjectives in the table. Then listen and add these modifying adverbs to the table. Which adverb goes with both kinds of adjectives? — Проверьте значение прилагательных в таблице. Затем послушайте и добавьте эти изменяющие наречия в таблицу. С каким наречием идут оба вида прилагательных?
Base adjectives — Базовые прилагательные
good – хороший,bad – плохой, silly – глупый, funny – забавный, attractive – привлекательный, exciting – захватывающий, surprising – удивительный, interesting — интересный
Use: very — очень, pretty — довольно, a bit — немного, really — действительно, rather — довольно, quite — вполне
Strong adjectives — Сильные прилагательные
brilliant – блестящий, pathetic – жалкий, ridiculous – смешной, hilarious – веселый, stunning – потрясающий, thrilling – волнующий, amazing – удивительный, fascinating – очаровательный, spectacular – эффектный, dreadful — ужасный
Use: absolutely — абсолютно, extremely — чрезвычайно, totally — полностью, completely – совершенно, really — действительно
Mind the trap! – Избегайте ловушки!
We only use a little/а bit/а little bit before an adjective to give a negative opinion: It’s a bit silly. NOT It’s a bit interesting. — Мы только используем немного перед прилагательным, чтобы дать отрицательное мнение: это немного глупо. Нет. Это немного интересно.
We can’t use it before an adjective + noun phrase: The story is a little bit boring. NOT It’s-а-tittle bit boring story. — Мы не можем использовать его перед прилагательным + существительное: история немного скучна. НЕТ. Это скучная история.
Ex. 2 Choose the adjectives which go with these adverbs. — Выберите прилагательные, которые сочетаются с этими наречиями.
1. a bit monotonous — немного однообразный
2. absolutely brilliant — совершенно блестящий
3. totally stunning — полностью ошеломляющий
4. quite good — неплохо
5. very interesting — очень интересно
6. absolutely dreadful — абсолютно ужасный
7. totally spectacular — полностью захватывающий
Ex. 3 Check film-making words a-g below. Use a dictionary to help you. Then listen and match them with expressions 1-7 from Exercise 2. — Проверьте слова для создания фильма a-g ниже. Используйте словарь, чтобы помочь вам. Затем послушайте и сопоставьте их с выражениями 1-7 из упражнения 2.
a acting – игра актеров — absolutely brilliant — совершенно блестящий
b directing – руководство фильма — quite good — неплохо
с final scene – финальная сцена — totally spectacular — полностью захватывающий
d plot – сюжет — very interesting — очень интересно
e screenplay – сценарий — a bit monotonous — немного однообразный
f soundtrack – саундтрек — totally stunning — полностью ошеломляющий
g special effects – спецэффекты — absolutely dreadful — абсолютно ужасный
Ex. 4 In groups, talk about films you have seen recently. Use the language from Exercises 1-3 to give your opinions. — В группах рассказывайте о фильмах, которые вы недавно видели. Используйте язык из Упражнений 1-3, чтобы дать свое мнение.
A Have you Seen … ? It’s really good, isn’t it? — Вы видели …? Это действительно хорошо, не так ли?
В Good? It’s absolutely brilliant! The special effects are totally amazing! — Хорошо? Это просто великолепно! Специальные эффекты совершенно потрясающие!
Ex. 1 Think Back! Work in pairs. Guess which kinds of films your partner likes. – Вспомните! Работайте в парах. Угадайте, какие фильмы нравятся вашему партнеру.
action – боевик, cartoon – мультфильм, romance – романтика, documentary – документальный, comedy – комедия, fantasy – фантастика, thriller – триллер, crime – криминал, horror – ужасы, western — вестерн
A You like thrillers, don’t you? — Тебе нравятся триллеры, не так ли?
В No, I don’t. – Нет.
Ex. 2 Work in pairs and choose the correct words in the quiz. Guess if you don’t know. Then listen and check. — Работайте в парах и выберите правильные слова в викторине. Угадайте, если вы не знаете. Затем слушайте и проверяйте.
1. Nick Park is British. — Ник Парк – британец.
2. The characters are made of plasticine. — Персонажи сделаны из пластилина.
3. Wallace is a man. — Уоллес — человек.
4. Wallace loves eating cheese. — Уоллес любит есть сыр.
5. Gromit is a very clever dog. — Громит — очень умная собака.
6. The director, Nick Park, has won four Oscars. — Режиссер, Ник Парк, выиграл четыре Оскара.
Ex. 3 Read the film review and match points 1-4 with paragraphs a-d. — Прочитайте обзор фильма и сопоставьте пункты 1-4 с параграфами a-d.
C-1. opinion of acting, screenplay — мнение о действии, сценарии
D-2. summary and recommendation — резюме и рекомендация
A-3. background information (name of film and directors, genre of film) — справочная информация (название фильма и режиссеров, жанр фильма)
B-4. plot and main characters — сюжет и основные персонажи
Ex. 4 Read the review again and choose the true sentences. — Прочитайте обзор еще раз и выберите истинные предложения.
When writing a film review, you should — При написании обзора фильма вы должны:
T-• describe the plot with present tenses. — описать сюжет в настоящих временах.
• say what happens in the final scene. — скажите, что происходит в финальной сцене.
T-• use adjectives, adverbs and modifiers to give your opinions. — Используйте прилагательные, наречия и определения, чтобы дать свое мнение.
T-• make a recommendation in your conclusion. — сделайте рекомендацию в своем заключении.
T-• use either an informal or a formal style but not both at the same time. — использовать неформальный или формальный стиль, но не оба одновременно.
A) The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) is the first full length feature film made by directors Nick Park and Steve Box with their amazing plasticine characters Wallace and Gromit. It won an Oscar in 2006, and if you watch it, you’ll understand why. It’s an absolutely brilliant animated comedy.
Уоллес и Громит: Проклятие кролика-оборотня (2005) — первый полнометражный художественный фильм, созданный режиссерами Ником Парком и Стивом Боксом со своими удивительными пластилиновыми персонажами Уоллесом и Громитом. Он выиграл Оскар в 2006 году, и если вы посмотрите его, вы поймете, почему. Это абсолютно блестящая анимированная комедия.
B) Cheese-loving inventor Wallace and his brainy dog Gromit have started a company to protect the town’s vegetables from hungry rabbits. However, just before the annual Giant Vegetable Competition, an enormous rabbit begins terrorising the town. It is eating all the vegetables and destroying everything in its path. The competition organiser, Lady Tottington hires Wallace and Gromit to catch the monster alive. But they will have to find the Were-rabbit before gun-crazy hunter Victor Quartermaine, who is desperate to kill it.
Изобретатель, любящий сыр Уоллес и его умная собака Громит начали компанию по защите овощей города от голодных кроликов. Однако, накануне ежегодного конкурса гигантских овощей, огромный кролик начинает терроризировать город. Он съедает все овощи и уничтожает все на своем пути. Организатор конкурса, леди Тоттингтон нанимает Уоллеса и Громита, чтобы поймать монстра живым. Но им придется найти «кролика» вперед сумасшедшего охотника Виктора Кватермейна, который отчаянно пытается его убить.
C) The screenplay is witty and full of hilarious visual jokes. As usual, the voice of Peter Sallis is absolutely perfect for the role of Wallace, and Gromit is so beautifully animated he can express a huge range of emotions without saying a word. And both Helena Bonham- Carter, who plays the part of Lady Tottington, and Ralph Fiennes as Victor are really funny.
Сценарий остроумный и полный веселых визуальных шуток. Как обычно, голос Питера Саллиса абсолютно идеален для роли Уоллеса, и Громит настолько красиво оживлен, что может выразить огромный спектр эмоций, не сказав ни слова. И Хелена Бонэм-Картер, играющая роль Леди Тоттингтон, и Ральф Файнс, в качестве Виктора, действительно забавны.
D) To sum up, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is an amazing film which is suitable for both children and adults. If you liked Wallace and Gromit’s previous adventures and you appreciate the British sense of humour, you’ll love this film. Don’t miss it!
Подводя итог, Уоллес и Громит: Проклятие кролика-оборотня — это потрясающий фильм, который подходит как для детей, так и для взрослых. Если вам нравятся предыдущие приключения Уоллеса и Громита, и вы цените британское чувство юмора, вам понравится этот фильм. Не пропустите!
Ex. 5 Read Train Your Brain to check your answers to Exercises 3 and 4. — Прочтите раздел Тренируйте свой мозг, чтобы проверить свои ответы в упражнениях 3 и 4.
TRAIN YOUR BRAIN | Writing skills – Тренируйте свой мозг | Навыки письма
A film review — Обзор фильма
Plan your review and use clear paragraphs — Планируйте свой обзор и используйте четкие абзацы:
• Give some background information: name of film and directors, genre of film, date, prizes won. — Дайте некоторую справочную информацию: название фильма и режиссеров, жанр фильма, дату, выигранные призы.
• If relevant, mention where and when the film is set. — Если необходимо, укажите, где и когда снят фильм.
• Describe the plot and the main characters. — Опишите сюжет и основных персонажей.
• Use present tenses. — Используйте настоящие времена.
• Don’t give too many details. — Не указывайте слишком много деталей.
• Don’t say what happens at the end. — Не говорите, что происходит в конце.
• Give your opinion of some different aspects of the film: acting, screenplay, soundtrack, directing. — Дайте свое мнение о различных аспектах фильма: актерское мастерство, сценарий, саундтрек, режиссура.
• Summarise your opinions. — Обобщите свои мнения.
• Make a recommendation. — Сделайте рекомендацию.
Remember to — Запомните:
• Use a variety of adjectives (strong adjectives and modifying adverbs). — Используйте множество прилагательных (сильные прилагательные и изменяющие наречия).
• Avoid vague adjectives like good, bad, nice. — Избегайте расплывчатых прилагательных, таких как хорошие, плохие, приятные.
• Use either formal or informal style but don’t mix them. — Используйте формальный или неформальный стиль, но не смешивайте их.
Ex. 6 Work in pairs. Use the words in the box to complete these sentences from film reviews. — Работайте парами. Используйте слова в рамке для дополнения этих предложений из обзоров фильмов.
1. It’s a fantasy film in three parts. — Это фантастический фильм в трех частях.
2. It’s set in Africa. — Он снят в Африке.
3. It’s directed by Tim Burton. — Режиссер Тим Бертон.
4. It stars Orlando Bloom. — Снимался Орландо Блум.
5. The main character is an archaeologist. — Главный герой — археолог.
6. It’s a really hilarious teen comedy. — Это действительно веселая подростковая комедия.
7. Angelina Jolie plays the part of an evil gangster. — Анджелина Джоли играет роль злого гангстера.
8. The acting is quite good, but the plot is totally ridiculous. — Действие неплохое, но сюжет совершенно нелепый.
9. I loved the soundtrack, which was composed by Danny Elfman. It’s absolutely brilliant. — Мне понравился саундтрек, который был написан Дэнни Эльфманом. Он абсолютно блестящий.
Ex. 7 Write a review of a film you have seen recently. — Напишите обзор фильма, который вы недавно видели.
• Choose a film you have seen recently or know very well. — Выберите фильм, который вы видели недавно, или хорошо знаете.
• Make a plan with clear paragraphs. Use Train Your Brain to help you. — составить план с четкими абзацами. Используйте раздел Тренируйте свой мозг, чтобы помочь вам.
• Use the language from Exercises 5 and 6 and from the vocabulary section on page 56. — Используйте язык из Упражнений 5 и 6 и из раздела лексики на стр. 56.
Project ideas — Идеи проекта
Choose a topic to prepare a presentation — Выберите тему для подготовки презентации:
• ‘My favourite film’ — Мой любимый фильм
• ‘The best films of this year’ — Лучшие фильмы этого года
Sometimes, I yell at my phone when the screen freezes. Just last week, I felt my heartbeat rapidly increasing and my legs shaking when the customer service representative from Amazon put me on hold for a few minutes because my package didn’t arrive in two days. It turned out that my package got lost somewhere between UPS and my apartment, so I had to wait a whole extra two days to receive my order.
Waiting four days for a delivery seems like an eternity in today’s society, as more consumers have become accustomed to the instant gratification afforded by technology.
Instant gratification is the need to experience fulfillment without any sort of delay or wait. This applies to a whole host of things including online pornography, gambling, and drug and alcohol use. When it comes to gambling in particular, there is a plethora of new online casinos on the market that are luring in an ever-growing amount of players by promising great fun and easy wins. Ultimately, you want it now, like greedy little Veruca Salt sings right up until she falls down Willy Wonka’s garbage chute. Waiting can be really hard, and when people don’t get what they want, the psychological reaction is anxiety.
To capitalize on that desire, companies are taking consumer anxiety and sprinting with it, like Absolutely, offering same-day delivery services, eliminating the need to wait for a taxi and providing the ability to stream full seasons of TV shows within seconds.
If you think about it, anything can be delivered: food, flowers, furniture, clean laundry, instant answers on Google, groceries and even people. Well, not literally people, but with apps like Tinder, Grindr and JSwipe, there are 50 million romantic candidates right at your fingertips, waiting for you to filter them by location, sexuality, religion, hobbies and how desperate they are for a partner.
Retailers too are reaping the benefits of society’s growing impatience. Walmart and eBay have challenged Amazon in a battle of which company can deliver the fastest, because consumer habits have made it clear that they will pay big bucks to avoid the wait, leading places like Disney World to profit off of passes that allow consumers to skip the line.
Instant gratification has even made its way into your living room, as DVRs have eliminated the need to watch commercials or wait for show times. Some companies, such ABC and NBC, have resorted to forcing their viewers to watch their advertisements by adding features that prevent them from fast-forwarding. In the same vein, internet providers are delivering faster connections — for a higher cost, of course — and are tempting buyers with their advertising speeds.
The patience of internet users is notoriously slow, and even minuscule differences in buffer times can have massive impacts on the success of a business. University of Massachusetts Amherst professor Ramesh Sitaraman conducted a study to establish the point at which people begin to leave a YouTube video that loads slowly.
He concluded that videos begin losing viewers at a delay of two seconds, and every one second of waiting after that marks a 5.8 percent increase in the number of people who leave. A wait of 40 seconds or more will eliminate one third of the audience.
Such demand for instantaneous feedback has repercussions beyond internet usage and purchasing habits; a society that experiences fewer and fewer waits in its daily habits will slowly possess less and less patience. In certain fields, a lack of patience is fine, but when raising children, teaching others or climbing the professional ladder, there is no way around slow, sometimes excruciating periods of growth.
Consider a recent graduate working in their first career. Their tendency to expect fast feedback will lead to disappointment when they are passed over for raises and promotions, and even a lack of positive reinforcement may lead them to struggle to stay motivated. When they don’t receive the expected fulfillment, they may feel frustrated and in extreme cases, may even seek a new job. In certain arenas accomplishments take time, and without a degree of patience, the pat on the back so many millennials are looking for will never be quick enough.
What’s more, instant gratification doesn’t grant lasting satisfaction; its entire purpose is to substitute the deep pleasure of earned enjoyment with the fleeting pleasure of instant enjoyment. People enjoy the rush of their phones beeping with a new text message, but the feeling of that pleasure disappears quickly after it comes. There isn’t anything wrong with wanting or needing objects, experiences or people within a certain amount of time, but it’s important to be able to exhibit restraint when you need to.
Instant gratification is to be expected in particular circumstances. If you order a pizza for dinner, you can expect the restaurant to deliver that order within a time frame. There is instant feedback from social media because followers can see your photos and status updates immediately. Your cell phone is always in your pocket so the connection is constant. There is no need for patience.
But letting the thrill of instant gratification deteriorate your ability to delay gratification is problematic, and will lead to serious problems on an individual and community basis. For instance, diagnoses of attention deficit disorder in children have skyrocketed in the last decade, and even the amount of adults being prescribed medication has soared. Society is losing its ability to focus.
With shorter attention spans, fewer and fewer people are choosing to read books, magazines and long articles. My grandmother is an elementary school principal, and she has begun noticing her students gravitating more toward graphic novels, most likely because of their short sentences and profusion of blank space. Even writing this article, I have consciously decided to keep the paragraphs shorter in order to make the information less overwhelming for the impatient millennial.
The good news is that more and more people are recognizing the issues of technology and are seeking ways to calm their racing minds. Last year, money spent on yoga increased to a record-breaking $16 million, and although many find it difficult to disconnect, they feel more relaxed in the end.
With the abundance of instant gratification, it’s difficult to recognize that people don’t need immediate satisfaction to feel happy. It’s important to remember how beneficial patience can be, because the best things in life are more than a click away.