Indigenous Knowledge Systems: sticks and stones may break my bones...

Beyond the raw fish, yellow skin and small eyes lies a country comprised of intricate traditions and often incomprehensible customs. The Japanese culture is generated by ancient beliefs and gestures, and some of these indigenous knowledge systems include; always removing footwear before entering a house, sleeping on the floor, bowing (can't stress this enough), giving money to relatives on New Years day, and so on. So the expression, "in a nutshell" cannot, or rather, should not be used to describe the Japanese lifestyle- for the sole reason of the "nutshell" being incapacitated to incorporate an immensely versatile and diverse culture.

Arguably the most prominent attribute about the Japanese culture would be the utilization of chopsticks. Before I go in depth though, I would like to annihilate the common misconception way-too-many peoples have- Japanese women don't insert chopsticks in their hair. Ever. Needless to say, chopsticks are mere tools used for eating, and in the same way that Westerners would not stab themselves with a spoon or fork in their head, Japanese people try to keep their cutlery as hygienic as possible. The "stick" that traditional Japanese women use as a hair accessory is called a kanzashi. A kanzashi is not, and will never be used for eating. 

Now, let me move on to explain the "chopstick rules" which must be followed when in Japan. Chopsticks were originally introduced to Japan from China, however, the Japanese have completely revolutionized chopsticks; from the manufacturing stage to the actual usage of it.
Firstly, at the table, mismatched chopsticks, whether in length, shape, color etc., should not be used. This is only because placing mismatched chopsticks as one is aesthetically unpleasant, which is quite simple right? The next rule which must be followed is that, chopsticks should always be placed parallel to the edge of the table where one is seated (horizontally in front of a person), and the thinner extreme of the chopsticks facing the left. Quite often chopsticks are accompanied by a "hashi-oki", which translates to chopstick rest. The chopsticks are placed in this way on the hashi-oki because one must firstly grab the thinner extreme of the chopsticks with the dominant hand, slide the hand across to the other side, lift the chopsticks up, hold the thin end of the chopsticks with the other hand, and with its support, hold the chopsticks in its righteous way.

And all of that happens prior to the actual meal. Once the meal starts, that's a different story. Countless chopstick laws must be followed, like never ever passing food from chopstick A to chopstick B. Yes, a pair of chopsticks belonging to a person should never touch another pair belonging to another person. This is because Japanese people handle corpses with a different kind of chopsticks, so when two pairs of chopsticks touch, that alludes to the act of handling a cremated body. Moreover, a person should never stab a food item with chopsticks either because they are meant to just pick foods up, and stabbing a pair of chopsticks also alludes to death. (Japanese people often mourn by inserting short and thin sticks into a bowl full of sand, and the sticks are ignited at one end, and when all the sticks burn out like a candle, that signifies the end of somebody's life.) ...Who knew chopsticks could actually signify death?
Unsurprisingly, there are many many more taboos when it comes to chopsticks, like never licking them, never drawing a plate towards you using them, never stuffing too much food using them etc.
And that's how the Japanese people feel about chopsticks. In a country where change is the norm, the laws of chopsticks seem to have made a pretty big impact. After all, Japanese people have been using chopsticks for over 1000 years. I guess some things never change. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Greg Craven's argument

Craven's argument outlines the possible outcomes of global warming and looks at the correlation between preventative measures taken, not, and the probability of global warming being a real phenomenon or not. 

He discusses his theory of "the worst thing which could happen" in what in biology class would be called a punnet grid, which illustrates all the possible outsomes when considering 4 aspects such as in this example.

I think his argument is a valid one as he regards each and every consequence that could happen, making his theory unbiased. 

Consequently, he comes to a realisation that if nothing is done about a grave problem such as global warming then "the worst" could actually happen. His video is emotional and an eye-opener for many, even though I had been exposed to the theory of global warming before. The reality and the urgency of the situation was highlighted and I felt like something must be done in order to restore faith in the global population. 

Is seeing believing?

Let us firstly define the diction, "believe".
To believe is to "feel certain", "think possible", or "have opinion", according to the Oxford dictionary.
Now, let us define the diction, "see"
To see is "to become aware of something using your eyes", "to have or use the power of sight", "to experience", or "to witness".
Beliefs and sight clearly have no defined and superficial correlation between them... or do they?
I believe that seeing is believing up to a certain extent, however, there are some conspicuous counterarguments which will and must be discussed regarding the topic of this post.
First of all, when we see something repetitively, and through experience we feel certain what the outcome is going to be, that becomes our empirical knowledge. In this case, seeing is believing, but it is possible that other senses may be involved in the process. 
For example, a simple act like playing an instrument can be called empirical knowledge. By pressing a certain piano key, somebody who has been playing the piano for a while will know what that key is going to sound like, which could potentially explain how professional piano players can play the piano with their eyes closed; their sense of touch and hearing have developed to such an extent that they no longer have the necessity of using their sense of sight. But of course when somebody is just beginning to learn how to play the piano, more often than not, they tend to observe their fingers as they play and rely on their eyes to aid them. 
Also, when something grand happens, people tend to say, "you have to believe me, I saw it with my own eyes!", thus implying that seeing is believing as well. 

On the contrary, there are times when people see things differently from one another, which was the case in the 1978, when Muybridge's photographs of a galloping horse were used to justify whether all four feet of a galloping horse are ever off the ground at the same time. 


The painting above illustrates how Jean Louis Theodore Gericault pictured the galloping horses. However, Muybridge's photographs (below) showed that the legs actually faced inwards and gathered together as they were off the ground, proving Gericault's belief wrong. 

This calls our sight into question. 

Furthermore, when scientists are carrying out an experiment for the very first time, their hypothesis may be proven wrong after conducting the laboratory practice.

This calls our beliefs into question. 

As redundant and illogical I may sound, what we believe in does not necessarily have to be logical or real. Every person is entitled to their own opinion and therefore even if a person thinks that a piano is supposed to sound a certain way, and finds a piano with a different tune to what they thought they knew, that does not imply that they are wrong. 
Belief is something which is not constant and can be influenced by its surroundings, and sight is just as vulnerable and prone to change as belief is. So you may see a flower and believe it's a daisy, but somebody else might look at it and  believe it's a dandelion. Unless scientific experiments are conducted to find out the species of the particular flower, it will be unknown to both of them, although they might stick to their respective speculations about the flower type. 
What I am trying to say is that neither belief or sight should be trusted as neither of those elements are uninfluenced by our surroundings. This idea can be seen in the following quote:

If you put a Cheeto on a big white plate in a formal restaurant and serve it with chopsticks and say something like “It is a cornmeal quenelle, extruded at a high speed, and so the extrusion heats the cornmeal ‘polenta’ and flash-cooks it, trapping air and giving it a crispy texture with a striking lightness. It is then dusted with an ‘umami powder’ glutamate and evaporated-dairy-solids blend.” People would go just nuts for that.

— Jeb Boniakowksi

It can therefore be said that "seeing is believing" is a superficial and vague saying- or at least, that's how I see it. I don't know about what your belief is though, because clearly, there are different ways to look at it... 

I am...

-My life in a nutshell- 

My name is Ingrid Saito Maciel and I just recently turned 16 years old, meaning I am a fresh DP1 student. My mother and my father are from Paraguay and Japan, respectively. I have lived in the USA, Japan, Paraguay, Panama, Bolivia, Sri Lanka (refer to the photograph on the left) and I am currently living in the capital city of Uganda, the pearl of Africa.

This will be my TOK blog, where I will be posting what I am TOKing about in school and outside of school. 

Thank you for stopping by and be sure to check out my CAS blog too :)
peace xx