In class, we initially discussed theory as a scientific term, and it may very well be. However, I was thinking of something completely different. Personally, my very first experience with theory was drawing oval-shaped bubbles with lines sprouting out of their right side. When I was younger, I would be thinking to myself, "What's the point of doing piano theory? Aren't I supposed to be practicing playing piano instead of writing out harmonic scales and drawing triads?" I later realized that, as it is with everything else, learning theory is a fundamental component of learning how to perform and perfect anything.
A definition of theory in the New Keywords textbook is "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts." In addition, a student in class mentioned that a theory also has opposition. Interestingly, contradiction arises between opposition and theory's definition: how do these two coexist? Musicians (or at least I) take a general set of rules when writing and playing music for granted. For example, when playing a piece (on piano) in A major, there would be three sharps: F, C, and G. However, there are certain exceptions where one does not have to play these sharps, in which the F, C, or G note has a natural sign or a double sharp sign.
I admit that my idea of theory in music may appear somewhat ignorant and naive; it is hard for me to even think of music as hypotheses or in terms of rules because I am like a robot following a written code. In scientific terms, brilliant minds test out their hypotheses and, if their experiments succeed, then their hypotheses become theory or fact. However, if you think about it, these hypotheses are developed based on previous ideas, which may be true or not true. The bottom line is that these ideas are generally taken for granted; they are theories that few people attempt to disprove or not believe. Hence, the definition of theory and opposition to it coexist in a sophisticated way.
If none of this makes sense, I can at least say that our UWP 101 class is very much like theory. Unlike other mundane English classes, we are able to test out new ideas, such as writing blogs and examining key words, and see if they work. If they do work, then we continue with it. Similarly, if the ideas fail, then we find another approach. Our theory for this class, as of now, is randomly picking key words and composing a blog on them each day. Not everyone may agree with this trial and error, but this is just how it is for now - and that, in itself, is a theory.
Kid
16 years ago
1 comment:
One question might be this: Would we be able to separate the *theory* of this class from its *practice*? Where exactly would this separation occur? On the one hand, our class might seem very theoretical as in unfounded, experimental, or just abstract; on the other hand, everyone in this class is there to achieve a grade, to satisfy a certain requirement, and to secure a very material line on a university transcript. These blogs, too, are practical things: you are each developing a public writing persona—even though the focus of your writings is largely theoretical. One might say that this class is interested in 'praxis', which was mentioned briefly in the *Keywords* definition: this class is an enacted 'combine' of theory and practice. Or, as Raymond Williams once said, "To write differently is to live differently." In the context of this class, isn't this at least slightly true? Isn't our living experience of this class a little different than it would be in a more traditional class? I hope so.
Post a Comment