Expository Writing 1:355:101:20 F12
Every one communicates in unique ways, often saying the same idea in a totally different way, using their own personal viewpoints this is clear after reading “When I Woke up Tuesday Morning, It was Friday” by Martha Stout, I realized she had the same opinion as Juhani Pallasmaa and Oliver Sacks. All three of them believe that in order to get the most out of life people must try to take in as much of their environment as possible, through their five senses. This thought was central to all of their articles, however none of them just come out and say it; they use examples to help the reader understand, and each one goes about this in a unique way. Pallasmaa in “The Minds Eye” uses very descriptive and illustrative examples to explain to the reader this idea of using the other senses to get more from your environment, to really live life. He talks about the emotional aspect of the brains relationship to the senses, rather than explaining how the connections work, or how to use them as an advantage; he creates conditions that force the reader to think about their own personal relationship of their own senses. Pallasmaa in my view explains the same idea as the other two authors in the least literal way. Sacks uses real-life examples of how people evolve their other senses when forced to, in “Eyes of the Skin”, he discusses the blind and uses some specific examples of how people adapted their relationship with their own senses in order to survive, and in some ways evolve, gain a better understanding of their environment. He explains to the reader that by evolving the remaining senses, the people, he interviews with, are able to create a better connection with their environment, and in doing so forming a more complete experience, living life. Stout explains to his readers the same ideas, however he chooses to use more real life examples of how people are able to expand their senses. Stout I believe is more literal than Pallasmaa in that respect. Stout is the most literal of the three authors, being a psychologist; she chooses to explain in “When I Woke Up Tuesday Morning, It Was Friday”, the senses connections with the brain in a scientific point of view (naturally). Instead of using descriptive ideas that create a connection to memories like Pallasmaa, or having an example of someone who was able to evolve their other senses like Sacks, she chooses to talk about the actual parts of the brain and their functions. She also uses examples of people, people who block out their senses and in doing so shut out the world, in essence demonstrating the opposite of the three authors main idea, that expanding the senses leads to better living, her “patients” are blocking out their senses and hindering their quality of life. Stout in my opinion has the most literal, scientific approach of the three authors.
Sacks and Pallasmaa have the same idea, and that same idea also supports what Stout is explaining in her article, that for a higher quality of life we must expand our senses. Both Sacks and Pallasmaa thoroughly explain this idea in each of their articles, they just choose to go about doing so in unique ways. Pallasmaa explains his idea that todays society is unable to fully experience life because we are too focused on vision and we need to use our other senses more fully in order to fully experience our surroundings. He uses very descriptive and emotionally tied examples to support his thoughts. He says, “A particular smell makes us unknowingly re-enter a space completely forgotten by the retinal memory; the nostrils awaken a forgotten image, and we are enticed to enter a vivid daydream.” (Pallasmaa 292). In this example he is saying that in order to evolve our minds imagination we must be able to take in our surroundings through all of our senses. Sacks has an almost identical thought, in that both...