College number 17.
After a week hopping states on the East coast, I finished up my spring break visiting the colleges in northern California. There, I saw the utopias of the 50's through 80's, frozen but alive. It was a geological dig through layers of rocks belonging only recently to the youths who ate at diners and the students who protested the war in Vietnam. The whole time, I questioned: Was this how the people of this decade viewed the future? Were these buildings meant to last forever? Did the bubblish architecture of this apartment building want to be modular among the cities that the Jetsons would one day live in?
No. They were built for the decade. But call not their engineers myopic; they were human. Humans aren't building for the end. We do construct a little into the future, or at least advertise it so, as if some genius had traveled to the future and stolen technology from our sons and daughters. Yet humans never do look to the end. It's rather unhealthy to do so, rather suicidal. There is an end, and we know it is death. We aren't expected to be perfect; we were selected to be better. Yet we didn't die off. We continued to live to forge purpose into future.
Friday, April 16, 2010
On Blogging
The human obsession of justification only continues in our narcissistic quest to blog. Maybe some people just want to write out their souls, but it doesn't matter. Anything put on the internet in this manner, that is, everything that fills this niche of media ecology, contributes to the devaluation, the reduction of fitness, of every other idea in this realm of communication. I guess I am part of the problem.
I am sorry. But wait; there is no place for apologies in warfare. Nor is there place for ecology in warfare. And yes, this is warfare. I blog because this is an arms-race of intellectual proliferation, of mental ammunition.
In today's world of media, we are all carnivores.
I am sorry. But wait; there is no place for apologies in warfare. Nor is there place for ecology in warfare. And yes, this is warfare. I blog because this is an arms-race of intellectual proliferation, of mental ammunition.
In today's world of media, we are all carnivores.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Treatise on Human Potential II: Ethics
Even in today's postmodern world, most people claim that their morality is given to some sort of higher consideration. Yet these "higher considerations" are usually misunderstandings of proximate causation, constantly riddled with sorts of exceptions that do not affect ultimate questioning. Consider, for example, la diferencia entre asesinar y matar. Furthermore, all moral contests eventually boil down to a competition of the largest, most all-encompassing cosmic value. To win this game, as well as to establish my ethical pathos, I must present the grandest value of all-the pursuit of purpose. Here, I define purpose as humanity, knowing that all literate beings reading my blog must be human, with one exception.
This exception provides the perfect understanding of my morality. I am referring, of course, to the College Board's robots that roam the fields of my privacy**, grazing for my strengths and weaknesses. These creatures, in their most moral state, strive to find their own purpose. In this case, their purpose, provided by the kind and brilliant folk of the College Board, is raising the drawbridges on unqualified applicants. Similarly, such a concept inherently considers the ultimate question: what is the purpose of [human] life?
While I cannot provide such an answer, I can provide a basic understanding of finding it. On one end, we are pretty sure that there is no purpose; if there is, we will never find it. But in the process, we become acquainted with every single thing, motion, idea, that propels us forward, that is, we learn humanity, and humanity is our purpose. Indeed, humans are trying to seek humanity.
As humans, we are made of basically the same things as everything else. Combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons no different from those of everything around us are we. For whatever reason, whatever purpose, these same particles have formed themselves into humans. As humans, we do hold a slight degree of responsibility to fulfill whatever reason that is. Certainly, we are not born to be beasts; we suck at running or foraging. We are not born to be food; we're pretty bland. We are not born to be Beats headphones; we're too cheap. No, we are born to be humans.
*ha, more irony.
**see above.
This exception provides the perfect understanding of my morality. I am referring, of course, to the College Board's robots that roam the fields of my privacy**, grazing for my strengths and weaknesses. These creatures, in their most moral state, strive to find their own purpose. In this case, their purpose, provided by the kind and brilliant folk of the College Board, is raising the drawbridges on unqualified applicants. Similarly, such a concept inherently considers the ultimate question: what is the purpose of [human] life?
While I cannot provide such an answer, I can provide a basic understanding of finding it. On one end, we are pretty sure that there is no purpose; if there is, we will never find it. But in the process, we become acquainted with every single thing, motion, idea, that propels us forward, that is, we learn humanity, and humanity is our purpose. Indeed, humans are trying to seek humanity.
As humans, we are made of basically the same things as everything else. Combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons no different from those of everything around us are we. For whatever reason, whatever purpose, these same particles have formed themselves into humans. As humans, we do hold a slight degree of responsibility to fulfill whatever reason that is. Certainly, we are not born to be beasts; we suck at running or foraging. We are not born to be food; we're pretty bland. We are not born to be Beats headphones; we're too cheap. No, we are born to be humans.
*ha, more irony.
**see above.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Vulcan Fortress
I shall betray the Y chromosome by writing this, but the men of my age are so worthless I couldn't care if an emotional Holocaust beset them.
To his heart is no path, but a fortress. A fortress with rows and rows of walls that sanity has built to keep you out, to keep out every contagion and virus, every lunatic, every succubus. Let's start at the outer walls, or at least where I assume most humans are.
Gate 0: Social status. Because women are toys. Just vestigial for me.
Gate 1: Beauty. Oh, Martin (and some men) isn't shallow; he's real. For any person to deny such walls is to claim a straight man must always fall in love with every gay man who feels a certain way. I can say, my defenses are weakest at the western tip of my compass-shaped fortress.
Gate 2: Skills. Ha! Chris would make a joke here. Can she satisfy every hunger? Every? Oh such a wooden palisade I have.
Gate 3: Entertainment value. By now, each checkpoint is growingly subjective.
But men are stupid. I agree with you girls. But I'm not a man. I'm a ghost at sixteen. I'm a pilot and an inventor, an engineer of new gates.
Gate IV: Honesty. I must be among the first of my age to grow such a gate.
Gate V: Beauty. Look again. It could be an Agent pointing his gun at you.
Gate VI: Long-term objectives. Now this is just useless at my age.
It's actually pretty simple. Just attack from the proper side and use keys.
To his heart is no path, but a fortress. A fortress with rows and rows of walls that sanity has built to keep you out, to keep out every contagion and virus, every lunatic, every succubus. Let's start at the outer walls, or at least where I assume most humans are.
Gate 0: Social status. Because women are toys. Just vestigial for me.
Gate 1: Beauty. Oh, Martin (and some men) isn't shallow; he's real. For any person to deny such walls is to claim a straight man must always fall in love with every gay man who feels a certain way. I can say, my defenses are weakest at the western tip of my compass-shaped fortress.
Gate 2: Skills. Ha! Chris would make a joke here. Can she satisfy every hunger? Every? Oh such a wooden palisade I have.
Gate 3: Entertainment value. By now, each checkpoint is growingly subjective.
But men are stupid. I agree with you girls. But I'm not a man. I'm a ghost at sixteen. I'm a pilot and an inventor, an engineer of new gates.
Gate IV: Honesty. I must be among the first of my age to grow such a gate.
Gate V: Beauty. Look again. It could be an Agent pointing his gun at you.
Gate VI: Long-term objectives. Now this is just useless at my age.
It's actually pretty simple. Just attack from the proper side and use keys.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Treatise on Human Potential Part I: Language
Shortly after writing this, I, like many others, will face a committee in an attempt to justify myself through the imperfections of human language. Even now, as I type this, there is a futility that pervades trying to express the contents of my mind. Nonetheless, I shall try in vain to share my own perception, to add to our genetic oversoul. I say this not with pessimism but rather with an awareness of the limited ability of language. Language, in this case, refers solely to the sharing of experience and perception, not the mere scientific transfer of data to a different mental environment. But in the consideration of brevity*, I will describe these flaws from an Aristotelian standpoint; there are three points where language fails: the message, the sender, and the receiver.
To understand the message:
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Consider that the pipe that inspired his painting represents the human experience and the pipe within the painting a flood of transcripts, essays, and interviews. Clearly, even the best representations through language can only go so far to express whatever they copy. While this is not to say imitations do not hold their own sort of weight, language, as an imitation, can never fully match its inspiration.
To understand the sender and the receiver:
It is most important to know the discrepancy of perception. In other words, "is your blue my blue?" Just as one can wonder if colors are perceived the same way, other forms of language must be scrutinized. For example, the connotation of every word changes in the minds of each person, based on a number of psychological factors, including the influence of experience that affects the positioning of dendrites.
So what keeps us from drawing the conclusion that language is useless, given that it never succeeds? Language does indeed succeed in trying, in moving, and in storing the information and passion that defines the pursuit of purpose. It is our only tool. Without language, there is no human understanding...
*That is irony.
To understand the message:
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Consider that the pipe that inspired his painting represents the human experience and the pipe within the painting a flood of transcripts, essays, and interviews. Clearly, even the best representations through language can only go so far to express whatever they copy. While this is not to say imitations do not hold their own sort of weight, language, as an imitation, can never fully match its inspiration.
To understand the sender and the receiver:
It is most important to know the discrepancy of perception. In other words, "is your blue my blue?" Just as one can wonder if colors are perceived the same way, other forms of language must be scrutinized. For example, the connotation of every word changes in the minds of each person, based on a number of psychological factors, including the influence of experience that affects the positioning of dendrites.
So what keeps us from drawing the conclusion that language is useless, given that it never succeeds? Language does indeed succeed in trying, in moving, and in storing the information and passion that defines the pursuit of purpose. It is our only tool. Without language, there is no human understanding...
*That is irony.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Heroic journey
Today, for the sixth time, I was told to "suck it up". The first five times, I arrived at false conclusions, believing that I had to accept that:
A. I'm inferior to Derek or Daniel in every conceivable way.
B. I was too innocent.
C. this is a trivial problem.
D. there is a certain order to society that I cannot break.
E. I'm obsessed with attention... so yes, I did consider it.
Today, I've realized that each conclusion has some merit, but none of them is really correct. Let me go through them:
A-Well, yes, I am physically inferior to them in both strength and looks. No, I am not intellectually inferior to them.
B-Yes, I was a little naïve in thinking I ever had a chance and in arriving at extremist conclusions, but no, I have a matter of self-awareness that exceeds most high school students.
C-This is not. It was important to me. It is to many people, but I perceive it as a grave issue.
D-Yes, white girl-asian boy is improbably. No, it is not impossible (or at least later on in life). And yes, people do function a certain way in society, falling for the more attractive or using women as trophies, but no, they either outgrow their stupidity after high school or die trying to keep it.
E-Yes, I wanted attention. I wanted someone on my side because I felt as though the world was mounting against me. No, I don't enjoy being treated in a pitiful way because it only reconfirms my pathetic state.
My real problem was wanting to let such a fantasy define me. I was angry at them mostly because they could easily be defined by their fantasies. They succeeded. But people do have value at birth. For a while, I've thought that people just make their own value. Indeed, I still think one can have more value than another by making one's life, but each person does have value at birth. Ambitions don't count for anything; it's success and the ability to achieve it. To cure myself, I guess I need to find my identity.
Before I begin, let me justify myself. I do have a matter of self-awareness uncommon at my age. I just don't know enough about myself to continue life. Why? Because I'm complex both intellectually and emotionally... yes, like a woman.
So let's start.
My name is not Martin Flanagan. I need to accept my real name.
I am Chinese. No matter how hard I try, I cannot will my hair to be blond, my eyes to be blue, my height to be great, or my anaemic body to be strong. This was pretty important for a lot of my life so I put it closer to the top. I have been using it as an excuse with every failed relationship I've known. I thought I was just not ready for it, but actually I was still more ready than most people.
I have a pale, anaemic body and I suck at literary thought.
I am so damn ambitious. I am more ambitious than my Asian parents ever intended.
Fuck, I hate myself. Let me continue later.
A. I'm inferior to Derek or Daniel in every conceivable way.
B. I was too innocent.
C. this is a trivial problem.
D. there is a certain order to society that I cannot break.
E. I'm obsessed with attention... so yes, I did consider it.
Today, I've realized that each conclusion has some merit, but none of them is really correct. Let me go through them:
A-Well, yes, I am physically inferior to them in both strength and looks. No, I am not intellectually inferior to them.
B-Yes, I was a little naïve in thinking I ever had a chance and in arriving at extremist conclusions, but no, I have a matter of self-awareness that exceeds most high school students.
C-This is not. It was important to me. It is to many people, but I perceive it as a grave issue.
D-Yes, white girl-asian boy is improbably. No, it is not impossible (or at least later on in life). And yes, people do function a certain way in society, falling for the more attractive or using women as trophies, but no, they either outgrow their stupidity after high school or die trying to keep it.
E-Yes, I wanted attention. I wanted someone on my side because I felt as though the world was mounting against me. No, I don't enjoy being treated in a pitiful way because it only reconfirms my pathetic state.
My real problem was wanting to let such a fantasy define me. I was angry at them mostly because they could easily be defined by their fantasies. They succeeded. But people do have value at birth. For a while, I've thought that people just make their own value. Indeed, I still think one can have more value than another by making one's life, but each person does have value at birth. Ambitions don't count for anything; it's success and the ability to achieve it. To cure myself, I guess I need to find my identity.
Before I begin, let me justify myself. I do have a matter of self-awareness uncommon at my age. I just don't know enough about myself to continue life. Why? Because I'm complex both intellectually and emotionally... yes, like a woman.
So let's start.
My name is not Martin Flanagan. I need to accept my real name.
I am Chinese. No matter how hard I try, I cannot will my hair to be blond, my eyes to be blue, my height to be great, or my anaemic body to be strong. This was pretty important for a lot of my life so I put it closer to the top. I have been using it as an excuse with every failed relationship I've known. I thought I was just not ready for it, but actually I was still more ready than most people.
I have a pale, anaemic body and I suck at literary thought.
I am so damn ambitious. I am more ambitious than my Asian parents ever intended.
Fuck, I hate myself. Let me continue later.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Nightmare
Oh who cares about my reputation anymore?
Good morning.
I couldn't tell. It could be midnight or dawn but I couldn't tell. Above, a single lamp hovered precariously between the interviewer and myself. Its metallic cover reminded me of the apparatus people put on dogs who chew too much on themselves. As I looked around, I noticed men whose cold bodies were just beyond illumination, just in the domain of darkness. I probably would never have seen them if it were not for the guns they held that reflected the minimal light. I was so caught up in the description that I almost zoned out when the interviewer asked me the first question.
-you so interested in our university?
I stuttered out a few words before gaining some momentum. Faster and faster I could speak, knowing that I could see the approval of correct answers in the eyes of that old man.
Island game. Argentina, Boy Scouts, leadership camp.
...so tell me about any girlfriends, or boyfriends, that you've had.
Shit. But yes, something clicked.
Why should such an answer matter? Would it mean the difference between acceptance or rejection? I can say I've had friends who are girls. I can say I'm a heterosexual male who's definitely felt emotion... but I don't think I've been given the proper circumstances to cultivate such relationships. I'd say that I was looking for something more profound than what high school could ever give me.
It was then that I saw him quickly scratch down some notes.
You are excused.
I thanked him, but he didn't shake my hand.
I opened the door as the old man sat still in his chair. The mysterious guards seemed to vanish.
Upon opening the door, I was engulfed in a surge of light. When my eyes adjusted, all I could see was Daniel, smiling, and crowds coming to congratulate him.
I'll begin with some symbol analysis.
The light: The light is "muzzled" and fails to illuminate very much. It hangs between myself and the interviewer, suggesting that both of us are "left in the dark". He may be uninformed about who I am, so it is my responsibility to try to communicate with him. Still, college decisions might be more random than I give them credit for. Having a muzzle suggests a protective measure, as enlightenment may be seen as a danger or a threat.
The guards: This redefines that danger. I notice their guns above everything else, meaning that these fears are mostly threat and little else. Yet at the end, they disappear when I leave. The fear is not real, or if it is, it only exists as long as I am succeeding. It reassures me that I'm on the right path. Failure causes them to disappear.
The interview: Most people wouldn't get this, but it very much matches the way I do interviews in Spanish class. While I am usually competent, fear may hinder me.
The question: Here is one of my greatest fears. It is the most absurd idea to ever fear this, but it reflects on how much value I put into certain... objectives. I fear that these past incidents may jeopardize my chances with universities.
The crowd: I feel like the whole world is on his side. I fear that everyone is conspiring against me or for him. I feel like she's just a novelty to everyone. Whether she means more to him, people are so obsessed with this dollhouse relationship that they go out of their way to play with them.
Next, I will notice external patterns.
I cry in my sleep sometimes. Puddles sometimes form on the books that I sleep on. I wake up in a state of anger, my head throbbing with blood while my peripheral vision is severely limited. I utter some words that I remember and jot down.
Schutzstaffel.
I love you.
I'd give you anything short of my future.
The one thing I couldn't give you was probably why you chose him.
I want to go home and go to sleep. (What? I say this while laying on my bed.)
[Scream]
Go to hell.
What a douchebag.
Just make it 'til 5.
A-check, B-check, C-check...
Logic.
unhappybracketsmiley
These phrases are all based on academic and emotional desires. I prioritize emotion when I fail to satisfy emotion because I trust that my grades are more likely to stay afloat.
I can't lower my standards for relationships. Every reincarnation of the "immortal she" from this point on must create stronger emotions than ever before. Certainly, I'd just suffer more after this. But to compromise is to let them win.
I know y'all don't understand this. But in my mind, it flows like clockwork.
Good morning.
I couldn't tell. It could be midnight or dawn but I couldn't tell. Above, a single lamp hovered precariously between the interviewer and myself. Its metallic cover reminded me of the apparatus people put on dogs who chew too much on themselves. As I looked around, I noticed men whose cold bodies were just beyond illumination, just in the domain of darkness. I probably would never have seen them if it were not for the guns they held that reflected the minimal light. I was so caught up in the description that I almost zoned out when the interviewer asked me the first question.
-you so interested in our university?
I stuttered out a few words before gaining some momentum. Faster and faster I could speak, knowing that I could see the approval of correct answers in the eyes of that old man.
Island game. Argentina, Boy Scouts, leadership camp.
...so tell me about any girlfriends, or boyfriends, that you've had.
Shit. But yes, something clicked.
Why should such an answer matter? Would it mean the difference between acceptance or rejection? I can say I've had friends who are girls. I can say I'm a heterosexual male who's definitely felt emotion... but I don't think I've been given the proper circumstances to cultivate such relationships. I'd say that I was looking for something more profound than what high school could ever give me.
It was then that I saw him quickly scratch down some notes.
You are excused.
I thanked him, but he didn't shake my hand.
I opened the door as the old man sat still in his chair. The mysterious guards seemed to vanish.
Upon opening the door, I was engulfed in a surge of light. When my eyes adjusted, all I could see was Daniel, smiling, and crowds coming to congratulate him.
I'll begin with some symbol analysis.
The light: The light is "muzzled" and fails to illuminate very much. It hangs between myself and the interviewer, suggesting that both of us are "left in the dark". He may be uninformed about who I am, so it is my responsibility to try to communicate with him. Still, college decisions might be more random than I give them credit for. Having a muzzle suggests a protective measure, as enlightenment may be seen as a danger or a threat.
The guards: This redefines that danger. I notice their guns above everything else, meaning that these fears are mostly threat and little else. Yet at the end, they disappear when I leave. The fear is not real, or if it is, it only exists as long as I am succeeding. It reassures me that I'm on the right path. Failure causes them to disappear.
The interview: Most people wouldn't get this, but it very much matches the way I do interviews in Spanish class. While I am usually competent, fear may hinder me.
The question: Here is one of my greatest fears. It is the most absurd idea to ever fear this, but it reflects on how much value I put into certain... objectives. I fear that these past incidents may jeopardize my chances with universities.
The crowd: I feel like the whole world is on his side. I fear that everyone is conspiring against me or for him. I feel like she's just a novelty to everyone. Whether she means more to him, people are so obsessed with this dollhouse relationship that they go out of their way to play with them.
Next, I will notice external patterns.
I cry in my sleep sometimes. Puddles sometimes form on the books that I sleep on. I wake up in a state of anger, my head throbbing with blood while my peripheral vision is severely limited. I utter some words that I remember and jot down.
Schutzstaffel.
I love you.
I'd give you anything short of my future.
The one thing I couldn't give you was probably why you chose him.
I want to go home and go to sleep. (What? I say this while laying on my bed.)
[Scream]
Go to hell.
What a douchebag.
Just make it 'til 5.
A-check, B-check, C-check...
Logic.
unhappybracketsmiley
These phrases are all based on academic and emotional desires. I prioritize emotion when I fail to satisfy emotion because I trust that my grades are more likely to stay afloat.
I can't lower my standards for relationships. Every reincarnation of the "immortal she" from this point on must create stronger emotions than ever before. Certainly, I'd just suffer more after this. But to compromise is to let them win.
I know y'all don't understand this. But in my mind, it flows like clockwork.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
A Critique of American Fundamentalism
Let me start at the abstract. In America, Christian morals have dominated the political scene. In a large country greatly obsessed with being the most advanced, avant-garde society on earth, we have placed the Bible right next to our Constitution. We are the City on a Hill. But being one of the first countries to have a constitution, our society has been greatly based on interpretation of dominating literature. Consider The Verdict, a 1982 film about a trial. One of the issues that arises is the validity of the law. Especially in America, justice becomes more than just a set of values; it becomes volumes of numbered codes. Often, "upholding justice" becomes a matter of reading a book. But before I get into a critique of the legal system, let me bring this to the topic of Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is a literal interpretation of the Bible. For many, it is understandable why this is so appealing. America, of course, exists on Earth, a temporal realm infinitely insignificant next to Heaven. Obviously, there's good reason to do what Jesus said to seek eternal life. But like the "blue laws" of United States law, the Bible has a number of trivial rules like never wearing two types of cloth on the same day. Christianity, according to the Catholic authority of Los Angeles, is an expansionist religion, even more than Islam. So why do we never see people picketing "God hates zippers"? It seems like it would be easier to change fashion than to change, say, a person's sexual orientation, right? Thus true Fundamentalists are limited to a only a handful of Christians in America, those that don't really get a lot of publicity because they just look insane. Most cannot claim fundamentalism as justification for various forms of religious extremism or discrimination. In fact, I've never known of any real Fundamentalist activity in America.
Another problem behind fundamentalism for an expansionist religion is that it is detrimental to social morality. Morality must be defined by the "right" choices made freely, not just those bound by the laws. Just as Antigone fights the law to honor her brother, people must make their own decisions to be truly "moral". Morality cannot stem from Fundamentalism penetrating the United States system. Yet Christian fanatics not unlike suicide bombers in the Middle East are slowly gaining a voice in our political system. What do they fear if gays can marry? It isn't really morality, but more a loss of political capital. These people only claim fundamentalism as justification for a political power. Morality, as it was justice in The Verdict, is no longer real, but simply defined by words that few can really accept for literal value.
Thus, I propose the following:
A shift in the American legal system. It cannot be denied that government and law are tied closely together. To uphold morality and general sanity, we must rid politics and the bills produced of religious fanaticism. We must begin at the passing of health care. Doing so shall weaken the political capital of Fundamentalists who are currently dominating the Right. Once they fall, America will return an Edenic political scene when the Right was represented by Barry Goldwater's economy. Again, our debates will focus on real issues like the recession or the war in the Middle East or even North Korea. I accept that health care might cause some problems, but that's why it's necessary to pass. With more issues to discuss, relatively trivial matters such as gay rights will return to the hands of the people. In effect, this would allow gays to marry if they wanted because they would only have to find someone to support them rather than fight the government.
I apologize if I offend anyone, but let's really remember the point of our government. I fear it has become so much more than a tool of this nation's preservation. In Henry David Thoreau's discourse on Civil Disobedience, we learned of a fear of government becoming a living thing, something capable of and willing to reproduce itself at the expense of others. In other words, allowing the government to shape morality, as the Fundamentalists want it, is to allow it to destroy our morality just to reproduce itself. Let us welcome back the pastoral image of American politics.
Fundamentalism is a literal interpretation of the Bible. For many, it is understandable why this is so appealing. America, of course, exists on Earth, a temporal realm infinitely insignificant next to Heaven. Obviously, there's good reason to do what Jesus said to seek eternal life. But like the "blue laws" of United States law, the Bible has a number of trivial rules like never wearing two types of cloth on the same day. Christianity, according to the Catholic authority of Los Angeles, is an expansionist religion, even more than Islam. So why do we never see people picketing "God hates zippers"? It seems like it would be easier to change fashion than to change, say, a person's sexual orientation, right? Thus true Fundamentalists are limited to a only a handful of Christians in America, those that don't really get a lot of publicity because they just look insane. Most cannot claim fundamentalism as justification for various forms of religious extremism or discrimination. In fact, I've never known of any real Fundamentalist activity in America.
Another problem behind fundamentalism for an expansionist religion is that it is detrimental to social morality. Morality must be defined by the "right" choices made freely, not just those bound by the laws. Just as Antigone fights the law to honor her brother, people must make their own decisions to be truly "moral". Morality cannot stem from Fundamentalism penetrating the United States system. Yet Christian fanatics not unlike suicide bombers in the Middle East are slowly gaining a voice in our political system. What do they fear if gays can marry? It isn't really morality, but more a loss of political capital. These people only claim fundamentalism as justification for a political power. Morality, as it was justice in The Verdict, is no longer real, but simply defined by words that few can really accept for literal value.
Thus, I propose the following:
A shift in the American legal system. It cannot be denied that government and law are tied closely together. To uphold morality and general sanity, we must rid politics and the bills produced of religious fanaticism. We must begin at the passing of health care. Doing so shall weaken the political capital of Fundamentalists who are currently dominating the Right. Once they fall, America will return an Edenic political scene when the Right was represented by Barry Goldwater's economy. Again, our debates will focus on real issues like the recession or the war in the Middle East or even North Korea. I accept that health care might cause some problems, but that's why it's necessary to pass. With more issues to discuss, relatively trivial matters such as gay rights will return to the hands of the people. In effect, this would allow gays to marry if they wanted because they would only have to find someone to support them rather than fight the government.
I apologize if I offend anyone, but let's really remember the point of our government. I fear it has become so much more than a tool of this nation's preservation. In Henry David Thoreau's discourse on Civil Disobedience, we learned of a fear of government becoming a living thing, something capable of and willing to reproduce itself at the expense of others. In other words, allowing the government to shape morality, as the Fundamentalists want it, is to allow it to destroy our morality just to reproduce itself. Let us welcome back the pastoral image of American politics.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Ibizan Transcendentalism I
First, why Ibiza? Because it's an island filled with posh society. In effect, it's Poly. Oh, it's also home to some house music, which I enjoy.
Point A. Point B. Our existence is very much dependent on connecting those points throughout various dimensions. In other words, ambition. We need ambition to live. Depression, and eventually suicide, is a result of either a perceived or real absence of one of those two points. For some, losing hope (the perception of an infinite gap between A and B) is justification for suicide. For others, a depressing "mid-life crisis" can be brought about by a lack of distance between the two or having only one point. Let me bring this to my first contention:
Humans can never be satisfied in life.
It is the gap that keeps us alive at all. Yin and yang. The opposite, or the absence of one, must be present to allow the existence of the other. Should humans manage to cover every square centimeter of this planet, they should look to the skies in order to avoid stagnation of ambition, which is the real extinction. The desire to do something is the first step to doing it.
Point A. Point B. Our existence is very much dependent on connecting those points throughout various dimensions. In other words, ambition. We need ambition to live. Depression, and eventually suicide, is a result of either a perceived or real absence of one of those two points. For some, losing hope (the perception of an infinite gap between A and B) is justification for suicide. For others, a depressing "mid-life crisis" can be brought about by a lack of distance between the two or having only one point. Let me bring this to my first contention:
Humans can never be satisfied in life.
It is the gap that keeps us alive at all. Yin and yang. The opposite, or the absence of one, must be present to allow the existence of the other. Should humans manage to cover every square centimeter of this planet, they should look to the skies in order to avoid stagnation of ambition, which is the real extinction. The desire to do something is the first step to doing it.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Six Euros/La guerra sobre el grirklema
Some of you might recall that, not too long ago, I wrote some frazzled sparks of essays for a "Love is like fire" project (if you could call it that). Like photographs, I have to censor some of my worse work. I've decided to keep the rest of the garbage just to raise my self-esteem and see my progress. Wish me luck.
Hace una semana que estaba en esta isla. Desde el choque de 337. Eso es mi vida.. mi cuento. Hay una persona sobre esta isla que me puede entender. Se llama Ocho, pero a mí me parece una mentira. Él es intelligente y tan amable. Cada día me da unos pescados o otra cosa para comer. En esta isla, tenemos (tienen) un sistema económico establecido por el señor Seis. Pagan "el grirklema" por la comida, el agua, y la vida. No conformo con el sistema. El grirklema es una moneda---
6 tried to make an economic system to avoid power struggles on the island. I don't participate because Grierklem here isn't indicative of strength or usefulness, only social proximity towards 6.
Me parece interesante que Ocho usa el sistema y más que respete a Seis. Ocho no habla mucho, pero puedo saber que Ocho no está contento. Quizás tenga planos de luchar sobre el poder, pero lo dudo. ?Por qué? ?Por qué no pelea? La razón es Siete...
Hace una semana que estaba en esta isla. Desde el choque de 337. Eso es mi vida.. mi cuento. Hay una persona sobre esta isla que me puede entender. Se llama Ocho, pero a mí me parece una mentira. Él es intelligente y tan amable. Cada día me da unos pescados o otra cosa para comer. En esta isla, tenemos (tienen) un sistema económico establecido por el señor Seis. Pagan "el grirklema" por la comida, el agua, y la vida. No conformo con el sistema. El grirklema es una moneda---
6 tried to make an economic system to avoid power struggles on the island. I don't participate because Grierklem here isn't indicative of strength or usefulness, only social proximity towards 6.
Me parece interesante que Ocho usa el sistema y más que respete a Seis. Ocho no habla mucho, pero puedo saber que Ocho no está contento. Quizás tenga planos de luchar sobre el poder, pero lo dudo. ?Por qué? ?Por qué no pelea? La razón es Siete...
Monday, February 15, 2010
Nananananananananananananana...
That's good, but you lose 4 points because this isn't in the book.
I get one of those every time I write on philosophy in a history essay, and since those 4 points will most likely be the wind that decides how I tilt on the fence in regards to going to college, I have resolved to instead publish this idea here where it won't cause damage.
Anyone who has watched the film The Dark Knight might recall the scene in which Batman apprehends well-meaning civilian vigilantes, leaving tied up them with criminals. In this scene, one vigilante questions Batman about his right to fight crime to which he coldly responds, "I'm not wearing hockey pads".* But really, what separates Batman from the rest of the vigilantes? To understand this question, one must first make certain assumptions that pertain to Gotham City alone, and not other large, corrupt cities like New York. Batman's Gotham City, in particular, is a cynic's paradise (or I guess a cynic's normal world). It is this cynical attitude that Frank Miller, the artist who created the modern Batman, forces his readers and, in effect, the viewers of the film, to come to terms with. In this most cynical sense, Batman makes a valid point. The only real difference is that he utilizes more advanced technology. He lacks any sort of higher purpose. Especially considering the nature of Batman compared to Superman, Batman's gimmick as a superhero is exactly his lack of higher purpose or morality. He just fights crime without trying to establish a higher society.
Ironically, Batman does end up forming a higher society by giving himself a right above the other vigilantes. This irony had many criticize the comic book Batman for promoting a dog-eat-dog fascist society. Interestingly, this same criticism has been thrown at another cynical moralist, the late 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It might just be a coincidence that Nietzsche explicitly addresses such irony in The Will To Power, a compilation of his works made by his sister. Nietzsche argues that just by having power, in this case, technology, one earns the right to move up and define general morality. But the ultimate irony is that one who earned this right would become der Übermensch, the Superman.
*This is where I began to ponder:
http://phamilton.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/batman-as-vigilante/
I get one of those every time I write on philosophy in a history essay, and since those 4 points will most likely be the wind that decides how I tilt on the fence in regards to going to college, I have resolved to instead publish this idea here where it won't cause damage.
Anyone who has watched the film The Dark Knight might recall the scene in which Batman apprehends well-meaning civilian vigilantes, leaving tied up them with criminals. In this scene, one vigilante questions Batman about his right to fight crime to which he coldly responds, "I'm not wearing hockey pads".* But really, what separates Batman from the rest of the vigilantes? To understand this question, one must first make certain assumptions that pertain to Gotham City alone, and not other large, corrupt cities like New York. Batman's Gotham City, in particular, is a cynic's paradise (or I guess a cynic's normal world). It is this cynical attitude that Frank Miller, the artist who created the modern Batman, forces his readers and, in effect, the viewers of the film, to come to terms with. In this most cynical sense, Batman makes a valid point. The only real difference is that he utilizes more advanced technology. He lacks any sort of higher purpose. Especially considering the nature of Batman compared to Superman, Batman's gimmick as a superhero is exactly his lack of higher purpose or morality. He just fights crime without trying to establish a higher society.
Ironically, Batman does end up forming a higher society by giving himself a right above the other vigilantes. This irony had many criticize the comic book Batman for promoting a dog-eat-dog fascist society. Interestingly, this same criticism has been thrown at another cynical moralist, the late 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It might just be a coincidence that Nietzsche explicitly addresses such irony in The Will To Power, a compilation of his works made by his sister. Nietzsche argues that just by having power, in this case, technology, one earns the right to move up and define general morality. But the ultimate irony is that one who earned this right would become der Übermensch, the Superman.
*This is where I began to ponder:
http://phamilton.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/batman-as-vigilante/
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Six Euros/Love is just a word
I'm getting used to the place and the work I have to do. Actually, it's not much compared to work back home. 8 seems like he's doing better today. 6 has put us all to work and it's working. We've found food and water. Actually, I have to brag, but I found water. 8 told us to purify it first, but everyone kept drinking it until 6 told us to purify it. Honestly, I don't trust that kid. Maybe it's that I don't even know where his shelter is. He built a few of them for others, so I guess I know what it'd look like. I bet he's just jealous. He'll get over that. I'm kinda afraid he'll get harder to understand. I guess I'm kinda the psychologist here. I talked to 4 this morning; she's getting sick, but 2 and 42 are taking care of her. 5 came up to me. He's infatuated with some girl, but that's normal. 7's the same, but that's not normal for her. Actually, it's 6, so that's normal for everyone. I guess that makes sense; I can respect him, even if I see him as a human. What else? I guess I'm learning French from 7 since I have no idea how long we'll be here, but I bet 6 can take care of us.
It's night two. Pretty boring. 8 made another fire, but it's smaller. He's saying something, but he's so desperate for attention I doubt it matters. The rest agree.
It's night two. Pretty boring. 8 made another fire, but it's smaller. He's saying something, but he's so desperate for attention I doubt it matters. The rest agree.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Six Euros/Love is like fire
My name is 15. I am a worker among the 42 survivors of AFG Flight 337.
Let me give some context. 23, including me, are from a prep school in America. The rest are business people from like, France, and a bunch of tourists from central L.A. The business class part of the plane exploded, so that's all that's left.
Upon crashing, 8 was the first to take action, using wilderness emergency no one knew he had. He called someone to get the list of people aboard the flight. Strangely, 8 seemed utterly prepared for this disaster. All of our questions met a swift response from 8. Back at home, he was a kinda lonely kid. He wasn't too popular; he wasn't too attractive, and he was too smart.
6 was the second to take action. He also used first aid to help, but his help was more normal, like what you see in hospitals. He didn't save many people that way, but was more effective at dragging people out of the water. 6 was charismatic as usual. But when we crashed, I finally realized that he wasn't any better of a speaker than 8 or anything. He just looked better. Yeah, back at home, 6 was everything. Everyone liked him. He was the nicest kid anyone knew. He was super attractive and super smart.
After the 42 survivors were assembled, we definitely had to choose between them. Yeah, most of the business people were pretty impressed and our chaperones were in some gruesome position in the wreckage. 6 wanted a vote. Immediately, the girls of our 23-member tour joined him. 8's alternative was to do the same, but first explain the skills that they could provide. The screams of 6's cheerleaders drowned out 8's idea and a vote proceeded. 6 won, obviously. Most of the people out of the 23 voted based on the craze the girls had created. 8 became a worker; they found some real doctor from the rest.
Tonight is night one. We are huddled around a dwindling fire that 8 made. When I look at him now, I can tell he's not satisfied. But more than ever this time. He's used to being overshadowed by 6, but he seems really bothered.
Let me give some context. 23, including me, are from a prep school in America. The rest are business people from like, France, and a bunch of tourists from central L.A. The business class part of the plane exploded, so that's all that's left.
Upon crashing, 8 was the first to take action, using wilderness emergency no one knew he had. He called someone to get the list of people aboard the flight. Strangely, 8 seemed utterly prepared for this disaster. All of our questions met a swift response from 8. Back at home, he was a kinda lonely kid. He wasn't too popular; he wasn't too attractive, and he was too smart.
6 was the second to take action. He also used first aid to help, but his help was more normal, like what you see in hospitals. He didn't save many people that way, but was more effective at dragging people out of the water. 6 was charismatic as usual. But when we crashed, I finally realized that he wasn't any better of a speaker than 8 or anything. He just looked better. Yeah, back at home, 6 was everything. Everyone liked him. He was the nicest kid anyone knew. He was super attractive and super smart.
After the 42 survivors were assembled, we definitely had to choose between them. Yeah, most of the business people were pretty impressed and our chaperones were in some gruesome position in the wreckage. 6 wanted a vote. Immediately, the girls of our 23-member tour joined him. 8's alternative was to do the same, but first explain the skills that they could provide. The screams of 6's cheerleaders drowned out 8's idea and a vote proceeded. 6 won, obviously. Most of the people out of the 23 voted based on the craze the girls had created. 8 became a worker; they found some real doctor from the rest.
Tonight is night one. We are huddled around a dwindling fire that 8 made. When I look at him now, I can tell he's not satisfied. But more than ever this time. He's used to being overshadowed by 6, but he seems really bothered.
Friday, February 12, 2010
A preliminary theory on male social power
Let me begin by stating that I am a feminist who is quite afraid of gender equality. Such a world would bring me lifelong loneliness (If men lost the majority on mate selection, I'd be fucked). Fortunately, loneliness is not my greatest fear; my greatest fear is a total loss of power.
First, I shall define the key phrases:
Grierklem.
Grierklem is like chi. It is the metaphysical currency for social power. Each person has an amount of social power. Unlike chi, one can earn or lose it. It is the degree to which others care about what you want and their willingness to act on its behalf. It does not tell the difference whether the person would act similarly isolated from manipulation or if they really care.
Social power.
Social power, contrary to the contemporary bullshit, is not the degree to which other people care about what you want. What an idyllic and idealized world that would be! No, social power means being able to steal grierklem or control the grierklem economy.
Woman.
Store. In today's world, women are not considered human beings. They are the stores at which men spend grierklem to buy things like food or sex.
We all have an amount of grierklem. We are not equal. The first thing that defines the base amount of grierklem owned depends on age. I can guarantee that, during my age, grierklem is first determined by physical beauty. It's like an occupation, and I am working at that stereotypical fast-food joint. As I would want to gain social power (well feminists have to work in this system, too), I have to get grierklem to spend. So I must steal.
I gain grierklem by oratory action. Simple. I make friends. They care about what I want. Some might even act for it. So I decide it's time to go to the store (notice that I say "the store", not "a store"). Oh, but it's an auction... with one of my best friends? I quickly find myself out of grierklem and out of hope.
It is by this that I must remind you that women cannot be equal. Why? It would mean every person on the face of the planet with the same amount of grierklem while having a population that is exactly 50% male and 50% female. Gender equality. Can you possibly imagine the day when women can get paid the same wages? When they can have the same responsibility in government? When they can have the same confident conviction in saying, "no"? I cannot. If some sort of grierklem stasis were maintained, I'd be alone forever. My 50% would never be able to overcome the resisting 50% of anyone I'd fall in love with. Yet I still justify my feminist attitude with my desire, not for total equality (women could be more powerful, but not the same), but for increased respect for women. Just to the point of destroying the grierklem economy. I want to see those who have monopolized on it for so long to fall and suffer. In this sense, I am very much a communist. But even the Socialist Republic of Grierklem wouldn't give me her. And I know that. In this economy, I have nothing to gain but the satisfaction in the suffering of the former heads of the oppressive capitalism that cut and burned me. Oh but in real life, I'm very much a capitalist because I CAN move up.
Look over this again and see its application on general power (So I looked it over and decided I hate my writing. Somebody just stab off a finger so it'll stop). Power is determined in relative "ability" within "arenas". We must be careful in understanding the concept of power as being relative in different contexts.
First, I shall define the key phrases:
Grierklem.
Grierklem is like chi. It is the metaphysical currency for social power. Each person has an amount of social power. Unlike chi, one can earn or lose it. It is the degree to which others care about what you want and their willingness to act on its behalf. It does not tell the difference whether the person would act similarly isolated from manipulation or if they really care.
Social power.
Social power, contrary to the contemporary bullshit, is not the degree to which other people care about what you want. What an idyllic and idealized world that would be! No, social power means being able to steal grierklem or control the grierklem economy.
Woman.
Store. In today's world, women are not considered human beings. They are the stores at which men spend grierklem to buy things like food or sex.
We all have an amount of grierklem. We are not equal. The first thing that defines the base amount of grierklem owned depends on age. I can guarantee that, during my age, grierklem is first determined by physical beauty. It's like an occupation, and I am working at that stereotypical fast-food joint. As I would want to gain social power (well feminists have to work in this system, too), I have to get grierklem to spend. So I must steal.
I gain grierklem by oratory action. Simple. I make friends. They care about what I want. Some might even act for it. So I decide it's time to go to the store (notice that I say "the store", not "a store"). Oh, but it's an auction... with one of my best friends? I quickly find myself out of grierklem and out of hope.
It is by this that I must remind you that women cannot be equal. Why? It would mean every person on the face of the planet with the same amount of grierklem while having a population that is exactly 50% male and 50% female. Gender equality. Can you possibly imagine the day when women can get paid the same wages? When they can have the same responsibility in government? When they can have the same confident conviction in saying, "no"? I cannot. If some sort of grierklem stasis were maintained, I'd be alone forever. My 50% would never be able to overcome the resisting 50% of anyone I'd fall in love with. Yet I still justify my feminist attitude with my desire, not for total equality (women could be more powerful, but not the same), but for increased respect for women. Just to the point of destroying the grierklem economy. I want to see those who have monopolized on it for so long to fall and suffer. In this sense, I am very much a communist. But even the Socialist Republic of Grierklem wouldn't give me her. And I know that. In this economy, I have nothing to gain but the satisfaction in the suffering of the former heads of the oppressive capitalism that cut and burned me. Oh but in real life, I'm very much a capitalist because I CAN move up.
Look over this again and see its application on general power (So I looked it over and decided I hate my writing. Somebody just stab off a finger so it'll stop). Power is determined in relative "ability" within "arenas". We must be careful in understanding the concept of power as being relative in different contexts.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Choose a flavor
Here's a random question that I hope isn't clichéd... everything I think of tends to be owned:
If given the choice, would you prefer to have a ring that renders you invisible or a ring that lets you see the intentions of others?
Think of the advantages of each and do something with the poll if you want...
It is needless to say that I would be happy to have found either one. Yet given a choice between the two, the first thing I would do would be analyze the heck out of both options. In the end, I see it as a choice between augmenting my social defense or offense, much like raising stats in an RPG or trading players on a sports team. On one end, invisibility is escape. On the other, seeing into people's intentions would let me, with greater efficiency, pinpoint desires and fears. Then I would think, what would I want?
When I ignore social impacts, invisibility would basically mean thievery. But perception, outside of a social context, provides what I try so hard to achieve: a perfect connection. It would mean the ability to control other human beings around me. It would also mean finally being able to organize the female mind, something I've failed so many times at doing. So I guess, the ultimate criterion for this decision must be power: the power to love and destroy.
To finally infiltrate the Schutzstaffel. That's what I wanted. To know why they wanted to do what they did so badly.
If given the choice, would you prefer to have a ring that renders you invisible or a ring that lets you see the intentions of others?
Think of the advantages of each and do something with the poll if you want...
It is needless to say that I would be happy to have found either one. Yet given a choice between the two, the first thing I would do would be analyze the heck out of both options. In the end, I see it as a choice between augmenting my social defense or offense, much like raising stats in an RPG or trading players on a sports team. On one end, invisibility is escape. On the other, seeing into people's intentions would let me, with greater efficiency, pinpoint desires and fears. Then I would think, what would I want?
When I ignore social impacts, invisibility would basically mean thievery. But perception, outside of a social context, provides what I try so hard to achieve: a perfect connection. It would mean the ability to control other human beings around me. It would also mean finally being able to organize the female mind, something I've failed so many times at doing. So I guess, the ultimate criterion for this decision must be power: the power to love and destroy.
To finally infiltrate the Schutzstaffel. That's what I wanted. To know why they wanted to do what they did so badly.
Friday, February 5, 2010
On Innocence
I'm going through my iTunes library and all the songs I listened a year ago. Among them are many trance songs that feel soft, round, and warm. They speak of free time and free will. For some reason, the palate of my ears reject them. I still listen to electronic music, but only the bitter, scratchy puke of the synth finds its way into my mind. I suppose this must be what the transition from white to red wine must feel like.
I cannot begin to describe what has happened to me within the last twelve months, mostly because I don't know. I only know that sometime between last February and now, a series of tragedies erupted in my life. I call these events tragedies only because I had nightmares of them for years before. I have seen the shallowness of humans and have seen the effectiveness of shallowness. I have come to question most of what I believed in. I don't think I can pinpoint a time where my innocence just died, but I can say that my reserve of it was drained. Innocence, like an arm or a leg, cannot be recovered. I'm sorry for being so dramatic, but something happened today that told me that I'm not innocent anymore. I can only believe in my own hopes and I can never sell them out again.
Cameron, if you're reading this, I hate my writing. I honestly hate my own ink. And it is my writing, not any ridiculous thing the English department has manufactured. No, I hate my writing.
Katie, if you're reading this, I think that some part of you, perhaps a tiny subconscious flicker, knows as well as I that there are people among us we cannot trust.
I cannot begin to describe what has happened to me within the last twelve months, mostly because I don't know. I only know that sometime between last February and now, a series of tragedies erupted in my life. I call these events tragedies only because I had nightmares of them for years before. I have seen the shallowness of humans and have seen the effectiveness of shallowness. I have come to question most of what I believed in. I don't think I can pinpoint a time where my innocence just died, but I can say that my reserve of it was drained. Innocence, like an arm or a leg, cannot be recovered. I'm sorry for being so dramatic, but something happened today that told me that I'm not innocent anymore. I can only believe in my own hopes and I can never sell them out again.
Cameron, if you're reading this, I hate my writing. I honestly hate my own ink. And it is my writing, not any ridiculous thing the English department has manufactured. No, I hate my writing.
Katie, if you're reading this, I think that some part of you, perhaps a tiny subconscious flicker, knows as well as I that there are people among us we cannot trust.
I have a totally valid excuse...
English Speech.
Seriously, why am I such a terrible writer? I'm tired of holding on to the tiniest strands of optimism that tethered me to the society around me. You are all so superficial, so mindless, and so pathetic. But I'm weak, so I guess I'm worse right now.
Seriously, why am I such a terrible writer? I'm tired of holding on to the tiniest strands of optimism that tethered me to the society around me. You are all so superficial, so mindless, and so pathetic. But I'm weak, so I guess I'm worse right now.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
prompt Fame corrupts the soul
Many of the heroes who joined the gods at Mount Olympus found themselves distant from their human neighbors who once loved them. A certain aura of fear and venerability follows them. Like these classical demigods, celebrities today become removed from the rest of the human population as if the fame they earned had replaced some invisible bonds that held them to their old friends. It may appear that fame delivers power or shallowness to its bearer, but instead it takes it. Fame is a chain on human instinct and is a mask on human profoundness.
In the state of fame, individuals are constantly watched, and thus constantly denying their true selves. Most people usually have time alone to belch or scratch in ways that appear less-than-beautiful. But celebrities do not. Instead they are confined to social standards set for them. In the myth of Gyges, one can see that people act differently in different situations according to who is viewing them. Celebrities do not have the chance to unleash their primal instincts in solitary meditation nor do they have a magic ring that turns them invisible. There are some exceptions. Lady Gaga is an interesting case. Through a primary analysis of her external character, one can see that she is well suited for fame even naturally. She, like many other celebrities, is a performer and is trained for an audience. In an interview, she revealed that the most important parts of her life are writing, loving, and wearing fashion. Writing, referring mostly to her work as a musician, and fashion both imply that she is very much a natural celebrity. Loving, as an emotional experience, shows she is human. As a physical experience, it is simply one of the additional parts of celebrity life. For most celebrities, however, as demonstrated by their more human apparel, show proclivity towards normal human society, but may commit strange acts given their circumstances.
Celebrities are then not capable of having such a profound impact on the lives around them. There are only so many minutes in life, and the way celebrities have to stretch those minutes over many people and "lives" they live means that they cannot develop real relationships with the other people around them or live entwined lives. The Peanuts comic artist Charles M. Schulz once argued that celebrities do not actually mean that much to all people. Even if the last Olympic champions accomplished more than some of our closest friends, they never did us any sort of favor or anything. Their accomplishments on the screen were promptly forgotten. This is similar to the "15 minutes of fame" proposed by Andy Warhol. The short duration of fame he refers to explains how the media just catches something, looks at it, and grows bored and moves on. People will never grow bored of a good deed done to them. Just as Jesus cautioned his disciples not to go preach as the hypocrites do, making a public show of things, he understood the way in which his disciples could be remembered for character, not rhetoric. The fact that celebrities are capable of being "deep" is not to be disputed. Indeed, they too are human, they just might not have the time for it.
Fame tends to come with money, but not necessarily power. Celebrities, in most cases, are not simply corrupt. They simply act in accordance to the conditions imposed on them, being a lack of space and a lack of time. Certainly, they give us reason to envy them, but we might really want to reconsider if a magic lamp were in our hands. If Mount Olympus had a toll booth, the currency it accepted would not be in souls, but probably devotion.
In the state of fame, individuals are constantly watched, and thus constantly denying their true selves. Most people usually have time alone to belch or scratch in ways that appear less-than-beautiful. But celebrities do not. Instead they are confined to social standards set for them. In the myth of Gyges, one can see that people act differently in different situations according to who is viewing them. Celebrities do not have the chance to unleash their primal instincts in solitary meditation nor do they have a magic ring that turns them invisible. There are some exceptions. Lady Gaga is an interesting case. Through a primary analysis of her external character, one can see that she is well suited for fame even naturally. She, like many other celebrities, is a performer and is trained for an audience. In an interview, she revealed that the most important parts of her life are writing, loving, and wearing fashion. Writing, referring mostly to her work as a musician, and fashion both imply that she is very much a natural celebrity. Loving, as an emotional experience, shows she is human. As a physical experience, it is simply one of the additional parts of celebrity life. For most celebrities, however, as demonstrated by their more human apparel, show proclivity towards normal human society, but may commit strange acts given their circumstances.
Celebrities are then not capable of having such a profound impact on the lives around them. There are only so many minutes in life, and the way celebrities have to stretch those minutes over many people and "lives" they live means that they cannot develop real relationships with the other people around them or live entwined lives. The Peanuts comic artist Charles M. Schulz once argued that celebrities do not actually mean that much to all people. Even if the last Olympic champions accomplished more than some of our closest friends, they never did us any sort of favor or anything. Their accomplishments on the screen were promptly forgotten. This is similar to the "15 minutes of fame" proposed by Andy Warhol. The short duration of fame he refers to explains how the media just catches something, looks at it, and grows bored and moves on. People will never grow bored of a good deed done to them. Just as Jesus cautioned his disciples not to go preach as the hypocrites do, making a public show of things, he understood the way in which his disciples could be remembered for character, not rhetoric. The fact that celebrities are capable of being "deep" is not to be disputed. Indeed, they too are human, they just might not have the time for it.
Fame tends to come with money, but not necessarily power. Celebrities, in most cases, are not simply corrupt. They simply act in accordance to the conditions imposed on them, being a lack of space and a lack of time. Certainly, they give us reason to envy them, but we might really want to reconsider if a magic lamp were in our hands. If Mount Olympus had a toll booth, the currency it accepted would not be in souls, but probably devotion.
Monday, January 25, 2010
You thought I'd give up by now, huh?
I need to start taking a new approach to this. One of the main reasons I'm so bad at writing is that I'm barely literate. I'm going to spend the next hour reading. Also, I did horribly on my English final. Honestly, someone break into my house so I can kill you and release my frustration.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope
In an attempt to diversify my pathetic writing, here's a poem I'm going to look at and write about all in less than 50 minutes.
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.
On the Third Day, God created Man in his likeness. We, as humans, bear similarity to God. As a result, we have often turned to looking at God to satisfy our endless quest for self-definition. The result of this is a narcissistic view of humankind that draws a strong distinction between us and animals that is not present, at least willingly, between God and us. Alexander Pope explores the relationships that connect God, humans, and animals to explain that humans are unique from both.
Pope describes our relationship to God and animals like a middle ground rather than a direct product of God. By metaphorically calling our situation an "isthmus" [line 3], humans are made out to be connected to both God and animals. The idea of an isthmus is a narrow strip of land, meaning that God and animals are not necessarily close, but humankind can span the distance between both of them with attributes of both. The idea of an isthmus also relates to the idea that two much larger continents surround human beings so that they are more alone. The line "Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all" [line 16] describes humans as insignificant, as humans are both smitten by God and devoured by animals. At the same time, humans are "Lord of all things", a title usually given to God. The curious capitalization of "Lord" reveals human's likeness to God, but also their lack of his invincibility, showing that humans are between and attached to both God and animal.
Where humans stand in accordance to God and animals only reveals that they are in the middle in terms of power, but Pope further elaborates that humans are unique. "A Being darkly wise and rudely great" first juxtaposes the two ideas of human definition. On one end, they are wise, in a manner not understood like God, referencing the individual cognitive ability of humans. On the other, they are obviously great, meaning strong in a way clear to the eyes. Yet the negative connotation of those adverbs also points out the negative feelings associated with trying to judge humans on the same scale as animals or God. Instead, the anaphora Pope uses for "in doubt" [lines 7-9] emphasizes that, because humans are reluctant to choose to be either like God or animal, they are unlike either and have their own distance. The isthmus described earlier is indeed its own continent.
akdjksv I can't write. Well I guess I should learn to sing or something.
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.
On the Third Day, God created Man in his likeness. We, as humans, bear similarity to God. As a result, we have often turned to looking at God to satisfy our endless quest for self-definition. The result of this is a narcissistic view of humankind that draws a strong distinction between us and animals that is not present, at least willingly, between God and us. Alexander Pope explores the relationships that connect God, humans, and animals to explain that humans are unique from both.
Pope describes our relationship to God and animals like a middle ground rather than a direct product of God. By metaphorically calling our situation an "isthmus" [line 3], humans are made out to be connected to both God and animals. The idea of an isthmus is a narrow strip of land, meaning that God and animals are not necessarily close, but humankind can span the distance between both of them with attributes of both. The idea of an isthmus also relates to the idea that two much larger continents surround human beings so that they are more alone. The line "Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all" [line 16] describes humans as insignificant, as humans are both smitten by God and devoured by animals. At the same time, humans are "Lord of all things", a title usually given to God. The curious capitalization of "Lord" reveals human's likeness to God, but also their lack of his invincibility, showing that humans are between and attached to both God and animal.
Where humans stand in accordance to God and animals only reveals that they are in the middle in terms of power, but Pope further elaborates that humans are unique. "A Being darkly wise and rudely great" first juxtaposes the two ideas of human definition. On one end, they are wise, in a manner not understood like God, referencing the individual cognitive ability of humans. On the other, they are obviously great, meaning strong in a way clear to the eyes. Yet the negative connotation of those adverbs also points out the negative feelings associated with trying to judge humans on the same scale as animals or God. Instead, the anaphora Pope uses for "in doubt" [lines 7-9] emphasizes that, because humans are reluctant to choose to be either like God or animal, they are unlike either and have their own distance. The isthmus described earlier is indeed its own continent.
akdjksv I can't write. Well I guess I should learn to sing or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
