Our Greatest Fear

First off, i should state that I disagree with this poem to say that I believe that often times our greatest fear is actually the fear of inadequacy rather than being "powerful beyond measure."  For me, a pessimistic realist, i know that the things that I say and do will often not meet expectations, and in those situations it is the inadequacy that i fear rather than my own personal power.

So, we have to write about a time when we felt like we couldn't be ourselves?  Hokay.  Here goes.  I recently (last summer) met a group of friends who go to Carmel High School.  These individuals happen to play for the football team there.  Cool.  At any rate, they came over to my house to go swimming and to just hang out.  Everything was cool the first day, because all they really knew about me was my taste in music, what TV shows i like to watch, and my interest in cars.  Far as they knew, I'm another average 17-year-old straight teenage guy.  Only one problem, straight is not something that truthfully describes me, and they'd never hung out with anyone who didn't meet that requirement.  Here we are a year hence, and I still associate with these individuals on a regular basis, and plan to live with some of these guys my sophomore year in college.  They are now very accepting of me as the guy that I am.  However, at the time, i had to play into exactly the societal expectation that these individuals had expected.  It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th time that I hung out with them that I told them the truth.  They were skeptical at first, but now everything's cool.  At any rate, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Lady or the Tiger

Better to have loved and lost than to have loved at all. There are often times when one's own emotion intercedes in a life-and-death decision, such that death is the preferred outcome. In the case of the short story "The Lady Or The Tiger," it seems to me that the princess would be more prone to directing her lover toward the tiger, primarily because she'd rather have him dead and pained for an instant than having to live for the rest of his and her life not being able to be together. Furthermore, this whole societal construct i ssaid to have barbaric tendencies, which would also make sense for the decision. All things considered, the emotional attachment had the power to override the concern for life. The tiger came out of the door.

King Lear Act III blog

The scene in which Gloucester's eyes are gouged out is in fact full of violence, however it is also full of symbolism.  All throughout the play, Goucester has been stabbed in the back, mislead, and toyed with, and despite his physical capability to see, has been completely blind to the fact.  Now that he has lost his sight, however, he is able to realize that all along he's been had.  The reason for this graphic violence occuring on stage is more for dramatic purposes than to be gratuitously violent.  During act III, elements of confustion, tension, and malevolence have built up into a certain sort of frenzy.  This gouging out of his eye then stomping on it serves as a parallel to represent all of the ludicrous nature of the behavior in this act thus far.  This act is much more justified in its presence than violence in slasher films and Grand Theft Auto.  Violence in the latter two examples is typically violence for violence's sake.  It is there to be as gory and as gruesome as possible, for little dramatic reason and generally for shock value.  Graphic violence has a place in drama when it actually conveys drama, not when it is there to convey violence.  

King Lear Act II Response 2

After Edgar "fights" Edmund, he runs away because he is under the impression that everyone is going to be looking for him.  He hides in a hollow tree because "I heard myself proclaimed, and by the happy hollow of a tree escaped the hunt.  No port is free, no place that guard and most unusual vigilance does not attend my taking."  Due to his confusion of the actual situation (and his ignorance regarding the treachery of Edmund) he decides to disguise himself as "the basest and most poorest shape that ever penury and contempt of man."  On a surface, this disguise is simply to avoid himself being caught for the transgressions he has made against Edmund.  However, on a deeper level, Edgar feels as though his own character is of no worth to society.  He feels that due to the actions that everyone else in the society perceives him  to have done that they no longer value him and would value him more as a vagrant.  At least they would cast some semblance of charity onto a wanderer.  On a different note, this character may be used as a symbol.  Typically these characters of whom Edgar is disguising himself are known as insane people who have escaped from an asylum, and as such are generally confused and crazy.  This might be used as a symbol of the confusion and craziness that both the reader and Edgar himself are feeling at this point.  All things considered, however, this extreme disguise is probably employed mostly due to the fact that Edgar must pick something so drastically differed from his typical self so that those who seek to punish him for his supposed wrongdoing will not be able to find him.

King Lear Act II Response 1

Sad as it is, there is often the case in which a child (though he or she may not be necessarily of a child's age) turns against their parent.  They undermine, they neglect, or they in essence mistreat their parents to such a degree that an outward appearance of the actions borders on the despicable.  The exact reason for this phenomena is wide open for debate, and can range from a grudge of a past wrongdoing, the result of a spoiled childhood, a culmination of years of irritation, or simply out of the questionable character (morally/ethically) of the child his or herself.  In the case of the two daughters in this story, i would say that a combination of all of the aforementioned scenarios can apply (probably with less of an emphasis on the wrongdoing).  The daughters have more likely than not known throughout their lives that one day they would inherit their father's land.  Whether that came by the way of the king's death or by some other means is unknown to them, but they have undoubtedly lusted after their hefty parcels.  Sheer greed mixed with the years of irritation of their father lecturing them about their mannerisms and what have you may have definitely fueled their treatment of their father.  Furthermore, the fact that the once king has handed over his land to his daughters, then proceeded to encroach on what was at one time, but no longer is his power may also come as an irritation at an extent great enough to make the daughters want to turn him away.

King Lear Act I (post ii)

Loyalty is a rather interesting concept.  It is typically based on friendship, but doesn't necessarily have to be.  For those loyalties that are based in friendship, the basis is usually in that the two people trust and support each other and in that right, will remain loyal to one another.  For those loyalties that aren't based on friendship, it can be for a similar mutual respect between the two individuals.  The type of loyalty in which a person devotes themselves to the other person (like Kent to Lear in this case) is modernly referred to as being clingy and is typically not tolerated.  The situation between Lear and Kent is practically beyond explanation.  This prime example of altruism is rarely (if ever) seen for the simple reason that it rarely benefits the one showing the loyalty.  In Kent's case, it didn't benefit him at all (considering his banishment).  Put short, the loyalty in Kent's case was not at the same extent as loyalty will be referred to in more modern times.  Probably one of the most important characteristics of someone who wishes to attract loyalty is a capability for the understanding of the feeling of those loyal to him/her.  Those wishing to attract loyalty must give those exhibiting loyalty an incentive to stay loyal.  They must show those loyal to them that they mean something to the person shown loyalty.  One of the people that I feel best exemplifies what it takes to attract loyalty is Dr. Vesper.  He has only the best interests of the community at large at heart, while simultaneously making sure that every individual is also taken care of.  

King Lear Act I (post 1)

While i do not condone the behavior of either Goneril or Regan, i do understand what is going through their minds in this instance.  Up for grabs is a rather substantial part of a kingdom.  Now, this is much better than anything any naive daughter got on MTV's Super Sweet 16.  It's logical that they are going to want the most of this gift that they can get, and will do things that they wouldn't do normally in order to get it.  There's a saying that goes, "everyone has their price."  This most definitely applies here as a parcel of a kingdom of this nature is like learning that you and another family member are the sole benefactors of a large sum of money left in a passed loved one's will, but you have to do something out of the ordinary for yourself to get it.  The world inside their heads is completely obsessed with getting as much of their dad's land as they can possibly get, and this means that they're not paying much attention to others feelings.  I can't say that I personally have ever been in a situation in which i would completely disregard others in order to acheive a desire, but I am aware that there is a certain amount of prosperity that i would start to loosen my morals and ethics in order to obtain.  

I want real danger for a change.

Living in a persistent ant state of bliss is good, but only for a while. It's not real. The way the human psyche is set up, there is bound to be conflict. A human cannot mentally handle being happy all the time. Let's approach this from a scientific point of view. Happy thoughts are caused by things called endorphins (if I'm wrong here then please be gentle in your criticisms). As with any stimulus, the body would ultimately become used to to endorphins and they would lose their effect. So, the fact of the matter is that happiness can only ever be fleeting. For people to truly live a full life, they must experience a full range of emotions. This also hearkens back to the concept of you can't really know happiness unless you've felt sadness. In a utopia, there is no discord (other than the entire existence of the utopia itself, despite the fact that those involved in the utopia aren't aware of this), so by this logic there can't actually be happiness. Due to the lack of the full range of emotions in this case, the people in this society don't live full lives. While they themselves my not realize it, it takes a certain more attentive and in tune group to realize that we were meant to live for so much more. (Have we lost ourselves?)

Sex, drugs, and Mind Control.

I've been to Soma. That is, the South of Market District in San Fran.

www.soma.fm --- Zone Out

Mയ personal opinion on the use of sex and drugs to control the general populus is the fact that they are appealing to peoplemost base instincts and pleasures. It is our natural instinct to want to have sex, and more often than not we as animals enjoy the process. Effectively, through equating essentially every aspect of life with either partaking in a sexual act or through using drugs, they are keeping everyone in a perpetual state of happiness. What's more, people who are kept in such a state are much less likely to question their state. They'd rather exist in a perpetual state of bliss (and we all know that ignorance is bliss). I mean, why mess with a good thing? Furthermore, because these people have been preconditioned to be a certain way and perform certain soceital roles, they are even less likely to question any practices. Human nature is a funny thing, however. Despite the fact that the people have been preconditioned and are already very unlikely to question their situation, the governing powers that be have covered the event that anyone should question the personal role. After all, "A gramme is better than a damn." Any happy thoughts? Obliterate them with soma.

Comparison

While on the whole ludicrous, there are certain aspects of Huxley's Brave New World that are at least partially true. The aspect that was a most clear parallel (while not at a 1:1 ratio) was the concept of being pre-disposed to a certain role in life. While we are not necessarily conditioned to be exactly a certain way, it is arguable that the position in which we are born predetermines where we will ultimately end up in life. For example, those who are born into a low-income family or into a family that does not encourage education and does not instill certain traditionally positive values will generally end up the same way: being the parents of children who will also not value an education or good ethics. This recurrent pattern is a very difficult one to break, and except for a certain few instances generally holds true in our society. The opposite of this situation is also generally true: Children who grow up in families that instill good values and encourage education will generally go on to continue such a lineage. This situation is easier to deviate from (unfortunately), but in large part holds true. This pattern can also be applied in large part by regional constraints (sad but true). Now, if we were to approach this fictitious society from a Leninist perspective (notice how many characters have names similar to important communist or socialist figures; Lenina for example), the society is perfect and as the best for overall happiness. However, there is a large regression in human advancement (not all of which that I believe are necessarily good things)that makes the society out to be a morally and ethically disgusting place. The Beta class and below are encouraged to engage in mindless entertainment, and the fact that small children are encouraged to engage in erotic play is unnerving. The part that disgusts me most of all is the "Bokanovskying" of eggs to produce up to 96 offspring from the same egg. Manipulating nature with science should only go so far.
My summation is thus: Once we've begun allowing certain procedures (mainly ones that a decade ago would've met large scale protest), it's a slippery slope before we can get away with practically whatever we want to. Where will we limit ourselves, and furthermore, WILL we limit ourselves?

Which would you save?

A response to "Ethics" by Linda Patsan

Frankly, I don't understand this poem. The concept behind it is interesting as always, but the message is definitely unclear. I guess this poem speaks to the general decline in overall care towards ethics. It is almost robitcally ingrained in us to say that we'd give regard to life over art; almost so much so that it becomes unimportant. Honestly, i don't feel that people will actually even think about this on a realistic level. Would you save an old woman or a Rembrandt painting in the event of a fire in a museum? I personally don't care for Rembrandt, but i'd also have to take into account whether or not the woman can walk, and it would also depend on the pertinancy of danger that the fire posed. While it may be interesting to examine how the general regard to morals and ethics have grown darker like the colors in the painting, this question has become effectively exhausted.

MY 100th POST!!! YAY!!!

Tranzliate this $h1zn1t to Jive! Click the Spinn'n Rimz!

Misconception

Response to "On Reading Poems to a Senior class at South High"

It  is a common misconception that the youth of today's world are so wrapped-up in their own personal affairs as well as popular culture that they lack an appreciation for simpler things.  Therefore, it seems to the writer of this poem almost a surprise that the students take in the poems like a fish taking water through its gills.  High school students are capable of amazing things in regard to abstract thought, however this is often overlooked.  Sadly however, because the fast-paced world in which we live, this exploration through the human mind is only fleeting and often dissolves as soon as it is built.  The memory of such a venture lingers sweet in our minds, but the experience of the real endeavor is not lasting.

The Awakening Ch. last little bit

This book is trippy. I can definitely see the ideals of femenism coming through, but it's almost in an irrational sense. I'm all for pride in one's own sect of society, but take it in perspective. Edna didn't know what she wanted. I mentioned in class earlier this week that reading this book (especially in the latter chapters) of My Super Sweet 16 (or really any other braindead shows on MTV about children spoiled beyond your wildest dreams). Edna wanted whatever was pleasing to her in the moment. If that was her husband's money, then she got it. If she wanted Robert, then she had her chance and gave it away rather willingly. If she wanted sex, well, she got that too. If she wanted independence in the physical sense, she got as much of that as a person in her situation could possibly get. Was she happy after all was said and done? No actually. Instead she surpasses her own physical limiations (with debate open as to whether or not it was intentional), and died as a result. She goes and kills herself. What the hell Edna. There were so many other people that would have killed to have what she had, but unfortunately she was a little on the selfish side. Do i condone everything that happened to her in her conformist society? Absolutely not. However, I don't think that she had a bad thing going in the least.

God, I'm glad that much is out of the way.

The Awakening Ch. 30-34

Edna's a dick. I'd just like to get that out there.

My reasons for saying this:

• While her husband was in New York, despite the lavish gifts he's given her, Edna without so much as informing her husband of any change in their situation moves out into the "pigeon house." While I understand that the gender roles of people in this time and place would dictate that she wouldn't have to, it is because it is unthinkable that such a thing would happen, not that she doesn't want to.
• Edna throws the lavish dinner party, then sends the bill to her husband. All the while, she has moved out and does not do what is expected of her. While I do think that the expectations of women in situations similar to Edna's are entirely wrong, Mr. Pontellier was too good a husband to be treated the way he was.
• She's involved in a bizzare love triangle (or is it quadrilateral? or astreisk?), and while she wants one man emotionally, one physically, and another for his money, she cannot decide. On top of that, even if she did decide not much would happen. If she loves Robert, why does she get so cracked up over this? I mean really, just run away with the man.

This post powered by ATP ENERGY: The only true natural energy source.

The Awakening Ch. 25-29

This next group of chapters marks the the true beginning of Edna's affair (in the physical sense), and while I can somewhat understand where she is coming from, I would have to say that this group of chapters also marks the beginning of where I lose whatever respect i may have had for her at any point. The causes that have driven Edna to this point are a myriad of things; 1.) the oppressive society in which she lives (in which she feels tied down way too tightly, 2.) general boredom with her current situation (however good it may be financially and quite possibly realistically) C.) animalistical desires (need I say more?). As i mentioned in class, Edna doesn't know what the hell she wants. The biggest problem with this, however, is that she thinks she does. She wants to have freedom in her relationships, she wants to do whatever she wants whenever she wants, and she wants to have her image remain generally the same. She mentions that she would give up anything for her kids (except who she was). Two problems. 1.) Would she really? I mean, come on. It's one thing to say something, but I've seen no evidence to support that she ACTUALLY does love her kids. 2.) Who the hell is she, really? We don't know (other than a selfish bia (sry for using your word kriebs)) who she is, and frankly she doesn't either.

The Awakening Ch. 20-24

Societal expectations are deep rooted in this part of the century.  Everyone is expected to conform to their place (of which everyone is supposed to know), and any deviation from the standard is unthinkable.  However, as I previously mentioned, Edna does not have any intention to conform to the societal norm.  The problem becomes for Edna's friends and family that they are in complete denial (or are merely oblivious) to Edna's intentions in life.  The fact of the matter is is that the expectations are so severely traditionalized and rooted that they don't suspect anything even though Edna is showing definite signs of attraction to Robert, as evinced by her indignation that he had not written to her, yet had written to practically everyone else.  The doctor's recommendation to Mr. Pontellier that he effectively wait and see what happens is proof of the obliviousness of the society and reluctance to bear witness to any sort of change.  I also find it somewhat humorous that the doctor asked if Edna had been associating with psuedo-intellectual women, as they were so reluctant to change that they felt that women who had experienced an awakening only had the facade of intellect.

The Awakening Ch. 15-19

This section of the book is a continuation of Edna's own personal awakening as she furthers the distance between herself and her husband and children.  It's interesting, however, how she divulges how she feels like her husband is a good one, and that she does in fact have strong feelings for him.  Furthermore, the fact that she says that she would lay down her life for her children is an interesting impediment in her reaching her full awakening.  It's obvious that she does not agree or intend to conform with the societal norm, however there are parts of her that enjoy the security that conforming has to offer.  It's very obvious though that the part of her that craves freedom is stronger than the part that enjoys security when she is on her own for a time.  The fact of the matter is that Edna does not think that she has a bad life per se, but that she wants more out of it.  She wants to be able to do the things that she feels are right for her.

The Awakening Ch. 10-14

I personally feel as if this group of chapters represents the beginning of Edna's awakening.  She allows herself to become more attached to Robert, although she donesn't exactly realize what was really happening, and she begins to distance herself from her husband.  A representation of her true awakening and seperating from the expected mainstream society was her swimming out to a length too far for her, despite the fact that she really couldn't swim to begin with.  A common theme in this book is undoubtably venturing outside of one's own comfort zone, and this chapter is the beginning of the journey outside of what feels safe.  Edna swiming out too far was definitely a foreshadowing of where Edna's ventures will ultimately lead her.

The Awakening Ch. 5-9

The plot and characterization thickens in this section as differences between the expectations in Creole society and American society at large are drawn out. In this section, Edna is shown more as the woman from Kentucky when she is contrasted against Madame Ratignolle. Because M.R. (Ratignolle) is thoroughly versed in the mannerisms of Creole society, she exemplifies them to the finest detail and is appalled with the general disregard that Edna gives to the same precepts. It's quite interesting to look at this situation with today's Jerry Springer influenced eye. Today, women having affairs is a daily event. While certainly not inevitable, it has been known to happen. This is in acute contrast to Creole society in which it is taboo and unheard of for a woman to have an affair. I'll get to the point. Edna is so far outside of Creole society, and this distance comes out in this section. I'd also like to say that it seems like a complete fantasy world that the Creoles were living in. It was a paternal, almost stepfordian existence that would truly suck, well, in my opinion at least.