Whether your a Beatles, Hendrix or MGMT fan it's hard to deny the influence the acid trip or any other mind expanding drug. It seems to be a recurring element in the great scheme of music, drugs and intoxication has a symbiotic/parasitic relationship with the creative elite. It wouldn't be that wrong to say some the best music is written whilst trippin balls, what makes a Dali so much more impressive than a Manet and what makes a Smells Like Teen Spirit so much more powerful than a Baby.
If I could go into a rant for a moment, I think it's got to people the unlocking of an inner more primal state of awareness. A combination of both sensory and psychological sensations that trigger some sort of surreal response, the sense that things don't make sense and that's fine. Creativity and aestheticism usually go hand in hand, the great artists Van Gogh, Warhol and Dali created movements, new direction for art. Same with the musicians that would experiment, the poppy overtones of the Beatles's Please Please Me to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band marked a decided shift from the familiar and stale pop sounds to psychedelic, trippy, new and unexplored. Of course, different doesn't always mean better, but different does mean going against convention and most the time going against convention is doing things as naturally as possible. There wasn't the need to clean up the image or try to refine the songs to go with a specific crowd or audience. The sheer rawness of the resulting creation and the artistic accomplishment was enough to buoy any work that had a charisma behind it. Making good art requires a lot of work and talent, but making great art requires creativity and a willingness to go outside of convention. You don't learn anything new by doing the same thing over and over, you simply better at it, you learn through experimenting and making mistakes. Not all the creations of drug induced or plain surreal projects that the creatives have done have been successes, you just don't hear about the failures. But the history of human aesthetics has told us if nothing, that creativity must pave the way and not just the continual refinement of a movement or genre. Whilst 'pop' may never decline or the continually autotuned RnB/Hip Hop genre continues its selling out, it is marking a new culture in music and with every culture comes a counter culture and that counter culture will produce some of wackiest/weirdest and perhaps most innovative sounds and looks we have yet to experience.
No one really learns from succeeding, its only when you fail and try again that you discover something.
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Double Standards
The social boundaries that contain the populace are on the majority, based on traditionalist values. Indeed the emergence of feminists, modernists and post-structuralists would come to redefine conventional thought on ideals such as gender roles, liberties and even law. However, one of the many conventions that remain is the double standards that trap gender stereotypes. The most common of which is the deification of males who attract many sexual partners, and the degradation of females who do the same.
One would argue the sexist point in that equality between genders should be achieved and such an ideal should be portrayed throughout every facet of living. Females should not be frowned upon because they are promiscuous or rather sexually active just as males should not. The archaic stereotypes of housewives and child orientated dependent women have been largely replaced by career driven, child balancing independents who juggle traditional roles and the ability to work executive jobs. The wages of women and men still remain largely unbalanced as executive roles still remain dominated by males. However, this is showing decline as more women rise in the career ladder, breaking the glass ceiling that once contained females. Then with increasing equality between women and men, the question of why must be asked why this not extend past the workplace, house and into the fabric of ecology within our social system.
One then argued on MX in "The reason men are not..."sluts" is because promiscuous males need to charm to get anywhere whereas a women can simply undress...". This argument is attributed to a writer named "Michael" assumed to be a male. However, this ideal that women can simply undress to seduce men is definitely a grotesque exaggeration of the actuality that is men on general would tend to have greater libidos and less control on sexual temptation. Medically, it has been stated that this is due to the primitive ideals of mating and anatomy, as sperm is easier to produce judging that there are about 170 million made every day. This may be the reason behind men's greater openness to sexual intercourse and a minimalist policy on selecting mates much to the contrary of female’s greater criteria on sexual partners. This brought upon the consensus that males being sexually active was a near badge of honour as the judgements upon males by females became more laden with criteria. On average, there are fewer outcomes that are required to be met for females to be worthy for a male and this is the reason behind emphasis on less partners for females.
Indeed it would seem that the existence of double standards could be attributed to biology alone yet surely such a strict guideline's existence is limited as society progresses. For the human rights enjoyed today have never been ideals thought possible in history's past. Even the traditional bible outlined celibacy before marriage has been overturned. Perhaps one day in the near future double standards will cease to exist but for the time being, promiscuous females will be frowned upon and deemed "sluts", and female nurses a common occurrence in many male fantasies. Just as sexually active heroes will remain men and male nurses continue to be mocked.
One would argue the sexist point in that equality between genders should be achieved and such an ideal should be portrayed throughout every facet of living. Females should not be frowned upon because they are promiscuous or rather sexually active just as males should not. The archaic stereotypes of housewives and child orientated dependent women have been largely replaced by career driven, child balancing independents who juggle traditional roles and the ability to work executive jobs. The wages of women and men still remain largely unbalanced as executive roles still remain dominated by males. However, this is showing decline as more women rise in the career ladder, breaking the glass ceiling that once contained females. Then with increasing equality between women and men, the question of why must be asked why this not extend past the workplace, house and into the fabric of ecology within our social system.
One then argued on MX in "The reason men are not..."sluts" is because promiscuous males need to charm to get anywhere whereas a women can simply undress...". This argument is attributed to a writer named "Michael" assumed to be a male. However, this ideal that women can simply undress to seduce men is definitely a grotesque exaggeration of the actuality that is men on general would tend to have greater libidos and less control on sexual temptation. Medically, it has been stated that this is due to the primitive ideals of mating and anatomy, as sperm is easier to produce judging that there are about 170 million made every day. This may be the reason behind men's greater openness to sexual intercourse and a minimalist policy on selecting mates much to the contrary of female’s greater criteria on sexual partners. This brought upon the consensus that males being sexually active was a near badge of honour as the judgements upon males by females became more laden with criteria. On average, there are fewer outcomes that are required to be met for females to be worthy for a male and this is the reason behind emphasis on less partners for females.
Indeed it would seem that the existence of double standards could be attributed to biology alone yet surely such a strict guideline's existence is limited as society progresses. For the human rights enjoyed today have never been ideals thought possible in history's past. Even the traditional bible outlined celibacy before marriage has been overturned. Perhaps one day in the near future double standards will cease to exist but for the time being, promiscuous females will be frowned upon and deemed "sluts", and female nurses a common occurrence in many male fantasies. Just as sexually active heroes will remain men and male nurses continue to be mocked.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Social Sterotypes
Look at any "B-grade" American movie and within you will find a handful of stereotypes particularly at the high school level. You have the 'jocks', the 'nerds', the 'losers', the 'gay vampires' and 'cheerleaders' among many more stereotypes. However, the question must be raised whether such stereotypes exist anywhere else but on the silver screen as well as its important in interpreting social conventions that have existed since well the creation of any form of order, society, law or otherwise.
There is of course the system of which the entire social hierarchy since the dawn of individual thought (or there lack of due to systematic oppression) has been based upon. Generally three main groups can be isolated: the upper class (capitalist class or ruling class or patricians), the middle class (mercantile class or bourgeoisie or plebeians) and the lower class (working class or slavery class). Of course, then how does this relate to the stereotypes that now exist within society. Well of course, as a member of society it makes relative sense to ask oneself the questions such as: would one trust a rich businessman or lawyer with a secret, or a hard working blue-collar worker? Would one expect a rich man to wear Target? Would one expect a cleaner to be smarter than an investment banker? Just from these simple questions and consequently their answers, stereotypes have already been recreated within one's mind. Indeed a member of a upper class is generally idealised as a smart, sophisticated, greedy, sometimes untrustworthy person. A lower class is therefore then portrayed as a slow witted, simple, charitable and trustworthy man. Nevertheless, it may then be stated that perhaps rather than class determining one's traits and character, it may be the other way around. A smarter, more educated man may have become upper class through application of such knowledge, much like the worker who did not have such a privileged upbringing. Therein lies the main point: that socioeconomic, demographics, character and chance all are directly correlated with one's class.
With such thought then comes the idea that, why is it that certain movies (and other forms of media) portray stereotypes. The truth is that stereotypes do exist and indeed most, if not everyone does correspond to a stereotype because in reality, a stereotype is simply a microcosm of society itself. The classic high school example: the 'jocks', 'cheerleaders' would be agreed upon to be the upper class, the everyday 'mr average', 'musos' represent the middle class, and the 'nerds', 'dorks', 'geeks' and 'losers' top the lower classes. Yet then, ironically it is the 'nerds' who eventually because of academic brilliance and intelligence, become the upper class in later life. This brings the question of the reasons behind 'jocks' being the upper class of high school hierarchy. The idea of popularity is therefore echoed and presented as the only definitive way of people to measure ones class within the high school hierarchy. Yet this is much to the distaste of many middle class students for, representative of society itself, and prescribed in many social analysis texts, the middle class are always fighting with the upper class within history to obtain their new position as such. Indeed, time and time again, civil wars, coups, revolutions have been products of ideals held by the middle class with the enlisted help of the lower class.
Much like society's classes, the discriminant is that only one factor is taken into account for measuring one's position within a system. Once before, it may have been military power, political power (a more potent form of popularity), or otherwise but now in the capitalist world, it is unfortunately the measure of monetary value, or rather money. However, once such capitalist world might be eradicated as normally done by the middle class with the help of the lower class, perhaps yet again a new world may take shape, and yet again a new factor will determine one's position in the hierarchy. Thus continues the loop that has shaped civilisations, empires and countries as well as spawn countless "B-grade" American movies that are nothing more than a bit of fun.
There is of course the system of which the entire social hierarchy since the dawn of individual thought (or there lack of due to systematic oppression) has been based upon. Generally three main groups can be isolated: the upper class (capitalist class or ruling class or patricians), the middle class (mercantile class or bourgeoisie or plebeians) and the lower class (working class or slavery class). Of course, then how does this relate to the stereotypes that now exist within society. Well of course, as a member of society it makes relative sense to ask oneself the questions such as: would one trust a rich businessman or lawyer with a secret, or a hard working blue-collar worker? Would one expect a rich man to wear Target? Would one expect a cleaner to be smarter than an investment banker? Just from these simple questions and consequently their answers, stereotypes have already been recreated within one's mind. Indeed a member of a upper class is generally idealised as a smart, sophisticated, greedy, sometimes untrustworthy person. A lower class is therefore then portrayed as a slow witted, simple, charitable and trustworthy man. Nevertheless, it may then be stated that perhaps rather than class determining one's traits and character, it may be the other way around. A smarter, more educated man may have become upper class through application of such knowledge, much like the worker who did not have such a privileged upbringing. Therein lies the main point: that socioeconomic, demographics, character and chance all are directly correlated with one's class.
With such thought then comes the idea that, why is it that certain movies (and other forms of media) portray stereotypes. The truth is that stereotypes do exist and indeed most, if not everyone does correspond to a stereotype because in reality, a stereotype is simply a microcosm of society itself. The classic high school example: the 'jocks', 'cheerleaders' would be agreed upon to be the upper class, the everyday 'mr average', 'musos' represent the middle class, and the 'nerds', 'dorks', 'geeks' and 'losers' top the lower classes. Yet then, ironically it is the 'nerds' who eventually because of academic brilliance and intelligence, become the upper class in later life. This brings the question of the reasons behind 'jocks' being the upper class of high school hierarchy. The idea of popularity is therefore echoed and presented as the only definitive way of people to measure ones class within the high school hierarchy. Yet this is much to the distaste of many middle class students for, representative of society itself, and prescribed in many social analysis texts, the middle class are always fighting with the upper class within history to obtain their new position as such. Indeed, time and time again, civil wars, coups, revolutions have been products of ideals held by the middle class with the enlisted help of the lower class.
Much like society's classes, the discriminant is that only one factor is taken into account for measuring one's position within a system. Once before, it may have been military power, political power (a more potent form of popularity), or otherwise but now in the capitalist world, it is unfortunately the measure of monetary value, or rather money. However, once such capitalist world might be eradicated as normally done by the middle class with the help of the lower class, perhaps yet again a new world may take shape, and yet again a new factor will determine one's position in the hierarchy. Thus continues the loop that has shaped civilisations, empires and countries as well as spawn countless "B-grade" American movies that are nothing more than a bit of fun.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Politics Part Two
Sound the fanfare, man the ramparts, men to fortifications it's a brand new siege of the Labor Party against their rivals the Liberals (joking liberal though). Its that time of year where Australians get a little bit dumber and everyone gets a little more senile. Left,right, centre, centreleft, centreright, factions Unity and Socialist Left, conservative Liberal, progressive Liberal whats with the jargon?
Stupid people are more important than you think, sometimes a number does mean more than the person. Well if the smartest 10% of the population vote on policy, the other 90% vote on buzzwords, flashy, nice, comforting, easy to understand. You don't have to think alot, you just have to know the Governments on it and when it appears they're not feel free to cause a rabble. That's what happened to Rudd at least, public office was never an easy to place to set up shop. Gillard on Abbott on deathmatch that would be more fun and a better decider, let them loose in a cage, the victor can sit on office until they are stabbed in the back. Ah democracy good old reliable shitty democracy. Return to surplus 2011-2013 now that sounds all good and well, considering the deficit is tiny, wheres my National Broadband, what happened this education revolution, if it actually occurred I should be a revolutionary, it's going on my resume Ruddy boy. That is what people voted for, they got 50% which is pretty success seeing as they could've gotten 0% which would've ordinary. Liars and thieves at work, which is why I'm going to address the fact of the constituency rather than the government in this post.
People should be smarter, people should be more aware, more critical and generally less gullible. Trouble is that they're not, what to do? Well one can argue education but no one likes learning voluntarily so instantly there is an entire element gone. One could also argue that the majority gets what the majority wants, but what about the minority? The rich, liberal and of course ecofriendly upper middle class who couldn't care less about the struggles of the working man, are they any better than the ignorant everyman. Yes and no, rich people can see a bigger picture, it's in the nature of the rich to continue to prosper and the environment is one element that causes big headaches. Carbon emissions tax, mining super profits tax, and of course higher minimum wage, the crux of many rich is the government. The vote to small government i.e. Liberal would be a sound choice, no? Not the case, everybody would like to think they are not causing as much damage as they are so in the nature of good conscience they vote for the Greens, knowing full well that the Greens will never take office and therefore never impose any radical regulation. However they do get a kick out thinking that by voting for the Greens they get some sort of environmental karma points that allows them to drive their nice SUVs and have garden sprinklers on all day.
What do the poor have to say about Government? More benefits, less tax and of course free stuff, the poor or at least well to do, enjoy a range of government benefits. Of course this comes with a price tag, social benefits are numerous in a such a wealthy country as Australia, but it's not a vein of gold Australia sits on, but a time bomb. The commodities industry is living on borrowed time, China's eventual slowdown of its rapid growth will mean shortfalls in demand and also in exports, the dollar will drop as a result and generally they'll be greater inflation and a badways to tackle it. I speak on the dangers of the growing services sector, it's largely unproductive and uncompetitive against other countries. Australian firms are mainly internal, exports are commodities and only a small amount of the exports is really derived from services. You have a recipe of a stagnant and self propagating economy based on the government printing money so the people can spend it on stupid things. Are the poor really to blame, the lack of education despite being such a wealthy country is troubling. There is a lack of doctors on the part of the AMA and partially because the wellspring of talent has been for lack of better word, imported. So how long do we have doc?
I, of course would like to propose the tax go through as 40% on ALL mining including oil and shale. Cuts to public sector, cuts to public benefits, cuts to tax, and an increase of regulation on heavy polluters. It'll never be done of course, at least in the politicians lifetime. The classic conundrum remains that the youth are 40 years from reaching the top position to change the system. The politicians are living on outdated and unsustainable ideology not reflecting the current situation that the people with most to live for, the youth have to say. So as another generation looks to go by the wayside one can only imagine that in another 40 years, you or I shall be taking office and changing things. The only question is can we learn and adapt or will the bomb go off?
Stupid people are more important than you think, sometimes a number does mean more than the person. Well if the smartest 10% of the population vote on policy, the other 90% vote on buzzwords, flashy, nice, comforting, easy to understand. You don't have to think alot, you just have to know the Governments on it and when it appears they're not feel free to cause a rabble. That's what happened to Rudd at least, public office was never an easy to place to set up shop. Gillard on Abbott on deathmatch that would be more fun and a better decider, let them loose in a cage, the victor can sit on office until they are stabbed in the back. Ah democracy good old reliable shitty democracy. Return to surplus 2011-2013 now that sounds all good and well, considering the deficit is tiny, wheres my National Broadband, what happened this education revolution, if it actually occurred I should be a revolutionary, it's going on my resume Ruddy boy. That is what people voted for, they got 50% which is pretty success seeing as they could've gotten 0% which would've ordinary. Liars and thieves at work, which is why I'm going to address the fact of the constituency rather than the government in this post.
People should be smarter, people should be more aware, more critical and generally less gullible. Trouble is that they're not, what to do? Well one can argue education but no one likes learning voluntarily so instantly there is an entire element gone. One could also argue that the majority gets what the majority wants, but what about the minority? The rich, liberal and of course ecofriendly upper middle class who couldn't care less about the struggles of the working man, are they any better than the ignorant everyman. Yes and no, rich people can see a bigger picture, it's in the nature of the rich to continue to prosper and the environment is one element that causes big headaches. Carbon emissions tax, mining super profits tax, and of course higher minimum wage, the crux of many rich is the government. The vote to small government i.e. Liberal would be a sound choice, no? Not the case, everybody would like to think they are not causing as much damage as they are so in the nature of good conscience they vote for the Greens, knowing full well that the Greens will never take office and therefore never impose any radical regulation. However they do get a kick out thinking that by voting for the Greens they get some sort of environmental karma points that allows them to drive their nice SUVs and have garden sprinklers on all day.
What do the poor have to say about Government? More benefits, less tax and of course free stuff, the poor or at least well to do, enjoy a range of government benefits. Of course this comes with a price tag, social benefits are numerous in a such a wealthy country as Australia, but it's not a vein of gold Australia sits on, but a time bomb. The commodities industry is living on borrowed time, China's eventual slowdown of its rapid growth will mean shortfalls in demand and also in exports, the dollar will drop as a result and generally they'll be greater inflation and a badways to tackle it. I speak on the dangers of the growing services sector, it's largely unproductive and uncompetitive against other countries. Australian firms are mainly internal, exports are commodities and only a small amount of the exports is really derived from services. You have a recipe of a stagnant and self propagating economy based on the government printing money so the people can spend it on stupid things. Are the poor really to blame, the lack of education despite being such a wealthy country is troubling. There is a lack of doctors on the part of the AMA and partially because the wellspring of talent has been for lack of better word, imported. So how long do we have doc?
I, of course would like to propose the tax go through as 40% on ALL mining including oil and shale. Cuts to public sector, cuts to public benefits, cuts to tax, and an increase of regulation on heavy polluters. It'll never be done of course, at least in the politicians lifetime. The classic conundrum remains that the youth are 40 years from reaching the top position to change the system. The politicians are living on outdated and unsustainable ideology not reflecting the current situation that the people with most to live for, the youth have to say. So as another generation looks to go by the wayside one can only imagine that in another 40 years, you or I shall be taking office and changing things. The only question is can we learn and adapt or will the bomb go off?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Politics, or moreso Democracy
Democracy, first coined by the Greeks as δημοκρατία or dēmokratía is the main political system of the Developed World. It is a brilliant piece of political ideology, the people choose who leads them and it's their choice, to argue the latter is to be a dictator. Well people are stupid, and it's because of that, that democracy blurs the lines between a political system to a way of life.
Democracy isn't concrete, there are nations in the world that openly reject free democracy: Cuba, China, and by proxy most of the Africas under military junta. It's inherent flaws lies in not the system itself but how it has become warped. Power to the people, and their collective choice is what determines the rule of a country for a set period of time. By the act of simple majority, it negates the logical premise that everyone's view is equal and balanced, it isn't. Stupid people make stupid voters which in turn makes a stupid state that is ruled by a smarter political party. It's usually one of two big parties in the Western world, conservatives and liberals in name only. Conservatives which feature most prominently on the right are heavily favored as fiscal conservatives, low budget deficits, reduced state welfare and lower tax with progressive policy. Liberals on the left (usually) espouse state welfare, interventionist policy and 'liberal ideals' gay marriage, abortion etc. Without going into it too much, the vote is pretty much divided in each election 50/40/10, which doesn't clearly give too much of an idea of what the country wants. The last US presidency was won with a 53/48 split, with a country so divided on ideals it's hard to imagine that this is what people want. Many would argue at least a system that works is better than no system at all, to argue the side of the communist is probably stupid but hey I'm stupid. On paper communism sounds "pretty good", in practice not so great and democracy much the same. Imagine a scenario like this out of 100 people 53 want pizza and 48 want pasta, because 5 more people wanted pizza everyone must now have pizza for the entire meal.
Although I myself have no better system of going about it, I do believe that a rigid system of democracy is probably the least 'worst', the lesser of two evils, it's only when stupid people vote that it creates havoc. In the homeland of democracy, Greece it is a scenario where the people have enjoyed high standards of living and when economic crisis occurs they riot against their government. People have elected a government to lead, and not to please. Government's should take action on the part of the citizenry and not take action so it can stay in power, an ass move like the debt crisis should send resounding issues about government deficits and how a democracy like the USA is owing 15T in combined household debt. Democratic governments shouldn't appease their voters with perks like tax cuts or immensely ridiculously unsustainable welfare(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) they should be managing a nation.
Had a lot more to say but my fingers are could and I generally cbf.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln
Democracy isn't concrete, there are nations in the world that openly reject free democracy: Cuba, China, and by proxy most of the Africas under military junta. It's inherent flaws lies in not the system itself but how it has become warped. Power to the people, and their collective choice is what determines the rule of a country for a set period of time. By the act of simple majority, it negates the logical premise that everyone's view is equal and balanced, it isn't. Stupid people make stupid voters which in turn makes a stupid state that is ruled by a smarter political party. It's usually one of two big parties in the Western world, conservatives and liberals in name only. Conservatives which feature most prominently on the right are heavily favored as fiscal conservatives, low budget deficits, reduced state welfare and lower tax with progressive policy. Liberals on the left (usually) espouse state welfare, interventionist policy and 'liberal ideals' gay marriage, abortion etc. Without going into it too much, the vote is pretty much divided in each election 50/40/10, which doesn't clearly give too much of an idea of what the country wants. The last US presidency was won with a 53/48 split, with a country so divided on ideals it's hard to imagine that this is what people want. Many would argue at least a system that works is better than no system at all, to argue the side of the communist is probably stupid but hey I'm stupid. On paper communism sounds "pretty good", in practice not so great and democracy much the same. Imagine a scenario like this out of 100 people 53 want pizza and 48 want pasta, because 5 more people wanted pizza everyone must now have pizza for the entire meal.
Although I myself have no better system of going about it, I do believe that a rigid system of democracy is probably the least 'worst', the lesser of two evils, it's only when stupid people vote that it creates havoc. In the homeland of democracy, Greece it is a scenario where the people have enjoyed high standards of living and when economic crisis occurs they riot against their government. People have elected a government to lead, and not to please. Government's should take action on the part of the citizenry and not take action so it can stay in power, an ass move like the debt crisis should send resounding issues about government deficits and how a democracy like the USA is owing 15T in combined household debt. Democratic governments shouldn't appease their voters with perks like tax cuts or immensely ridiculously unsustainable welfare(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) they should be managing a nation.
Had a lot more to say but my fingers are could and I generally cbf.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Next Oxford Dictionary
Now besides the idiotic banter that now compiles everyday talk especially over other mediums such as instant messaging and phone texting, there still might be some hope for new words in the English language. Although it is beyond stupid to comprehend why the words i now propose will ever be needed, nevertheless i shall put forth the arguments to support the implementation of a few new words i believe should be in the official dictionary.
ambiguile (adjective) - to be ambiguous in their actions
Where ambiguous is ironically ambiguous in relation to describing a person, ambiguile should be used. E.g. "Bob is ambiguous." The question remains whether bob is ambiguous in his actions, his name is ambiguous, his status (in society or otherwise) is ambiguous or his character is ambiguous. However, if one were to say: "Bob is ambiguile." it were to infer that Bob's actions are ambiguous. Therefore if one were to say "Bob is standing in the shade. Yeah, he's definitely ambiguile" it would mean that his actions of standing in the shade are ambiguous and therefore the purpose of Bob standing in the shade is abnormal or ambiguous in reason. Whereas "Bob is standing in the shade. Yeah, he's definitely ambiguous" would rather refer to his position being of ambiguity, that is he is a well hidden spot.
convinciation (noun) - the act of convincing one particularly in ones point of view.
It is a mere extension of the word convince and replaces the participle 'convincing'. "how good was my convincing" can now be "how good was my convinciation" where it refers directly to the merit of the act of convincing as a whole. Most people would however say: "how good were my arguments" when referring to the statements one inferred to convince. However, when referring to other than speech methods of argument, it would seem that 'convinciation' could make an important distinction. "how good were my convinciations" would refer to the many acts of convincing - i.e. non-speech 'arguments'. Although one may also use "how good was my persuasion" in the first example, the latter example is not applicable in the same situation.
Although both aforementioned words are fairly redundant and could be easily replaced in speech by a phase to distinguish the ambiguities in English, it remains of society's interest in most facets of life to question the status quo, even in portions as petty as two words.
ambiguile (adjective) - to be ambiguous in their actions
Where ambiguous is ironically ambiguous in relation to describing a person, ambiguile should be used. E.g. "Bob is ambiguous." The question remains whether bob is ambiguous in his actions, his name is ambiguous, his status (in society or otherwise) is ambiguous or his character is ambiguous. However, if one were to say: "Bob is ambiguile." it were to infer that Bob's actions are ambiguous. Therefore if one were to say "Bob is standing in the shade. Yeah, he's definitely ambiguile" it would mean that his actions of standing in the shade are ambiguous and therefore the purpose of Bob standing in the shade is abnormal or ambiguous in reason. Whereas "Bob is standing in the shade. Yeah, he's definitely ambiguous" would rather refer to his position being of ambiguity, that is he is a well hidden spot.
convinciation (noun) - the act of convincing one particularly in ones point of view.
It is a mere extension of the word convince and replaces the participle 'convincing'. "how good was my convincing" can now be "how good was my convinciation" where it refers directly to the merit of the act of convincing as a whole. Most people would however say: "how good were my arguments" when referring to the statements one inferred to convince. However, when referring to other than speech methods of argument, it would seem that 'convinciation' could make an important distinction. "how good were my convinciations" would refer to the many acts of convincing - i.e. non-speech 'arguments'. Although one may also use "how good was my persuasion" in the first example, the latter example is not applicable in the same situation.
Although both aforementioned words are fairly redundant and could be easily replaced in speech by a phase to distinguish the ambiguities in English, it remains of society's interest in most facets of life to question the status quo, even in portions as petty as two words.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Canon
The machinations behind the study of literature at a high school stage would come largely contained within an arbitrarily decided canon of literary works. This canon would prove to be controversial, fuelling argument amongst even the most esteemed literary geniuses. [1] Indeed such a canon can never truly exist although its contents can be disputed and eventually agreed by a board of self-acknowledging intellectuals (also known as the board of studies in Australia).
Many would place canonised texts as a direct portrait of literary brilliance but is it truly fair to compare the Bible to the many books that derive a portion of their ideals and values to such an important document. In essence the argument is can Stephanie Meyer's Twilight franchise, although having experienced (and still is experiencing) almost worldwide commercial success, compare to the Bible in its so called canonisation capability. By sheer monetary success, both fictional novels are competitive. The Bible has however had many more centuries to ascertain greater success with many adaptations of stories and has been archived as the number one best selling book of all time [2]. However in recent years, Twilight has also spawned many movies and its franchise has been consistently growing in fan base as each successive part of its story is released. In terms of social influence, it would be near impossible to say that the Bible is less than Twilight however the debate still remains competitive if considerations of time are taken into account. The Bible was written countless centuries ago (a relative date of c. 1455 to 55 can be dated for the English version [2]) and thus Twilight still has many years to progress in influence given its first edition publication date of 2005 [3]. The Bible has spawned a religion and even influenced an entire structure of society based somewhat entirely upon its teachings. [4] Twilight cannot be discounted in its influence either as it has nonetheless created a widespread obsession with vampires or references to it remain exponentially increasing with time. [5] Nevertheless, most councils would proscribe the Bible as a highly commendable read and Twilight as mere ‘teenage angst’ putrid thus where does the criteria in which the Bible is deemed canonised and Twilight not. Perhaps time is the crucial contributing factor to the decision but then with this considered perhaps in several years time English students would read Meyer instead of Shakespeare. Indeed i am not saying that Twilight contains as much literary brilliance as Shakespeare or the Bible's authors (which position i believe is attributed to the many disciples of Jesus).
It must be stated that it is near foolish to compare the Bible to Twilight. Even comparison of the two texts in respect to the point of view that the Bible is above, and somewhat beyond Twilight in all facets of literature (whatever such a term encompasses) is also equally idiotic. It must be critiqued though the rationale behind an arbitrarily decided canon list and the many individuals who self-proclaim themselves as literary geniuses, and as such decide which texts are of literary brilliance and otherwise "better as firewood" texts. The stress is upon the ideal that literary brilliance is unique to all texts and thus comparison between texts is somewhat idiotic although the basis of at least the majority of high school English study.
As a rather moronic friend would state: "to bone or not to bone. That is the question." [6] Such a quotation would retain a different literary signifigance to the original but nonetheless substantial if not similar.
References:
[1] Two such genuises: lifemadeoflego.blogspot.com, tehjourney.blogspot.com
[2] http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/bestsellingbooks.html
[3] http://www.listal.com/list/twilight-series
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/history_1.shtml
[5] Does it really need to be referenced?
[6] http://reekinsluts.blogspot.com/
Further Reading:
http://blogs.bible.org/tapestry/sue_bohlin/the_appeal_of_twilight (If you have time to read anything, read this!)
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s817468.htm
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html
Many would place canonised texts as a direct portrait of literary brilliance but is it truly fair to compare the Bible to the many books that derive a portion of their ideals and values to such an important document. In essence the argument is can Stephanie Meyer's Twilight franchise, although having experienced (and still is experiencing) almost worldwide commercial success, compare to the Bible in its so called canonisation capability. By sheer monetary success, both fictional novels are competitive. The Bible has however had many more centuries to ascertain greater success with many adaptations of stories and has been archived as the number one best selling book of all time [2]. However in recent years, Twilight has also spawned many movies and its franchise has been consistently growing in fan base as each successive part of its story is released. In terms of social influence, it would be near impossible to say that the Bible is less than Twilight however the debate still remains competitive if considerations of time are taken into account. The Bible was written countless centuries ago (a relative date of c. 1455 to 55 can be dated for the English version [2]) and thus Twilight still has many years to progress in influence given its first edition publication date of 2005 [3]. The Bible has spawned a religion and even influenced an entire structure of society based somewhat entirely upon its teachings. [4] Twilight cannot be discounted in its influence either as it has nonetheless created a widespread obsession with vampires or references to it remain exponentially increasing with time. [5] Nevertheless, most councils would proscribe the Bible as a highly commendable read and Twilight as mere ‘teenage angst’ putrid thus where does the criteria in which the Bible is deemed canonised and Twilight not. Perhaps time is the crucial contributing factor to the decision but then with this considered perhaps in several years time English students would read Meyer instead of Shakespeare. Indeed i am not saying that Twilight contains as much literary brilliance as Shakespeare or the Bible's authors (which position i believe is attributed to the many disciples of Jesus).
It must be stated that it is near foolish to compare the Bible to Twilight. Even comparison of the two texts in respect to the point of view that the Bible is above, and somewhat beyond Twilight in all facets of literature (whatever such a term encompasses) is also equally idiotic. It must be critiqued though the rationale behind an arbitrarily decided canon list and the many individuals who self-proclaim themselves as literary geniuses, and as such decide which texts are of literary brilliance and otherwise "better as firewood" texts. The stress is upon the ideal that literary brilliance is unique to all texts and thus comparison between texts is somewhat idiotic although the basis of at least the majority of high school English study.
As a rather moronic friend would state: "to bone or not to bone. That is the question." [6] Such a quotation would retain a different literary signifigance to the original but nonetheless substantial if not similar.
References:
[1] Two such genuises: lifemadeoflego.blogspot.com, tehjourney.blogspot.com
[2] http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/bestsellingbooks.html
[3] http://www.listal.com/list/twilight-series
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/history_1.shtml
[5] Does it really need to be referenced?
[6] http://reekinsluts.blogspot.com/
Further Reading:
http://blogs.bible.org/tapestry/sue_bohlin/the_appeal_of_twilight (If you have time to read anything, read this!)
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s817468.htm
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html
Sunday, June 20, 2010
A Structuralist Approach To A Blog
Structuralism and its critics which would come to view in the early 20th
century as post-structuralists would establish a basis in defining the core
understanding of many literary pieces which otherwise would define a certain
lesser meaning than intended. Where definitive ideology is arguably impossible,
i would clarify myself as largely a modernist and structuralist where meaning
is established directly by the author and although different perspectives can
be derived from such ideals, there is but a single defined message that i
personally believe am trying to get across to the audience. Although i could
discuss many different authors and social scientists as well as their integral
contribution to the ideas that encompass structuralism and post-structuralism,
i rather prefer introducing a new structure that this blog apprehends. One of
which literary ideas should be written in any manner which is deemed fit
whether it be structuralist, post-structuralist, modernist, post-modernist, communist, marxist, existentialist, nihilist or "im a literary and philosophical
genius and thus shall talk about the allegory of the Plato’s cave"-ist.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Pics #1
The Journey Home
Aren't we all travelling on the road to 'home'. Home isn't necessarily a house or a physical structure, it is the ideal of having somewhere you feel secure and welcome. Somewhere you are comfortable with who you are and what you like to do. A man's home is his castle, and the pursuit to your dream 'home' is a journey many people undertake and only reach when they are content with themselves.
Prized Possession
Everyone has something they hold highly whether it has sentimental or monetary value. It could just be tradition or custom. It could be just a useless unaesthetic pile of rubbish to most people but to you, it is your prized possession. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)