Lib.Arts.RDB/Bump

The Hypocrisy of Hunting

2009-04-16T23:09:00.000-07:00

[0]

I'm thankful for having the right to blog about anything I want. Sometimes blogging gets me motivated. But tonight it's just a diversion from touching up my P2. I've decided I'll never be an editor because, well, I don't like editing. It's just not very enjoyable. I accept my imperfections, even in things I seek to be perfect at, like writing... and I'm OK with that. If I ever fulfill my dream of writing a book, I'll be sure to have an editor with more enthusiasm than I.... But I digress and now comes the machismo topic of hunting.

Below, the image demonstrates the superficiality of hunting as well as the pseudo-sport aspects that are implied by societies that embrace trophy hunting as a so-called "sport".

[1]

Taxidermy

So I was reading Cat's blog, as I do most other E 379 blogs, and I was a bit surprised. It would seem even the most non-threatening people among us are guilty of killing an animal for sport. First, let me clarify. Like Cat, I'm not casting stones. In fact, I ate meat loaf today which will definitely yield some negative points towards my Karma. Even further than this, I have killed many animals for sport. The most significant to the topic of hunting, being doves and fishes.

The first time I legally went dove hunting was in high school during my freshman year. Before this, I terrorized many animals with my pellet gun. Looking back at the experience makes me rethink why I even had the desire to hunt, because hunting does not make sense to me any longer. The reason I hunted was for the high. Honestly, killing birds made me feel superior. I knew this from my days sneaking up on woodpeckers with my pellet gun in the pasture where I grew up. Yet viewing this feeling from an introspective standpoint makes me see how superficial the feeling really was, which brings me to my memories of hunting.

Hunting is like a video tape in my mind. When I think about it I get high on the vividness of the imagery that the memory in my brain is still able to recall. The vividness is so clear, it staggers my sensations into submission. My feelings succumb to the images and I see how wrong I was for feeling the way I did when I killed an animal for "sport".

The first picture I'm able to recount in my mind involving hunting occurred during a time when I was eleven years old. I was fishing with my childhood friend Darren, who ironically is now a veterinarian. We were walking up to the old farm house where Darren grew up. As we were walking, his uncle asked us if we wanted to ride along in the truck for some hunting. His uncle had obviously had a few beers. He said in a macho voice, "does your friend have any qualms about hunting? If so, we can drop him off at the house." Darren looked at me, then back his uncle and let out a chuckle as if I had spoken for myself.

We drove along the fence line. The uncle rested his shotgun over his left forearm so that it laid across the hand he used to hold his beer. The butt of the gun rested against his beer belly while he steered the truck with his right hand. We bounced along the pasture as a Jack rabbit crept out of the tall weeds growing along the fence. First it was just a scurry to another hiding place. Then the rabbit took off as if he'd been discovered. Before it was able to cross the fence line, we had the rabbit in shotgun range. One shot was all it took for the rabbit to stop in its tracks. But it was not yet dead.

This portion of the picture in my memory is the most disturbing. The rabbit squirmed and wrestled with itself on the ground as it faced its death in the most unsightly manner. It thrashed itself about, and let out screeching squeals of wretched anguish as it begged for our mercy. Yet the three of us just stood there while the uncle drank his beer and seemed to enjoy the power he had over the rabbit. But this gruesome scene did not stop me from becoming a hunter.

Looking back, I had never liked watching animals suffer. I knew this from an experience in grade school when I tattled on the school bully for ripping a frog apart and sticking the mutilated body parts down his shirt.... I could not make sense of the frog being killed for entertainment and the rabbit was no different. It seemed like an hour before the uncle finally put the bunny out of its misery. Needless to say, I was not impressed. Yet I was impressed about hunting somewhere along the line. Otherwise, I would not be able to write about my own experiences with killing animals.

My desire to hunt probably came from several impressions. I grew up around a lot of "agriculture types" who hunted as sort of a lifestyle. I reckoned the camouflaged attire was pretty cool. It seemed a lot of my friends wore camouflage to school even (if that gives you any scope of how redneck I grew up). I watched television shows which glorified hunting. And I admired the taxidermy that hung on the walls of almost every place I visited during my youth. According to Victorian animal rights author Harriet Ritvo,

Maintaining the integrity of the remains was only the first step worthy of producing a prize worthy of public display. To present an effective symbol of the hunters' heroic apporopriation, a trophy needed to evoke the aspect of the animal that had provoked and justified the killing. Thus many intrinsically impressive specimens emerged as inferior trophies because of failures in taxidermic interpretation or transformation. Often, according to one connoisseur, "graceful outlines. . . expressive attitudes, and . . . sleek , glossy coat" turned into a "stiff, gaunt, distorted form. . . with its round staring eyes, its withered ears, lips and nostrils

[2]

Hunting is deeply embedded into Texas culture and is portrayed as a macho or manly thing to do. So, of course, I hunted to impress my friends and then I really started to enjoy the thrill of the hunt. Soon, I became like Orwell wrote about shooting the elephant in Shooting an Elephant, "and in every so crisis he has got to do what the natives expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant." [3]

We joked about hunting a lot of times. We came up with sayings that were only funny to us, such as teenage boys do. We knew the dove ran in pairs, so we'd say, "where there's one there's two". Or we'd sing "for your dove" or "I got nothing but dove for you". At the end of the day, whoever had the most dead doves won the competition. Admittedly, there was a peaceful aspect to hiding out, waiting quietly for the dove to come while our sight was peeled for flying birds. Crouched like tigers, we'd wait for them to fly over and at the bang of a gun they'd fall from the sky like rain. I hunted for about 5 years straight, but it's nothing I would want to do again.

Had there been anything worthwhile gained from killing the doves, I might be able to justify my acts. But since dove yield very little edible meat unless you kill several of them, dove hunting remains pointless to me. When I consider large animals that produce more meat, I still can't make any sense of hunting. Not only do hunters have to kill the animal, they also have to butcher it, which is no joyous task. I know because often times, I'd shoot a dove an it would not be dead. Rather than wasting more ammo or ruining meat, I'd grab the dove by the head and fling its body off its head with my bear hands. The dove's head would remain in my palm as the body flapped away from me on the ground. And every time, no matter how clean the kill, we still had to skin the dove which we did more so for the ritualistic aspect of dismembering birds amongst our fellow hunters. Oh, the pleasure involved in THAT ritual leaves me wondering what I ever enjoyed about this.

[4]

And I'm left wondering why humans take pleasure in asserting their power over other animals' lives? Why do we take pleasure in hunting? At what point do we set our own standard of morality and rise above the barbaric practices of old? When does society learn the lesson of its pointless practices of hunting? Do we remain passive to the superficiality of our reality? Or do we remain lost in what we perceive as being real?

My thoughts can't make any sense of why we enjoy it. I can't make any sense of why I enjoyed it. In fact, I can't make sense of hunting other than it's an innately important survival mechanism. Nothing more, nothing less. Today, most of us don't need to hunt at all to survive. But that won't stop people from doing it for the sport of it or for the ritual in it. Nor will it change the fact that while I freely criticize the practice of hunting, that I myself have hunted, and I ate meatloaf--just today.

Hunting Hypocrisy

[5]

=====
Works Cited
[0]http://bestanimations.com/Animals/Birds/Doves/Doves.html
[1]http://seemikedraw.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/hunting-trophy.gif
[2]Course anthology, 418
[3]Course anthology, 441
[4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD8qb9koXf0
[5]http://www.michigandaily.com/files/Hunting1118.jpg

Making Time

2009-04-01T12:18:00.000-07:00

No room for neckties
[1]

When I think of leadership, I often think of an evil dictator or a belligerent boss whose neck-tie has choked the heart and soul out of his being over time." Leadership" is a word that has been abused by many powerful people, such as Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Bet being a leader in today's world can mean many things. There are spiritual leaders, political leaders, economic leaders, corporate leaders, educational leaders and various other types of leaders. These so-called leaders play roles in society, which presumably have a positive impact, yet that's not always the case. Statistics, as well as observations, show that spiritual leaders in the Catholic church often abuse children. Political leaders corrupt the system. Economic leaders lack ethical concerns for the general public. And some teachers are in it only for their paycheck. After examining these examples, it is safe to assume that leaders have various definitions of what exactly leadership is. However, my vision of leadership resembles Larry Temple's definition, "The will to excel with integrity and the spirit that nothing is impossible." [2]

I also agree with Temple when he says leadership 'determines the quality of culture'. When I look outside of myself, at myself, and imagine what type of leader I want to become in my own culture, I envision the inscription on the temple of Appollo at Delphi (Ascribed to the Seven Wise Men in Plato's Protagoras.) Know Thyself,

In Sooth I know not why I am so sad;
It wearies me; you say it wearies you;
But how I caught it, found it, or came by it,
What stuff 'tis made of, where it is born,
I am to learn;
And such a want-wit sadness makes of me,
[3]

What I have learned at the University of Texas, thus far, has served my leadership vision well. Aside from cultural diversity, the most important thing I've learned at UT is how to think outside of mere deductive reasoning and how to use methods of thinking within the realms of social science, philosophy and humanities. Not that these fields of study don't involve logic, but there is more to arriving at a clear understanding of "truth" than applying simple logic. As Tweedledee says in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, "If it [truth] was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."[4] Logic only gets us so far. To truly understand life's complexities, we must learn compassion and respect for others views. We must consider the soul as separate from our minds and bodies, yet we must also consider the world as a whole, in which we are a part of everything in it. When I consider this, I find myself evolving a clearer vision of the world and my place in it as a leader and the sacrifices I am willing to make within it.

[5] Sacrifice--by Elton John

I like to think of myself as being empathetic towards others and their experiences in this sometimes tragic and absurd world. But I admit I tend to be rather picky when it comes to people I allow into my personal life. At times, I've been so focused on my academic goals of becoming a leader that I have neglected spending time with those I love. My motto has been to succeed at any cost. Hence, time becomes a huge factor and I become stuck between academic achievements, and being compassionate towards those I care about. My dilemma then becomes a real-world game of time management and sacrifice, which usually means sacrificing time spent with others in favor of spending time on my ultimate goal of becoming a lawyer. Being under such pressure often results in lack of communication, such as filtration of thoughts or sentiments expressed by someone I'm supposed to be listening to. Thus, I had previously made it a policy not to get overly involved or too close to anyone. But that recently changed when I met Amanda.

This Friday, I was on my way to lunch with the young lady who recently won my heart. As I was leaving, I received a phone call. My first thought when I heard the voice from Brackenridge Hospital was to hang up on the bill collector. But my intuition told me I should listen this time. The voice, of whose name I cannot recall, went on that Amanda had been in a car wreck and was Star-flighted into the trauma center. She stated Amanda was stable, yet they were still working on her to make sure there was no internal damage. As I went into the emergency room prepared for a gruesome scene, I was not prepared for the kind of emotions I felt when I saw the magnitude of her injuries and pain. There was fresh blood coming from her nose and lips, a bruise over her eye, a piece of her car's dash embedded in her knee. Her ankle was fractured and compressed into her foot, resulting in severe damage to her tendons. Her sobs of agony crushed my heart. I was looking at a miracle that could have just as easily been a tragedy. In spite of all circumstances, including a six car pile up and a head on collision, she was alive. As she recalled her sensations and memories associated with the noises and confusion which came from the "jaws of life", I suddenly realized the preciousness of life. She recalled fading in and out of consciousness and the fear she felt as the helicopter lifted her away to the trauma center. My vision, as a leader, was to be compassionate and be there for her selflessly around the clock as she wanted. And I did my best to oblige while putting her interests above mine.

[6]

Sacrifice, compassion and ahimsa

My dilemma then became, there was no dilemma. My P2 paper was due, yet someone I cared about was badly hurt and wanted me by her side. At this point, I began to understand the true meaning of my leadership vision. My vision consists of compassion, empathy and Ahimsa. I did not worry about my scholastic duties. I dared to trust my intuition that my compassionate professor would understand. So I waited until the due date, which also coincided with Amanda's release from the hospital, to send a facebook message citing course material that supported my reasoning for having not focused on completing my P2. I referenced the Ahimsa readings in the course anthology, "To fail to relieve another's pain, or even neglect to go to that person in distress is a sort of Himsa."[7]Of course, my professor granted an extension for my assignment. This example of compassion from an educational leader also embraces my leadership vision. It would have been easy to deny my proposition. An ordinary professor might say, "The University of Texas is a fine institution and it would cease to be if deadlines weren't followed by the rule book". After all, the course schedule states P2 is due on March 31st before midnight. The language couldn't be clearer.

When I envision becoming a lawyer and tackling the language of the law, I consider what kind of lawyer I want to be. If I have a client who is facing a lot of time for some terrible crime, my job would be to represent him or her with as much compassion and sympathy as possible--no matter what their factual or financial situation may be. Under our system, one is entitled to a fair trial on equal grounds. But it doesn't take a genius to tell us that's not always the case and a lot of people are wrongly convicted of crime for lack of finances, which smacks the face of justice. Our legal system lacks compassion and sympathy towards minorities and people of low socio-economic status. The logic is, if they commit a crime, they get what they paid for from the legal system--nothing.

But I argue society can no longer afford this sort of prejudicial and mechanical reasoning. According to the pragmatist law theory of Richard Posner we should look at law,

without illusions, with a full awareness of the limitations of human reason, with a sense of the "localness" of human knowledge, the difficulty of translations between cultures, the unattainability of "truth," the consequent importance of keeping diverse paths of inquiry open, the dependence of inquiry on culture and social institutions, and above all the insistence that social thought and action be evaluated as instruments to human goals rather than as ends in themselves. [8]

Leadership is not only the ability to 'say what you mean and mean what you say', it is also the capacity to practice what you teach and teach what you practice. That is, to apply all arts of thinking and not just the mechanical application of deductive logic. In my quest to manage time effectively, I have become more aware of the culturally rich world around me, and I have become comfortable with the sacrifices I make as 'instruments to human goals', rather than as ends themselves. Through this perspective, I've attained a tremendous amount of knowledge from a class I initially signed up for because of pick-a-prof.com's favorable grade distribution. I will take what I've learned from E 379 with me into the future, using my vision of compassion and sacrifice to become the best attorney I can be.

I realize compassion and justice aren't quite the same thing. But my point is that compassion can bring about what's fair if we apply it to our daily lives. Compassion creates a more harmonious world where we strive to make every choice be the best one it can be for the world in which we live. Compassion (to suffer with) means sacrifice. To sacrifice for others is to be a leader. Making choices that benefit someone else over myself is a key component to my vision of leadership. To sacrifice is to make time for someone who has literally made time for me, even if it means turning in my P2 a bit late.

Amanda making "Time"

[9]

=====
[1]Photo from Facebook
[2] Larry Temple, BBA '57; President, ex-students association 1997-1998. Source: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/379N/frameset.html
[3] Know Thyself (course anthology), p 70
[4] Carroll, Lewis. The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2000. 181
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJpuJWxwJaU&feature=related
[6] Photo: Myself
[7]http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/teachings/ahimsa.htm
[8]Richard Posner, The Problems of Jurisprudence 460-69 (1990). Copyright 1990 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
[9]Photo: Myself

Sewell's Hurt

2009-03-20T00:54:00.000-07:00

Hurt - written by Trent Rezner. Covered by Johnny Cash (February 26, 1932 - September 12, 2003)
[1]

When I read Black Beauty last year, the first thing I appreciated about the novel was the 1st person narrative from "the horse's mouth". But when I first read the novel, I didn't catch everything encompassed in Sewell's novel. First, I didn't know much about Sewell. Second, I never drew the analogy that perhaps, as some say, that she was (likely) drawing an analogy to slavery within the content of the novel. I also did not know Anna Sewell was crippled and was writing her novel during her last days while mostly confined to a house. Apparently, according to some literarians, there is also some controversy surrounding Black Beauty and its daring comparison to human slavery. According to Claudia D. Johnson's Understanding the Call of the Wild,

London was not the first author to comment on human slavery and freedom through the means of an animals story. Anna Sewell, who had been a compassionate foe against slavery, wrote a horse story in 1877 called Black Beauty that had a similar narrative. Perhaps so her readers would be sure to get the point, the then president of the humane society, George Thorndike Angell, gave Sewell's story its subtitle of "The Uncle Tom's Cabin" of the Horse. [2]

[3]

Nowadays, in spite of their impact, it seems there is some animosity about Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) and Black Beauty (1877). But I don't see why this is. To criticize Sewell's novel as a lowly comparison of humans to animals is to deny the time frame in which the novel was written. Slavery wasn't exactly an issue to be tackled by women, nor was it a bad thing that Uncle Tom's Cabin has sold so many copies.

Given the historical context of the Victorian era, Unlce Tom's Cabin and Black Beauty, both are brilliant pieces of work, considering the elements they were confronting during the narrow-minded world view of the audience they were writing for. It wasn't as if Stowe or Sewell could bring about any scientific argument about race; not that it bears on the ethics of slavery, but the mindset of the time wasn't exactly looking for many facts outside of religious dogma and Victorian values.

In my comparison between the authors of two 'controversial' novels, it is important to note that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written before the Emancipation Proclamation (1862). So, Sewell's novel may be an attempt to provoke a conscious awakening about the ethical treatment of all beings, including horses. She was, in fact, from a family of abolitionists. Though the claim is also made that since she was crippled, she frequently used horse drawn carriages. Thus, she learned to sympathize with horses, and through her own pain was able to draw deep insight and articulate a compassionate story through writing about slaves in an animal story. Or would it be fair to say sympathize with humans through horse characters? I think she may very well have been making many statements, or rather social commentaries, through her writings.

For instance, Sewell's chapter Plain Speaking can be analyzed to mean or implicate many things. I argue Sewell was not speaking plainly. Rather, Sewell as implying the domination of man over nature, just as the men of the time were dominating slaves or so-called "freedmen". Though slaves were free at the time Black Beauty was published, they weren't free in today's sense of the word. Sewell writes, "There was no oppressed or ill-used creature that had not a friend in them, and their servants took the same tone. If any of the village children were known to treat any creature cruelly, they soon heard about it from the Hall."[4]

In this quote, Sewell is sort of mocking the notion of freedom. During the time, the letter of the law was not quite the same as the spirit of the law. People were still of the mindset that blacks were very unequal. Thus, not the Hall nor the law would actually do anything to 'any' creature harmed. But they would hear about it.... Apathy at it's finest.

In the same chapter, Sewell's prose depicts the sort of mindset which comprised the audience Sewell was writing for, "'Sawyer', he cried in a stern voice, '"is that pony mad of flesh and blood?"' The 'master' replies, "'Flesh and blood and temper,' he said. 'He's too fond of his own will, and that won't suit me."' [5]This is not the only parallel to the slave mentality of the Victorian era. It's only one that reflects Sewell's message about the oppression of man over nature, and man over man.

Lastly, as long as this paragraph is for blogging purposes, I think it's good for the debate and controversy that lies within Black Beauty's underlying analogy to slavery. From Sewell's chapter Plainly Speaking,

It might not do much harm on parade, except to worry and fatigue them, but how would it be in a bayonet charge against the enemy, when they want the free us of every muscle, and all their strength thrown forward? I would not give much for their chance of victory; and it is just the same with horses; you fret and worry their temper and decrease their power, you will not let them throw their weight against their work, and so they have to do too much with their joints and muscles, and of course it wears them up faster. You may depend upon it horses were intended to have their heads free, as free as men's are, and if we could act a litttle more according to common sense, and a good deal less according to fashion, we should find many things work easier; besides, you know well as I that if a horse makes a false step he has much less chance of recovering himself if his head and neck are fastened back. [6]

[7]

[8]
The cruelty of taming horses and taming humans.

Here, I believe, Sewell is referring to the labor that made capitalism possible--slavery. She speaks of 'worry' and 'fatigue', drawing a parallel to the brutal practices of slavery and what humans endured from it. She writes, 'you may depend on horses'. This phrase refers to the dependence upon slave labor, who were 'intended to have their heads free' (as free as men's are). Now we can draw the analogy that Sewell is paralleling the freedom we took from individuals during slavery as well as the cruelty of the horse's 'master'. Further, she alludes to a kind of commodity fetish, referring to 'fashion'. As well as the sheer brutality involved with fastening horses heads and necks back and the yet another parallel she draws between the fastening of animals heads and the harsh realities involved with slaves' so-called middle passage, where they were transported and fastened using tight packing methods. Then, upon arrival, they were bridled, abused and beaten. They were people to be 'broken in'.

Lastly, I opine that Sewell's novel was not an insult to slavery on the basis that she dared to compare animal suffering to human suffering. Given the time in which she wrote the novel, as well as the literary influences available to her, I believe she made a heart-felt effort to produce a novel that incorporated the views of the time while arguing against the inhuman ethical practices of the time to an audience that was less than receptible to hear a brunt argument against slavery from a crippled, Victorian woman.

We have a tendency to put the words we read in the context of present time without considering the dynamics of the time frame which reflect the history that has constructed our realities.When we read Black Beauty in the context of 1877, I think we're able to get a less offensive picture of the content within the text regarding the comparison to animals and slavery. And if we're objective, we're able to decipher our egocentric values of today's time, and understand the message behind Sewell's hurt.

Anna Sewell

(30 March 1820 – 25 April 1878)

[9]

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxU3gXy1Qq8

[2]Johnson, D. Claudia, Understanding the call of the wild (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), p 12

[3]http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/thumbs_big/sa10.m.jpg

[4]http://www.moonrakerqh.com/tack/gfx/bridle-10-0137.jpg

[5]Sewell Anna, Black Beauty (Pavillion Books LTD: 1993), p 48

[6]Sewell, Anna, Black Beauty (Pavillion Books LTD: 1993), p 49

[7]Sewell, Anna, Black Beauty (Pavillion Books LTD: 1993), p 51

[8]http://www.gambiatouristsupport.com/slave12.gif

[9] http://img.tfd.com/authors/sewell.jpg

The Beauty Under The Sea 3D

2009-03-13T22:15:00.000-07:00

[1]

The beauty in nature.

You should see Under The Sea 3D. You really should. The orange and white blogspot . com gives this movie glaring reviews. In fact, no doubt this movie rates a 6 out of 5 stars. That's how good it is. You might even be enthralled. I was. I have seen "3D" movies over the years that weren't so "3D". I emphasize in the most serious fashion, that is not the case here.

I left this film flabergasted.

It showed a Wunderpus photogenicus, sea snakes that looked like weeds swaying in the wind in front of you, Blue-spotted stingray, chambered nautilus, common cuttlefish, clown fish, warty frogfish (Antennarius maculatus), crocodilefish, white seals and many more fascinating sea animals.

I walked into the beautiful theater already wondering to myself, again, why it is that people don't go to the IMAX theaters as much as conventional theaters. This movie definitely represents quality in the most serious sense of the word. So you should grab a friend, or take your kid, or go solo. Words cannot do this movie, nor the message of this movie justice. It reminds us of our subtle passiveness towards nature as Carrey explains that white seals are becoming endangered because their habitat is being destroyed. Only 10, 1000 white seals exist in present time.

[2]

Aren't they cute?

It's unexplainable. It's like hallucinating without drugs. That's right kiddos. This is good clean fun--and very educational. It's no strain on the brain and I found the movie quite theraputic. I'm telling you, you really should go. In fact, if you go, you'll come close to imagining you're actually snorkeling in the water as Jim Carry narrates the daily lives of the animals beneath our precious seas. Under The Sea 3d, plays at the Bob Bullock Imax Theatre at various times which can be seen at the given link.

See it. You really should.

Critically speaking, there really is something about this film that stands out from any other film I've ever seen in my life. It was so surreal and so vivid that there need not be a thick plot, diaologe or conflict. This movie reflects nature as something beautiful and it really does a good job of detaching you from the stress of the real world to see the actual beauty in the world. Why hasn't another producer thought of making a movie like this? It presents entertainment in a whole new light. It is also my hopes that by writing this blog that I convince one person that they really should go see Under the Sea 3D.

My final analysis is that words, such as the ones I'm writing can have a an impact on the world and the way we use them can convince someone to do something or not. This film shows how merely narrative words, that don't have to present and argument, can still invoke the thought process into pondering the realities of the world in a positive way.

====

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Z9YelOEq0
[2] http://www.entertainmentwallpaper.com/images/desktops/movie/under_the_sea_3d06.jpg

Bolt--Thumbs Down

2009-03-13T15:09:00.000-07:00

[1]

I thought Bolt stunk.

So I went to see the movie Bolt at the student union. I was very unimpressed with the flow of the movie. I think this movie would have been better if it was summed up into a shorter film. Perhaps 30 or 40 minutes. (There is something to be said about short films.)

Bolt is a story about a dog who believes he is a super dog, fighting against the evil of the man with the green eye, who tries to steal his Penny. Bolt's reality, at first, is that he is in fact a super dog who loves playing a superhuman role with his Penny. Because Bolt was born into the star role of being a superhero, he believes this is his reality.

Then, Bolt loses his Penny and befriends a cat and a hamster. That cat is the antagonist who doesn't appreciate Bolt having captured her so she can help him find his Penny. The hamster is envious of Bolt and would do anything for Bolt, especially when it comes to finding his Penny. The hamster, having been a big fan of Bolt's t.v. show, remains envious of him throughout the movie as the three of them venture about rather aimlessly, dragging out a long plot. I felt the plot was the whole problem of the movie. It was rather simple. And though the graphics were profound, I felt myself wanting to exit the theater after about 30 minutes into the movie. But I endured the predictability of the movie until the bitter end.

Of course, like almost every superhero story, the dog reunites with his Penny when he finally returns to Hollywood to find his Penny with another dog on the set of Bolt--the movie. So, predictably, this hurts his feelings as he begins to wonder off from the scene. Then the antagonist cat convinces him that he should be re-united with his Penny. And so Bolt rescues his Penny from a burning building even though he realizes he does not have super powers.

[2]

The story finally ends with Bolt, the hamster, his Penny and the cat all living outside of the Hollywood limelight in which Bolt was once a mere spectacle of entertainment.

[3]

I can't write with any honesty that I enjoyed this movie. So I'd recommend Bolt for audiences of 12 and under. I score Bolt a 2 of 5 on the Beneficial Movie Rating System.

=====
[1]http://www.behavioradvisor.com/holdNoseThumbsDown.gif
[2]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uwAEGKOqnZ8/STTKSslOd2I/AAAAAAAABhM/N5K9G6EJkYY/s400/bolt.jpg
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKsRdD8j2yE

Slaying the Meaning of Fear

2009-03-11T13:01:00.000-07:00

[1]
Rudyard Kipling blunts fear

Fear can be defined as, "horror, anxiety or dread". [2] More fittingly for this blog, I shall refer to definition #4 of the online webster's definition, '"Be uneasy or apprehensive about; "I fear the results of the final exams"'. [3] Previously, the methods I have habitually used to prepare for exams was to motivate myself by fear of failing. Most of the time, I have much success on exams. So this logic seems to work. But it's not always the most desirable method. Today, I took an exam on the ethical principles of ahimsa. And as I wrote about it, my fear turned into sorrow, at least in the sense of my sypathetic imagination broke down the barrier between myself and the test. At first, there seemed to be sort of a dual existence. Meaning: me vs. the test--or me versus the material world. But something happened. And I became one with the test. On the test, I was to contextualize a passage from the Bhagavad Gita,

"Who see through the lens of likeness to self the same everywhere, Arjuna, whether pleasure or happiness or pain and suffering, that yogin is the very best."[3]

As I wrote, I found my sympathetic imagination working in a similar way to the principle(s) in Blake's poem ON ANOTHER'S SORROW,

Can I see another's woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I not see another's greif,
And not seek for kind relief? [4]

Inherent in this poem, whether deliberate or not, lies a congruousness of what I was actually writing about today, as well as what I am writing about now, which is relevant to the blog. But first I must note that I had a choice of questions to write on. Specifically, one about the whether claims about God or Brahman hold any epistimological weight. While it seems to me they do, I always find these religious debates to be somewhat of a dangerous venture, specifically because you never know what kind of argument one who is grading might be looking for. Mine would have much resembled Blake's line, "And thy maker is not near." [5]Perhaps my argument may not have suited his or her taste of what a good argument is and so I digress...

I chose to write on ethics, which, to me makes for better philosophical discussion than proving or disproving Gods. Right, Conrad?

[6]
The Test Fairy

So I began to take an argument authored by my professor, which I had taken the liberty to memorize. I figured, I can't go wrong using the argument written in the text of the man himself. But I also felt that there was something else. I began to put the quote of the Bhagavad Gita into context with two arguments. At first, I feared I was wrong about my first interpretation being that Krishna was talking to Arjuna about his fears of not being a good ahimsika, since he was conflicted about going to battle against his old archery teacher. Yet, when I returned home to check my analysis, it seems to be spot on given the context of the poem and given I also provided the memorized argument from the Upanishads just as my professor had cited. Professor Phillips' interpretation of the argument follows that "self-relization leads to seeing the self in all beings, and all beings in self, henceforth do not recoil from anything, For whom all beings are known as just self, for him how can there be grief, for he sees unity everywhere."[7] Thus I reasoned, Krishna was urging Arguna to see absolutism--a single self which banishes fear.

Of course, I have no way of telling how well-argued the other portions of my essay were until I receive it back. But I can say the part I was most fearful about was actually nothing to be afraid of at all. And even if it isn't correct to the extent that I want it to be when I do get it back, I learned from the experience of banishing my own fears in class on a dreaded timed essay. I am not a practitioner of Yoga in the sense of postures, breathing, meditation or achieving a blissful sense through practice. Yet I have found some luck in practicing Buddhi Yoga, or Yoga of the rational. I swallowed my fear and instead of using fear to motivate my thoughts, I rationalized that fear would not help here. In fact, fear is my enemy. Perhaps we had some use for fear back when we were evolving some thousands of years ago. But I think fear is detrimental to one's existence. Most times, it has no place in our daily interactions. Yet, still, it remains as an innate feature emotionally embedded in all of us. Some of us cave from fear, some thrive, some seem to embrace it (including me).

But having no fear, as I experienced today, allows one to live life and as Kipling writes in such eloquent fashion,

If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build'em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son![8]

As part of the discovery learning tradition here in English class with professor Bump, I came across a poem that I find myself referring to, in some fashion or another, almost every day. Words trump fear. Words allow us to reason what exactly fear is. The ontology of fear is innately present in all of us. Yet, so is the ability to over come it.

In Tiger is God, Stephen Harrigan writes,

In the Suburbans, the vast delta region that spans the border of India and Bangladesh, more than four hundred people have been killed by tigers in the last decade. So many fisherman and honey collectors have been carried off that a few years ago officials at the Sunderbans tiger preserve began stationing electrified dummies around the park to encourage the tigers to seek other prey. One percent of all tigers, accordging to a German biologist who studied them in the Sunderbans, are "dedicated" man eaters: When they go hunting, they're after people. [9]

Fear and words. . . .

[10]

Which words we associate in describing tigers seems to result in a certain emotion. Here, in Tiger is God, the words perpetuate unreasonable fear of tigers. This fear stems from how we uptake the language about the tiger. Take the phrase, 'so many fisherman and honey collectors'. To me, this seems odd that the tiger would target fisherman and honey collectors. I guess it's possible... but based on the fact there are likely shoe makers, farmers and chefs in Bangladesh, tigers targeting certain tradesmen seems like fear-driven rhetoric rather than any truthful statement about who the tigers 'carry off'. My reasoning tells me a tiger would drag someone, and not carry them.

Conversely, Harrigan contrasts, "I thought of the Tipu of Sultan, the eighteenth century Indian mogul who was obsessed with the tiger and used its likeness as a constant emblem. Tipu Sultan's imperial banner borne the words 'Tiger is God.' Looking up into Miguel's yellow eyes I felt the strange appropriatenss of those words." [11]

These words also associate false meaning to something that stirs our emotions. Comparing a tiger to God is a bold claim that might as well be fiction. Yet the words which strike our manas, or inner sense, when we hear 'Tiger is God' is an example of the emotional pull words have on our perception of reality and our uptake of their meaning. From their meaning, we associate Tigers as Gods or fear of tigers--depending on which sort of rhetoric we use.

Which brings me to how we percieve the world in terms of meaning. For example, if I fail a test then presumably my biggest fears have been realized. I am not claiming that I have no fear, nor am I claiming that I won't have any fear. But I am saying that the meaning of fear, to me, isn't something to be afraid of. In fact, as of today, I slaughtered my old meaning of fear like in the first part of On Greer Island a Copperhead Lies Slain. My meaning of fear, as Barney writes, has been slain like a snake. My fear,

lies here, head clipped from the slaughtered corse,
lies here, for all reputed guile,
tricked into stiffness, shorn of force.
Assassin, while he trod of his fief,
you struck his angry armor off [12]

And thus, from this day forward, my own meaning of fear will not allow me to be afraid. Rather, fear shall be the "sameness" within me as it is the same within someone else. The difference being, I will not let success nor failure dictate the essence of my being. As Kipling would say, success and failure are both imposters--just the same.

Fear may be within me, but afraid is now dead.

[13]

======
[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpcNFll5yOM
[2]http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/oeme_dictionaries.htm
[3]http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/fear
[4]Stephen Phillips quoting the Bhagavad Gita, Ch. vi passage 32
[5]Course anthology, p 354
[6]http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/11-29/test-dream-copyright3.gif
[7]Stephen Phillips, Unless otherwise indicated these translations are my own. I take the Sanskrit text from the edition by J. L. Shastri, Upanishads (1970) UT Course packet, p 66
[8]http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Rudyard_Kipling/kipling_if.htm
[9]Course anthology, p 365
[10]http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7926139940/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/04/22/16883029-tiger.jpg
[11]Course anthology, p 366
[12]Courses anthology, p 273
[13]http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/uploaded_images/FearMongering-758590.jpg

YOGA REV

2009-03-10T17:04:00.000-07:00

Is there an ethical side to Yoga?

Yes. Ethics can be defined as "the good life" or in more exact terms, discerning what is good or bad. Ethics starts with ahimsa. To ethical idealist, the goal of yoga is about self-discovery and discovery of a supreme law, which seeks to organize a mental and ethical formula consisting of [ethical] principles of conduct.

What about the teachings of ahimsa?
The teachings of ahimsa are yoga because one must practice ahimsa to achieve the best for one's self--a side of truth to karm--and a fundamental basis from which ethics starts. Beginning with the premise that each of us are responsible for achieving the person we will become. Additionally, we should act so as to cause as little harm or [perfectly] no harm to other sentient beings, so that we recieve the rewards or consequences of our actions in our current or next life. The goal is "cosmic harmony" within the world we live, following us to the next. There are limitations, since it's not practical to practice ahimsa all of the time. This example can be seen in the B.G. when Arjuna is urged to fight against his own archery teacher by the Krishna, because he had just cause to harm (dharma) So when applied in a practical sense, ahimsa can have a pluralistic application where it can be applied to utilitarianism (ethics of the greater good) and also libertarianism (ethics of self).

What are some of the main arguments offered in favor of its practice, and are any of them cogent, that is to say, do they carry the day?

The main arguments are (1) that if we act without harm, then we transcend all evil(s) in our next life, e.g., the Upanishadic view that self-realization includes seeing the self in all beings, thus a certain unity.

(2) From the B.G, "pain and suffering" to mean the pain and suffering of others, who dislike it just as one dislikes one's own pain and suffering.

(3) From the Shankra: (Likeness of Self=breathing beings, desire pleasure and find pain disagreeable--no explicit appeal to self interest. High road= by developing virtue of ahimsa, one be comes fit for the supreme persnal good..."social value" B.G. "to hold together the worlds.Low road, teaching virtue is its own reward

(4) The Jaina view percieve that everything is sentient. All souls are equally valuable.Thus if I realize suffering is bad for me, I conclude that injury to others is similarly bad to them. Hierarchy of conscious based on sense organs. Humans have 11=5 external senses of knolwedge and 5 more of action, along with manas (the innersense) and buddhi (rational intelligence) Logical correspondence follows as such (since a cow has 11). Animals are selves as indicated by their behavior. Being a self capable of feeling pain has [natural] moral rights. To propagate what selves see as bad for themselves is to commit a moral evil. Selves see pain and injury as bad for themselves. Therefore, to propagate pain or injury is to commit a moral evil. Further, to hurt an animal is morally wrong as it is more wrong to hurt a human being.

(6) Buddhism= metaphysics of Interconnectedness--"great vehicle" to carry all sentient beings to awakening or bliss.Karma is natural law.

(7) YS (social) "restraints" tops list of practice--convergence of moral constraint of self-interest. Don't hurt yourself in practice since we are interconnected (atman). Here ahimsa presupposes ahimsa towards self is right and natural.

(10) As an extention, and in the spirit of non-injury ethic, was born "non-absolutism" or maybeism. Meaning consideration of another's view to have truth value would deny harm to their holding of a certa

Are the teachings concerning karma presupposed as a premise or premises in any of the arguments you identify?

Karma is congruous with ahimsa insofar is it seeks "cosmic harmony" through non-harm ethics. For instance ahimsa as a restraint keeps you from harming yourself directly, which would be a payback for acting in a harmful way. Being aware of kinks that may harm you, would pressupose being harmed. More interestingly, the Jaina view--Karma as a presupposed premise which would entail Karmic payback according to different tiers of suffering, according to the magnitude of suffering caused to say a cow, compared to an ant.

Karma Killed Coeztee

2009-02-23T23:49:00.000-08:00

[1]

As I've been reading much animal rights and ethics literature, I have suddenly become intrigued by the notion of Karma.... Not to spoil a good read for all the logicians out in blogspace, but "what if"? What if all of our actions are centered around Karma? What if, as Coeztee wrote, "But they do not understand death as we do, or rather, as we fail to do." [2] Of course Coeztee meant to say that humankind cannot understand death as it is because we have never experienced it. Therefore, as I interpret Coeztee, we have no true knowledge of death. So we misperceive most all facets of death by not only possessing limited knowledge of death ourselves, but by also possessing a misperception of how death is suffered by animals, so we often do what suits our understanding of animals: they're here to serve us...and as some say God created the animals for us to use.

[3]

But what if it goes further than this? What if this whole paradox of analyzing and philosophizing about humans suffering and animals suffering compared to the holocaust and slavery were so far off base that it didn't even begin to correlate with reality as we [don't'] know it? This could certainly be the case as nobody has written from experience on death. But what about suffering? Surely, some of us suffer before we die as part of death. David and I mumbled under our breaths about Dr. Kavorkian, aka, "Dr. Death. But "Dr. Death" didn't do what he did because he liked killing people. He wanted to help people suffering from and during terminal illnesses. So, certainly we cannot altogether separate suffering from death, or life. As hard as Dr. Kavorkian tried, he could not separate suffering from life until after death.

[i]

But speaking of life, what if death does not exist? What if [death] the exiting of our humanly bodies is really just another passage onto our next rebirth? According to Tanner's Lecture, animal compassion is a very recent Western ethical view. So let's take David Hume's thoughts on inaliable rights, such as the right to bear children. Regarding this matter, Hume thought individuals had this right only if there were enough worldly resources to sustain such rights. So, if resources cannot support a child, then one does not have inalienable rights according to natural law. However, the Western perspective does not adhere to these principles in this regard as we can virtually have as many children as we want to. Yet we do adhere to inalienable rights as being rights given to us separate from, and not contingent, upon statutory laws or even customs. We are, as humans, born with these rights of "liberty".

Which brings me to Coetzee's question,

"Isn't there a certain wisdom in the traditional view that says that animals cannot enjoy legal rights because they are not persons, even potential persons, as foetuses are? In working out rules for our dealings with animals, does it not make more sense for such rules to apply to us and to our treatment of them, as at present, rather than being predicated upon rights which animals cannot claim or enforce or even understand?"[4]

For me, the legitimacy of animal compassion does not lie on the ability for the animal to understand it's rights, rather, in our ability to see it's rights in relation with our actions and coexistence. According to the notion of Karma, our actions towards other beings will be payed back to us in this life or the next existence. With this notion of Karma comes a certain level of speculation and theory building that doesn't appeal to our conventional notions of logic (but neither does Christianity). Yet, indeed, there is logical order to the idea of Karma. Allow me to quote from the Bhagavad Gita,

These bodies come to an end,
It is declared, of the eternal embodied (soul),
Which is indestructible and unfathomable.
Therefore fight, son of Bharata!

Who believes him a slayer,
And who thinks him slain,
Both these understand not:
He slays not, is not slain

He is not born, nor does he ever die;
nor, having come t o be, will he ever more be come not to be.
Unborn, eternal, everlasting, this ancient one
Is not slain when the body is slain

Who knows as indestructible and eternal
This unborn, imperishable one,
That man, son of Prtha, how
Can he slay or cause to slay--whom?

As leaving aside worn-out garments
A man takes other, new ones,
So leaving aside worn-out bodies
To other, new ones goes the embodied (soul).

Swords cut him not,
Fire burn him not,
Water wets him not,
Wind dries him not

Not to be cut is he, nor to be burnt is he,
Not to be wet nor yet dried;
Eternal, omnipresent, fixed,
Immovable, everlasting is he.

Unmanifest he, unthinkable he,
Unchangeable he is declared to be;
Therefore knowing him thus
Thou shouldst not mourn him

Moreover, even if constantly born
Or constantly dying thou considerest him,
Even so, great-armed one, thou
Shouldst not mourn him

For to the one that is born death is certain,
And birth is certain for one that has died;
Therefore, the thing being unavoidable,
Thou shouldst not mourn him [5]

This passage from the Bhagvad Gita referring to Karma reminds me of how much we don't know about death and suffering. Yet at the same time reminds me of how much we think we know about death. I venture to say, we don't even know the beginning. And nature as we see it, can be deceptive and so can the ethics associated with how humans--and animals--react to nature and life.

[ii]

The above youtube reveals a leopard who has an ethical conscious. The leopard kills a baboon who then has a baby after being killed. Something moves, and the cub leopard notices the baby baboon that has just been born. In what seems to be an awakening of moral consciousness, the leopard protects the baby from the Hyenas. What's so amazing about this video is the leopard seems to have compassion and though a predator by nature, demonstrates the understanding of the preciousness of life. Does this rare video capture the ethical conscious of a leopard? You be the judge. But do we still believe Wendy Doniger when she says, "no one can prove someone else does not know how animals feel."?[6] It'd be hard to say that you could not know how the leopard felt. The leopard felt guilty. Was this perhaps its moral consciousness speaking to it about a newborn baby? Or was its moral conscious--that we don't understand--acting out of some Karmic belief that the act of deliberately killing the baby would yield negative Karmic affects on its next life?

The leopard seemed to perceive life as precious, at least in the form of a new born. And we, to some extent, value life. But our understanding of life and death as we know it is limited to our understanding insofar as how we apply our faculties to understand life and death. As far as I understand life and death, I understand it as a cycle of life where what dies feeds the living. Thus a continuous cycle of birth and rebirth. But where does the soul come in? This is the question that defies scientific notions of death, being we just die. If we have a soul that lives separate from our bodies, then why do we consider our souls do die when our bodies die? To me, there is just as much logic in the notion of rebirth as there is heaven, hell, purgatory or a nice long nap (as Socrates described).

The point I'm getting to is that there is just as much reason not to hurt an animal due to ethical reasons as there is not to hurt an animal for Karmic reasons. There are so many dimensions in our world which we are unaware of, to me, the possibility that when a soul dies, it is being born is just as real to me as any other speculative theory about death. They're all speculative--just like when Smuts, "If they relate to us as individuals, and we relate to them as individuals, it is possible for us to have a personal relationship." [7]This speculation draws on the logic of the notion that individuality equates to 'personal' qualities. Smuts elaborates, "The possibility of voluntary, mutual surrender to the dictates of intersubjectivity constitutes the common ground that Aquinas and O'Hearne ignore when they claim that animals and humans cannot be friends." [7]If we believe our actions in this life will have a Karmic effect on the next, not only does this reduce the amount of suffereing we cause but it gives us control over the emotional dilemma of animal rights. If we don't take away their "rights", e.g., their right to live, then we no longer have to fear that we are acting immoral. If we do everything we can as individuals such as refrain from eating meat as part of our daily diet even though we like the taste, then, as Smuts states, "We fear such loss of control, but the gifts we receive in turn make it a small price to pay." [9]

Works cited
[1]http://www.dining-out.co.za/ftp/Logo/KarmaGautengLogo.gif
[2] Coetzee, J.M. Elizabeth Costello (New York: The Penguin Group, 2003) 109
[3]http://bellaciao.org/en/IMG/jpg/suffering_animals.jpg
[4]Coetzee, J.M. Elizabeth Costello (New York: The Penguin Group, 2003)107
[5]Edgerton, Franklin (translations)The Bhagavad Gita(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972)11
[6]Anthology, 309
[7]Anthology, 316
[8]Anthology, 312
[9]Anthology, 312

Videos Cited.
[i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09xBPtJRwhI
[ii]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_06oX8DqrU

Far Out Ecocriticism

2009-02-20T15:32:00.000-08:00

I was skeptical as I read Greg Gerrard's chapter on Eco-criticism and animals. There were varying themes of domination, cruelty, bestial metaphors, environmentalism, anthropomorphism, theriomorphism, androids, insensitivity, spectacles, biodiversity and many other problematic analogies drawn. I felt this author made some clever points. The approach was one of the more bizarre readings I have come across simply because it doesn't flow well, yet he manages to make some fantastic points at the same time if you're patient enough to read it. He uses many elements of rhetoric that make good arguments, but combined, it's really hard to comprehend his point. The premises of the argument are sometimes too abstract and riddled with social theories. In the end, we have great ideas strung together without much logical order. But let's take a look at Gerrard and compare his writing's with Philip K. Dick's. Both authors have a complicated and clever style. Perhaps the burden should be left upon the reader's short-term or long-tem response to the reading. Maybe if I read this again, it would seem more coherent. I guess, as of now, I'd say it's clever, yet inconsistent. But I'll try to make some concrete sense of it all.

I found most of the analogies to be strong semantical arguments which left me asking, what conclusions are to be drawn from the arguments in this chapter? There seems to be a lot of open-ended social theory that doesn't provide much insight. In both readings I noticed an underlying rhetorically-driven theme that implies lack of sensitivity resulting in the break down of the ecology, thus predicting [subliminally] our demise. Perhaps because it's from only part of Gerrard's book? And so I must be missing some important underlying theme.... But I thought he was a little over the top by applying so many banters about a wide array of analogies, drawing from a grab bag including Silence of the Lambs; heightening the sensational element by quoting the story of Clarice who tries to save a lamb. Gerrard also notes Lecter is also referred to as "Buffalo Bill",

Clarice grows up and accepts the killing of the lambs . . . but not the screaming that some associate with the mushy, childish, and effeminate side of her constitution. The screaming inside her head must be stopped. She attempts this through metaphor -- Christian lambs and women in need - for screaming lambs. If she rescues Catherine Martin, Clarice might also save herself. (280)

In Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter draws on Clarice's sensitivity to screaming of the lambs as she recalled witnessing their slaughtering on a farm where she once lived as a young girl. This portion of the movie and novel has a very dramatic affect. But when you think about the analogy made by Gerrard (that this is themed around our perceptions of animals), and when you consider Clarice's character, how else could you create such drama without involving her sentiments or memories about the murder of some other person? If that were part of the plot, it would detract from Hanibal Lecter's role as the focal point of a movie based on murder and horror. But I digress as I disagree with Gerrard's animal theme. Lecter probes the memories of Clarice and derives a certain pleasure from psychoanalyzing her. In my opinion, where this analogy falls flat is because the emphasis, I think, is on the psychological element, rather than any sort of ecological pseudo-significance implied by the lamb. Below is a scene from the movie, Silence of the Lambs.

Further, I think the author of Silence of the Lambs meant for the lamb's symoblism to be more of a Biblical allusion, implying the evil, murderous character of Lecter delving into the innocence of Clarice, rather than appealing to any underlying animal theme.

Though Gerrard makes a strong semantic argument, he really provides no coherent conclusion. Is there really a connection between Silence of the Lambs and the ecology? I don't think so. I'm not sure how that relates altogether. Of course, lambs are part of the ecology and there were some theriopomorphic qualities added to Buffalo Bill... but how this movie actually affects the ecosystem doesn't seem apparent. He proceeds to speak of animals and biodiversity and uses the example of Flipper, a dolphin, "credited with creating a constituency of young dolphin admirers who, as adults, joined the tuna boycott that transformed fishing practices that are lethal to marine mammals."(284) He provides no evidence that the influx of people boycotting were influenced by Flipper, whatsoever.

Gerrard goes on about The Blue Planet analyzing, "with a contextualizing overview of oceanic ecology that interrelates wind, tides and currents, and stresses movements of nutrients as well as massive migration of species. This contrasts with documentaries that isolate events or individual species, reducing the significance of ecological connections and processes. "(280) Philip K. Dick styles a similar analogy in fictional prose, "I'm not an android. My name is Mercer. I inhabit this building because of Mr. Isidore. The special who had the spider; you talked briefly to him outside." (220) Both texts have an underlying theme of human progress misperceiving nature as an object, which I think is the strongest analogy made in both texts. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep an analogy is made by drawing a parallel between human misperception of the importance of non-human life. Dick's novel takes place in the future, but points out how "progress" could sort of be the catalyst for the big bang that would spark the loss of human compassion and emotion,

For what we meant to each other,"the android said as it approached him, its arms reaching as if to clutch at him. The clothes, he thought, are wrong. But the eyes, the same eyes. And there are more like this; there can be a legion of her, each with its own name, but all Rachael Rosen--Rachael, the prototype, used by the manufacturer to protect the others. (221)

Dick's novel points out insensitivity and lack of compassion for certain aspects of life that makes up earth's biodiversity and has resulted in creating androids to fulfill our human desires. Instead of giving back to nature, we have taken from it and in the novel androids have replaced animals, similar to the way someday androids may replace humans. Our capacity to deny reality is huge. I think that we don't want to know what we really know--our sense of compassion and deep insight into nature is depleting and we are learning to ways to fulfill our human needs--through the creation of false intelligence and false emotions, animated by the life like movements of androids. Will these androids soon change the ways and the laws of the land? Will the public ever rise out of it's apathetic state and awake from the illusion to realize that without using our sympathetic imagination, androids will be in our future catering to human desires which grow shallower and shallower as technology advances and we "progress". The story of "us" is becoming one of pilgrams to androids, which involves a certain level of narcissism. We want to satisfy our needs, because we're in love with our needs. Androids have become part of the solution to the problem of solving our needs. Out with the old and in with the new habits of heart. We're stripping away our sense of reality in exchange for illusion.

Androids are already among us. It's interesting to speculate how many there will be in the near future. But to subvert Gerrard's analogy for my own purposes, I think with the introduction of androids as a substitute for love and human relationships, and a substitute for the roles we have developed in society for humans. Like with hunting where Gerrard writes," There could be no 'sport' in bear-baiting or fox-hunting if the participants are insentient. "(280)I think an analogy can also be drawn that there would be no 'sport' left in life the day we start relying on androids to accomplish human tasks. The underlying theme in both of these texts is that insensitivity to other sentient beings is taking over society's perception in the favor of developing our own progress and our own human perception, whether in tune with reality or not. We tend to forget, that when we use animals that they are part of our ecosystem and when we build infrastructure and drill in the ocean we are advancing mankind's interest without thinking of the future biodiversity that will be affected by the insensitivity that is bread into humans, not from movies, but from social values that end up being depicted in movies. Sure, there are concrete connections to some of these abstract ideas. But knowing where these are derived from is important to distinguish. If we blame it on the movies, we're denying the greed instilled in mankind and we're pretending the issue is Hollywood, when in fact it is human nature and our sense of morality that allows for this perception. In that regard, I disagree with Gerrard, yet I find Dick's novel interestingly abstract and compelling.

Seduction of Analogy

2009-02-19T20:37:00.000-08:00

Over analysis?

[1]

I think one of the greatest rhetoricians of all-time was Sigmund Freud. He came up with words like "id", "ego", "super ego". We still use these words today and his theories, whether sound or not, are the cornerstones of basic psychology. But one must keep in mind Freud, like many other great legends, had his not so great moments. He was a user and prescribed cocaine. He once prescribed it to a friend coming off of an opium addiction who later died. Yet, as far as "seduction of analogy" goes, Freud takes the cake. Freud himself is guilty of "seduction of analogy". He theorized about himself and applied it to everyone across the board, "I found in myself a constant love for my mother, and jealousy of my father. I now consider this to be a universal event in childhood."[2] Freud went on with more abstract theories, which he really had no evidence in which to prove them. His fantasies about his mother and theories about totemism are only two example where he had no proof other than clever theories which were, and still are, rhetorically convincing.

Freud sought to anchor this pattern of development in the dynamics of the mind. Each stage is a progression into adult sexual maturity, characterized by a strong ego and the ability to delay gratification (cf. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality). He used the Oedipus conflict to point out how much he believed that people desire incest and must repress that desire. The Oedipus conflict was described as a state of psychosexual development and awareness. He also turned to anthropological studies of totemism and argued that totemism reflected a ritualized enactment of a tribal Oedipal conflict. [3]

Though Freud was able to theorize very convincingly, he was abundantly full of abstractions and theorized with no real concrete body of evidence to support his theories. That talent alone is why he he is amongst the great rhetoricians--simply because he was so convincing to so many. But again I argue Freud was basing his theories solely on parallels and literature that he had read. And my theory is that he fantasized while he was reading Sophocles' Oedipus. Then he developed theories from his particular experience and applied them universally, which flies in the face of logic. Freud lived in a world of abstract fantasies and falsehoods, which he believed were true based on his own existential evidence and cocaine usage. His own experiences became the object on which he elaborated theories. But most turned out to be mere "Freudian Fantasy". Take, for instance, his prescribing of cocaine to his friend that later led to his death. He thought he was doing is friend a favor, but because it was only his theory that cocaine was good he suffered the consequences of "the seduction of analogy". In this case, there is a morbid element of irony in that he coined the phrase " seduction of analogy". As I further reduce my view of Freud to somewhat of a pseudo-scientist, I do believe that he truly was a great rhetorician. Which brings me to the cliche' of Nazi analogies and Hitler. But I also think there is one theory of Freud's we can apply here. I think it's safe that Hitler lacked a super-ego (sense of morality) and was severely conflicted between his childlike desire and his inner moral code.

In his later work, Freud proposed that the psyche could be divided into three parts: ego, super-ego, and id. The id is known as the child-like portion of the psyche that is very impulsive and only takes into account what it wants and disregards all consequences. The super-ego is the moral code of the psyche that solely follows right and wrong and takes into account no special circumstances in which the morally right thing may not be right for that situation. Finally, the ego is the balance between the two. It is the part of the psyche that is, usually, portrayed in the person's action, and after the super-ego and id are balanced, the ego acts in a way that takes both impulses and morality into consideration. [4]

[4]

Now if you argue with me here, you've lost the debate before it started. Hitler is amongst the world's most elite rhetoricians. But I think it's safe to say that he used rhetoric in a way that lacked compassion, and I definitely think the only person he was able to sympathize with was himself. To the extent that he was convincing, there is no doubt. Hitler persuaded Nazi generals, and those commanded by them, to carry out mass murder using the most unthinkable, inhumane and immoral methods possible. Then disposing of their bodies like garbage in mass graves. The world was watching as America moved in and Hitler was finally defeated. But not after a mass loss of lives, or after bearing the huge cost of war. But the seduction of analogy is what made Hitler amongst the most powerful and elite rhetoricians to ever live. Hitler's analogy was that of "cultural evolution", being that the Jews showed characteristics less evolved than Germans, thus were inferior Hitler wanted to "put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created." [5] He spread this mantra using parallels to religious and evolutionary theories, to the extent where it was widely acceptable and had it not been for the intervention of the United States and a few other countries, Hitler may have gotten his wish by virtually annihilating the Jews. His ability to accomplish this came from his talent of using persuasive rhetoric. This video of the Holocaust is not an example of good leadership:

[6]

Which brings me to a quote from the anthology, "Whether the Holocaust could ever be a part of any analogy, much less this one, has been regularly debated and disputed. It is the event beyond analogy, many people say. And yet it is part of oblique analogies every day." [7] I think the key word here is oblique. My opinion is that you can never truly compare the suffering of the Holocaust to the suffering of animals because of the magnitude of suffering associated with human suffering and the sheer evil involved with that Nazis. In my opinion, human suffering is a much greater dilemma. Though a digression I think worth noting is our existence is reliant upon the ecosystem, so if we don't take care of that, then we'll induce our own suffering. So there is a sort of rhyme to being compassionate towards nature, but the comparison to animals being systematically slaughtered to the systematic murdering of the Jews is preposterous based on the ground that the Holocaust entailed human suffering. But thats not to say that I agree with another important rhetorician to this discussion, Immanuel Kant. I do think there are some parallels, but the only real use is within the realm of "seduction of analogy". The comparisons lie in how inhumane and systematic the Jews were murdered and the way we systematically kill animals. The key difference being we have customs and principles derived from these customs called laws that say murdering a human being is wrong. Does this mean that killing an animal is not wrong? To the extent Immanuel Kant believes it is not immoral, I disagree. I think there is a balance between the two. From J.M Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello, the author criticizes philosophers Plato and Descarte,

"The universe is built upon reason. God is a God of reason. The fact that through the application of reason we can come to understand the rules by which the universe works proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals, lacking reason, cannot understand the universe but have simply to follow tis rules blindly, proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being: that man is godlike, animals thinglike." [7]

Personally, I think reason is part of the universe. Reasonably, we have to accept suffering to a certain extent, yet at the same time realize that since we can reasonably recognize suffering that we can also reasonably reduce it through our actions. Since we deny animals the ability to reason, they aren't held to the same moral codes as we are. But since we can reason, we're inhumane, at best, if we torture and animal. Regarding suffering, I argue there are different magnitudes. My reasoning tells me animals do suffer, unlike the reasoning of philosopher and rhetorician Immanuel Kant. Below we have the Immanuel Kant finger puppet. Immanuel Kant reasoned "with regard to animals, the implications of his intuition that reason may not be the being of the universe but on the contrary merely the being of the human brain." [9]

[10]

But I think modern science can prove the existence of intelligence in animals. Modern animal behavioral studies prove that dolhins, dogs and apes all have some intelligence outside of what is merely instinctual, e.g., the ability to recognize and translate words into meaning. So, I think this alone proves Immanuel Kant wrong. My guess, however, is that we do have it right. With modern science we can see that animals can reason. So if they can reason, it stand to reason that they can certainly feel. Or how would they be able to reason without feelings. And so my analogy lies somewhere in between all the rhetorical abstractions. I think the findings in science have given us our answers. And it's up to us to find our own moral answers from looking at the empirical data science has provided, as well as what should be intuitive to most. The below you tube demonstrates how animals reason in similar ways that we do, that is if you compare the scientific similarities.

[11]

As far as the "seduction of analogy", it seems I've gotten carried away with my own rhetorical rant. But I'm just trying to find some middle ground, using a practical approach to this whole moral problem. It seems there hasn't been many who have written on what seems to be a popular opinion in class. People are going to eat animals, but to what degree do we allow our consciouses to allow them to be slaughtered in such grueling and torturous ways? Aside from the fictional parallels to slavery and the holocaust that bear their questioning in their own, unique rights, the question of animal humanities is another separate question that bears moral consideration. But I think, as Coetzee points out we have to be careful with 'false metaphors'. The analogy between ants and slavery is an erroneous one. And though we have to be able to sympathize with all forms of life, for our own survival (even ants), we have to also demonstrate good sense in where we draw the line between rhetoric and reality.

[12]

Vs.

[13]

Reality?

[1] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2568885001_04750b4cc6.jpg?v=0

[2] http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sigmund_Freud

[3]http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sigmund_Freud

[4]]http://www.11th-hour.info/images/hitler.jpg

[5]http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/nazis.htm

[6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aaf-4aL9VE

[7]Coetzee, J.M,Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003),p 67

[8]oetzee, J.M, Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003), p 67

[9]oetzee, J.M, Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003), p 67

[10]http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/kantbig.gif

[11]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVX54u5Gho8

[12]http://www.minhwind.com/zoom/rhetoric02.jpg

[13]http://www.crystalinks.com/illusionpeak.jpg

Ahimsika (P1)

2009-02-16T17:45:00.000-08:00

[1]

It was almost closing time. The neon sign was flipped to read "closed" just after I entered the door and took my seat at the table. I felt special to be the last customer in the joint. I was tired and decided to stop for a bite to eat and treat myself to a cup of coffee with hopes of warming up my weary soul.

It had been a long day. It felt good to sit back and relax as I let out a sigh and reflected upon it. I fumbled with my cell phone and gave a half glance upward as the waitress delivered my food and coffee. I hadn't really noticed my surroundings until now. I gave a brief nod, and inevitably a stare at The Dude whom I could not disengage from, though I wanted to. An uncomfortable silence ensued. I thought to myself something seems very different about The Dude. Then I thought The Dude might not be much different than me. But then again, this whole thing does seem rather silly.

The Dude wanted to know my name, why I came and where I was from. I was a little skeptical to let The Dude know details about who I was. It seemed revealing anything about myself might be delving into matters too personal to discuss with such a peculiar stranger. Besides, I'm sort of a loner as The Dude also seemed to be.

As The Dude asked me personal questions, I drew a blank stare. As I listened, I remained skeptically attentive, yet still very drawn towards The Dude at the same time. There was a mysterious vibe about The Dude. And The Dude was sweaty and greasy. I was not quite able to grasp the mysteriousness of The Dude, though I was curious about The Dude's intrinsic nature. What was The Dude thinking? How was The Dude feeling? Was The Dude bothered by something? I sat and pondered this before I asked a few background questions like where he was from. He told me this was The Dude's country, that he had happened himself upon a Blizzard and was supporting himself with the bread of two companions. One wore heals, the other wore a bun as he described. He went on that he was caught in a dilemma between both, as well as a few other "ripe items", referring to the dressing. I took another sip of coffee and downed a few fries. And The Dude cooled down next to the Blizzard.

[2]

"You know", I said. "You really shouldn't describe those supporting you with bread as 'ripe items'. Essentially, you're objectifying those to whom you ascribe such connotative terms."

The Dude scoffed and replied, "You don't quite understand. I'm the object of objectification--the epitome. Besides, this is my last night here. You seem intuitive enough to know that within a few moments, I'll be long gone. And you'll probably never remember our encounter, nor will you ever hear from me again."

I slumped in my chair as the reality of The Dude's words sunk in like words have never sunken in before. I sipped on my coffee attempting to bring about a more pleasant sensation than the one I was experiencing. Thoughts of guilt crossed my mind that I could not stop pondering. I stewed over them as I sat next to The Dude. The longer I thought, the colder and colder The Dude seemed, and the colder and colder I seemed. I sat there listlessly, feeling conflicted.

My mind fluctuated back and forth thinking about why it was I had really entered the restaurant. I came in here with seemingly good intentions. Yet, at the moment, I didn't feel so good about being here or my intentions.

[3]

Then The Dude said it, "What are you waiting for? You've already gotten me in this predicament between this bun and this heal. I didn't ask to be here. In fact, to the contrary, I felt very opposed to the matter. But here I am just like you wanted me--fried, battered and between a heal and a bun."

My eyebrow raised. "But I never thought about your feelings."

[4]

The Dude replied, "That seems to be the case with so many of your kind."

I sat in agreement. "But I never meant to hurt you," I replied.

The Dude sat still while many moments passed and the guilt that came over me became deeper and deeper. I started to get up from the table as The Dude whispered sternly, "Wait. If you go now, it won't make a difference. And my life will have been for naught."

Confused I asked, "What do you mean?"

The Dude said, "Look, I can sympathize with your dilemma. But have a seat before you go. Before I go, I'd like to share something with you in hopes it will make a difference and may help you along your journey through life."

"OK", I replied. The Dude said, "I'm inclined to agree with you when you say you didn't mean to hurt me. But by saying you didn't mean to hurt me doesn't change my current dilemma, now does it?"

"Not quite," I responded.

I stared down at The Dude and realized The Dude was much like me. As each similar attribute crossed my mind, I began to feel like the lowliest creature on earth--worse than scum. I had taken for granted The Dude's feelings; the fact The Dude could feel and the fact that The Dude could think. I felt so terrible that I wanted to run away. I took a bite of The Dude and chewed and chewed and chewed. And gulp, I swallowed. It was the only way I could cope with the overwhelming sense of guilt. I felt a sense of urgency and began to take another tasty bite.

"Wait!" The Dude exclaimed. "Not so fast!" I paused, startled. "Look," said The Dude. "I can see you're struggling with your ethical consciousness. You're doing your Self no favors by continuing to live this way." Again, The Dude convinced me to pause. He asked, "Might I share something with you that may find valuable after I'm gone?"

I contemplated silencing The Dude in one bite, but the combination of my conscious coupled with my curiosity led me to pause my jaw just before I bit down. I made sure no one was looking. The red Dairy Queen light dimmed and quickly turned off. I took it as my cue to hurry things up. And I was tempted to comply with the workers' gestures begging for my riddance. My hunger was beginning to override my conscious and The Dude seemed more and more tasty and less anthropomorphic by the second. But curiosity caused me to pause and think about who The Dude was.

[5]

What is this knowledge you speak of? A virtue?" I asked.

"We shall consider it bites of knowledge," replied The Dude. I sat skeptically waiting for The Dude to explain.

"Bites of knowledge, eh?"

"Precisely," explained The Dude. "Allow me to start with the facts. I would first like to dispel the myth of Immanuel Kant, the philosopher who claimed that we animals have no ability to reason like humans. If this were true, we would not be having this conversation, now would we Ben?"

"Granted," I said. "But are we having this conversation?"

The Dude seemed to grow irritable and asked, "I don't know, are we?" I was thinking of an answer when The Dude interrupted and began, "Take it for what it's worth. You can chalk it up to struggling with your emotional intelligence, your hyperactive imagination or a struggle within your ethical conscious. In fact, I don't care if you choose all of the above as long as you listen. What I have to share with you is important and if you listen will make the world a better place where there is less suffering. I see you're burdened by the way you've perceived me, treated me and taken away my rights." A frown came over my face and I began to realize...

I said, "I never even considered your rights. But now that I have, I know I don't want to take them away from you or any other Dude in the future."

"Splendid!" exclaimed The Dude. "It seems you are on the right path to enlightenment. Now if you can justly lead the way with what I'm about to say, you can really make an impact on the future of other Dudes by reducing the amount Dudes suffer before they arrive at Dairy Queen to be ordered by fast food customers like you who are gracious enough to order The Dude."

"Well, tell me." I said.

The Dude replied, "Insofar as my ability to feel pain, I am just like you. In fact, all other animals can feel pain just like you. By hurting me, you are committing a morally wrong act. In fact, by hurting any living thing you are hurting another individual's Self."

"I see," I replied. "But I didn't hurt you directly."

Then The Dude went on, "I know you're not the same individual who strung me up by my hind legs and cut my throat with a dull knife. I know you're not that burly guy who told a joke about stupid cows as he filled a bucket with my oozing blood. You're not the one who tormented my soul whilst I hung from ceiling shackles as I faded in and out of consciousness; bleeding and dying slowly. But you are contributing to the treatment of other animals by supporting the consumption of Dudes such as my Self."

[6]

The concept of supply and demand seemed absurd as my heart dropped to my stomach. And I hurriedly asked, "How do I change?"

"Simple," replied The Dude. "One should adhere to the principle of Ahimsa. Ahimsa is the principle of not harming any living being. And by the looks of you, you could start by going vegetarian. Eating me has had a bearing on your conscious. You see, Ahimsa applies to every living being including you. By eating me, you have harmed your conscious and your Self. Ahimsa starts with not harming your Self, but along with this reasoning comes not harming other beings, too, because it causes suffering. Thus it is morally wrong. Do you see?"

"It has become clear," I said. "I have now been enlightened by your wise bite of knowledge. And though I will now eat you, my vision for the future has changed. I will apply this principle of Ahimsa to every facet of my life, every decision I make and especially everything I eat. I will, on your behalf and from now on, commit no action causing, directly or indirectly, another being to suffer. I will lead the way in supporting groups such as PETA and those who support inhumane slaughtering of animals who suffer as a result of unethical treatment. I will set an example for others who have not heard your voice and I will speak for you in order to convince others that eating meat causes suffering. And I will be compassionate insofar as I will suffer with you, for your cause and to reduce the amount of suffering in the future. And after I eat this final burger, I will only eat and promote the consumption of meatless burgers. This is my vision."

[7]

I stared at The Dude returning a look of blankness. "Do you have any other words of wisdom to share before I eat you?" I asked.

The cash register closed as I heard the clank of the side door lock. I looked at my watch and it was 10:15 pm. "We close at 10:00, sir." said the manager. I pondered my new state of enlightenment and how beneficial my new vision of practicing Ahimsa would be to me and others, and how excited I was to share this ethical principal. This, I thought, is invaluable knowledge that I will share with many people in the future, setting an example by doing!

As I drove home from Dairy Queen, I could not bring myself to eat The Dude. Yet The Dude remained silent as though I had permission. When I arrived, I found the Dude had made such a great impact on my vision of leadership and set such a positive ethical example that I had to find closure. So I mourned and grieved. And I felt bereaved enough to bury The Dude in my backyard under a peach tree. And at that same moment, I buried my willingness to ever eat meat again.

[8]

Word Count - 2,119
[1]http://www.portlandground.com/RosewayMadisonSouth/2004-10-30-DairyQueen-82nd0.jpg

[2]http://www.dabbledoo.com/ee/images/uploads/gamertell/dq_blizzard.jpg

[3]http://media.houstonpress.com/moovin-on-up.113560.51.jpg
[4]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2909696586_724df64c1e_o.jpg

[5]http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/cow-tongue.jpg

[7]http://blogs.trb.com/entertainment/urbanite/blog/zen1.JPG

[8]http://www.algi.qc.ca/asso/zami/tombstone%20cartoon.gif

Time for Emotions

2009-02-06T12:36:00.000-08:00

Would I pass the Emotional Test?

(Click Below)

[1]

Leon relates to David Powell because neither one of them have emotional intelligence. Anyone who murders another human being without just cause lacks emotional intelligence.

I'm not a psychology major, I'm merely a proud English major. I do firmly believe, however, that I would pass the emotional test. On the basis of my [English major] theory, I argue that a fundamental part of emotion is fear, whether it be suffering, dying, failing, losing at love or competition or experiencing any sort of tragedy, self-imposed or other wise. If you don't believe this, think about the fear in your life, what it is and why you're scared of it. You'll soon find out a lot about yourself from pondering your own fears. But I digress. I would pass the emotional test for three reasons.

1.Tragedy will occur in our lives at some point. More likely than this, we'll witness many tragedies before we meet our final destiny of death. Accepting this as part of life is a tool in dealing with emotions, though not forgetting them. The reaper is coming for us all, at some point. There is no denying that for any living being. We know this from observing everyone who has died after living a certain number of years, experiencing only a certain number of seasons before the reaper comes to harvest our bodily being as we know it. We'll all die--of something. Fear is something of an emotion we associate with various aspects of our lives depending on what kind of personality one might have. So it seems to reason that we should live every day like it is our last, almost fearless. But this usually involves goals. We have a tendancy to focus on one area of our lives more than the other, thus neglecting some aspect of an emotion in favor of a goal. I'm not always good at balancing the two, but I try. And I think I'm getting better at it. I'm actually able to find some spare time for other things these days. Last year, that wasn't necessarily the case. I felt somewhat like an android, simply existing to accomplish the next mundane task. I also dealt with a few tragedies, and am still dealing with tragic matters. But the fact that i'm here, along with my fellow classmates who have faced their own tragedies, in spite of life's harsh circumstances indicates I'm not a quitter when it comes to emotions. Life happens. It makes you stronger. I haven't lost compassion, but I've learned to deal with tragedy.

2. For me, being able to be inspired by emotion is one of my greatest assets. Often times, I have been inspired by emotion that later drove me to a turning point in my life. Whether I made a mistake that made me take an introspective look that resulted in me making a change for the better, or whether it was from observing someone else's emotion and sympathizing with it, I seem to be able to learn from emotion. But, sometimes, I feel crappy during the day because I have such a heavy workload. Sometimes, this becomes a burden on me. But then I try to turn this burden into a positive, or inspiring emotion (I live for spiting difficulty). Feelings are the key to making choices, as we can understand by listening to the program below. It's a story of Elliot who develops a brain tumor and loses his ability to feel emotions. The hosts of the program delve into the scientific findings of feelings. In some experiments, people can even put a number on how they feel about losing versus winning. In almost everything we do, in every decision we make, there are feelings involved. The below discusses the story of not only Elliot, but the many facets of emotions underlying our choices and free will.

[2]

In my busy life at UT, I get caught up in the inevitable academic endeavors which involves neglecting compassion towards others at times in favor of my own personal goals. . Compassion is defined as, "{dag} 1. Suffering together with another, participation in suffering; fellow-feeling, sympathy. Obs. [3]

3. I care. I'm such a bleeding heart, when I think about it. That's why I'm here at UT. I sometimes neglect my emotions because I realize other people are suffering and I want to help. Though some may say an aspiring lawyer has no compassion, I disagree.

But even I often get caught up in my own activities which involve my fears of not accomplishing my goals, I still think about things I "neglect" for lack of a better term and I know that I care. I'm somewhat of a perfectionist, but I'm getting better at my fear of failing. Though sometimes I do feel like sort of an android because of all the demands entailed with meeting my goals. I have a fear, I guess, of being like Luba, "The artificial life force animating them seemed to fail if pressed to far . . . at least in some. But not all." [4]

Maintaining emotional intelligence is sort of an oxymoron because feelings are so relative to the individual and what they consider to be intelligent. But I do think there is such a thing. And though it may be hard to grasp, it can even be proven some people lack emotional intelligence altogether. When I watched Earthlings, I tried not to be disturbed by the images of animals being abused. There was even sort of an emotional shut off of sorts because I know that is reality and empirically those animals are being abused. But these are the things that drive me to wake up every day, in spite of the fear of failing, and backpack my way across the forty acres, as my brain soaks in thoughts and emotions contemplating all of the suffering and injustices in the world.... And all of a sudden..... I see professor Bump feeding turtles down at the turtle pond with his grandchildren. I startle him as I say, "Professor Bump!" I hope I don't cause him to fall over into the pond as I catch him red-handed feeding the turtles with his daughter and granddaughters. "A little animal compassion", says Professor Bump as his granddaughter tries to grab his attention away from me, "Grandpa!", she says. I get a brief introduction as my scholarly demands pull me away from the delightful scene. And I think about a quote from the course anthology, "The key to intuiting another's feelings is in the ability to read nonverbal channels: tone of voice, gesture, facial expression, and the like." [5] I walked away in admiration of my professor feeding turtles with his grandchildren who were obviously very glad to be there feeding the turtles. I could not only hear it in their voices, but see it in their faces--the excitement.

For the brief moment in which I paused while pressed for time, it reminded me about being young and so excited about animals; how when you're young your imagination runs wild. . . . and I thought to myself that compassion is a very crucial element to teaching. I know I, and others, feel a lot of pressure in learning academics, but it's not something that involves a lot of feelings, compassion or excitement. Yet it seems even the turtles at UT have compassion.

[6]

And so I contemplate the meaning of compassion and the sympathetic imagination. I wonder to myself, could I, perhaps, use the sympathetic imagination approach to facing my fears such as swimming with sharks? I'm terrified of the ocean, though that doesn't mean I wish any harm to sharks. I've just been exposed to the (mis)representation of sharks as "dangerous" animals, when I know the data about them reflects otherwise. Still, yet I feel these fears and they stir my emotions. Even my emotions scare me and the emotions inside of those emotions within the core of those emotions and so on. And as I contemplate the story of Elliot, I'm thankful I'm not like him. Though I think monitoring and controlling your emotions is a valuable skill to have. I also think expressing emotions and delving into your fears is a healthy thing that ultimately makes you a more intelligent person and more in touch with your sympathetic imagination.

[7]

Face your fears. . . .

====

[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH3h70aRFxQ

[2]http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/14
[3]Course anthology, p. 236
[4] Phillip, K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p 132
[5]Course anthology (emotional intelligence), p258

[6]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/39/120487714_1127153d82.jpg?v=0

[7]http://dvice.com/pics/fear_shark.jpg

Animal Rights/ Racism

2009-02-04T16:06:00.000-08:00

Parallels of History and Present

[0]

When I looked at the date in which Am I Blue was published (1986), I was surprised it wasn't written in, or before, the Victorian era. In the story, there are stark parallels between our history of treating animals and slaves , which are quite possibly alluding to a call for a higher moral code within 1986's time and setting. That is, if we're taking a parallelistic approach. . . In this particular story, it blends both slavery and animal rights as a way to achieve the moral of the story as the reader is left conflicted. Walker concludes the story with a short paragraph, "As we talked of freedom and justice one day for all, we sat down to steaks. I am eating misery, I thought, as I took the first bite. And spit it out" [1] Walker mentions 'freedom' and 'justice' before he alludes to misery in the same paragraph. Our country's system of justice entailed a whole lot of suffering-- the suffering of slaves who were treated like animals for their labor. Therein lies merely one parallel that can be drawn from this inhumane treatment. Just the other day, I was watching a media program and the news caster was talking about the achievements we've made as a country because Barak Obama, a black man, would be inaugurated. Below we can see a brief summary of this and how it relates to today and how suffering came before "freedom" and "justice".

[2]

Even after the United States' freedom and justice was established, our society still had prejudices, racism and mistreatment of African Americans and other "non-white" Americans. Racial minorities and women suffered through a great deal throughout our history, and they still suffer from our history to this very day. I've heard the historians argument being they were well-fed and not all of them were beaten if they complied with their slave master. Some of them even worked alongside the slaves, they say. And while that argument may be true, it's still a slap in the face to anyone who'd enjoy their freedom. It seems we live in a fantasy we live in is animals want to be slaughtered, as long as we treat them nicely and led them roam our nice green field--before their trip to the slaughter house. We assume, perhaps falsely, that animal are here to serve us; and we often don't think about their suffering for our needs atop of the food chain. Walker makes an effective analogy between speciesism, racism and sexism all within a short paragraph. I found her writing to be quite obscure, but also effective at getting a tough message across within a short story.

They are the great-grandchildren of those who honestly though, because someone taught them this "Women can't think," and "niggers can't faint." But most disturbing of all, in Blue's large brown eyes was a new look, more painful than the look of despair; the look of disgust with human beings, with life; the look of hatred. And it was odd what the look of hatred did. It gave him, for the first time, the look of a beast. And what that meant was that he had put up a barrier within to protect himself from further violence; and all the apples in the world wouldn't change that fact. [3]

In the documentary Earthlings, Joaquin Phoenix refers to people who reply "don't tell me, you'll spoil my dinner" when informed what the animal went through before it got on their plate. [4] It seems similar to the reasoning I often hear when I confront a racist with just why it is they are racist. They may even offer "proof" by citing college admission rates and standardized test scores. Phoenix says, "We've bitten the hand that feeds us; we've stomped and spit on it." [5] Like an ungracious lion, indeed we have bitten the hand that feeds us.

[6]

Today, I think we've made "progress" in the most positive sense of the word. Sure, racism still exists and I was alive in 1986. I've been around since Hip Hop first began in the Bronx. I still remember the days when I went to Catholic School in Lima Ohio and our elementary school was segregated. There was no attempt on the teachers' part to integrate or assimilate the African-American kids into the classroom. I've read the history and studied the issue of slavery as a means of understanding history and society--to seemingly make sense out of a chaotic world. When I consider all that we've gone through as a country, on one hand I'm happy. On the other, my thoughts alarm me that we must not forget history--nor try to re-write it to suit selfish needs. Rather, we should embrace where we are now. Yet at the same time, we should bear in mind just what Bentham was saying when he wrote,

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well to determine what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne.

Fortunately, the causes and effects have led us to somewhat of a positive point. Though I argue there are tough times ahead as a country. The causes of the past, i.e. slavery, have not thus effected the present effect. Because while we may not be making many strides as far as animal rights, we have indeed made some positive steps towards overcoming racial barriers by electing Barak Obama.

Personally, I'm glad we've moved on. I laughed when I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and felt like asking our previous president a quote directly from the book, "What do you do, roam around killing people and telling yourself they're androids?" [7]

[8]

George W. Bush pretty much screwed the pooch over the last 8 years. All we can do now is hope. As of now, I remain skeptical because of Obama because he is a politician within the bipartisan system and is part of Washington. But as far as who he is, I believe if his intentions lie in the right place that he can indeed make a change for the better. When I voted for him, his color wasn't even a factor. I believe he was the better-suited candidate. Yet I hope as I remain skeptical, given my past, given our past. . . .

[9]

[0]http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q269/existens77/BzAnimalRightsCartoon07.jpg
[1]Course anthology, p 245F

[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AydvldZvnOE

[3]Course anthology, p 245E

[4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39R2mvifdjE&feature=related

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39R2mvifdjE&feature=related

[6]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/88924283_740240f5c3_o.jpg

[7] Phillip, K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p 110

[8]http://plison.agora.eu.org/blog/files/images/bush_looking_stupid.jpg

[9]http://www.socialsignal.com/system/files/u4/obama_hope.jpg

Derrida, Animals and Us

2009-01-31T17:15:00.000-08:00

[1]

Speciesism, or, Humanocentrism is the centric view that only human beings are of moral significance. Theoretically, then, any concern or compassion we might have have for non-human beings results in taking away moral concern for animals in favor of human interests. For example, if we help animals by rejecting practices of experimentation, testing, eating them and even torturing animals for our own entertainment, then by doing so, we take away moral concern from animals in favor of people. . . . So in summary, humanocentrists reject animal welfare in favor of human welfare. Below we see the rejection of animal welfare, along with the abandonment of their ethical treatment, in favor of human welfare. Warning: What you are about to see may be graphic.

[2]
[2]

A sociologist might call it dominating nature to acquire human needs or wants. An economist, might call it meeting a demand or certain wants, which are only limited by human imagination and our ability to acquire or achieve those wants. In other words, we have nearly a limitless amount of power over nature. And, if it so happens to meet out desires, we can take from it nearly as much as we want. We engineer, market and finance the production of animals to the point that we have specialized divisions of labor to fulfill human needs, which are interdependent on delicate eco-systems, as well as political and economic infrastructures. A lot can go wrong within these delicate ecosystems and infrastructures.

As a result, we humans become incredibly vulnerable and potentially less self-sufficient or "sustainable". Ironically, the system set up to sustain us also poses serious vulnerability due to potential for contamination and food borne diseases that can spread. Within the interdependency of the mass food industry, its fragile infrastructure (from the labor force to the animals produced and sold at the cost of their own suffering) lurks a danger. This danger conceivably causes a greater potential for a smaller group of people to have a larger, negative impact on ethical aspects production, distribution and consumption because of the interdependency within the infrastructure of the mass-distribution of food; the interdependency tied up with production, distribution and consumption that is involved economically--not to mention from a basic, systematic survival standpoint as well as potential political dangers. This is freightening and causes me to believe we need to re-think our social reasoning and our ethical reasoning because of the long-term affect it may have on us "humans" as a species. More importantly, we ought to re-think our approach to the interpretation and understanding of how our ethical reasoning plays into our future happiness and survivability as a species. As Derrida is noted for [his], "thinking turns on a structuralist understanding of language as as system of differential relationships, in which concepts acquire significance only in relation to other concepts. No concept is autonomous or exists independent of the generative process of differentiation". [3]

In other words, Derrida essentially thinks social concepts play into the concepts of eco-systems, the eco-systems affect the economy, the economy plays into ethics, ethics play into the anthropological, the anthropological is tied up with the psychological and the philosophical, pity, compassion, sympathy, empathy, greed, racism and so on. . . None of them directly related absolutely, rather absolutely all indirectly inter-related. To categorize them all neatly as animals is absurd. The text/anthology refers to this approach as "deconstructionism". I think a more modern term might be "interdisciplinary" or even "multidisciplinary". When considering the problems of animal rights, we might want to consider various linguistic or semantical aspects of the term "animal rights", using how we perceive it pragmatically, psychologically and philosophically. Derrida's poses, "All that is well known; we have no need to dwell on it. However one interprets it, whatever practical, technical, scientific, juridical, ethical, or political consequence one draws from it, no one can deny this event any more, no one can deny the unprecedented proportions of this subjection of the animal." [4]

Animal kindness aside, when I stop and consider the actual potential for a bio-hazard disaster in a society that assembly-line produces and distributes animals in such careless, inhumane ways, and how susceptible this makes us to tragedy, error or even terror, I find this reflects not only our nakedness as moral beings being looked at by the animals, thoughtless enough to think they're not looking back at us, but I also find how unable we are to see within society and relate how our own dogmatic beliefs play into these uses of our human power to control nature, controlled not only by controlling "animals", by mutilating and slaughtering them, but also by controlling humans from a rhetorical standpoint to accept this behavior as being morally just.

Without a voice, they are looking at us. And we have allowed ourselves the right to look upon animals and perpetuate a moral way of thinking that only serves our own moral significance. But when we consider all the things associated with our relationship with animals, we notice that our wants triumph our actual needs, our minds left controlled by dogmatic beliefs, syllogistic logic or dualities of good and/or bad. It soon becomes that feeling has no reason to be reckon with. Seemingly, we concieve that animals have no feelings. Hence, as Derrida wrote,

War is waged over the matter of pity. This war probably has no age but, and here is my hypothesis, it is passing through a critical phase. We are passing through that phase and it passes through us. To think the war we find ourselves waging is not only a duty, a responsibility, an obligation, it is also a necessity, a constraint that, like it or not, directly or indirectly, everyone is held to. Henceforth and more than ever. And I can say "to think" this war, because I believe it concerns what we call "thinking". The animal looks at us, and we are naked before it. Thinking perhaps begins there." [5]

According to Eartlings, Pfiesteria piscicida is an example of a spreading bio-hazard, 1,000 miles away from the shore. Not only is there an utterly clear moral issue of the ethical treatment of animals, but the level of awareness should be raised. The public isn't aware of everything entailed with the discourse of "animal rights". Frankly, I think most people would agree animals need to be treated more humanely. And if we're going to execute them, we should to it in the most humane way possible, regardless of cost. The term "animal rights" is a tough one to pin down. And I sort of agree with Derrida. As soon as you use the term "animal", you've lost the battle because you've stopped thinking and grouped them all into the same category... "animals". This is where Derrida's philosophy, or reasoning, comes into play. And I found pondering his writings a rather interesting experience. To achieve a greater state of being, we must first think in terms differently than strictly deductively or inductively. We must combine various lines of thinking in order to achieve the highest insight to ourselves and the world around us as is humanely obtainable. I think when we're able to do that and tap into our not only our highest level of thoughts, but our highest level of being as well.

Jeremy Bentham once said something like, "The question is not to know whether the animal can think, reason, or talk, something we still pretend to be asking ourselves". [6]

I'm almost certain what he meant by that is we pretend that animals cannot feel, because we lack capacity to take exercise our empathy and compassion to think from a non-humanocentric viewpoint. Because animals serve our needs and wants, because they've been deeply imbedded into our daily customs, we have organized our thoughts to think along the lines of "animal rights" either being good or bad. Not only should we consider Bentham's question, "But is there any reason why we should be suffered to torment them?" [7] We should also use our sympathetic imagination, which is defined as, "The act of identification consists not in reading into the object subjective feelings aroused by it in the observer, but in perceiving, by instinctive but spacious insight, the essential character and reality of the object itself." [8]

And whenever we read into the object, or the animal, we then find our own answers. As my great professor once wrote when referring to the sympathetic imagination, "In the questions of human nature, therefore, such as those concerning the creative process, the emphasis in the arts and the humanities often remains on individuals". [9]

My personal answer lies with in the definition of "animal" and perhaps an allusion to Derrida's view. Definition: b. With the. The animal nature in man: cf. BEAST. n. 1c. [10]. Which leaves me pondering the title of "The Animal That Therefore I Am".

Another answer to this particular question of human nature is that I am a humanimal. Therefore, since I share similar traits of feelings and suffering, I should act towards my fellow sentient beings with compassion and kindness, rather than as some being who was born to serve my needs. That's why I've recently become a born again vegetarian. Now my vegetarian friends approve of me--just like in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, "they'll look down on you. Not all of hem, but some. You know how people are about not taking care of an animal; they consider it immoral and anti-empathetic." [11]

[12]

[1] http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/EPH/8792.jpg
[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxwNk3nX0A0
[3]p 216, Course anthology
[4]p 225 Course anthology
[5]p 228, Course antholgy

[6] 226, Course anthology

[7] p 245 Course anthology

[8]p 241, Course anthology

[9]p 333, E 375 course anthology

[10] p 230, Course anthology

[11] Phillip, K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p 13

[12] http://www.marceljacob.com/jss/anx-covers/humanimal-cd.jpg

Sentiments of Blue

2009-01-26T20:05:00.000-08:00

My psychology professor once said, "The key to understanding psychology is studying animals". Is it possible we can learn communication aspects of psychology by studying animals? I'd say yes. Allow me to quote John Graves, "Nice Dogs are ego boosters, and have been so since the dim red dawn of things". (133) After reading this quote, I noticed he capitalized "Nice Dogs" as a title of significant importance. In other words, there might be such thing as a "Bad Dog" who is not such an ego booster, such as one who would kill your goats while you were dreaming in a deep state of sleep, or would pee on your rug while you're in class or at work. This act represents betrayal and would encourage a psychological distrust about "Bad Dogs".

[1]

On the other hand, a "Good Dog", one loyal to man's desires and bound to his master by a shared goal of co-existence will ideally share similar, or common, sentiments communicated between man and dog. A pat on the head, an inflection of voice, a wag of the tail are indeed a form of linguistic communication between man and beast. Dogs may not be able to speak, but I contend they are able to communicate--and quite effectively. My suggestion is this is obviously why there has been such a connection with man and dog over time. From a bark for attention, to a wag of the tail to express happiness, dogs seem to know how and what to express to us so that we understand them.

When I read "Blue and Some Other Dogs", I couldn't help but think about how much we can learn from dogs. In my linguistic/anthropology class, taught by Dr. Keating, we looked at the behavior of dogs within' interpersonal relationships, or inter-canine relationships. As odd as it may first seem, we drew conclusions by analyzing how positive language had a noticeably different affect on dog's behavior and how they reacted to humans--the reverse for "negative" interaction. We, as humans, have distinct facial expressions which can indicate certain things. Disgust, for example, can be universally recognized by all people in all cultures. It doesn't matter which origin of the world you're from, chances are, one human will instinctively be able to recognize the facial expression of a certain disgusted someone. The people below may have various spectrums of disgust, but one thing most will agree on, they wear an element of disgust on their face. We draw this conclusion by observing certain features of someone's face. The guy below has a frown, squinted eyes, a bent bottom lip, a crunched chin and is pressing his eyebrows together--obviously disgusted by something. We see similar facial-elements of disgust in female example of disgust, shown below, and easy to decipher by most.

. [2]

Below are the universal facial expressions experts in various academic fields recognize as "universal".

Anger Contempt Disgust Fear Happy Sad Surprise [3]

Dogs are such wonderful animals and so compatible with humans that it seems most people have unique and sentimental experiences to share about their animals. For the most part, they make us happy and our faces shine with a smile when we interact with them or reflect on our happy memories with our beloved pets. When Graves recalls the times he and Blue would patrol the fields for coons who might destroy their crops, we can read into his writing and discover that he had somewhat of an interpersonal connection with his dog. His sentiments, apparent in his reflecting on his memories with Blue, show in vast detail not only a psychological connection between he and his dog, but also a keen understanding of his dog's own sentiments and desires, apparent by his understanding of Blue. Through the bond he built with Blue over the years, he was able to sympathize and understand his companion's sentiments and desires of protecting the crops from raccoons.

"During the time when cantaloupes and roasting ears were coming ripe and most attractive to coons, I would leave the garden gate open at dark and Blue would go down during the night on patrol. There was sometimes a question as to whether a goodly squad of coons given full license cold have done have as much damage to garden crops as the ensuing battles did, but there was no question at all about whether the procedure worked. After only two or three brawls each year, word would spread around canny coondom that large hairy danger lurked in the Graves of corn patch and they would com no more, much to Blue's disappointment. "(133)

By understanding Blue's disappointment, and other aspects of blue's canine character, Grave's has built a communicative connection with his dog that can also relate to human relationships. It seems we want the same things in human companions as we do in our pets. As Grave's writes, "LIke most dogs that converse with humans he was a thorough yes type, honoring my every point with agreement". (133) Through Blue's agreement, he has established with his master a deep psychological mutual commitment to loyalty and understanding as much as is "humanly" possible. From this, we not only learn a lot about ourselves. But ourselves learn to act as humanely as possible towards other beings. So we come closer to understanding ourselves and the expressions and sentiments of the animals with which we co-exist.

Darwin II

2008-05-13T16:06:00.000-07:00

Charles Darwin--the final answer.

[1]

Darwin's theory of evolution tends to be a controversial one. I understand his argument about science and even agree with him if we're talking about that realm of 'modular' thinking. But I have yet to fully grasp how, through his "discoveries", he manages to establish a sound argument debunking religion(s), simply due to the fact he made scientific discoveries involving a valid theory of evolution.

It would seem I'm not a huge fan of Darwin. I admit to this, though I've heard many interesting lectures about him in every science class I've ever taken and he's referred to as the Godfather of science. From a scientific standpoint, I do believe his theories (because they make sense). But when I stop listening to the summarized version of Darwin and read for myself, I find many things with Darwin's theories questionable. And some say he was a theist when he wrote The Origin of Species, though his rhetorical demeanor doesn't indicate this.. In fact, he seems rather arrogant with his pen regarding his scientific findings. Though some might argue rightfully so.....

Of course, some of those characteristics came with the era. Yet because our lives are related to science, doesn't mean that couldn't be a sign of an 'intelligent' creator. Further, our lives are largely related to science, but exactly how this disproves creationism is another question altogether. It's one I'm prepared to say, "I don't know" about. But it would seem that if God exists, that he'd exist everywhere including science. If science exists and God made science, wouldn't God be within science as opposed to separate from science?

This scenario is baffling.

I've been many situations where someone assumes they know my beliefs, yet it's hard for me to know most of the time. Though mine beliefs lean towards God being everywhere--even in science. My assumption is that God doesn't exist in the same manner we popularly perceive God to exist. To me, God literally is, and is present within, everything we know as well as everything we do not know. In Tennyson's poem Memoriam, he writes as if he also thinks God's presence is everywhere, yet at the same time he acknowledges the possibility of an abstract, universal existence.

That God which ever lives and loves,
One God, one law, one element,
And one far off divine event,
To which whole creation lies. [2]

Tennyson seemed to buy into Darwin's theories or, at least, he didn't believe in a Christian God as a rule of thumb. This becomes apparent through his poetry. He writes about how God only worked for him when times were good. But when times were bad, and he needed someone most, God wasn't there for him. We can see this if we analyze only a few lines of his poem.

That God, which ever lives and loves,
One God, one law, one element
And one far-off divine event,
To which the whole creation moves. [3]

With Robert Browning's poem, he writes somewhat similarly. We find the poems seasoned with the them of cultural evolution. That is, how language has evolved, and as it has evolved, so have we as humans. Since we arise from walking on four limbs to two, we've evolved to the point that we now have technology instead of print- rap takes over poetry; certain cultures demolished from existence as this as taken place so have laws that, as time goes on, look rather silly in retrospect.

rise from law to law
The old to the new, promoted at one cry
O' the trump of God to the new service, not
To longer bear, but henceforth fight, be found [4 ]

Both poems ponder the existence and role of God, but they also question creationism and the popular beliefs through the thoughts expressed in their poetry. I actually like their method of thinking better than the black and white notions that cuts religion out of science. They don't seem to be set on pestering and ridiculing other's practices of faith and they also question the parameters and circumstances involved with the notion of God. This example serves that some of the writers at this time were objective. Browning and Townsend are at least open about their thoughts and the possibility of God's existance, though Tennyson seems already convinced God does not exist. But somewhere, deep in his poetry, lies his true feelings. I think he mentions God in a way that implies he isn't sure about God.

Fittingly, Darwin writes, "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the law impressed on matter ny the Creator," 5 . Posing an interesting proposition, Darwin wrote,

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. [6]

Darwin's differences of opinion at least entail diversity of thoughts. But it's still a subject that people get very touchy about. In 2008, these kinds of debates still go (for obvious reasons). Fortunately, I've never had a dog in the fight. So when these things occur, it is rather entertaining. That is, until someone gets their feelings hurt while disagreeing over such a complicated and controversial topic.

[7]

Religion and science are touchy issues. Tact is a virtue.

====

1 http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/YOUNG_DARWIN.JPG
2 Tennyson
3 Tennyson
4 Browning
5 Darwin
6 Darwin
7 http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/YOUNG_DARWIN.JPG

Ruskin's Littlefield building.

2008-05-13T08:43:00.000-07:00

[1]

The little field house is a unique Gothic building constructed of red brick. One of John Ruskin's characterizing definitions of a Gothic building is it can "withdrawal of any one characteristic, or any two, and will not at once destroy the Gothic character of a building, but the removal of a majority [of features] will."[2] It's sort of bizarre that Gothic has become so many different things. I once thought it related to Batman and stood for upright buildings with steel curtains and sort of the, well, unmistakable Gothic look we see when we look at Gothic buildings. But as I grew older, the definition of Gothic changed. I call a friend of mine "Gothic" sometime because he often wears this stoic look on his face and walks tall--for a short guy. A lot of times my ex-girlfriend would get a Gothic ton in her voice. Make no mistake, Gothic is hear to stay for at least one more generation.

But I'll get back to the building.

The first things that stands out to me is that we don't have many red Gothic buildings. The Littlefield building is unique in appearance. But, according to Ruskin, it does have the standard dimensions and style of a Gothic building. He says a Gothic building is, "roughness of the work: this look of mountain brotherhood between the cathedral and the Alp," confessing "the imperfection of the workman."[3] To me, the Little Field house looks like just that, a roughness of work that looks very comfortable. Ruskin expands his definition, perpetual variety of every feature of the building....great art, whether expressing itself in words, colours, or stones, does not say the same thing over and over again. He defines it as a love of nature. If you ask me, the Little Field building makes the nature around it look beautiful. And I'm not a big on fancy, historic architecture or Gothic structures. And I never really noticed the beauty of it until I focused on the clarity of the photo. If you imagine not being there in the same setting, then we're left with a rather boring place. Now that I focus on it, it's not.

It creates somewhat of a disturbed imagination or, as Ruskin writes, :a tendency to delght in fantastic and ludicrous, as well as in sublime, images;" That's what I think about when I see Little field house. I don't see heads of baby dolls painted with lipstick and dark hair hanging from the roof or trees or anything associated with the modern notion of Gothic. Rather, I think that all the features it has combine give it a Gothic look, though it doesn't seem like an outright Gothic structure.

Perhaps this is one of Ruskin's more unique works. If we compare Ruskin's Littlefield building to 19th and 18th century architecture, we can see the primary differences is Ruskin's Gothic building has what the neoclassical building lacks--style. There is no savageness or rudeness at all. There isn't even any "generosity". The house below seems stingy. Other than the balcony on the front, it doesn't really do anything aesthetically. However, uniquely, it does remind me of my personal impression of a neo-classical style (seen below).

[5]

Below this, we a somewhat fancy example of Puritan architecture. This blan building doesn't even attract you with color. They style is almost non-existent and it seems as it probably still took a long time to build. But I never really understood the Puritans anyway. To be honest, I never quite got what they were purifying from. But I do know that subsequent people also later didn't quite understand what they were doing other than try to "purify"--which seems a vague term to me--themselves and practice a more religious, less complicated life. Personally, I've never been one on fancy houses or cars. So I'll leave the battle between the era's architectures and their social movements alone for now.

In the meantime, happy blogging.

[6]

1 http://www.amylavergne.com/blog/uploaded_images/littlefield-701886.jpg
2 Ruskin, course anthology
3 Ruskin, course anthology
4 http://www.skopelosnet.gr/images/arxitec6.jpg
5 http://www.salemweb.com/guide/arch/images/gphse.jpg
6 http://www.salemweb.com/guide/arch/images/gphse.jpg
7 http://www.carnegiehillbooks.com/catalog/3000/book/full/002534f.jpg

Great Texas Pterosaur

2008-05-13T05:13:00.000-07:00

GREAT TEXAS PTEROSAUR

The Great Texas Pterosaur was discovered by UT student Doug Lawson, a student working at the Texas Memorial museum. Initially, Lawson did not know what the bones were or what a spectacular discovery he had made, even though he was a paleontology grad student. After he inspected and observed the hollow characteristic of the dinosaur bones, he knew from the shape and solid structure that he had come across something big. We see the magnificent result of his discovery below. The skeleton is giant. And even from the perspective of the photographer, you don't really capture the essence of this beauty until you actually see it up close at the museum.

[2]
Above is a picture of The Great Texas Pterosaur at the Texas Memorial Museum .

The first thing I noticed about this dinosaur fossil was its awkward appearing neck. If you analyze the proportion of the bones constructing its wingspan in relation to its arms, it doesn't seem like the most graceful looking thing I'd imagine flying through the clouds of the prehistoric age. I'm no expert, but find this to be one of the most interesting and unique of all dinosaur fossils I've ever seen in a book or museum.

Personally, I'm normally someone who likes to find things out for myself. For intance, If I'm reading about a geographical place and its time, it makes more sense for me to take the time-line sheet and at least dig a hole, so I can see the dimensions we're talking about and understand the entire picture, as well as how the details fit into the broader scheme. The thought of people finding fossils excites me because it can tell us so much about our world. Of course we can get a glimpse of earth's history. In fact, I find fossils to be the least biased means of telling history. Walking around UT, and seeing all of the fossils at the library and almost every other UT building is food for thought. I also like to see aspects of our history such as the the Great Texas Pterosaur down at the Texas Memorial Museum. If you haven't seen it, might I suggest that thing was absolutely amazing and you should.

Awed by its neck, I'm still trying to imagine this creature flying though the sky and looking graceful. Another interesting aspect is how they dug an enormous, prehistoric bird out of the ground and preserved its integrity so well as it hangs from the ceiling. But I guess that's their job. They do it well because it evokes an experience that seemingly resembles traveling in a time capsule back through time and I was stunned experiencing a feeling of amazement when I saw it hanging from the ceiling. My excitement and curiosity compels me to think I'll be back there in the not so distant future, when I have some extra time. Speaking of time, what if this is what you spent your time doing?

3

Darwin poses the question of, "How long will the struggle for existence, briefly discussed in the last chapeter, act in regard to variation? I'd like wake Darwin up to answer with a modern history response. Various people will struggle for existence no matter how 'fit' they are. Some will thrive if they're weak. But to answer the question a more polite context , some will try to recreate, recapture and restore the survival of other species by digging them out of the ground and putting them in museums. This is what we do. Most of us won't go around trying to be fit and healthy or applying evolution in malicious ways to advance evil deeds.

I know I'm tough on Darwin, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Darwin's questions are a bit rhetorical and his claims are trumped up. It is important to remember that 2,000 years earlier, in Greece, they were speaking of atoms as being the smallest form of matter. In fact, their definition is that of our current definition. In other words, they were leaps and bounds ahead of Darwin. He just came at a time when it was easier for someone to spread ideas through the printing press and news papers. Coincidently, right around the time of Darwin's "emergence" also came the one of the first printing presses (1833) seen below.

[4]
This wasn't the only printing press made. But it was a lot more efficient than previous version. And even the idea of the printing press is not unique. It was found that when we invented it in the 1400s, the Chinese had already invented it centuries before.

According to scientists, the Age of the Dinosaurs tells us huge sea relatives of the lizards swam the seas, which, back then, covered 40% of present day North America. [5] These were predatory dinosaurs, a close relative to the sea serpent. There are five of these Mosasaurus maximus fossils on display around the world. The creature's remains were recovered in 1932 by University of Texas students. Their mouths were not only big, but they were also loose jointed and able to swallow large prey whole, like snakes [6]

[7]

Now I have to figure out a way to invent a time machine to discover what would have happened to Darwin, and all of his observations had he lived in the Late Cretaceous period.

1 http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/497999185_3c5af6c9fa.jpg
2http://youtube.com/watch?v=emp7_uAF8DA
3 Darwin Charles, Course anthology
4 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/images/Gpress.jpg
5 Onion Creek Mosasaur (course anthology) 364
6 Mosasaurus meximus, anthology
7http://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/images/Gpress.jpg

Planting Tennyson

2008-05-13T00:49:00.000-07:00

[1] Kansas - Dust In The Wind

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law -
Through Nature,red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed -- [2]

So... I guess I consider myself to be somewhat of a closer. And it's time to close the deal. As my great teacher, Dr. Jerome Bump, once told me, "take what you learn, or want to learn, and leave the rest behind" [3] Well, one thing I've learned is don't give up. Certainly don't cower down to people would live their lives just as well if you fell as a result of them and never think twice about your reality. Don't leave anything behind that you really wanted--or you'll regret it. When something you want is in front of you, grab it. Reach for it. Sacrifice. Jump forth like your as enlightened as Buddha and take what you earned-- if you earned it. Make the leap. Help people. Breath.

[4]
Not only is this a great photo, the citation will take you to an interesting article that sort of inspired this so-called 'expressive' post.....

Sometimes, we encounter set backs. But the strength you gain from life is how you manage to rebound from what has already taken place. I'm pretty sure I've learned enough this semester here to equip me for my remaining 2 or 3 years. (hey, I don't have a crystal ball.) Yet, to me, it doesn't matter what happens anymore in that it won't change who I become. When it's all said and done, I'll be more than grades or my GPA. I'll be enlightened by the experience I sought fulfill. I am here. And I have and will continue to work hard as long as I'm at UT. And one thing I've learned thus far is you can't put a letter on me, or even a number and come close to accurately defining who I am. You could give me an F, and it wouldn't change what I try to do tomorrow. I'm thankful that through my education I've learned what my limits are and what my strengths are. More important that this, I've learned areas I'm able to improve on--like speed blogging. I'm not going to lie. I've never tried to lie about it; I didn't get into UT because I'm a great scholar, writer, poet, mathematician. I got in because I worked at it as hard as I wanted to in order to do what I wanted to do. I gave it every bit of my all, even at the (dare I say?)community college level. There came a point where that became pretty easy, but I still did it because I liked what I was learning and the effect it had.

For me, college is something entirely different than an experience. It has come to shape my perspective about the world and myself. I found something out about myself before I came back seeking an education at a prestigious university. I found that I like to challenge myself. And one day I decided to do that. I was 28 going on 29. I decided to stop bouncing from car lot to car lot, or job to job, temporary service to temporary service. It got really old. Not to mention, how I sometimes jumped from relationship to relationship, aimlessly. Additionally, from place to place as if it were musical Austin.

Speaking of music in Austin, I wonder what I would have done had music not been coaxed into my life by someone who understood it wasn't a bad thing to play the electric guitar--it would just hurt your ears. After a long struggle with my parents to get involved with music, I finally won the debate. I can say that this is the first time I had any interest in anything outside of sports or the opposite sex when I was a young teenager. And I owe a great deal to this guy (as well as my parents for caving), Larry Seyer, for getting me started and teaching me when he was so busy making music himself. When I see him at family functions, he doesn't seem know just how much he changed my life by showing me the ropes of music. It kept me busy... Below is a picture of one of my youth's mentors.

[5]

But the picture doesn't really do this guy justice. He's compassionate about the role of music and its positive impact, he does a lot for the community, he loves computers and plays many instruments. If you've been around central Texas, you've probably heard of the people he works with. But you probably haven't heard of him because he likes doing the more challenging, "behind the scenes" stuff.

With engineering, writing and producing, his ideas are always evolving, making the next one different from the next. Yet there is a system to it all, with whichever realm he's working on. When he teaches guitar, and you're lucky if he's ever found the time for that, he tells you the less effort you use the better you'll be. Watching this guy play guitar is amazing. Also, watching him play about 20 other instruments--literally--better most who play one is an amazing experience if that's the guy you're learning from, because his ideas... are always evolving. He talks about his career this video and he has obviously kept up with the pace of evolving technology and intertwines old ideas with new ones.

[6]

As I grew older, learned another valuable lesson about my life around the same time I decided to seek a college degree. I learned I needed to slow down and rethink some of my ideas. It's funny how we're in such a hurry to get to the next thing--to accomplish the things at the top of our hurry list, we'll put of important things that are your responsibility or even people--like my family, who I hold (most of them at least) as my responsibility. I have mixed feelings about, as the delightful Dr. Woodard says, "plowing through" my last reading. I have mixed feelings as I sit here ready to finish it and sending it to Dr. Bump. My thoughts flow back in time, recalling memories, so that I give my chance every possibility of earning an A in the hardest class I've ever taken. I think, in a way, the fact that Victorian Literature (E 375) was difficult for me was one reason I felt so compelled to hang in there and not give up. I'm not brown nosing, I don't think teachers get enough credit for what they do. I'll be honest, I've had some bad teachers in my life. Someone might wonder how I got into UT having graduated in the bottom 10% of my class... My response is, I had to challenge myself not for the sake of challenging myself, but to live out the "dreams" I set out to accomplish. It seems like, with almost everything I try to do, that if I challenge myself with something that pushes me and my capacity (don't laugh...OH, that's so WRONG. You laughed). Digression aside, I had great teachers. And I'm gracious towards all of them because they've inspired me along the way and taught me a great deal, thus expanding my knowledge of the world around me.

For some, life really is just dust in the wind. As I sit here listening to Kansas play Dust in the Wind, I find myself wanting to fall asleep. I'm tired from taking my studies so seriously. I am literally only held upright by sheer will. This is something that only I have control over. If I shut my eyes, I know my academic fate. Everything I've worked hard for this semester would be down the drain in terms of my ultimate goal. So, on the one night were everything--and I do mean everything--in me is fighting for the cause; my well being, the future, achievement. I wander, what will it take for me to achieve what I set out to do?

As I sit here, relentlessly blogging for points, I ponder how my life will make a difference in the end--if at all. Will I be just another piece of dust in the wind who tried hard for nothing? The thought of it really doesn't scare me that much. Right now, I'm finding comfort in Tennyson's lyrics and Kansas' Dust in the Wind while I ponder life's uncertainty and my determination to take things as they come as the wind blows.

But trust those we call the dead
Are breathers of an ampler day
For ever nobler ends, They say,
The solid earth whereon we tread I close my eyes
Only for a moment, then a moment's gone
All my dreams
Pass before my eyes a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind [7]

As I close my eyes I can hear the song taking me over throwing me out to the wind--gravitating my body towards "shut eye". My body is tired, as if dust, but my will won't die; not over something it can control or suppress for these next few moments. Considering what I've worked for, it's a small task. And I've realized, I somehow come through, just in time when it matters. This is why I sometimes reject Darwin's 'struggle for existence'. He writes, "Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of him having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hopes for a sthill higher destiny in the distant future".
[8]

I couldn't agree less with Darwin in this regard, he doesn't strike me as a someone who painfully exerted himself to rise above a challenge. For me, given life's adversity, that is a sweet feeling.

As I think back in time, and close my eyes and daydream, I can see the shells buried beneath the earth that have fossilized them self into the allegorical rhealm of history. Questions come to me. Do fossil time lines really make sense? Or is it our adapted way of thinking that structures our thoughts to think this way about time? As sleep begins to wear on my consciousness, all of this science starts to become confusing and I start dreaming of flowers as I thank those who have guided me along the way.

[9]

====
1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=1qxSwJC3Ly0
2 Tynnyson - In Memoriam course anthology
3 Jerome Bump
4 http://seedmagazine.com/news/2005/10/what_buddhism_offers_science.php 5http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/zdbpath/artistpix/2902.gif
6 http://youtube.com/watch?v=_SLcczSWIRg
7Tynneson, In Memoriam (course anthology), 387
8 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (couse anthology)_ 369
9 http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/house-plants-1.jpg

Harriet Ritvo on Animal Rights and Mind Control

2008-05-12T21:33:00.000-07:00

[1]

According to The Animal Estate ,

The connection between Englishness and kindness to animals was forged during this difficult and uncertain period in the development of the humane movement. It was probably not so much as description or celebration of current reality--that would have smacked seriously of wishful thinking--as a rhetorical strategy with several purposes.[2]

Harriet Ritvo seen before (above) and after (below) furthers her analysis of rhetorical control as she discusses what she describes as,

The complex relationship between sympathetic concern for animals and manipulation of people was clearlly expressed in the only genre of eighteenth century literature that focused repeatedly on humane issues.[3 ]

And to think she resembles a humane woman...

[3]

Harriet Ritvo, seen above, authored The Animal Estate, a critique on the morality of England during the Victorian era.

She furthers the analysis of this odd method of manipulation when she writes, "The connection between cruelty to animals and bad behavior to humans proved compelling and durable."[4] I find this an interesting aspect of Victorian literature. It's fascinating how the Victorians are coming up with ways to control people, rhetorically, through animal kindness. But I think rather than it being a thought out method they plotted to manipulate the masses, it was more of a feature of their immobility and pastoralism associated with their social constructs and need to survive. It's no secret that various, unorthodox practices and modes of thinking were present during the Victorian era. And when you start comparing some of the trends like animal cruelty, you start to see patterns that somehow morph themselves into today's world. But, in my opinion, these things didn't emerge from the thematics of the dominance of men during the time, thought that certainly did exist. Rather, it emerged from an enlightenment or moral consciousness of the general society. There was some immoral behavior taking place under those Victorian dresses that covered them from neck to toe. And the burly hunters who sought to control the women came up with creative ways to do so, including animal kindness . Below is a picture of something I wrote about just hours earlier. It seems to be Darwin, embracing a new kind of man in the Victorian era. I gather that he is suppose to be 'a-typical', as is Darwin is so well noted for being the theist who dared to discover that God didn't exist.

So the mind control game of the Victorian era was on. And the RSPCA helped draw a line between the lower class. Those [lower class] within the era having been perceived as needing some sort of discipline. The emotional tone of the RSPCA drew attention as it sought to demonize owners of polo ponies and the cropping of their ears.

[5]

I've never been one to ponder one's rights or actions associated with clipping ponies' ears or making stipulations about how to treat their animals. I am, however, deeply disappointed that I have yet to kiss a donkey. Perhaps one day when I when it feels right, I'll find the right donkey to kiss. Until then, I'll be content with eating BBQ chicken, Fried chicken, Ribs, darkened ribs, t-bone steaks, pork chops, rabbit, squirrel, mocking bird, octopus, water fowl of all sorts, peacocks, rats, kangaroos, donkeys, pigs, horses, cats, frogs, fish, beaver and cole slaw. Of course, I do agree, in spite of the Victorian era's manipulation of me, that animals should still be executed in a more humane way. That is, if we are to execute them we should do it swiftly--like Hardy's Jude the Obscure when he kills the pig, "Upon my soul I would sooner have gone without the pig that have had to do this!" [6]

1 http://web.mit.edu/shass/soundings/issue_99f/images/pic_bullets_ritvo.jpg
2 Ritvo Harriet, The Animal Estate (Cambridge: Fellows of President of Harvard College, 1989)129
3 http://web.mit.edu/hnritvo/www/new_portrait_ritvo.jpg

4 Ritvo Harriet, The Animal Estate (Cambridge: Fellows of President of Harvard College, 1989) 131

5 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1160/964237089_69b5ccd315.jpg?v=0
6 Hardy Thomas, Jude the Obscure (New York: Norton & Company, Inc.,1999; 2nd Ed.) 53

Ritvo: Men, Women and animals in the Victorian era.

2008-05-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

Harriet Ritvo writes about the symbolism of zoology before and during the Victorian era. She writes her novel The Animal Estate from a colonial standpoint, similar to contemporary anthropologists. She writes, "As the focus of the empire shifted from commerce to territorial acquisition and administration during the nineteenth century, the imperial frontier moved from ports like Capetown and Singapore to the untamed interior or bush." [1] Ritvo further writes about the symbolism during the era and how owning animals 'validated the day-to-day domination of the empire'. Additionally, she analyzes animals' role in Victorian England and states, "many intrinsically impressive specimens emerged as inferior trophies because of failures of taxidermic interpretation or transformation." [2] If we examine the Enlightenment period and the Puritans, we see that people they had good reason to start questioning their morals. Killing animals for the mere sake of trophies seems atrocious and flies against what seems to be common morals. The hyper-masculine image of the hunter brought status in an evolving system of class ran predominately by men. It's no surprise, then, that Ritvo writes, "Ultimately, the hunter emerged as both the ideal and the definitive type of the empire builder." [3]

Looking at this statement, now, gives us a rather clear look at what seems to be a common theme of the Victorian era. It wasn't until the 1920s until we see the rise of the new woman. So, the females of the Victorian era played an important role in shaping the new woman movement. But they weren't quite yet to the stage of being "flappers" who represented how the new women and their acceptance regarding liberties, such as smoking. But it's an interesting comparison between the so-called flappers and the women of the Victorian era. Speaking of "flappers", have you ever wondered what your grandma was like when she was close to your age?

[4]

... to answer myself, me too.

So we see, sort of, this interesting aspect between the flappers and how they're seen as having more 'liberties', comparatively, than women of the Victorian era. But as my talented history professor would say, what else do I see? Well I see that before the flappers--from what I learned in Victorian Lit class--that Victorian women looked and dressed nothing like my grandmother's generation. Rather, they dressed something like the painting below.

[5]

Apparently, times have changed since the Victorian era (1837-1901).

As I've already stated above, the men were sort of hyper-masculine hunters who lived in symbiosis with herding animals and also hunted big game for trophies to hang on their wall to attract women hesitant talk to them because of the prudishness entailed with the Victorian social values. Additionally, the women are not part of the "hoo rah-look-at-me-I-killed-an-elk masculine movement. Their role was important, just like with any era. But it was the men who, sort of ran the show, particularly during that time. I cant stretch my memory quite that far back in time. But I'd imagine that the people Ritvo resembled the folks in the below pictures, rather than the big burly hunters we often see today (if were generalizing stereotypes).

Though, don't get me wrong. I'm not casting hate on everyone that shoots animal. My favorite author was a hunter. Ernest Hemingway, as great as I think he was, did a lot for himself by hanging onto this image Ritvo writes about, "Narratives of big game hunting varied in many particulars: the length of the tip, the location of the hunting grounds, the number of European participant, the character and situation of the narrator." [6] I found it interesting when analyzing Hemingway's account of the bullfight at the HRC, that Hemingway himself used this technique--whether it be intentionally or subconsciously. The first thing you notice, other than how many times he rewrote a sentence, was how his pen's intent was to convey compassion for the bull in Spain. Hemingway's sentences were clear, and so was the presence of animal kindness. Here, we have an author of a later era using the very techniques Ritvo writes about when discussing the burly characters of the Victorian era.

[7]

Sometimes photos can give us a better perspective than a text book.

When I talked to my grandmother about the stereotypes of her time and the bizarre societal norms, she told me the stereotypes have some merit. But she also said that she worked at a shoe factory and was considered liberal for working. She also pointed out she went to college in her 30s and that was not as common as today. She's 89 now, and at 31, I'm determined to see her at my graduation. Though she might not see me be Ernest Hemingway, I still want he to see me put the horns on my wall. I guess we all have something to hunt.

[8]

Ernest Hemingway on his first hunt in Africa.

And so by looking at Harriet Ritvo, flappers, my grandmother and Hemingway, I have somehow made a connection, however loose, that will historicize itself on my blog space.

Hook 'em, horns!

1 Ritvo Harriet, The Animal Estate (London: Present and Fellows of Harvard College, 1987) 248

2 Ritvo Harriet, The Animal Estate (London: Present and Fellows of Harvard College, 1987) 253

3 Ritvo Harriet, The Animal Estate (London: Present and Fellows of Harvard College, 1987) 251
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3svvCj4yhYc&eurl=about:blank

5 http://www.costumes.org/history/victorian/women/fashionplates/lady1890s.jpg

6 Ritvo Harriet, The Animal Estate (London: Present and Fellows of Harvard College, 1987) 251

7 http://www.formerlycranes.com/Welcome/hunting-10b.jpg

8 http://www.pbs.org/hemingwayadventure/images/photos/hunting2.jpg

Downtown Excursion--Bump as tour guide.

2008-05-12T17:40:00.000-07:00

One of the best days of my college semester was actually over a weekend when I was feeling ill and behind on school work. I almost threw in the towel on the group trip to the capital. But, I thought, that wouldn't be like me and I ventured out in spite of feeling crummy. It turned out to be a nice day. After it was all over with, I was very glad I got myself off the couch and to the capital. At first, I was thinking.. gosh, that will be boring. I've been there so many times. I'm an Austinite, what could be new? But you've never been to the capital like this. And to be honest, you've probably never thought of seeing it like this (now if you're brilliant and have then I applaud you). The experience actually interested me to perhaps do this kind of thing in the future. It's sort of hard to explain what I'm talking about. But imagine yourself writing looking up at the star as if you're looking at the capital from a totally different world.

I had fun writing an informal essay about my kidney stone. With the erect structure of the capital, I'm sure that's a hard image to imagine. It turned out, just when I thought I was finished writing, that my assignment had just begun. After we left the capital, we left for St. Mary's where we wrote about the church (and pretended there wasn't a wedding). This was fun, as well, hanging out with my classmates (who I'll miss) and relaxing in Victorian Lit. (for once). It was also cool hanging out with JB on the way back and getting to know a few of the people in class. Not to mention, Dr. Bump seemed rather exuberant about being a tour guide. He cracked jokes about Karl Marx's head being atop the Driskell hotel and made jokes about gladiators. Also an interesting part was the statue inside of the Driskell where professor Bump explained the scenario of the Christian saving the Jew from the "widow maker" where his foot was hung in the saddle of the horse. It looks something like this,

As the story goes, in the old days, getting your foot caught in a stirrup would most likely kill you. They had a name for it "the widow maker". To make a long story short, the above photo is a depiction of a Christian shooting the horse of a Jew to save the his life.

We didn't end the day before writing our Godly thoughts down on paper. As I write this blog, I'm at a loss for words about the class being over. My classmates can probably relate. As half of my college career is over, I have not had a course quite like this. I have yet to have one so challenging, yet so interesting at the same time.

To all who attended the excursion--and those who couldn't make it--have a great summer! Do it because you can. Do it for the queen!

[1]

Viva Victoria!

OFF. WITH. YOUR. HEAD!!!

1 http://www.indhistory.com/img/queen-victoria.jpg

Darwin and religion

2008-05-12T14:49:00.000-07:00

I always try to avoid Darwin in the context of religion. Scratch that, I never touch the subject of Darwin, if I can help it, because Darwin conversations always get twisted into a religious debate. It seems like as soon as someone learns the theories of Darwin, they become an automatic genius. I wonder why that is... He seems to be the know-all-tell-all of not only science, but religion as well. He defines survival of the fittest or as he calls it "natural selection" as the following:

Natural Selection - its power compared with man's selection - its power on characters of trifling importance [1]

That sounds good, Charles! Tell us more. All of my religious friends will love you. And they won't be offended by the manner in which you insult them in with your 'newly' found ideas. Again, tell us more about how we feel please. I do beg, tell us how things are, Mr. Darwin, since 'we' don't know. "We have reason to believe, as stated inthe first chapter, that a change in the condition of life, by specially acting ont he reproductive system, causes or increases variability;"2 Thinking about how animals and plants evolved in a specific manner, over linear time, makes me think about poetry. For some reason, I can't get enough poetry in Victorian literature. It makes me feel like rapping poetry about creationism v. science.

[3]

My recent influence of poetry has made a positive impact on my life. I love poetry--thanks to the influence of a very special professor.

As Darwin says, "I think we shall see that it can act most effectually. " As much I consider poetry to be more of a hobby than anything serious. I do find it serious the argument of Darwin is taken so seriously these days. I argue that no one has the right answer, nor will they ever. By the time we get to the point of "figuring it out", we'll have blown ourselves up over something petty like oil.

[4]

The atom bomb serves as a reminder that we're not too far away from "the end". When people talk about science and say this will be here for ever, I often wonder if they know what they're talking about1) I assume they must have a lot of faith in the Human. 2) The atom bomb and world conflicts keep us a push of a button from the end at any given moment. Darwin knows about this, and how it applies to us. But he happens to have a different point of view than I, We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological, that we can see the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were. 5 Darwin talks about how he can who 'us' this or he can show 'us' that. It is interesting as his novel moves forward through time (unless he wrote it backwards) how he begins to find out that he doesn't know as much as he knows, "I could not even understand how some naturalised species have spread throughout the same country." 6He is so bent on proving his theory that he uses a very small sample to further his scientific 'proof', I, "I have twice seen these little plants adhering to its back". My goodness, Charles! You've proven it; beyond all doubt--while using such great logic! Twice? Finally, doesn't science put us one step closer to total destruction.

Ask yourself, how many years would you'd have thought the earth would have survived--knowing what we know now--but without technology or science? .... My guess is pretty long.

Now what about with science--a couple, few hundred years at best. I'd say.

Pardon my sarcasm regarding Charles Darwin. I know his "importance" in our history. I just don't give a damn about him in particular. I've seen too many people get offended over someone who really didn't understand all of what Darwin wrote. He also wrote about not killing individual animals to break the chain... and he, personally, did take the religious thing too far for his own egotistical agenda. And you don't have to be a creationist (I am not) to see his bias slant throughout the text. For once, I'd like to see someone keep Darwin in a scientific context. Somehow, I do think he has a place there. Such as "we" might see in the below youtube about plants. Heading into the summer with "Native Plants" on my list of classes, I am excited about science, but my excitement doesn't entail Darwin. I'm excited because I love plants. Below is a video of a very beautiful mountain full of flowers and life:

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, is that Darwin is over-emphasized as the father of evolution. I doubt he was the first to make the observation. And I never got how Darwin's theory being correct disproved anything about creationism. I don't think Darwin's role is all that unique. In my opinion, He's merely a reference point to an idea that many people before him had, but did not have the fortune of published before anyone else who was able to have the opportunity. In my opinion, he's sort of the monkey who tried to claim the theory of evolution.

[9]

1 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York: Random House Value Publishing, Inc.), 130

2 Charles Darwin, 131

3 Charles Darwin, 131

4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=7CasKVA2q4E

5 Charles Darwin, 141

6 Charles Darwin, 375

7 Charles Darwin, 375

8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=V3S4LQrvoFs

9 http://www.fortunespawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/darwin_ape.jpg

Interpreting Kipling, Part II

2008-04-27T02:52:00.000-07:00

[1]

The stories in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book are full of symbolism. You can think of just about anything in our modern society and find something in The Jungle Book that could somehow symbolize an idea. As Kipling spent some time in India, it is easy to see that much of the symbolism in The Jungle Book can be applied to the social structure within India (with the caste system, The Untouchables, etc.) and also the international relationships between countries, such as India and England. To interrupt myself here, it is funny and interesting to compare the notion of the Untouchables in two different cultures. I think about the definition of the Untouchables in India and then think about the definition of the Untouchables in the U.S. In India. The lowest of the lowest social classes is the Untouchables and they are called that because anyone who is anyone would not dare to even touch them (as Sophie pionted out in class).

[2]

Sometimes, in the United States the Untouchables refers to a group of law enforcement officials who are so "great" and "courageous" that they can't be touched or prosecuted by corruption laws or certain kinds of juries. They are protected by those who are so strong and powerful that no enemies can get close enough to touch them. The below video is an example how this occurs even on the local level. Just when you thought things were getting better. . . .

How many Aggies does it take to subdue a 155lb man?

[3]

Here's how some police "handle business". The officer was not convicted of anything in this case. . . Now that's justice!

I was surprised at some of the inconsistencies within the various stories of The Jungle Book. For example, in the first three stories that center around Mowgli and in The White Seal the race of men is usually something the animal race regards as inferior, destructive, dangerous and negative. However, in Rikki-Tikki-Tavi the mongoose Rikki shows his concern for the humans by protecting them from the snakes. I was also surprised by the inconinuities regarding the caste system throughout the stories of Mowgli. In Kaa's Hunting all the jungle animals view the the Bandar-log as an inferior and horrible society. We can see a similar connection to Kim in the chapter of Kaa's Hunting, 'They are outcastes.' [4]Even Mowgli eventually views the monkeys as being shameless and lawless and as the lowest of the low in the animal world. In Tiger! Tiger! it is a different situation. Kipling writes, "And Mowgli had not the faintest idea of the difference that caste makes between man and man." [5] In this story, Mowgli does view Shere Khan as being inferior and detestable and eventually takes his revenge on him. I was very puzzled about reading all of this. Why does Mowgli see social classes in the animal kingdom, but not in man?

Maybe it's that Mowgli, although he's a man, grew up in an animal society and therefore is biased and impressionable. Mowgli was just recently thrust into the world of humans. Could it be just a matter of time before he also becomes judgmental and prejudiced in the world of man? Is he too corruptible? Is he noble enough to be an Untouchable when it comes to the Untouchables? Maybe Mowgli hadn't the faintest idea of the caste system because the IDEA hasn't been taught to him yet. Perhaps Kipling meant to be so inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps he was making social, governmental, political, moral, religious commentaries. Perhaps he was not so much judging, though. Maybe by writing a 'harmless' children's story with anthropomorphic characters he was finding a way to vent and express himself while subtly pointing out hypocricies in government, society and his opinion about religion. I think Kipling saw the world as an imperfect place. So rather than overtly chastising it, he found a way to portray the imperfections in his poetry and writing.

The contradictions of Mowgli's views on social classes could be viewed as a commentary on the inconsistencies between the Hindu religion and the Indian caste system. To "most" Hindu's (at least back then) there is not really animal caste system or, at least, not like the humans'. Sure, they think highly of cows. But animals should be treated with respect and humanity. It is bizarre how they treated humans. "Humanity" is a funny word to use, it seems. Hindus show humanity to all animals, yet not necessarily to all humans. Other than cows, one animal group does not trump another. But as far as humans there is the caste system. There are the Untouchables. In Kaa's Hunting, Mowgl shows respecd for the law when he takes responsibility for breaking the law and accepts the consequences. But in Tiger! Tiger! Mowgli shows disregard for the laws of the society and the priest. In Tiger! Tiger! there are scenes that seem to have a parallel within certain practices. When Mowgli returns to the human's village after using their cow and buffalo herds to help kill Shere Khan, the village shows their disapproval of Mowgli by their trying to stone him in order to cast him out--making him an "outcast". Kipling conveys this well: 'It is in my head that, if bullet mean anything, they would cast thee out.'[6]When his biological and adoptive mother Messua tries to stand up for Mowgli for his bravery in revenging himself on the tiger, the mob of villagers, including the priest, assert their views and their power: 'Come back, Messua!' shouted the crowd. 'Come back, or we will stone thee.' [7] Perhaps this is Kipling taking an opportunity to show the views and treatment of women in India. Could this be a commentary on the controversial sometimes practice of women getting stoned or of the practice of suttee... where a widow is thrown or throws herself onto the funeral pyre of her dead husband? Or perhaps Kipling couldn't have helped but be inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps Kipling himself was unsure and confused of what was right in a fast-paced and ever-changing world. In a world of globalism, this seems to be a period in history of great paradox and contradictions...

In a Victorian England of being prim and proper while half a world away they were showing might and force to 'tame' (or exploit) the wilds of the jungle. As Kipling's world shifted from India to England, and to the United States of America, maybe his mental world had trouble shifting as well. Mowgli felt like he didn't belong anywhere with neither the animals nor humans, because both groups casted him out. Perhaps Kipling felt like somewhat of an outcast in his life because he felt that he couldn't fit who he really was into the constrainsts of the societies he traveled to. Even within one story of The Jungle Book there is a strange inconsistency. In the beginning of the Kaa's Hunting, Bagheera is against Baloo's practice of using corporal punishment on Mowgli as a teaching aid. Baloo argues his case, 'Better he should be bruised from head to foot by me who love him than that he should come to harm through ignorance.' [8] But by the end of the story Bagheera shows he is in favor of corporal punishment after all. As is prescribed by the Law of the Jungle Mowgli has 'done mischief, and blows must be dealt now.' [9] Baloo seems to have shifted his earlier views: 'Baloo did not wish to bring Mowgli into any more trouble, but he could not tamper with the Law, so he mumbled: 'Sorrow never stays punishment.' [10] Maybe Bagheera's change of heart can be explained by the context of Mowgli's beatings. When Baloo beat Mowgli it was as a 'teaching aid.' But when Bagheera beat Mowgli, it is seen as punishment for causing mischief and therefore breaking the law. It seems that both animals were trying to teach Mowgli a lesson, but in a completely different way. But who is more effective and morally superior, if anyone? Baloo?

[11]

Baloo initially beats Mowgli to help him learn and memorize, but then realizes his error and feels guilty and responsible for pushing Mowgli into the arms of the monkeys. I also think to myself it could be Bagheera. Bagheera who holds out on beatings until it seems absolutely neccessary for punishment and learning. Maybe Bagheera decides to beat Mowgli because Mowgli was bad and naughty and he made him angry and he wants him to pay. Or is Bagheera just simply trying to follow the Law because that is what he ought to do and to show that he is not like the lawless monkeys? Kipling finishes off this topic by writing, 'One of the beauties of Jungle Law is that punishment settles all scores. There is no nagging afterward.' [12] This seems as if to say that once the punishment is given and the lesson is learned, they move on and they get along once more and hold no hard feelings and assumes they'll learn a lesson. There are always lessons to be learned. They're just not always learned the way others intent to "teach" others lesson--about "the jungle".

[1]http://www.comicsintheclassroom.ca/images/mijungle.jpg
[2] http://www.ncdhr.org.in/%20Images/castoutcaste.bmp
[3]40 Kipling Rudyard, The Jungle Book (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Ed. LTD), 40
[4]70 The Jungle Book, 70
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQDuDoksZJU
[6]84 The Jungle Book, 84
[7]85 The Jungle Book, 85
[8]37 The Jungle Book 37
[9]61 The Jungle Book 61
[10]]61 The Jungle Book 61
[11]http://www.dacbsa.org/virtual-patches/gr-Cubs/BALOO.jpg
[12]62 The Jungle Book 62

The love of the Longhorn

2008-04-26T20:48:00.000-07:00

The love of the Longhorn

[1]

The Longhorn: The mascot that loves you back.

When I think Longhorns (seen above), I think totemism. There are many reasons for this. Longhorns fans are hog wild about Bevo. At sporting events people "bleed orange"-- win or lose, rival or no rival. Being a Longhorn carries a certain level of pride, sincerity and integrity. Like with being a member of any society, there are certain realities involved with being a fan of or actually being a Texas Longhorn. The thinking seems to be along the lines of I am part of this group, therefore I belong to everything it stands for. For some, it's not about being an individual at all. It's about the prestige or what belonging to the group means to them.

A lot of us grew up in or around Texas, so we know the pride associated with it and how some can get carried away with it even. OK, I've been guilty of that myself. I didn't want to go to any other college in Texas and I would not be as enthusiastic about college if I wasn't attending Texas. When I received my letter from A&M before my acceptance letter from Texas was delivered, I worried Texas wouldn't accept me or that I got lost in the shuffle. I picked up a phone call from some group of Aggies wanting me to join their totemistic group.... I was so excited when I got the letter from Texas, I just sat there for like 2 hours looking at it before I stood up, stopped staring at or told anyone about it. But for me, it was more about what it would mean after I was finished. I wanted to go to a reputable school I could feasibly attend.

No. I didn't want to graduate from some dinky school in some po-dunk, dry town in Texas either. I'd have gladly been an Aggie had things worked out that way. My point is when I decided to go back to school, I remember saying, "when I go to Texas... etc. etc. et cetera." And people would say, "do you mean IF? Don't you know how hard it is to get in?" in a cautioning tone. It sounded impossible, but I wasn't convinced. I wanted to learn as much as I could. And I worked hard every day with the goal of becoming a Longhorn in mind, though I never told anyone that. Apparently, my teachers noticed my effort along the way. Though they never made it easy, determination became my best friend. Which brings me to the so-called "fight song". The Texas Fight song inspires determination and the will do get it done when things get tough. Given my goals, they made it tough a tough fight.

The Texas Fight song represents the competitive nature of the tribe and symbolizes the kinship and the magical practices of--winning.

[2]

When I hear the Texas Longhorns fight song, I don't feel like fighting. I feel like celebrating my success as I think back to how I would shake my head confidently and say, "No, I'm going" to those who warned me of the bumps in the road. I guess part of reaching your goals is just seeing yourself do it; one day at a time. My sociology teacher told me (the only teacher from which I ever earned a C ), just imagine yourself achieving your goals and before you know it, you'll look around and you'll have achieved them if you try hard enough and "work like a protestant". There's one thing I tell people when they ask me about UT. "So, Ben, how's UT?" My response is that it's a lot of work and that I'm probably going to be a victim of my own success (since my goals are high after I leave this place). But, still, I think to myself. In spite of all the hard work, blood, sweat and tears; I wouldn't give it up for the world. Being a Longhorn means something to me. Being a successful Longhorn means even more because of the prestige associated with UT. When I go on to "bigger and better" things, where I came from will be taken into consideration.

That's one reason I take Texas so seriously. I won't get to be here my whole life and I see this as an opportunity to be part of something big. My education is precious; the quality of it even more so. And I feel Texas is the best place to receive a quality education.

So, about totemism: "W.H.R. Rivers defined totemism as the combination of three elements (1) the social, which is the division of the tribe into totemic groups; (2) the psychological, which is the belief in a kinship between members of the clan; and (3) the ritual, which includes all the taboos and magical practices." [3]

As I was saying, there is a social "division of the tribe" amongst those who are longhorns or consider themselves to be and they view themselves as in and see others as out. They want, some more than anything else, to be a Longhorn because of the associated social status of being a Longhorn. And who in their right state of mind doesn't want to say, with a Texas draw, "HOOK 'EM" every once in a while? Not to mention, there is absolutely no shame in proudly holding up the hook 'em horns sign--a salute to Bevo; our beloved mascot. If you look around a lot of places within the great state of Texas, it seems no place is without Texas alumni proudly saluting the orange and white tradition.

[4]

The Hook 'em sign: it goes something like this.

Definitively, there are limitations to Rivers' definition. I'm on board with the psychological belief in kinship aspect I'm not sure I so much agree with the kin part. And harsh truth be told, I'd rather not mingle with a lot of students around campus, but that's because I'm an old guy. I have family and have had the same friends since grade school who I still hang with in Austin, so that's not what the 40 acres is about to me. As I proudly acknowledge, there is a psychological aspect for me, too. I'd think less of myself if I were an Aggie, if only because being a Longhorn was the goal I set for myself. I know that sounds terrible, but it's true. This brings me to the taboo or ritual part of being a Longhorn.

As the saying goes, "Don't mess with Texas." I find that to be a funny slogan since I normally say it to my Aggie friends, more than I say it to any one I see littering. Oh, and you see the Aggies driving their gas guzzling trucks, driving by themselves (with maybe a dog in the back) sporting the broken horns sign, as if that's supposed to mean the Aggie has defeated the Longhorn...those pesky Aggies.

This brings me to the ritual aspect of being a Longhorn. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, I like more than getting in a cheap jab at an Aggie, with good sportsmanlike intentions. I have friends who are Aggies and, believe it or not, they're pretty good guys. But even they know something about the Longhorn--it's a lot cooler than having Lassie as your mascot. It's comical the levels of immaturity we'll go to in order to defend our categorized place in society. Even more comical than Lassie, is the stories you'll hear Aggies tell you about how they named our Mascot. However, as Jim Nicar points out in the Daily Texan:

"Whatever the reason, UT's mascot was named by folks in Austin, not College Station." [5]

But it's not about the division that being in separate groups causes that makes me really proud to be a Longhorn. I find the most pride in how hard I have to work to remain a member of the group. In the end it means we can all pridefully stroll down the trail of success having bled, perspired and cried, telling tasteless Aggie jokes about the Aggie that lied.

Hook 'em!

===
[1]http://www.theamundsons.com/photos/2006/texas%20longhorn%20with%20rose_1%202.jpg

[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTUJSEFKSBE
[3]course anthology, 901
[4]http://www.texassports.com/image_lib/hookem_200.jpg
[5]]course anthology, 892

The Jungle Book

2008-04-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

The Jungle Book  

[1]

In our North American society, life is reminiscant of the social environment of the animals in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book. Just as there is an ever changing social structure, such as the one where Akayla loses rank in leadership as he gets old, and hierarchy amongst the jungle "people," so is there is the old U.S of A. Yet, even within the wolves, seemingly the top dogs, there are issues that trump social class. This is also the case in the US. An issue that affects even the alpha male wolf, the leader of the jungle microcosm, is that of aging. Getting old is an inevitability, yet you would think, that with our stigmas attached to it, that it was a choice (and a unsavory and unsightly one at that). In the jungle, as well as in our society, an aging person translates to a person being less desirable, less able and of a lessor value. Akela, the alpha male dog, is getting old and not every body appreciates him or respects him and so his leadership is changing. Shere Khan , who now has his own following, is not a fan of Akela: "for as Akela grew older and feebler the lame tiger had come to be great friends with the younger wolves of the Pack, who followed him for scraps, a thing Akela would never have allowed if he had dared to push his authority to the proper bounds. Then Shere Khan would flatter them and wonder that such fine young hunters were content to be led by a dying wolf and a man's cub." [1] In the jungle, it was practice that as soon as the lead wolf grew too old he would die or be killed and then a new lead wolf would be chosen, reign for a few years, and then suffer the same fate of his predecessor when he also became too old. That sounds awfully familiar. We continually replace people in our country with newer, younger, better people because the others are "too old." Well, how old is too old? "But remember, Akela is very old, and soon the day comes when he cannot kill his buck, and then he will be leader no more." [2] The jungle creatures equated hunting prowess with that of leadership ability and life worth. The ability to kill really did determine life worth, for if you could no longer hunt, not only could you no longer be the leader of the pack, but you could no longer live.  Being old means being weaker. Apparently, according to the Jungle Book, it also means having less worth. The jungle culture was not one that respected their elders, despite the wisdom that came with it. The United States is also a culture in which we impose superficial judgments upon the aging people. Age descrimination runs rampant in the US, yet that practice seems to often fly under the radar. We have simply just gotten used to the idea that we like new and lively better than "old." Even if that means ignoring the experienced, and wise. I could give example after example of how American society loves to just cast off the old and the decrepit. They are a group is society that can simply be pushed to the side and ignored. And there is no way that we could see that they may have worthy insight or contribution. Not only are we a society that shuns the elderly as untouchables, but we worship youth in some ways. Case in point: celebrities. While there is pressure among the general public to stay young, it is virtually inescapable if you are famous. You are pressured (or at least desired) to be thin, have nice skin, get a face lift, surgery, injected toxins into your forehead, which have no doubt been tested on animals and that has now been found to seep into the brain and affect neurons, color your graying hair, wear a toupee or wig, get teeth implants, lift saggy breats, get a tummy tuck, use starvation diets, remove wrinkles, whiten your teeth, and the list goes on. Not only is this everlasting youth now the norm, it is almost a necessity. If you are famous and you don't try to minimize the effects of aging, you may very likely be viewed as over-the-hill has-been who no longer has any value, worth, and, most importantly, marketability. Whatever your job as an aging celebrity, you are usually replaceable. It is no problem to get a younger, fresher, hotter version of you. You, Version 2.0 Just as in the Jungle Book, people today in our country are disposable. Youth = Life. Old = Death. The "aging" celebrities know this, and so did Akela: "It is certain that I must die, and my life is of no worth." [3]  The below youtube is a depiction of the wise wolf's dilemma of aging:

[4]

"What is the Law of the Jungle? Strike first and then give tongue. By the very carelessness they know that thou art a man. But be wise. It is in my heart that when Akela misses his next kill--and at each hunt it costs him more to pin the buck--the Pack will turn against him and against thee." [5]The world of the rich and famous is a dog eat dog world. And just as in the jungle, in our country, when someone is no longer in the in-crowd, it really is as if just about everyone has turned against them. When it comes to modern fame, you are either in or out. And that fame is usually unpredictable and fleeting. In fact, this is so much the case, that many people would rather be notorious or infamous rather than be forgotten or not famous at all. As the celebrity saying refers to bad press: "any press is good press." Such is this desperate society: many people dead-set not to be nobodies. That's just it. Maybe they'd rather be dead than be nobodies, left with a legacy of any sort as long is their remembered well... sort of like today's martyr's or military "heros". But Kipling's views seems to be if so many people determine their worth from their fame, and we don't view old people as having worth, then how can they view themselves worthy when they no longer have fame because they are old? Growing old is like a death-sentence in our society, on many levels: "When a leader of the Pack has missed his kill, he is called the Dead Wolf as long as he lives, which is not long." [6]In the US, that time between "growing old" and dying (you know "the golden years") is no-man's land. Just as Kipling aptly put it, being old is this society is like being a dead-man walking. I think this has more to do with what people do when they're old or, in the case of my grandmother, what you think you can do. Her 89 years hasn't kept her from getting up everyday and taking it as it comes. I've taken this much as a lesson from my old grandmother. And while Kipling made these sorts of implications in his writings in the Jungle Book, he also left behind a telling reflection of what made him feel as if "alive" in his old age when he wrote about his son Jack who was killed by an exploding mortar shell. Sometimes a memory is all we have, but that's enough to get us through the day.

[7]

[1]http://www.akayla.com/picts/AKAYLA5a.jpg
[2]The Jungle Book, (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Ed. LTD) 24
[3]The Jungle Book, 24
[4]http://youtube.com/watch?v=pNeHObm4pyU
[5]The Jungle Book, 36

[6]The Jungle Book, 26
[7]http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/kippoemMS2710_228x625.jpg Also, 2nd story (parallism analysis of Kipling)....

Alice Killed Mill!

2008-04-22T02:11:00.000-07:00

Tweedles, not tea. . .

When Alice is confronted by the ludacris arguments of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, I can't help but think of my own life. "I know they are talking nonsense," Alice thought to herself: "and it's foolish to cry about it." So she brushed away her tears, and went on, as cheerfully as she could. "[1] Alice knows that what the Tweedles are telling her is absolutely ridiculous, yet she still lets it bother her. She knows that they trying to convince her of something she knows to be an absurdity, and at first she let's them. She knows in her mind what it going on, but she lets them get her all riled up to the point of tears. This reminds me of some of the people I have encountered in my own life who have doubted my abilities or will to achieve what I want to. I have heard the arguments of those people and, just like Alice, I have recognized their ridiculousness, but I have still not yet let their statements get to me. I have not let them bother me and let them fester like a boil until I just couldn't take it any more. Poor Alice, in all the confusion and silliness, was reduced to tears. She knows what is right, in spite of the fact she is surrounded by morons trying to convince her otherwise. If you listen to people's unfounded criticisms and attacks on yourself long enough and hard enough you just might believe what they say. You know what they say is bordering on the verge of absurdity and even insanity but you let it get you down. It's true, Alice moves on from this attack without much issue, but not without crying over it first. And to move on from it, she had to cheerfully (as cheerfully as she could) change the subject, get back on her horse and move on.

Poor Alice, I can relate with the ridiculous and confounding conversations abound in her journey in Wonderland. Alice must feel that these characters are just being confusing and talking in circles just for the fun of it, just to give her a hard time. They speak in puzzles and riddles, and almost everyone even manages to get in a poem (and Alice makes it pretty clear that she hasn't the patience nor the desire to listen to any more poems). Nonetheless, Alice feels compelled to go through to the the eigth square and becomed queened. Maybe she understands that in order to achieve something great, you have to go through some trying and confusing times. I understand this, too. Just like Alice I have ran out in the crossfire.
Another particulary vexing conversation is when Alice has made it to the eight sqaure and become queened. Here she finds two other queens, The Red and The White. So, now we have three queens together trying to have a conversastion. Talk about divas! The two other queens challenge Alice every chance they get. One of them tells her to speak only when spoken to. Then they ask her if she knows how to do arithmetic. Of course, not being content with her affimation that she does indeed, they decide to test her. They bombard her with Wonderland math problems and silly riddles. Alice, of course, being from a different land, doesn't understand their "logic." They seem to enjoy the fact that Alice either can't answer the questions or gets them wrong. And to add insult to injury, the Red Queen says, "Wrong, as usual." [2] The gloating pair like to exploit, especially in unision: “She can’t do sums a bit!” the Queens said together, with great emphasis. “ [3] Even when you read this passage silently to yourself, you can practically hear their smugness and superior tone. You can practically see them patting themselves on the back at their ability to find someone seemingly even more ignorant than them and then revel in their self-righeousness. I guess the only way some people feel good about themselves is if they put other people down. However, Alice manages to turn the tables and put the queens on the spot by asking them if they can do sums. Alice “didn’t like being found fault with so much” [4], so she asserted herself and questioned them. And what intersting thing should happen? Well, we find out the queens aren’t so smart and able after all.

By the time Alice is at the queens’ dinner party, she has had just about enough of all the nonsense and frustration. Alice finally snaps and takes matters into her own hands at banquet table of her coronation party. It is HER party after all, and she'll cry if she wants to. But does she cry? No. "I can't stand this any longer!" she cried, as she jumped up and seized the table-cloth with both hands: one good pull, and plates, dishes, guests, and candles came crashing down together in a heap on the floor." [5] And now comes the wrath of Alice: "And as for you," she went on, turning fiercely upon the Red Queen, whom she considered as the cause of all the mischief." [6] At this point, Alice is such in a tizzy that she pays no mind to the fact that the Red Queen has just shrunk. "At any other time, Alice would have felt surprised at this, but she was far too much excited to be surprised at anything now. "As for you, " she repeated, catching hold of the little creature, "I'll shake you into a kitten, that I will." [7] Alice proceeds to shake her "backwards and forwards with all her might." [8] In this dinner-party scene, Alice takes a huge step. She went past the point of no return here. She decided to put her foot down and put an end to all the absurdities and talking in circles. She just had to show everybody who was boss, or rather that she could be boss. Alice decided that she was no longer going to let these strange creatures dictate her each and every move. She decided she wasn't going to let them affect her so. No more curious creatures were going to bother her again or pull the wool over her eyes. Is it coincidence that after Alice furiously shakes the Red Queen she then finds herself free from the nightmarish Wonderland? It seems to me that Alice had something to prove, something to conquer, other than just a game of chess. Once Alice shows her assertiveness and assures the silly characters that she does have power after all, then they truly can never bother her again. She was finally freed from the red fury angered by the chains of illogical nonsense, chaos and all the frustration and angst that goes with it. Yet Alice goes on, shaken, to turn the page.

[10]

I guess the old saying is true: "That which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger." Alice found that out and I think I find that to have more truthfulness to it every day. I've been shaken like Alice in a chess game many times at work

[11]

[1] http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/VSA/Dawn/project2/index_files/image020.jpg

[2] Alice 189

[3] Alice, 251

[4] Alice, 244

[5] Alice, 244

[6] Alice, 244

[7] Alice, 266

[8] Alice, 266

[9] Alice, 267

[10] http://www.bulletsofautumn.com/vurt-feather/vurtimages/alice.jpg

[11]http://www.ebbemunk.dk/alice/91red_queen.jpg

Dobie's Beast of Burden

2008-04-22T01:15:00.000-07:00

[1]

Seen above: The Mustang statue at the Texas Memorial Stadium

Dobie's Mustang

Don't get me wrong. I like the mustang statue at Texas Memorial Museum (seen above). But it doesn't give me the same inspiration as the Longhorn. I'm surprised Frank Dobie had any love left over for the Longhorn after he was done doting over the Mustangs. He says,

Like the longhorn, the mustang has virtually bred out of existence but mustang horses will always symbolize western frontiers, long trails of longhorn herds, seas of pristine grass, and men riding in a free land.[1]

Somehow, I think he manages to diminish the Longhorn in lieu of his boyhood ideal of the Mustang. Like most Cowboys, Dobie seems to exaggerate throughout his text which is typical of the "historians" of the time and region. He seems to think that it was horses that gave him his "freedom" from the Indians. Another Cowboy, John Bainbridge, wrote it differently,

The Indians, moreover, won out in the battle for survival They devised winning battle plans and strategies out of their commitment to retaining their way of life. The Spaniards held the advantage while they alone possessed horses and superior weapons, but by the early seventeenth century, the Plains Indians were the match of any other horsemen. They could swoop in, raid, pillage, kill, and then flee from the stationary outpost of European civilization. The Indians planned their attacks so as to enjoy numerical strength. And they had no villages to be defended or large armies to be defeated. Their constant raiding, thus, weakened the white man's hold on the frontier. [2]

The Mustang is not, as Dobie claims, a symbol of [Western] freedom that happened upon us because we're from this side of the planet, "No one who truly conceives him as only a potential servant to man can apprehend the mustang. The true conceiver must be a lover of freedom - a person who yearns to extend freedom to all life. " Rather, it is a cross-cultural symbol that stands took place when the Spanish explorers and the colonial settlers discovered America. It's a remanent of the past, but it doesn't belong to any certain side or entity. The sense of entitlement to the mustang seems sort of silly when he's saying, at the same time, "a person who yearns to extend freedom to all life." In the below video, J. Dobie extends his thoughts of freedom in cyberspace. Listening to his thoughts remind us how far we've come:

[4]

I guess before I put Dobie's argument about the Mustang belonging in Longhorn territory to rest, I could also say that though Dobie has been somewhat 'bred out of existence', that he's still with us in spirit in my blog. I don't mean there on your blog space, "But here, beautiful and free, he lives for the centuries to come" [5] as well as at Texas Memorial Museum. In light of Harry Ramsom's quote his memory is left here highly regarded.

"I think Frank Dobie was one of the greatest teachers the University of Texas ever had, . . . . on of the truly great natural historians.. . . And this insight into nature, I think, needs to be continued as a Dobie tradition here if the University is really going to realize its own promise."

- Harry Ransom

[1]http://www.utexas.edu/student/cmhc/intern/Images/horses.gif
[2] Course anthology, Dobie 840
[3] John Baimbridge, The Super-Americans (Garden City, New York: Double Day, 1961)

[4] Course anthology, Dobie 846

[5]

http://z.about.com/d/austin/1/0/3/9/tmm4.jpg

Interpreting Kipling. . .

2008-04-06T05:01:00.000-07:00

Kipling's Kim

[1]

Reading Kim reminded me of a Thomas Hardy poem called Welcome Home.

Welcome Home by Thomas Hardy

To My native place

Bent upon returning;

Bosom all day burning

To be where my race

Well were known, 'twas much with me

The to dwell in amity

Folk had sought their beds,

But I hailed: to view me

Under the moon, out to me

Several pushed their heads,

And to each I told my name,

Plans, and that therefrom I came.

"Did you? . . . Ah, 'tis true

I once heard, back a long time,

Here had spent his young time,

Some such man as you. . .

Good-night." The casement closed

again,

And I was left in the Frosty lane. [2 ]

As much as I like the cold feeling I'm left with after reading Hardy's poetry, I felt it necessary to read biographical information on Kipling to warm my perspective on Kim. It seems there is an interesting parallel between Kim and Kipling. Kipling was sent to England to be educated and upon his arrival recieved quite a cold welcoming from the Brits. Further, my analysis reveals a hegemonic relationship between Britain and India that mirrors Kim and the Lama.... Kipling was born in Bombay, India, on December 30, 1865 and contributed significantly to literary genres of short story, poetry and novel. [3 ] He came from a wealthy family, his father holding the post of Professor of Architectural Sculpture at the Bombay School of Art; his mother was also accomplished. When his parents decided to sent him to England where he lived the next six years detached from the direct influence of the Indian culture; he became deeply affected by "beatings and general victimization." [4 ]Kim's character portrays the exploitation England and its imposition of greed leading to British government in India and similarly Kim is caught in a situation resembling world politics.

After reading the beginning of Kim it became apparent: Kim is the parallel of England and colonization and the progressive idea imposing its imperialism through any means necessary, including deceit, theft and lying. Like Gandhi , Kipling seemed to hold similar ethical standards to Buddhism and there are lessons to be learned in Kim. My guess is while Kipling's childhood represented Kim in the Novel to an extent, Kim's broader characteristics play an important role in portraying British colonization. Further, If we analyze one of Kipling's poems we may find his characteristics representing certain philosophies as well. Below is one of the most inspiring short poems I've ever heard; it rings of a connection with India and some of the religious philosophies within the country:

[5]

In a way I think this poem applies to Kim, Kipling himelf, Britain... and us... or... U.S. within the entangled web that comprises the dynamic aspect of imperialism and coaxed relationships established presently, but require resolution. For some reason (if we're going by my analysis), Kipling seems to put the onus England's actions and the dynamics of the world and its divided relationships as a whole.

Imagining a world that abided by the lyrics in the poem of If, our world, I think, would be as close to complete harmony as possible (though I'm not sure how fun that'd be). It'd definitely make my life in this imperialist world more exciting If I could, if only imaginatively, compare the current world to one that followed the basic philosophy in Kipling's If. If Kim represents a country, then he is European superiority with the Lama obliged to obey, "The Lama rose obediently, and they passed out of the serai like shadows.''[6] There seems to be quite a few innuendos riddled throughout this text, but I'm not sure what Kipling meant by them exactly. Speculation would have us believe resentment towards the Englishmen were present, but also within' Kipling to a degree. However, this is hard to believe. Unless he hides his resentment well...

[7]

Reading Kim also struck peevishly my social class nerve and my subsequent redundancy radar went off. Of course these things exist, particularly in novels, but it's so obvious in Kim that it's seemingly emphasized intentionally to exacerbate the divisive effect between European colonization and India at the time. It's also apparent in his dialogue, 'For here is always war along the Borde,' rumbled a deep voice. 'For there is always war along the border--as I know." [8] Additionally, almost annoyingly abundant is Kipling's savage depictions of lama and others, `Ho, shameless beggars!' shouted the farmer. `Begone! Get hence!' [9] He goes on, `But thou hast said he was low-caste and discourteous.' And yet once again, The man shuffled uneasily in his slippers. `The land is full of beggars,' he began, half apologetically. [10] When I finally got to chapter eight, I joyously found myself daydreaming about Victorian Literature class.

[11]

[12]

[13]

And I'm left with thinking the key to repetition is finding new ways to repeat the same thing. In this case, we should take a note from Kipling's message in Kim..... which I think eventually will be a moral lesson. Although I haven't finshed the novel, I think it's going to have more than one parallel. The good authors can imply many things with one character, scenario language or setting...

Strangely enough this view leaves me listening over and over to If, one of my favorite poems... now.

1http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/images/kipling-fb-image.jpg
2 Hardy Thomas, Late Lyrics and Earlier; (London: Macmillan and Co., LTD 1922) 25
3 http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/1457/biograph.htm

4http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/1457/biograph.htm

5 Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 35

6 http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Rudyard-Kipling.jpg

7Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 37

8 http://www.mind-control-method.com/rep.gif

9Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 34

10 Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 34

11Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 34

12http://www.mind-control-method.com/rep.gif

13http://www.thomevans.com/images/gal4/Repetition.jpg

The Light of Asia

2008-04-05T19:47:00.000-07:00

Arnold's Vision

[1]

India possesses historical records dating as far back as fourteen centuries before the Christian era. [2 ] Little is known of the history of its original inhabitants, though it is believed they are, to some degree, represented by various tribes. At some point in recent centuries, Hindu has poured and gradually "dislodged the possessor of the soil." [3] Additionally, the English took control of India before Arnold wrote his poem The Light of India, but Indian mutiny reached the news of England July of 1857. Shortly after, however, the mutiny was quelled. In spite of this, Arnold had his own vision of India. Arnold wanted to convey, " to his countrymen in England, in the language native to them, the vision he had seen of India, of her glory that was bygone--bygone only to reemerge in brighter hues."[4]

Arnold's compassion for India is not only telling of his fondness of the country, but also the influence its history of Buddhism had on him (that is, if we're to analyze the meaning of his poem). Arnold writes,

"Buddha will go again to help the World."

"Yea! spake He, "now I go to help the World."

This last of many times; for birth and death

End hence for me and those who learn my Law

I will go down among the Sakyas,

Under the southward snows of Himalay,

Where pious people live an d a just King." [5]

Perhaps the impiousness Arnold refers to is the the British stronghold in India. The Indian Mutiny sealed the fate of the East India Company. The overarching extension of the British Empire in India had suggested its desire to bring the Indian administration directly under the crown. The government of India was transferred to the crown and the East India Company, seen below, later ceased to exist.

[6]East India House is a vast edifice; it was originally founded in 1726, but was in 1798 so much altered and enlarged as to become almost an entire new building; it comprises the principal offices of the East India Company, and contains several noble apartments.

Arnold seemed to have wanted a different India than that of his time,

"Thus spake he, and Yasodhara, for joy,

Scarce mastered breath to answer: "Be it well

Now and at all times with ye, worhty friends,

Who bring good tiding; but of hits great thing

Wist ye how it befell?" [7]

There are many things to be interpreted within The Light of Asia. In the below YouTube video is a poetic retelling of the life of Buddha and Arnold's vision for India.

[8]

Interestingly enough, as much as Arnold liked India, the feelings didn't seem to be mutual towards the British, "Yet how imperfectly these promises have been fulfilled". [9]

The Queen assumed the august title of Empress of India, her Viceroy, Lord Lytton, declared the Delhi Imperial assemblage on January 1 1877. She spake, "You the natives of India, whatever your race and whatever our creed, have recognised claim to share largely with your English fellow subjects, according to your capacity for the task, in the administration of the country you inhabit." [10]

Not only is the Queen playing religious politics here; seemingly, if we examine the era, the Queen couldn't get enough people to share wealth with her. However, the people of India did give her the below painting to fulfill her neediness of material excess:

[11]

"The title Empress of India was given to Queen Victoria in 1877 when India was formally incorporated into the British Empire. It is said Victoria's desire for such a title was motivated partially out of jealousy of the Imperial titles of some of her royal cousins in Germany and Russia. Prime minister Benjamin Disraeli is usually credited with having given her the idea. When Victoria died and her son Edward VII ascended the throne, his title became Emperor of India. The title continued until India became independent from the United Kingdom in 1947." [12]

Queen Victoria seemed to possess selfish intentions, but at least Arnold's were in the right place as he seemingly adhered to the Buddhist philosophy,

"Take of our store, great sir!" and "Take of ours!"

Marking his godlike face and eyes enwrapt;

And mothers, when they saw our Lord go by,

Would bid their children fall to kiss his feet,

And lift his robe's hem to their brows, or run

To fill his jar, and fetch him milk and cakes

And oftimes as he paced, gentle and slow,

Radian with heavenly pity, lost in care

For those he knew not, save as fellow-lives

With his poem Light of Asia, Arnold leaves questions that would later come involving difficulties of future relationships, material excess and India's success,

"It is greatly to be hoped and wished that this royal visit to India will be productive of great and lasting good, that it will remove obstacles and prejudices from the naive mind, and esablish friendly and harmonious relations cement more firmly than ever our alliances with native princes, and implant in the heart of our illustrious Prince principles that magnitude and gravity the whole matter requires."[13]

[14]

And now I'm left pondering the principles of Buddhism and the point of Arnold's poem. . .

1 http://www.moonpointer.com/media/2/20070730-loa.jpg

2 Norwood Samuel, Rise of Supremacy in Hindustan, (Jaipur India: Arihant Publishers, 1989) 9

3Norwood Samuel, Rise of Supremacy in Hindustan, (Jaipur India: Arihant Publishers, 1989) 10

4 Course anthology

5 Course anthology

6 http://www.victorianlondon.org.html

7 Course anthology

8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=XL5L2-CFkMM

9 Dutt Romesh C, England and India "(New Delhi India: Mutgal Publications 1897) 151

Dutt Romesh C, England and India "(New Delhi India: Mutgal Publications 1897) 151
11 http://www.indhistory.com/img/queen-victoria.jpg
12 http://www.indhistory.com/queen-of-england.html

[13]

2 Norwood Samuel, Rise of Supremacy in Hindustan, (Jaipur India: Arihant Publishers, 1989) 330

[14]

http://www.great-buddha-statue.com/great_buddha_statue.jpg

U-Tea Time

2008-03-30T03:22:00.000-07:00

Tea Time

[1]

UT Explore brought thousands of youth upon UT campus to venture into time and their future. There were plenty of events to attend, yet none as telling and pertinent to their actual future as the A Mad Tea-Party. What else is there to learn as a youth exploring UT campus other than how to manage... time?

Um, you're going to need to know how to do that, junior; trust me on that....

It's interesting how things change as you get older. You read a book or watch a movie and in your later years; you come back to revisit the subject or title; you scrutinize it an entirely different manner than once before; and you come to an entirely different conclusion altogether. Not surprisingly--as we get older our perceptions change as we gain knowledge. With the knowledge we gain the more _______ we become, whether it be critical, enlightened, animated, political.... It all depends on the topic we're discussing and what kind of light we're shedding on the matter, not to mention how we interpret the knowledge that determines_____ or "x" for you mathematicians out there...

Modern technology gives us a whole new, though not original of course, look at A Mad Tea-Party.

Advancements in graphics and animation will enable future students to create and recreate multi-media in vast detail.

Speaking of new looks at Alice in Wonderland, below is a photo from Jerome Bump's Victorian Lit. class. Students enthusiastically entertained many youngsters at the UT Explore event who dared to wonder the halls of the 40 acres exploring their future and task of managing time:

Sophie Ryan plays The Mad Hatter and performs UTea-time for UT explorer...

When I arrived for the last showing of the Mad Hatter Tea party hosted by my gracious E 375 professor and classmates, I couldn't help but wish I had managed time better and gotten there a sooner, though I really can't complain. The act I saw was great and stepped up for even a small audience. Sophie playing The Mad Hatter in such an authoritative manner was hilarious and reminded me entirely too much the ever-so-feared Caucus Leader. That poor girl! My sympathetic imagination went out to the audience. . . .

Previous actors from previous acts were obviously tired from a long day of previously managing their previous time and since I previously read Marshall's blog about tea party's and time, I came to conclude that he enjoyed playing his role previous to my arrival. ( It's all loony--this time "thing".)

All in all it was a good day of great acting and excitement well-deserving of applause for the performance, turn out and good deed for the community.

[2]

Hook 'em!

[1]http://i.treehugger.com/files/mad-hatter-tophat.jpg

[2] http://www.virtualflorist.com/en/images/items/applause_l.jpg

Cultural Bump

2008-03-25T22:48:00.000-07:00

Culprits of Color

Conrad, Madeline, and Colorful Cat covered in color. . . . .

So, obviously things got pretty rowdy at the Holi Festival celebration as is evident by the colored appearance of the three suspicious characters above. . I went there thinking I wasn't going to get dirty; I wasn't prepared the stealthiness of my classmates. At first I had a pretty good eye on them and what they were doing. Had it not been for Dr. Bump's attacking me with the pink powder, proper precautions would have kept my defense against their attacks and I probably never would have welcomed spring...

The Holi Festival is a major festival in India that signifies the end of winter and welcomes in spring, but we celebrate it here in Austin, too. The Indian belief is that smearing, spreading, throwing the colored powder has a medicinal effect and represents energy, life and joy. The powder is traditionally made of Neem, Kumkum, Haldi, and Bilva and other herbs. In addition to the celebration of spring it is as much a celebration of love. Rich and vibrant colors are used denoting the passionate pulse of life. The Festival is full of feelings, movements and exuberant atmosphere with a lot of throwing and smearing of paint.

Kids Love the Festival

Vibrant colors are smeared or even dumped in the joyous celebration.

I was surprised to see the kids having so much fun all over the place. On one hand I was worried they were going to get trampled in the crowds, on the other I felt it a greater concern that my own bare feet were going to get stepped on.

Somebody put me on their shoulders!

I didn't leave without experiencing the celebrations of Hindu religion and some of their customs, which I found quite compelling to say the least. But my main impression having left the festival was something that occurred while professor Bump was making snow angels in the pretty pink powder on the patio:

Professor Bump making snow angles at Holi Festival

A young boy sitting with his father heard a student address The Mad Hatter as , "Professor Bump". As I looked over at the kid's astounded reaction. The kid said, "that is your professor"?

Our colored faces nodded....

The boy said, "man, I wish I had teachers like that".

He was an excited bright young kid and hadn't quite finished celebrating as he was making snow angels alongside Professor Bump. My impression of the boy's comments left me thinking perhaps lost on his teachers was something about him that they hadn't the slightest clue about--his culture. With such cultural void in our society, Western society that is, where we look through the lens of life within the narrow scope of our own cultural relativism, and don't see much outside of ours, and into others', it became apparent to me why there is a need for people like teachers and students to attend events like these. Events like these are beneficial not only for the cultural experience and sheer fun involved, but to gain a better understanding of those who you may effect through your life's endeavors whether it be teaching, writing, editing or anything. Some may say tolerance is the key to understanding diversity in places like the classroom or a courtroom. But I say that is hogwash. Understanding cultures is the key to understanding cultures. Silly notions of "tolerance' only fuel the fire of division. So, you're not Hindu? I'm not either. But I didn't have to be to be welcomed out at Barsana Dham. Everyone was invited to celebrate.....

On Holi Day, even Easter-Bunny-killing-slave-driving-savages feel the love.......

mistletoe?

The Holi Festival.

2008-03-25T20:43:00.000-07:00

Victorian British Empire meets India, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mill and Gandhi

2008-03-23T14:01:00.000-07:00

In part, the British Victorian Empire came in contact with India through its political and economic dealings motivated by sugar. According to Sweetness and Power, "The sugars of the Arabs were no single homegenous substance; from the Persians and Indians, the Arabs had learned a variety of sugar types or categories". [1] Most people, I think, would agree the height of capitalism took place in the late eighteenth century when it became a governing economic form. The rise of capitalism involved the creation of colonies and the creation of a system of world trade. This created a demand for economic enterprises in various areas of the world, thus the capitalistic intent of the Europeans created multiple foreign luxury markets. Economic and geographic, circumstances would connect places like India (where it controlled the government) and its extended arm of control over the West Indies--a big part of that control created by the link of sugar abundance in the West Indies.

[2]

West Indies sugar cane....

The Victorian British Empire's political control in India not only gave them political control of the Indian subcontinent which they ruled, it naturally gave the West an avenue of influence and Vice versa. The Great Revolt pitted Muslim and Hindu to take control of India. When the Muslims and Hindus were informed of their weapons cartridges were greased with beef and pork fat they refused to fight and were placed shackled later to be rescued when they shot British officers and united with the Indian garrison at Delhi. Battling less than twenty-four hours, they secured the city.

British parliament later passed the Government of India act which gave power over India to the East India Company, which was maintained by Britain's most influential leaders such as John Stuart Mill. His intentions of benefiting the British empire are obvious and reflected in his written declarations,

"These are hardly to be looked upon as countries, carrying on the exchange of commodities with other countries, but more properly as outlying agricultural or manufacturing estates belonging to a larger community. Our West Indian colonies, for example, cannot be regarded as countries with a productive capital of their own . . . [but are, rather] the place where England finds it convenint to carry on the production of sugar, coffee and a few other tropical commodities. All the capitals employed is English capital; almost all the industry is carried on for English uses; there is little production of anything except for staple commodities, and these are sent to England, not to be exchanged for things exported to the colony and consumed by its inhabitants, but to be sold in England for the benefit of the proprietors there. The trade with the West Indies is hardly to be considereed an external trade, but more resembles the traffic between town and country." [3]

The British rule operated somewhat under the radar as did John Stuart Mill. Perhaps his involvement in activities seeming contrary to his philosophy is why he's his connection with the West India company are sparsely written about. His involvement there seems contrary to his written philosophies. The more one knows about John Stuart Mill, the more one sees fitting his title "the contrarian".

Through this gander, we may now conclude the Victorian British Empire intersected India through its overarching economic goals. Not surprisingly, the English connection through the production for sugar intensified as it acquire Jamaica and other West Indies countries. This ties in the luxury status of England or the Anti-Buddhism aspect of England. . . The trade relationship is a compelling avenue to explore, but monetary exchange wasn't the only influence the empire had on India. This is also where the [Victorian] British Empire comes in contact with Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. The religious cultures within India remained diverse. The British were meddling in somebody's house. The English desires of material excess stood against the principles of the religions in India. In turn, they rebelled against materialism of the British Empire using the principles of Jainisms.

Here we can see the result of The British Empire's contact with India as Ghandi sets forth struggle for independence from the British rule set up during the Victorian era.:

4

After the British Empire set up government in Inida, the British rule operated under the radar but controlled India to the resentment of some. Gandhi's schoolmate's had already learned to respect ad oppose the Brittish. They recited a poem which went:

Behold the mighty Englishman,

He rule the Indian small,

Because being a meat-eater

He is five cubits tall 5

It's easy to see the vegetarian influence of India. Eating meat seemed to have shed negative light on the Englishmen. But the primary thing I found interesting was the approach of the of non-violence (or Jainism), which is represented by a familiar looking image.

The idea of non-violence is extended to all other thoughts...the above is the symbol for Jainism.

"People often think that religions which endorse forms of world renunciation hold the position that personal salvation supersedes all other concerns and that the search for otherworldly rewards overrides a commitment to this world". 7 The path we take in our disagreements, however large the magnitude, will determine our path to success or failure in the end. Evident with the many deaths resulting in the Iraq is our apparent need to promote peace. Perhaps we should look towards a new definition of peace, "the root of the Jain path of purification is the concept of ahimsa, nonviolence. 8

Diplomacy begins with nonviolence; the most foreseeable predicament in which the world would end strangely seems to be... violence.

[1]Mintz Sidney, Sweetness and Power, (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc.1985)71
[2]http://wicscbs.org/images/canes.jpg
[3]Mill, J.S. 1876 [1848]. Principles of political economy. New York: D. Appleton.
[4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58AOOFcCfa0[5]http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/References/NT/Gospels/John/_resJohn/John05/Materialism_me.gif
[5]Fischer Louis, Gahdhi His life and Message for the World, (New York: The New American Library, Inc.1954)11

[6]http://gbgm-umc.org/missionstudies/interfaith/images/sym-jainism-210.gif[6]http://gbgm-umc.org/missionstudies/interfaith/images/sym-jainism-210.gif

[7]course anthologhy

[8]course anthology on Jainism

Black Beauty Afterwards

2008-03-20T01:37:00.000-07:00

Anna Sewell's representation of animals giving them human characteristics impacted my emotion, sympathy and a slight aspect of empathy. She does this as well as any author I've read. It was like watching a rated R movie in high definition text because it was graphic and vivid. Not only does she draw on my memory of experiences I've had at the dispense of belligerent, drunken, cruel and undeserving authority; her style caused me to consider horses in the same light of having dealt with similar things, if only imaginatively. And though I don't have any memory of being a horse in this life, I was able to imagine being a horse for the sake of considering her message. The imagery she uses makes it easy to imagine what it might be like to be a horse--for me at least.

0918aHorseShowB&W.gif 378×260 pixels

If your horse breaks when you beat it--get a new one! That seemed to be Jake's line of thinking.

Sewell's point is obvious throughout the novel, but particularly when addressing Jakes, "You see he was quite willing when you gave him the chance; I am sure he a is fine-tempered creature, and I dare say he has known better days. You won't put that rein on me again will you?"

The first thing that came to my mind after reading Black Beauty was Anna Sewell was a clever novelist. As a reader I tend to be drawn towards more difficult reading, but I've always like simple, creative authors as well. My idea of a good novelist is one who can write prose while provoking thought or emotion as effectively as a poet or a philosopher, yet be neither. If they have an agenda that's even better to me. I like being swayed or drawn to explore different ways of imaginative and theoretical thinking. Since I make no bones I once ate the flesh of animals virtually every day without giving it thought, it's easy for me to imagine how difficult the task of actually reaching people with your thoughts on animal rights. Lucy Grealy talked about how kind Sewell actually was to her horses and comments on what her hopes for writing the novel were. But that leaves me as blank as before about Sewell the person because that was apparent in her writing that displays a high level of compassion and keen connection with horses. I've often commented on the cruelty of horses being trotted and cabbed down 6th street. But my friends, or beer, convinced myself that it was faulty thinking on my part not the horse-cab driver. Perhaps if my faculties had not been impaired I'd have been able to do something about it. Or perhaps as people tell me, I wonder off into space while getting off track, discombobulated or disjointed even.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmq22PJZhiE

My! I'm in such a hurry that I haven't the time to be kind or hear your whine about how I should dine all of the time to suit "your kind". I'm benign. You acting as if devine.

'Spaceships and Horses' seemed like a good idea 10 seconds ago until you started babbling on with this drunken notion. You mustn't disrupt my day dreaming of horses and space ships with silly ideas about the standards of treatment towards animals. Humans can't possibly obtain this level of morality. We're so busy; it's not important... unless we observe the situation from an outsiders perspective, unless we choose to inform ourselves. Only then can we make wise choices by examining and observing then selecting our choice of what it is we're choosing:

(like treating animal as instruments for our "progression")

Very sad.

But life is fast in pace and we all get caught up in the the material chase and we don't think about a horse as having a face while cruel to them in this place making them race with haste to suit our tastes of pace. Race!

Seriously speaking, we don't seem to have the capacity. I'm guilty of perceiving the notion of animals possessing "faculties" as fallacious. Surely, they don't have thought like we do--in the Western sense of rationale... Not "faculties".... Or do they?

29-06-06.jpg 300×300 pixels

I think one of the most absurd notions ever believed by our species was larger brain implied higher intelligence. Time has proven us to be the chicken heads in this case:

Google Image Result for http://www.zudfunck.com/photos/uncategorized/chickenheadcom.jpg

Some of the theories we've drawn in our existence as a species have been almost as silly as calling someone a chicken head, but a lot more serious.

Anna Sewell, then must have been one of the few having lived amongst on our ancestors on a higher plain of existence given she seems to be only one of the era's authors who wrote about it. . . . Was it her connection with animals or her seemingly an intuitive gift off knowledge about human nature that lacked compassion and empathy--the era? I don't know much about Sewell, but she intrigues me. Having read some animal rights literature from her era a few weeks ago, I knew the idea wasn't altogether unheard of. Though, I do admire what it is that she is actually doing in tapping into moral conscious of reader by lending a names and personalities to the horses that humanize them. Her unique style impacted my thoughts afterwards. I came away thinking if nothing else, Sewell had a good understanding of the dynamic cultural, social, economical and political aspects of society and might have had hopes of ending cruelty amongst humans, too. The lines she draws between life in the jungles of capitalism connecting human characteristics to animals in the their social constructs provided by our strive for progress made me stop and think about passing along the notion of treating animals with kindness. I'd hate to think of my life in subordination and think well of it. Sewell's clever usage of the sympathetic imagination is similar to that of Hardy's, yet appears more densely than "Jude". I wonder if this has anything to with the fact that I can't ever remember seeing a statue of a pig. Certainly I am wrong from a logical standpoint in that one does exist. But the horse serves Sewell in a solid manner to further her cause, so I couldn't resist ending with theses tidbits: The White Horse Temple seen below is considered the first Buddhist temple on Chinese soil. Also interesting to me was noticing Sewell as only one many authors we've read about with Buddhist tendancies, "Oh! pray do not whip your horse any more: I am sure he is doing all he can, and the road is very steep, I am sure he is doing his best".

Though her maxim is obvious, it is noble as well. And even more so effective because she doesn't hide behind, ambiguously, her motive.

baimashi.jpg 400×369 pixels

Not to take away from Hardy's novel which deals with a variety of issues giving it a level of complexity not involved with Sewell's. His novel does reflect similar empathy towards animals during an instance when a rabbit's presence disturbs moral state of mind, "it was the cry of a rabbit caught in a gin. As was the little creature's habit, it did not soon repeat its cry; and probably would not do so more than once or twice; but would remain bearing its torture till the morrow, when the trapper would come and knock it on the head". 3 Hardy's novel makes a point to draw upon the same senses of graphic nature that tends brings about the same level of awareness with vivid imagery, "The faint click of the trap as dragged about by the writhing animal guided him now, and reaching the spot he struck the rabbit on the back of the neck with the side of his palm, and it stretched itself out dead"4. And we're left with the vision of a rabbit in a trap (not a hat) something like this.

250px-Rabbit_trap.jpg 250×167 pixels

While he used a great deal of imagery, he also utilizes the same sort of moral appeal as Sewell, "I haven't been able to sleep at all, and then I heard the rabbit, and couldn't help thinking of what it suffered, till I felt I must come down and kill it! But I am so glad you got there first. . . .They ought not to be allowed to set these steel traps, ought they!"4

I would say I'd have to agree. They ought not. . .

Finally, I ran across this peculiar looking group of people while searching for information on the White Horse Temple . . .

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E603B07/pics/Buddhist%20Temple/classHwism.jpg

(I kid.)

[1] Sewell Anna, Black Beauty (New American Library: New York. 2002) 199

[2] Sewell Anna, Black Beauty (New American Library: New York. 2002) 199

[3] Hardy Thomas, Jude the Obscure 2nd Edition. (New York: W.W. Norton Company 1978) 169

[4]Hardy Thomas, Jude the Obsure 2nd Edition (New York: W.W. Norton Company) 169

[5]http://henrypayne.com/images/cartoons/editorial/2007/september/0918aHorseShowB&W.gif

[6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmq22PJZhiE
[7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q9vckeUyIE
[8]http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/29-06-06.jpg
[9]http://www.zudfunck.com/photos/uncategorized/chickenheadcom.jpg
[10]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/79/250px-Rabbit_trap.jpg

[11
[11]http://gb.cri.cn/chinaabc/chapter7/images/baimashi.jpg
[12]http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E603B07/pics/Buddhist%20Temple/classHwism.jpg

Perfectly imperfect

2008-03-18T22:01:00.000-07:00

Audio, visual... or both?

b48502334.jpg 357×374 pixels

poetry? music?

--or---

What does poetry mean ? When you read it? When you speak it? When you tweak it or bleak its form?

Our interpretations define our meaning of reality itself because we apply thoughts based on our understanding that constructs our world. We all have different reality. It's what makes us individuals. We'd likely most agree about certain things being "reality" such as taking two steps forward will move us "ahead". But what would happen if we broke our "realities" down to the fragments of emotions intertwined with our thoughts constructing our world, so-to-speak? Would are realities remain similar then?

Similar to Hopkins definition of art, I also feel that the effect is diminished if you don’t play it like it’s meant to be played . My experience has been music isn’t fun unless I want to play it. For instance a few weeks ago my friend asked me round up my musician friends who I once played in a band with to shoot a video. I said, it's OK. You guys do it without me. Music, for me at least, takes a certain amount of preparing. He kind of put a guilt trip on me. Though I'm still very happy about the result of my declination because declining to work with him motivated him to take initiative to do the video with "real artists". One with more time and desire to succeed in music, and Perhaps I doubted him, thus diminished his ability--in my reality, though is busy with school and other issues. Below is the project he produced in Austin a few weeks ago managed to stay on the front page of You Tube for about a week. I told him, "Hey, bro., nice work and I'm happy for you.... Our separate meanings about his art compelled me to mention this here because I honestly did doubt him somewhat. However, it appears, at least, he was feeling something that I wasn't in his reality that wasn’t jiving with mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66w7a1U1f-M

Music by Danny Malone
Video editing by Chris Morse and Jeremy Cohen.

Strangely enough I am excited that I turned down this, according to him, opportunity. One, it meant I was driven by my goals to achieve what I wanted; and my will was tempted yet not swayed. I had things to do and I've played music for half of my life. It's what we do in Austin, pretty much nothing new. My good buddy took it as an insult.

Yet the interesting aspect is the result, which means something different to both of us. I was glad to see him so proud of that. I honestly would have given him the effort, but wasn't able to simply because I hadn't the time. So our interpretation comes from two different schools, metaphorically, yet we've got to the exact same school literally. We went to the same middle and school and UT, though I got here late. This intrigued me to ponder the reality of meaning... and the meaning of things like good buddies.

I then began to think about Hopkins concept of reading poetry aloud for effect making it actual poetry. When I read those lyrics aloud, it's not the same without the music. Listening to the song without the video is not the same. Hopkins is obviously right in that aspect.

Theoretically we an give separate meanings to poetry and music and then talk about how they may give entirely new meanings when incorporated together. I've been a fan of music over half of my life;there was once a time when I didn't give poetry or poets much thought. I ignored reading poetry but I wrote it essentially in song lyrics and I've written a few of those over the years, though you'll catch me dead before you catch me singing. With poetry something strange happened that changed my attitude entirely.

One day in the cafeteria as I was eating my veggie burger with no cheese shortly after having sipped my bubble tea, he[the poet] then suddenly grabbed the podium and took over the cafeteria; loudly, with enigmatic, yet crystal clear messages of inspiration, defeat, disdain, victory, will, corruption, drive, spite, lying, cheating, virtue, beauty, stereotypes, atrocities and other issues that pertain to dynamics of life and it's circumstances. If this guy had not been a poet, he'd likely otherwise sang the blues.

Google Image Result for http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rro0098l.jpg

For me playing the blues has a poetic effect

The most interesting aspect of his poetry was that he'd interact with the audience, ask them a question, wait for their answer. Then he'd poetically spout the smoothest flowing poetry, almost like music because it was so rhythmic and melodic when he spoke, yet I never understood exactly what he meant altogether because I wasn't aware of what his poetry meant to him. That's impossible [to understand], but he left an impression through his poetics and flowed as well as I've ever heard anyone flow with vocal rhythm, timing and diction. . The power behind the message would have been lost had it not been him speaking, for lack of a better term, those words so concisely and directly. If it was speaking, it was delivered like a great speaker, though the only part I really remember is that he wanted to be a writer, but his teacher told him that he couldn't write. I suppose"write" is a matter of subjectivity. He wrote alright-- that or he had a really good memory. I can still hear him bellowing the sounds of words through my skeleton etching vibrations into my memory. He seemed to be striving for perfectionism and failing. But he had a talent for poetry similar to Hopkins who, coincidentally, had tendencies towards perfectionism.

Speaking of "normal", it wasn't always the case I appreciated rhymes, rhythms, melodies, tones, inflections associated with poetry. I've been a musician for 18 yeaes. And over the past few years I had the privilege of working with some, in my opinion, rather talented poets. Some of the rappers "emcees" and poets influenced my appreciation towards something that once irritated my ears. What was once noise was now a form of joy. I felt similar about appreciating hip-hop ("poetry" synced to with music)to Hopkins' feelings about spring time when I started to hear the poetry in music.

Playing bass with poetic vocalist, Zack Owens Percussion: Fon Walter/John Straun

(note: this is not a video.)

Spring

"What is this juice and all this joy?

A strain of the earth's sweet being in the beginning

In Eden garden. --Have, get, before it cloy,

Before it cloud, Christ, lord, and sour with sinning, 1

As I conveniently and shamelessly interpret my meaning of Hopkins, his poem serves dual purposes, which remind me also of how a new interest opened doors for me. I then found myself playing with a few free style emcees well-versed in poetry. By comparing hip hop we're able to tie music and poetry together in order to understand the separate realities. According to Susanne Langer, "Speech and music have essentially different functions, despite their oft-remarked union in son. Their original relationship lies mch deeper than any such union and can be seen only when their respective natures are understood."2

In midst of zoning in my own mind's theoretical chimes of words and rhymes that filled the empty spaces between the measures of my ears, became melodic and rhythmic tempos making me shake my feet. So how does this relate to the DB, Ben? (eh, Dr. Bump?) Well, the links aren't working so I'll post some poetry I'm familiar with, though nearly sophisticated in style as Hopkins of course.

Having opened my mind up to poetry changed me into something I once was not. It took a lot of courage to let go of my masculine perception of myself and let go of the sissified notion that I got when I read poetry by Robert Frost and his poem about having courage to change when he "waxed poetic" in this poem.

The Courage To Be New

I hear the world reciting

The mistakes of ancient men,

The brutality and fighting

They will never have again

Heartbroken and disabled

In body and in mind,

They renew talk of the fabled

Federation of Mankind

But they're blessed with the acumen

To suspect the human trait

Was not the basest human

That made them militate

They will tell you more as soon as

You tell them what to do

With their ever breaking newness

And their courage to be new 3

The poetry that I remember the most is the poetry that I've heard or played. My acquired taste of listening to and reading poetry spoken along with music effects me as Hopkins poeticizes,"strikes like lightning to hear him sing"4

I haven't been playing much music lately though if I had the time I'd be playing quite a bit because of the relaxing effect that it has on me. Poetry seems to have a similar effect. And both music and poetry serve as effective means of expression, however determining the meaning of expressiveness is impossible. Further, grammar in music is considered to be harmony in contrast to poetry where words still hold meaning that some argue can be understood without inflecton. Though music can take one through an emotional experience it is fallible to think it a means of language. In Philosophy in a New Key Susanne Langer explores this connection, "Logically, music has not the characteristic properties of language--separable terms with fixed connotations, and syntactical rules for deriving complex connotations without any loss to the constituent element". 5

Her argument is, "apart from a few onomatopoetic themes that have become conventional-the cuckoo, the bugle=calls, and possibly the church-bell--music has no literal meaning".6

I take issue with this notion, because it assumes that language is absolute in precision, much less how accurate a degree our words define our feelings. To a certain degree poetry has the same limitations regarding interpretation because of the difficulty in accurately assessing the feelings implied as well as what degree they are implicated through the poem or song.

An easy argument can be made that as the ages change the emotions entailed within the art of those ages change as well. For example, derivatives of the music associated with previous eras will remain. Music, like poetry, will adapt its senses to the era, thus its meanings of feelings as well as its means and methods of expressing those feelings. Human history suggests that in recent years societies and eras often dictate the appropriateness of expressing feelings, as well as govern the degree of expression. History will also tell us that music has been audited to suit the beliefs to the era in which it originated. As these measures have restricted music, I do disagree critics who offer music incapable of being translated.

The restrictive measures placed on music throughout translate into... a safely made assumption that some musicians felt restricted. Being a musician myself, I speak existentially when I say the musician in me is easier expressed than my "inner-poet".

Masculinity (or the notion upholding it) as Robert Frost poeticizes about makes difficult the expressing of emotions. A large part of this is due the the fear of being misinterpreted. Frost's poem addresses the issue of being misunderstood for having feelings that words cannot describe.

THE FEAR OF MAN

As a girl no one gallantly attends

Sets forth for home at midnight from a friend's--

She tries to make it in one catch of breath,

And this is not because she thinks of death.

The city seems in-toppling from a height,

But she can trust it not to fall tonight.

(It will be taken down before it falls.)

There scarcely is light in all its walls,

Except beside a safe inside a bank

(For which assurance Mammon is to thank).

But there are little streetlights she should trust,

So jewel-steady in the wind and dust

Her fear is being spoken by the rude

And having her exposure misconstrued

May I in my brief bolt across the scene

Not be misunderstood in what I mean.7

Perhaps before we venture reading too heavily into the ambiguous sometimes meanings buried the artists' subconscious, we should read another of Frost's poems.

Beyond Words

That row of icicles along the gutter

Feels ike my armory of hate;

And you, you . . . you, you utter. . . .

You wait! 8

As a general rule I don't worry about which method, if any, a person chooses to express their feelings. Whether it be music or poetry or even a mixture of both, I am grateful to have the freedoms to express my feelings.

Mary Shelly's Frankenstein didn't have it so easy, "I felt emotions of gentleness and pleasure, that had long appeared dead, revive within me. Half surprised by the novelties of these sensations, I allowed myself to be borne away by them, and forgetting my solitude and deformity. dared to be happy".9

I would dare to say that "happy" would entail different realities for most when asked.

Now, excuse me while I climb out of this allegory hole I've dug. I've got Easter eggs to hunt. . .

[1] Hopkins letter to his brother
[2]Langer Susanne, KPhilosophy in a New Key(New York: The New American Library, Inc.,1951), 93
[3] Frost Robert, "The Courage to be New". The Poetry of Robert Frost (Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ltd., 1963), 387
[4] Hopkins "Spring"
[5]Langer Suzanne, K, Philosophy in a New Key (New York: The New American Library, Inc.,1951), 197
[6]Langer, Suzanne, K, Philosophy in a New Key (New york: The New American LIbrary, Inc.,1951), 194
[7]Frost Robert, "The Fear of Man". The Poetry of Robert Frost (Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ltd., 1963), 386
[8] Frost Robert, "Beyond Words". The Poetry of Robert Frost (Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ltd., 1963) 393
[9]Shelly Mary, Frankenstein, (Ontario: The New American Library, Inc.,1965)134

[10]http://x8b.xanga.com/84ba744b7643272059547/b48502334.jpg
[11]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66w7a1U1f-M
[12]http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rro0098l.jpg
[13]photo: me, fon walters, zack owens
[14]http://www.cjfe.org/images/expressyourself.jpg

India, Buddhism and John Stuart Mill

2008-03-06T19:04:00.000-08:00

The Mill Connection

An interesting way to illumine our perspective on various things is to provide a parallel of something we are familiar with and relate it to something with which we are unfamiliar. This essay will explore John Stuart Mill, his connection with India and an underlying crossroad that may provide better understanding into Buddhism and its contributions to animal liberties. On Liberty isn’t the only obvious parallel to animal liberties. There are other less obvious ties. Another facet is the fact that his father was a historian who was passionate about history and India. Mill wrote how grueling the process of doing historical research for his father was. By considering aspects of Mill's life, it’s not hard to draw a line that connects Mill to India. From there, it’s no more difficult to linearly connect Mill to Buddhism.

Measuring happiness

In Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill he writes, “In all ages of speculation one of the strongest obstacles to the reception of the doctrine that utility or happiness is the criterion of right and wrong has been drawn from the idea of justice.” From Mill’s perspective, as opposed to the sometimes loosely uttered modern version of utilitarianism, his main idea centered around that which would produce the greatest amount of happiness. In modern society it is often argued that people who are unconscious of animal rights are often justified in their intent, “But, it may be argued, vague sympathy with the lower animals is one thing, and a definite recognition of their ‘rights’ is another; what reason is there to suppose that we shall advance from the former phase to the latter”1 To this sort remark one might reply, “look back, and you will find in their case precisely the same exclusion from the common pale of humanity; the same hypocritical fallacy, to justify that exclusion; and, as a consequence, the same deliberate stubborn denial of their social “rights”. 2 The Mill connection is easy to see because of his liberal stance in On Liberty. Taking it a step further, perhaps, then would make it reasonable to look at some of his rather obscure quotes in which he refers to animals. Mill writes, “To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vulture, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down”.3 This is indicative of two things: Mill’s harm principle and the philosophy of Buddhism and its treatment of animals as equal beings who think, breath, breed and feel like we do and his metaphoric reference to animals, which we have culturally constructed as being inferior. Buddhism is not like the Judeo-Christian tradition, rather it asserts the unity, peace and harmony of all living things. Further, the Buddhist principle of reincarnation means that humans can be reborn as animals and animals can be reborn as humans. Buddhism’s rudimentary belief is acting so that your actions don’t have harm. This is where Mill intersects Buddhism. The absolute highest state of being that a person can be in is to act insofar as to end the suffering of all living beings, not only humans.4

John Mill meets Jainism

This connection to the Buddhist principle of not harming sentient beings relates directly to the happiness of animals and other beings that think, sense and feel. Further, it also connects with many other things such as John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. But rather than diving into the obvious, perhaps a more interesting angle to look at is to explore the historical aspect of how John Stuart Mill’s thoughts, writings, philosophies, scientific observations as well as his takes on politics could have been influenced by India. Obviously, there is a connection. But how does it apply? And how does Utilitarianism fit in here? How about India? It’s obviously noted that John Stuart Mill wrote about utilitarianism. Though any reader worth their salt would find Mill wrote it with meaning that meant something entirely different than the popular modern usage of the word that you hear in places such as the media or bus stops. Often utilitarianism is the by product of a “mediot” spewing propaganda or a lame duck president who misinterprets the meaning of utilitarianism as John Stuart Mill plainly sought it to be interpreted. There are few writers with comparable conciseness in writing to John Stuart Mill and George W. Bush wouldn’t know a utilitarian if one ran up his nose. So we must conclude that this influence came from somewhere. Perhaps it is appropriate to rewind the clock, to take a look back in time, to reflect on the history of John Stuart Mill and the influence that India had on him, whether it be directly or in directly and what better place to do that than to look at his ties with India. After all, India is a beautiful place.

In his autobiography Mill writes, “I was born in London, on the 20th of May, 1806"5. He goes on, “and was the eldest son of James Mill, the author of the History British India.6 Finally, the most important thing to note is his connection with the East India Company. This is not only indicative of the dynamics of Mill, but it illuminates the cultural intersection of Mill’s thought process. It also intersects the East and West thought process, which eventually produce some of his more notable work. After his father’s political maneuver to garner his appointment it wasn’t an easy road for John Stuart Mill. The East India Company, and Mill’s accomplishments are somewhat overlooked by most historians due to the influence his father had as a historian as well as by his own contributions to other aspects of academia. But it is important to note that he took an interesting approach while manning this job. It might not be what one would first think as a typical role for such an eccentric person, but his efforts, though sparsely written about, should not go noticed. He spent over half of his life working for the East India Company.

487528.JPG 426×279 pixels

Mill and the East India Company

Mill's work at the East India Company is overshadowed in the Western world by his writings in philosophy, science, economics, humanities , politics and philosophy.
The duties that Mill did perform were considered to be of high importance. Mill entered the chief examiners office at the age of seventeen. By thirty he became the third highest rank of the senior members. His career at the East India Company did lead him down some rather interesting paths that represent not only his interests, but also how he came to formulate those thoughts. In 1857-1858 a bill was presented to Parliament, which sought the dissolution of the East India Company and shifting the responsibility for India to the Crown. At this point, Mill was asked to defend the interests of the company. After this, the only employment he had was in the House of Commons.7

JSTOR: Philosophy East and West: Vol. 37, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 260-285

West meets Eastern philosophy

Now connecting the dots to Buddhism becomes easier. Where was Buddhism founded? If you answered India then you are right. So now where do the schematics of Mill and India belong? If you answered Buddhism then you are correct. One might ask the meaning of this.

If one believes, and most people do, that the environment in which they live has an impact on their thought process then this could be a rather obvious, yet interesting, angle to take in examining how it pertains to animal liberties. I argue that animals do deserve liberties due to the nature of livelihood of most sentient beings scientifically constructed make up. It is not hard to see that an animal can feel pain in the same manner as humans and we should take note from Anna Sewell in black beauty. She writes, “There was no oppressed or ill-used creature that had not a friend in them, and their servants took the same tone.”8 This concept of equal treatment provides a rationale behind our actions that should be considered so that animals and all other living creatures suffer less. In Salt’s Animal Rights he explores the slaughtering of animals for food, “some excuse seems necessary for the pain and loss which we occasion to animals by restraining them of their liberty, mutilating their bodies, and at last putting an end to there lives for our pleasure or convenience”. 9 It’s seemingly more rational and compassionate to consider the fact that animals do sacrifice their lives in order for us to eat. And Western culture, that of the United States, consumes entirely too much meat. These causes of death to our fellow creature, not only go against the principles of Buddhism, but they go against the laws of common sense and compassion as well as animal liberties. Animals have deep feelings, too.

horse gored.jpg 400×231 pixels

The Victorian response to cruelty

In Black Beauty Ginger says, “When I return from work, my neck and chest were strained and painful, my mouth and tongue tender, and I felt worn and depressed”. It doesn’t take the imagination of a Victorian novelist in order to consider the reality that animals to have feelings. One can conclude this much by observing. The interesting aspects here are that John Stuart Mill was so much more than a novelist. No knock on Sewell, she was great in her own right, but Mill was and still is head and tails above most historical figures in regards to notoriety. He used a great deal of animal metaphors, if you will, to articulate his thoughts. More important than this however is how he defines his understanding of utilitarianism, “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself”.10 His reference to authors notorious for animal rights is somewhat telling of his Buddhist connection and it also serves purpose by reminding us that we are not the only creatures that think, eat, sleep, drink breath, blink and feel.

We are in the minority of creatures living this planet, yet we act like the all-deserving beings that deserve compassion without giving it. Not only do we eat entirely too much flesh (this is not kind), but we scientifically test animals. We cage them, torture them and test them with chemicals, “cures” and cleaners. How would we feel if trapped inside of a metal cage and treated in the same way? How would we feel if detergent, hairspray or make up was sprayed in our eyes? Would that suit our tastes? I think Mill puts it best, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. It’s interesting how taking a brief look in history can provide us with links that we never considered, such as Mill’s tie to India, Buddhism and how we should be kind to animals so they’ll be kind to us.John Stuart Mill's strange connection with India opens many avenues of explorations where many conclusions can be drawn in relation to karma and our treatment of animals in accordance to Buddhist principles.

1 Salt Henry, Animals’ Rights (SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS, INC. (Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania), 21
2 Salt Henry, Animals’ Rights (SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS, INC. (Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania), 21
3 Mill John Stuart, Classics of Western Philosophy Vol. 6 (Hacket Publishing Company Inc.), On Liberty (Indianapolis/Cambridge:2002), 1051
4http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/BuddhismAnimalsVegetarian/Buddhism%20and%20Animal%20Rights.htm
5 http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/jsmill.html
6 http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/jsmill.html
7 http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/jsmill.html
8 Sewell Anna, Black Beauty; PAVILLION BOOKS LIMITED (London), 48
9 Salt Henry, Animals’ Rights (SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS, INC. (Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania), 57
10Mill John Stuart, Classics of Western Philosophy Vol. 6 (Hacket Publishing Company Inc.), Utilitarianism
(Indianapolis/Cambridge:2002), 1019

Mill likes Buddhism

2008-03-06T18:34:00.000-08:00

Black Beauty Blues

2008-02-27T20:31:00.000-08:00

horses_ass.jpg 158×216 pixels

When I started reading Black Beauty, the first thing I found interesting was the perspective it is written from. I recall watching this movie as a child, but I don't think it had quite the impact as reading it. Reading it from the horse's point of view made me feel like the quintessential horses rump. Apparently I've spent a good portion of my life in vain. I've bought shoes made of leather. I wear a belt made of leather. When I was a kid, I rode my horse on a saddle made of leather. I found that to be a strange fact as I read this book. In fact, the whole thing was sort of strange in an interesting way.

I knew before my old buddy Max Money Train Mad Dog passed away, I had a connection with animals. With my latest dog, I wouldn't say it was a 100% emotional attachment either. Old Max Money was a smart little rascal. I know what most people think, too," most people think their dog is smart." I'm guilty of that here, so I admit. But I didn't teach him how to open the toilet seat with his nose and drink out of the porcelain dog bowl , or turn the door knob when it rained or how to shake with his both hands, or paw rather (they're almost human). I guess the point I'm slowly getting at is that animals are rational, if not wholly, then, to an extent. No, they can't talk about what's on their mind. They can't articulate, in any way that we understand, how they feel or communicate to us what they might thinking. The connection that I had with my late friend was as much rational as it was emotional. Interestingly enough, when I think about it, we even had our own language. He understood what I said what I signaled and even what never communicated to him. He was intuitive in a way. When I got home, he went outside because he knew it would make it easier on both of us. OK, I'm getting off track. But you get the point. I liked my dog and I miss him....

Anna Sewell is pretty crafty because of the aspect she takes in this novel. She writes rather bluntly with an effective use of detail that makes you consider being kind to animals. "I suppose it is fashion that makes them strap our heads up with those horrid bits that I was tortured with in London," (38)

She draws up a character in Ginger that creates the contrast needed with characters. Ginger adds a voice to the animal(s), in this case a horse. Maybe we should listen to Ginger, "these men, who are so wise, had better give orders that in future all foals should be born with their eyes set just in the middle of their foreheads; instead of on the side; they always think they can improve upon Nature and mend what God has made." (41)

Speaking of perspective:

This brought me back in time to Jude and the pig. My feeling when I read that was that we should try to kill animals more humanely. I already do what I can, when I can. And I think that's enough. Of course, maybe I shouldn't stray from my diet like I did last night when I headed to Wendy's out of convenience. But that's life on the run as they say...

Plainly speaking, I'm going to end with this quote out of convenience because I like it. I guess it's what Sewell does with the oblique manner in which she hits the reader's consciousness, "and that rather a hard hit about the soldiers; but--well--I'll think about it," (45)

puppy-cultivation.jpg 500×353 pixels