The Hypocrisy of Hunting

[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

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

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

[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

[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]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfwdqZV2cEHd9vibjSVeFkngTmFBn01K_vnb7CASd29baY88dA1pULYpG7EiHcBhXIdlhmTa1rnSCd4Gn9dWy6RDH6qz1FfvpFsyXsJozCbxUzqi3T7lrjdcLd-DCD7b60XDNdwuI1U_mw/s400/bolt.jpg
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKsRdD8j2yE

Slaying the Meaning of Fear

[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

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.