Submit an Article | Bookmarked Articles

Viewing Articles About All - Page 5

The world	January 2, 2009, 3:38AM
by: Vampireofthedamned
What has our youth come to when they no longer look to the stars when they are lost, our parents no longer incorporate the values that we once knew in our society. With all of the gadgets that children have now there is no need to worry where your child is, and for some reason, that also gives new parents the right to be lazy. What happened to hitting your child when they did something wrong, what happened to being able to yell at your own child when they did something they shouldn't do? Why has our government stepped in so much, they have made it impossible for any good parent to actually be a good parent. In the good days, when parent's raised their own children, their child stayed within screaming distance. The parent would yell their name, and it would be time to go home. But now, now since everyone has a cell phone, a laptop, other communications, parents don't worry as much. I ask these parents, why do you not worry? What has changed, when did the world become a safer place, when did the child rapists go away? When did the molesters and cruelties of the world disappear? All of our cell phones and other strange gadgets only make it easier for predators to attack children, to steal children, to kidnap women and do terrible things. What happened to a child stepping outside to look at the sky? Have they become to obsessed with their overly protected cartoons on TV that no longer incorperate any values because parents said it was too violent? Have they all forgotten where they came from. Its as if our new generation of children have no idea what really goes on in the world. They watch these cartoons that have no violence, no sexual innuendo or anything, and the best part is, its totally random and usually about candy or other bad food. What happened to the old school movies, with subtle cruelties like in the original Lion King with the nazi symbols everywhere. These were things that children did not notice and were meant for the parents if anyone, does anyone remember how Lion king told you indirectly to listen to your parents and to never forget who you are? Be yourself and nobody else. The movies now are nothing but trash. Children are now unable to learn about the terrors of the world because parents have shielded them from even the most basic of all places to learn in, their cartoons. Children don't learn anything from their schools, from their shows, and certainly not their parents. I mean, why would they? It is because of their parents that they cannot hear of it anywhere else. If the parent's wanted that duty for themselves than their children would have been told, but quite obviously, most of them, have not been told. It is terrible to hear about children being stolen, and even the most cautious parents losing their children to terrible people and other cruel things that no human being should have to go through, but I cannot help but wonder, where were you? Their parent, their guardian. Were you 20 miles away because somehow that cell phone you let your daughter use was supposed to protect her from the man with a knife to her throat? This is what bothers me even more, the parents have lost their values as well, perhaps even more than the children. All the while that they petition to remove violence and blood from TV, they let their children become the pimps and hoes of the next generation. And, even while getting these very shows removed, they complain how their children will grow up with low quality cartoons. Its sickening. Someday, I hope that children will learn on their own, that they must stop what they are doing, and look to the sky for some of their answers about life, they must look within themselves. They will see what a shell their parents have made for them, and I can only hope for the future of our world, of our life, that the children of the coming age realize the world for what it is before it is far too late. Before all the beauty that is life, leaves them forever. Russell McC.
topic: Rants
[reply] [0 comments]

Has Christmas lost its true meaning?	December 25, 2008, 6:56AM
by: Syn
Some see Christmas as getting free gifts from people who love you. Others see it as a day to get with family and be around the ones you love and who love you back. Then you got those who go to Christmas mass. Which brings me to the next part of the article. It is a mixture of many things one being spending time with family on this of most religious days. Yes it was originally a religious day. Christmas is the day the Jesus Christ was born. As you all know a lot of people no longer celebrate it as the day that he was born. A lot more people are using this day to spend money on outrageously over priced gifts on those they love. Has it really come to this? You may ask. Yes it has, many people across the globe who celebrate this day are no longer looking forward to spending time with their family or to celebrate the day that a icon of religion was born. I personally do not believe in the same god or savior. I believe that there was a man named Jesus Christ, but that is besides the point. My point is that we the people of this planet, those of us who celebrate this day but don't believe in god or Jesus Christ, need to stop being so materialistic and concentrate on our families. Your life cannot be that bad that your parents do not love you enough to spend 300-500 dollars on you for a game system. Obviously they love you. So today go spend time with your family, eat a good dinner, and enjoy this holiday.
topic: Rants
[reply] [3 comments]

Have yourselves a good one.	December 24, 2008, 8:05PM
by: eon
I think I would be remiss as a webmaster if I did not wish the entire site a wonderful and joyous holiday season. And since I live in unmitigated, abject terror of the possibility of being remiss: Have yourselves a wonderful and joyous holiday season. I hope your Christmas is the best fucking Christmas ever and that your New Year ain't too shabby either. All I ask is that you find yourself a mistletoe to share with someone or just do something really nice and unexpected for someone for whom you might otherwise not. One or the other, it's your choice. ILUGUIZE, be good and be safe.
topic: Site News
[reply] [30 comments]

Women's Roles in Ancient Greek Culture	December 5, 2008, 12:15PM
by: CrimsonTearzx
I had to write this essay for English class. I got a 90% out of 100 on this. In Euripides' classic play "Medea," one of the most vital concepts to comprehend is the role of women in Ancient Greek society. Due to how Ancient Greek civilization was constructed, women like Medea had no freedom. The same circumstances also prohibited females from having authority so Mdea had no way to deal with her tragic betrayal. Women were considered to be envious of the same sex, which many people in the play, such as Jason and Creon, considered to be her downfall. Therefore, females were labeled emotionally inferior to men and incapable of making important decisions. Ancient Greek culture was built in a way that prevented women from having independence. Divorce was not an option for women. Only the male could terminate the marriage, but very few men wanted to do that. In the marriage, women were supposed to be faithful while the men could go out and have a plethora of mistresses and other wives. As Medea observes, "Surely, of all creatures that have life and will, we women are the most wretched. When, for an extravagant sum, we have bought a husband, we must accept him as possessor of our body...for women, divorce is not respectable; to repel the man, not possible." (Euripides 24) This establishes the reality that Jason ruled Medea and she could not leave him for fear of being scorned by society. Medea then asserts that "if a man grows tired of the company [of his wife] at home, he can go out, and find a cure for the tediousness. We wives are forced to look at one man only." (Euripides 24) This demonstrates how Medea's free will was obliterated by the law the women could not commit adultury. The result is that women were scorned or disgraced if they divorced and committed infidility. In addition, females lacked power. Medea, in one passage, rants about how women are powerless in terms of marriage and society. She mentions that if she carries out her plan of killing Glauce and the children, she would not have a place to life because she would be disgraced. When she finds out she is exiled, she panics because she knows that she can not support herself and her two sons because women were not allowed to work. Medea states that "women [are] useless for honest purposes, but in all kinds of evil, skilled practitioners." (Euripides 29) Putting it succinctly, Medea hints that females, in general, had no power when it came to Ancient Greek society. Ultimately, Medea was powerless in her marriage and in the society she was brought up in. When Jason makes his entrance into the play, he lists all the reasons why Medea should not be angry. He brings up the thought-provoking idea of sexual jealousy. He claims that all women are sexually jealous of other women. He argues that "women have reached a state where, if all's well with your sex life, you've [got] everything you wish for, but when that goes wrong, [all] at once, all that is best and noblest turns to gall." (Eurpides 34) Jason implies that women will give a man anything as long as the man pleases her. If the male commits adultery, the woman will be jealous. When Creon, the father of Glauce, banishes Medea, he brings up the same theory. He states, "you are barred from Jason's bed, and that enrages you." (Euripides 26) He concurs with Jason about the issue of sexual jealousy but hints at the implication that women have a lot of self-esteem, or emotional, problems due to the sexual jealousy commonly found in females. In summation, women were not able to live their lives as freely as men due to the sexist attitude of Ancient Greek culture. Medea, at the end of the play, has given up everything for the love of a man who gave her nothing in return except infidility and betrayal. She committed murder because it was the only way she could think of getting revenge. She could not commit infidility for fear of being deemed a harlot and being condemned to die. SHe could not get a divorce for fear of how the society would view her. THe way that society brought up women is the main reason why Medea had to lower herself to such atrocities. She did not know any other way because the culture would have used her as a scapegoat for other women who came after her.
topic: Essays
[reply] [0 comments]

Parallels Between Jesus Chrst and Osiris/Horus	December 4, 2008, 2:47PM
by: ChaosandDevistation
In many pieces of literature throughout history there has been a common theme amongst them, the fact that ideas used in one piece may be used among many others. This idea is seemingly the most evident when it comes to ancient religious scripts. The literary example I wish to bring forth for discussion is one that for me has extreme significance in my life and that is the Christian Bible. What is also of great interest to me is the Ancient Egyptian society and their belief systems. The god’s of this ancient society I wish to compare is that of Osiris and his son Horus to that of the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the prophet and son of god in the Christian religion. Jesus was born in Bethlehem to a virgin woman by the name of Mary. They refer to this as the Immaculate Conception, before Christ was born Gabriel an angel came to Mary and told her that she would give birth to the son of god. The angel also came to Joseph and told him to not fear for taking Mary as his wife and he explained the child within her was conceived by the holy spirit and that when the child was born he was to be named Jesus which means Savior. This child was born in a barn among the animals; many people came from all around being led by a shining star that was directly above the birthplace of Christ. These people came to bare gifts to the son of god. Christ was raised as a normal boy of this day alongside his cousin John, now referred to as John the Baptist. John the Baptist was the one who baptized Christ when he was a bit older. The young man attempted to teach the people the word of the Lord. He performed a great many miracles and told people of God’s love and spoke of heaven. An example of one of his miracles is in Luke of the New Testament when Christ healed a leper with his words. The passage states that the Leper fell before Christ and begged of him to cleanse him and too make him clean. With a simple phrase the leprosy had left the man and Christ asked that the man to not speak of this to anyone but to present himself to a priest and to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Jesus was betrayed by a man named Judas a good friend of his and after the last supper Christ was captured. He was then brought before the Roman Governor Pilate and was then accused of corrupting the Jewish people with talk of his god. Pilate’s original plan was just to have Christ beaten and then released; however the crowd watching the horrid display shouted “Crucify him!” In an attempt to appease the people Pilate had gave the order to have Jesus beaten and then crucified upon the people’s request. The guards created a crown of vines with thorns to place upon his head; they also dressed him up in purple robes to make a mockery of the royal lineage. They referred to him as the “King of the Jews” however they spoke this in a manner that was highly disrespectful. When they finished beating him they made him carry this large wooden cross up a large hill to a place called “Golgotha” which means place of a skull. This cross was set up in between two criminals and Christ was hung upon it, nails were hammered into his palms and one through his feet. As he hung there he prayed for forgiveness for the people whom did this too him. He begged his father and told him that these people did not know what it is they were doing. For three hours he hung on the cross as the public who had followed as well as the soldiers mocked him, he spoke that if he was the son of god that he could save himself. After these three hours Jesus cried out “Why have you forsaken me?” As he waited his soul slowly left his form as he committed himself to his father and the body of Christ hung limp on the cross. Upon his death the sun darkened and the earth trembled as the Roman Captain realized truly what had happened and who this man truly was. The soldiers knew that Christ was dead but instead of breaking his legs like they did with the criminals they stabbed his side with a spear and water flowed from the wound. Then his body was taken down from the cross and carried off by two of his followers Joseph and Nicodemus. They then wrapped the body in linen and laid it to rest inside a cave and then covered then entrance with a large boulder and a guard stood to protect it. Three days passed after the crucifixion and another great earthquake swept over the land as an angel of the lord had removed the boulder from in front of the cave. The guard that stood to protect the tomb ran in fear as Christ’s followers came to the tomb looking for the body in fear and confusion. The angel reminded them of what Jesus had said, that he would raise again on the third day. On that day Jesus approached the disciples to speak to them, he described that what had happened needed to have happened so that we could be forgiven for our sins. He then instructed his disciples to go forth and to teach his practices and to spread the word of the lord. To teach the people that we are forgiven for our sins and that one day we may join him and his father in heaven. Upon researching the mythology of Osiris I have come to a conclusion that there are many similarities between the two. However, first I wish to describe the story of the god and the god’s and goddess’s involved. Osiris was the god that ruled over the entire earth not long after its creation. He had a brother named Set and a sister named Isis whom he later married. Osiris’s brother was very jealous of Osiris and plotted together with seventy-two mortals. The plan was during Osiris’s banquet they had brought in a chest that had been especially prepared for him. While Set was showing off the chest the seventy-two people took their turn lying down inside of it. When Osiris lay down in the chest Set closed the hatch and nailed it shut. Set then took the chest and sent it down the Nile. Isis had discovered what Set had done and took off trying to find this chest however, she was too late. Once she had recovered the chest the body had been removed and torn apart into fourteen different pieces and thrown all across Egypt. Isis did her best to find all of the missing pieces of her husband/brother. When she had finished outing him back together in a Frankenstein like manner she gave him the breath of life resurrecting him. Upon this resurrection she became impregnated with Horus. With the resurrection of his father and the birth of Horus, Osiris trained him to become his avenger. Osiris then descended to the underworld where he ruled over the afterlife. Horus then took off and killed his uncle Set and became the new ruler of the earth. The similarities between the religions are striking, at least comparing the bible to this myth in general. The first similarity I would like to touch on is the Osiris and Set sibling relationship. When reading about this myth I immediately remembered the story of Cain and Abel. When Cain became so jealous of the life Abel was leading that he killed his own brother just as Set did to his own. However, I would really like to compare this myth too that of the story of Christ. First you can see how the conception of Christ can compare to that of the conception of Horus in the way that it was not a tradition type of conception. However, it is untold if Isis was or was not a virgin at the time she did become pregnant with Horus in an untraditional manner. Also you can also get down to the ideas of the resurrections of both of these beings. I read somewhere that it is the requirement for any god or prophet to in some way shape or form to cheat death, for them to achieve godly status. However, with Jesus Christ you had the love of god and that is why he had to die. Then you have the death of Osiris which was because he needed to become the ruler of the underworld. Osiris needed to be like god how he is ruling from heaven in the Christian religion. Horus became the ruler of the earth and its people just like Jesus ruled over the people spreading the law of god. Horus did the same as his father ruled the underworld which is exactly like the Christian heaven. Both men went through the trials and tribulations of life for the better of their people and that alone makes them similar in their desires for humanity. A lot of scholars like to argue that the resurrection of Osiris was not a true resurrection. Also that comparing the two is running along the line of blasphemy. A Christian scholar had a conference with a Dr. Geisler about this very subject matter his name is Farrell Till. Mr. Till disagreed and Dr. Geisler because he believed that the resurrection of Osiris was a bodily resurrection and that the similarities between Christ and Osiris were astonishing. Dr. Geisler chose not to refute against the speech Till had made, and Till continued on adding more reasoning similar to those I presented; such as the immaculate conception. What I would like to leave you with in this paper is my general belief. I believe that all these things have happened; that all of these people did in fact exist. The way that I can make sense of all of these similarities is not some copy-cat theory, I feel that the people of different cultures took these stories; changed them a bit to fit their culture, changed the names of the characters to suit the people they are trying to reach and made them into their own religions. Down at the heart of all religion it comes down to the same points, live your life well, be a good person and have faith in something
topic: Philosophy
[reply] [0 comments]

Blood, Sweat, and Acid: Shamanism In Popular Music	December 2, 2008, 12:48AM
by: Ozymandias
Pop music, when properly employed, can be an invaluable spiritual tool, at least as effective as meditation or prayer. Let me here note that the term “pop music”, as it will be used in this essay, does not refer to music that is necessarily commercial or adolescent in nature, but any music that does not qualify as classical, folk, or world music. The music itself, in its purest form, is primal and rhythm-based, recalling the tribal rhythms of the ancients, used to call forth spirits. It is not the music, however, with which this paper will concern itself, but rather the element of performance, the delivery of the music. It is my view that the most sublime, spiritual aspect of the music is its delivery; however, performance is typically viewed as secondary to music, and even effort is put into the act of performing, it is typically nothing more than dead, hackneyed dance moves and vapid, uninspiring gestures. A true pop concert should be less a revue and more a drama. In order to convey my point, I will have to give a brief review of several concepts in aesthetics and spirituality which are essential to my argument. Theatre itself was created by the Greeks in order to celebrate and connect with Dionysus, the anarchic deity of wine and revelry. However, since its inception, theatre has slowly devolved into a simple pastime, a form of mild entertainment, which seems to be the fate of all art forms. At its height, however, it was an opportunity for worshippers to heal themselves and become one with the divine, to heal themselves of spiritual and psychic affliction. (Nietzsche) Theatre, or its primitive equivalent, has existed in other cultures for identical purposes. In other cultures, however, this primitive theatre is generally referred to as shamanism. The image of Native American medicine men, African witch-doctors, and Asian shamans, masked and dancing, is a familiar one. The shaman’s purpose is to enter into a trance, by means of psychedelic drugs, dancing, chanting, music, and dressing in elaborate costumes. During this trance, he journeys to the spirit world, where he (and, by proxy, the entire tribe) is healed. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche identified two distinct drives in theatre (and in art in general), which he labeled the “Dionysiac” and the “Apolline”. Dionysiac art, says Nietzsche, is drawn from a primal, spiritual region of the mind, and is ecstatic and mystical in nature. Apolline art is deliberate, refined, and harmonious. Imagine, for instance, the difference between a Native American war chant and a painting of a fruit basket. Nietzsche claimed that theatre has degenerated from its original Dionysiac state to a form of Apolline art, and a return to its original form is necessary. (Nietzsche, p. 14-21) One of the first to recognize the necessity of a primal mysticism in art was the poet Arthur Rimbaud. He wrote feverish, hallucinatory poems that explored the darker, primal regions of the human psyche, made plain to Rimbaud through the frequent, immoderate consumption of alcohol and hashish. Rimbaud said, “The poet makes himself a seer by an immense, long, deliberate derangement of all the senses.”, an idea that brings to mind the medicine man’s frenetic peyote trance. Rimbaud’s work would inspire innumerable successors in all different fields of art. One notable group of Rimbaud’s aesthetic offspring were the surrealists, a movement composed of many artists of diverse media, all devoted to the same ideal; tapping into and expressing the subconscious mind via art. Of the surrealists, there was one man who did more to re-introduce the Dionysiac into theatre than anyone before or since. This man was Antonin Artaud, a French aesthetic philosopher, playwright, actor, filmmaker, and photographer. In his theatrical manifesto, the Theatre and its Double, Artaud likened the theatre to the plague, a violent purgation of the decadent and sickly aspects of our being, and to alchemy, wherein the practitioner/actor is metaphorically transformed from base metal into gold. His theatrical ideas were heavily influenced by the shamanic practices of Mexican natives and the mystical theatre of Asia, particularly Bali. He recognizes the transcendent spiritual experience that is true theatre, and explains how to attain it. He stresses the importance of the non-literary aspects of the theatre: pantomime, music, dance, set, and intonation. Essentially, he claimed that theatre should be a spatial, performance-based art form, rather than a literary one. He referred to his brand of theatre as “Theatre of Cruelty”, in reference to his ideas about using borderline obscenity in order to shock the audience out of its complacency. Now, we come to the essence of this paper; popular music. 1967, a man named Jim Morrison rose to international prominence as a performer, the singer of the rock group the Doors. Morrison was a student of Artaud, Nietzsche, and Rimbaud, and had a deep interest in shamanism, particularly that of Native American cultures. He applied these studies to his performances, and is widely recognized as the first to introduce theatre into rock n’ roll music. His shows included intuitive, primitive dancing, poetic and musical improvisation, intentional provocation of the audience through obscenity, and simple, but poignant theatrical gestures. These included Jim falling to the stage floor and writhing as if in pain at climactic moments in songs, rubbing the microphone stand against his genitals in order to make himself erect, and even a somewhat complicated routine which involved Jim being mock-executed. All of these were performed under the influence of massive doses of psychotropics, primarily LSD, marijuana, and alcohol. (Davis) As important and revolutionary as Jim Morrison was, his innovation was only a stepping stone for the man known as Iggy Pop. Pop took Morrison’s relatively tame antics to a whole new level with his prot-punk rock group, the Stooges. Pop was known to mutilate himself with whatever was at hand, cover himself in peanut butter and raw meat, expose himself onstage, and roll around on top of shattered glass. Pop is famous for having invented the “stage dive”, wherein the performer leaps into the audience. Pop was a musical and theatrical pioneer, and his work has inspired countless imitators in the form of the punk rock movement that began in New York in the early Seventies. The punk rockers were another group of artists with a mind for apocalyptic, energetic pop music with stage shows that grew increasingly outrageous, violent, and brilliant as the decade wore on, culminating the antics of hardcore musicians like Darby Crash and Black Flag.(Ambrose) Despite these explorations into the theatrical possibilities of pop music, I believe that the true extent of pop theatre has not been realized. In a sense, pop music has an inherently shamanic quality, in that it is primitive and rhythmic and provides catharsis for the performer and listener, but this is potential that can be expanded on. The aforementioned performers (and many others) have explored the theatrical, shamanic possibilities of pop, but only in a rough, experimental fashion. There is no extensive body of theory from which performers may draw, only a handful of video clips and biographies. This stems from the idea that pop music is more a form of entertainment than of art, an idea I find absurd. Music, in pop theatre, holds essentially the same place as literature in Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty; it is not the centerpiece of the performance, but rather a prop, a mere element of the theatrical whole. The music is by no means inessential or unimportant, but it is not central. It provides an aural counterpart to the spatial action taking place onstage. This spatial action should coincide with the music, and music with the action. For instance, during a gentler part of the performance, the band might play a somber jazz ballad while the performer stands completely immobile at the microphone stand, delivering his lines with a downcast expression. During a more energetic moment, however, the band might play a rousing punk rock song, filled with feedback, dissonant howls and clashing instruments, and insistent, tribal drumming, while the performer slashes his chest open with a broken bottle and urinates on a bandmate. No extreme should be shied away from; only pure, unmitigated expression can truly fulfill the potential of pop theatre. It often happens that the vilest of actions are the ones most capable of bringing on spiritual awareness, of shocking the performer and the audience out of spiritual and psychic slumber. This, however, is where many artists stray- they treat the audience as a woman to be seduced, they attempt to “win over the crowd”. I can conceive of no greater artistic sin. It is not impermissible to include the audience in the performance, but the object of the performance should never be to elicit a response from the audience, only to free the spirit of the performer. If the audience is a woman, then it is a whore, to be used for the performer’s own ends. This is a point at which I diverge with Artaud; he believed that the audience should factor into the performance, whereas I believe they should be disregarded entirely. The most important device available to the performer is delirium. There are many ways to attain a delirious state- meditation, intensive dancing, even fasting- but the most potent, and easiest, is the use of drugs. The most effective drugs for this purpose are psychedelics such as cannabis, LSD, and mescaline, as well as alcohol. These drugs lower mental inhibitions, allowing the performer freer expression than a sober, restrained mind might. Psychotropic drugs have been used since the dawn of man to transcend normal patterns of thought and attain the divine, and serve the same purpose in pop theatre. Many would say that pop music is a form of entertainment; that it’s purpose is relaxation and pleasure. Many would say that the sort of performance I have proposed here is vile and obscene. I would say that they are wrong. The great performers have never been entertainers- they have been men who sought catharsis through music and performance. Pop music is ultimately derived from the tribal rhythms of Africa and from black spirituals, neither of which was a form of entertainment or relaxation, by any stretch of the imagination; their purpose was spiritual catharsis, as is the purpose of pop music. Since pop’s inception, it has been denigrated by the Establishment as obscene, vile, and a deleterious influence on the youth and the culture in general. Countless attempts have been made to suppress and censor the music and the performances, from Elvis Presley’s first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show being censored due to perceived sexual posturing all the way up to modern times, where we find hip-hop music heavily criticized as being misogynistic and immoral, the same charges brought against many earlier genres and artists. In conclusion, popular music is an art form that has been left relatively unexplored in terms of its spiritual and theatrical potential. The intensive aesthetic theory that is developed for other art forms has rarely been considered in the case of pop music, and I believe that it is important that it is. Ambrose, Joe. Gimme Danger: The Iggy Pop Story. New York: Omnibus, 2008. Artaud, Antonin. The Theatre and its Double. New York: Grove Press, 1958. Davis, Stephen. Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend. New York: Gotham Books, 2005. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. New York: Penguin, 1993. Rimbaud, Jean Nicholas Arthur. Selected Letters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
topic: Philosophy
[reply] [22 comments]

A few small things.	November 23, 2008, 1:46PM
by: eon
Just a few small updates to the site today: 1. Image uploading. a. It is now possible to upload an image from a URL. For example, if there is a picture you have already uploaded to photobucket or some other site, you will now find a place where you can enter the address and it will be copied over to your gallery on DarkStarlings. This saves you the step of having to download and then re-upload images that you find on the web. b. Previously, there was a 2 MB limit on the file size of the images that you could upload. In consideration of growing file sizes (and lazy people) I have upped the limitation to 5 MB. Note, this will have no effect on the final image which appears in your gallery. This simply makes it easier for you to upload images if you have large file sizes. (Normally, you'd need to resize or compress a large image before uploading, now you may be able to upload it directly.) 2. Friends. a. You will now receive a notice in your comments when someone has added you to their friends list. In the notice, if you have not already added that person to your own list, you will have links to easily add them back or (if they're really gross and ugly) to remove yourself from their list. b. When browsing your "friends of" list (the list showing people who have added you to their friends list), you will now have a convenient link to add people back if you haven't already done so. This will make it easy to quickly scan for people who have added you, who you haven't added back and allow you to easily add them or remove yourself from their list. As always, watch out for any creepy-crawlies and enjoy...
topic: Site News
[reply] [9 comments]

Into The Darkness	November 12, 2008, 11:57AM
by: CleverxSleazoid
Many times I ask myself questions that I should probably be able to answer on a normal day's basis, and then wonder why I've asked myself such silly things. But it seems like the others around me have increasingly become as easily distracted. Now, I won't claim that my friends are highly intellectual, but even for the densest of my friends, this is an alarming sight. I've come to ask myself daily why this is happening. Even at work, my bosses, the most focused people I've ever met, have become distracted by the smaller things. I've speculated, though, that the way the media is portraying our economic situation has left some of us with a fear of what may come, though in truth, we hardly know half the story of what's truly going on. Perhaps some realize this, and stress over the fact that they don't honestly know how bad things really are, yet they don't want to. I ask, is this fair? Is it right that the government hides so much from us? In a way, it really is. Things like the stock market, for example. Many people don't understand exactly how it works, therefore they talk as little about it as they truly can. They try to keep our minds on smaller things, like murders and robberies. Not that those things aren't important, don't get me wrong, but ask yourself where many of those things stem from. Now, I'm simply reflecting, not stating facts. This is all purely opinion. And, in my point of view, it seems that we're headed for another dark spot in history, not that we won't pull out of it. If America really didn't want a repeat of The Great Depression in the late 1920's-early 1930's, we'd really pay attention to what's going around us. Are we leading ourselves into the darkness? To be honest, I don't see much of anybody else to blame. We let the government take control of our lives, and we give them all the permissions they need to make things happen. However, we must also take into account how much we really understand about economics and politics. These things aren't explained to us at face value. Is it really our fault that we've become to ignorant to the deeper meanings of things? On one hand it isn't, and on the other it is. Many of us wish we could, but can't afford, or lack the motivation. The solution? Look at it this way: spit in one hand, wish in the other. Which fills first? There's your answer.
topic: Rants
[reply] [2 comments]

Animal Intelligence	November 1, 2008, 4:47AM
by: MissMonster
You wake up, ruffle your hair, and look in the mirror. Half awake, you stumble into the kitchen and look at an assortment of brightly colored cereal boxes, picking out your favorite brand. After pouring it into a bowl along with milk, you begin to shovel spoonfuls into your mouth. Your roommate, finished frying eggs, offers you one, which you decline with a hand motion. All these actions and the skills that go along with them seem to be human in nature, but what if you found out that they weren’t? Elephants have what’s called “self-recognition”, and understand that they are looking at a reflection of themselves when looking into a mirror. Alex, an African gray parrot used in animal intellect studies, can sort and differentiate between colors and shapes, just like you sorted out your favorite cereal by the color of the box. Chimpanzees use a number of different tools to eat termites, just like you use a spoon or a fork. And even further, dolphins have been able to correctly interpret and act upon a hand-signal language invented for them by trainers, just as you motioned that you didn’t want an egg. As animals are subjected to new tests, scientists are finding that animals have many of the cognitive skills that were once thought to be exclusive to human beings. But how much intelligence do animals really have? Do different species have different amounts of intelligence? These questions are hard to answer, and usually the answer isn’t agreed upon. I first became interested in this question a few years ago, on a student-volunteer trip to the Amazon rainforest of Peru. One of the places my student group volunteered at was an animal sanctuary, a home for injured animals to be nursed back to health. Among the large number of native animals helped at the sanctuary were several species of monkey, including red howler, capuchin, and red-faced uakaris. After interacting with my fellow primates, it became increasingly apparent to me how human they were, or perhaps how monkeyish I was. They laughed, made crying noises, smiled, grunted, and a red-faced uakari even insisted on styling my hair. The most surprising moment was when a capuchin climbed on my back, covered my eyes with his tiny hands, and started shrieking with laughter as I spun around in confusion. The boundary between humans and other animals suddenly became very blurred for me. How could we see these animals as entirely unintelligent, without emotion? It was another year before I seriously considered this question again, when I stumbled upon a National Geographic article titled “Minds of their Own: Animals are Smarter than you Think”. Before we get into numerous articles, case studies, and experiment reports, it’s only fair that I examine my own bias. I by no means was raised on a farm or by wolves, but I did grow up with a domestic cat that seemed to read my mind from the time I was three until she died just a year ago. I have always had a love for every type of animal, and as a child spent countless hours at the zoo and in museums. I had every “Zoo Books” animal file, was subscribed to “Ranger Rick” (a sort of National Geographic for children), and watched the “Eye Witness” television program every morning before school. However, none of these sources ever claimed that animals had any sort of deep intelligence or emotion. There were other sources, however, that could have affected my notion of animal intelligence. “Rocko’s Modern Life”, “Scooby Doo”, and “The Angry Beavers” were all television shows I watched which anthromorphized animals into speaking, thinking, emotional characters that wore clothing and lived in human homes. Beyond that, books such as C.S. Lewis’s “The Witch in the Wardrobe” provided animal characters that were just as intelligent and civilized as their human companions. However, it’s hard to say that any of these children’s cartoons or books really influenced me into thinking animals had any true intelligence. As I grew older, I accepted that these characters were imaginary. If anything, these shows and novels made me wish animals were intelligent enough for me to interact with them. With a deep love of animals and having interacted with non-human primates, my initial opinion on the matter was very liberal minded; yes, at least some animals are more intelligent than we give them credit for, and yes they have emotions. The first article I read supported this idea. “Minds of their Own” , an article published in National Geographic by Virginia Morell, is based upon the very question I am posing, “How intelligent are animals, really?” The first case Morell uses is that of an African gray parrot named Alex. Bought in a pet shop by Harvard graduate Irene Pepperberg, Alex had been learning the English language and showing Pepperberg how he saw the world for over 30 years, before he died in September of 2007. Pepperberg’s work with Alex showed that as a parrot he could count to seven, pick out what was different in a group of items, and perform several other tasks most people would put beyond his intelligence. When shown an assortment of objects and asked to count how many were a certain color and texture, Alex counted correctly 9 out of 10 times. In the article, Pepperberg went on to explain why birds might need such cognate skills. “They need to be able to distinguish colors to know when a fruit is ripe or unripe. They need to categorize things – what’s edible, what isn’t – and to know the shapes of predators. ( . . . ) For a long-lived bird, you can’t do all of this with instinct; cognition must be involved” (Morell, 3) Other case studies Morell uses include accounts of a dog that can remember the names for 300 individual objects, a crow that can bend wire to make a hook tool, and even scrub jays that hide their food from thieves. Particularly noted for their intelligence are dolphins, who in Louis Herman’s study learned to understand a language of hand signals complete with simple grammar. Herman describes dolphins as similar to humans in their highly social life style as well as their tendency to be very vocal. Morell concludes her article with a glimpse of Herman’s relationship with the dolphins he worked with, describing it as; “I loved our dolphins, as I’m sure you love your pets. But it was more than that, more than the love you have for a pet. The dolphins were our colleagues. That’s the only word that fits. They were our partners in research, guiding us into all the capabilities of their minds. When they died, it was like losing our children.” (Morell, 8) Morell’s finishing lines are touching, describing Herman and the dolphins he worked with having like minds. When I first read this article I whole-heartedly agreed with it. Having done no previous research on the subject, I wanted to believe that animals really were intelligent, deeply emotional beings, which humans simply have a hard time communicating with. Further in my research, however, I began to question the simplicity of this article. No counter-argument was made, and no human controls were compared to the experiments with animals. Though I liked the article, especially because it was written in English and not in scientific mumbo-jumbo, I found it simplistic and lacking. This lead me to the next article, “Animals, Humans and X-Men: Human Uniqueness and the Meaning of Personhood” by Christopher L. Fisher. “Animals, Humans and X-Men” by Christopher L. Fisher proved to be the exact opposite of “Animal Minds. Fisher argues that the difference between human and animal intelligence is not just quantity but quality; that humans have a mindset and emotional depth completely alien from animals’. This argument is made by four main points, consisting of chimps’ lack of in depth language skills, chimps’ lack of “theory of mind”, lack of culture in Neanderthal artifacts, and the denial of morals or ethics in animals. Several case studies are quoted from both sides of the spectrum, including radical ideas that “personhood” should be redefined to include animals, and conservative ideas that animals lack all emotive qualities. In the case of language skills, Fisher claims that chimps do not fully grasp language or have the intelligence to so, because they largely make demands rather than state observations. “Even claims about Kanzi’s ability to enter ‘‘real conversation’’ seem somewhat overdone, since the actual research publications show that these comprise only about 4% of his communication.” (Fisher, 294) His next argumentis that chimpanzees lack a “theory of mind”, the concept that other beings think as they do, and the ability to predict their intentions. Fisher’s 3rd argument is the lack of culture found in Neanderthal artifacts. Evidence is given for this in the sense that ancient human artifacts often include art and complex burial sites. Neanderthals, however, don’t show such artifacts, and burial sites are usually simple. The final argument for the lack of emotion and intelligence in animals is that other species do not have a sense of morals or ethics. Fisher states that all observations of animal emotion or ethics are due to anthromorphism. “Michael Leahy notes that we sometimes attribute to animals purely human characteristics, leading to confusion about their capacities. Dogs are said to look guilty or sycophantic, foxes sly, owls wise, and apes cheeky. This is Wittgensteinian linguistic fuzziness, which leads to wrong conclusions about the subjects of discussion.” (Fisher, 304) On a final note, Fisher uses the fact that in conversations with chimps, they have not had a concept of God. Once again, I was skeptical. Fisher only seemed to strengthen his articles by quoting extremely radical stances. Also, I had to consider the source, “Theology and Science”. With such a source, it is a fair assumption that it’s writers are at least somewhat religious. In such a case, it’s possible that Fisher is biased by his religion, most of which put humans up above other species, especially in Western religions. Also, Fisher seems to imply that chimps are unintelligent partly because they lack language skills. However, it’s it true that humans lack fluent language skills until several years of age? Even then, it takes years for humans to attain correct grammar. Further more, I don’t really understand why he brought Neanderthals into the picture. While it is safe to say our extinct cousins of sorts were not as intelligent as humans are today, it’s very hard to make a claim abut them on account evidence is scarce. After all, it’s not as if we can run them through tests and experiences. While I found several points Fisher made to be worth considering, I generally found his paper to disagree with my thoughts and lacking in relevant evidence. Finding the first article too liberal and the second to conservative, I felt like Goldilocks searching for a middle position. I found this in the article “Animal Intelligence” by David P. Barash . In the article “Animal Intelligence” Barash argues that intelligence and emotional depth are both present in animals, but not to the extent that they are near human levels. Barash also uses the examples of Alex the English speaking African gray parrot and Rico the toy-identifying dog. However, Barash states that while these feats are amazing, they don’t exactly show that animals are capable of human-like thought. He also warns that all too often people misinterpret animal actions. “Caution is called for when assessing claims of remarkable animal cognitive skills. It is one thing to be generous in interpreting the behavior of other animals, quite another to be taken in.” (Barash, 1) Also stressed is the concept that intelligence is based not only on an animal’s genetics but also on their experience. Chimpanzees raised by scientists are much more likely to understand simple language, and chimpanzees raised in the wild are much more likely to know where the best place to find food is and how to obtain it. Over all, Barash takes a middle stance, stating that while the intellect levels animals show are amazing, assuming that animals are nearly human in nature is far fetching. After my own experiences, reading the previously mentioned articles and several more, and looking at the results from various tests and experiments, my viewpoint is firmly placed in the middle, perhaps leaning slightly to the liberal side. I believe that animals can be intelligent, have emotional depth, and use skills once thought to be exclusive to humans. However, I do not believe that animals have the same intelligence or mind-set that humans have. Sources: Morell, Virginia. "Minds of their Own." National Geographic Mar. 2008. Animal Minds - National Geographic. Mar. 2008. National Geographic. 20 Oct. 2008 . Fisher, Christopher L. "Animals, humans and x-men: Human uniqueness and the meaning of personhood." Theology & Science 3.3 (Nov. 2005): 291-314. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Morgan Library], [Fort Collins], [CO]. 25 Oct. 2008 . Barash, David P. "Animal Intelligence." Chronicle of Higher Education 53.50 (17 Aug. 2007): 54-54. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 27 Oct. 2008 .
topic: Essays
[reply] [37 comments]

The Unaffected	October 27, 2008, 6:43PM
by: k1llurid0l
It’s late October, and apparently there’s an election right around the corner. I admit I haven’t been paying much attention. Personally, I don’t see anything of substance that either inspires my allegiance or incurs my wrath. What I do see, however, is the same old left wing/right wing paradigm that feels more like a re-run of The West Wing than a real political discourse, and I am not alone: Republican vs. Democrat, Tax & Spend Liberalism vs. Fiscal Conservatism and so on and so forth - ad nauseam. The basic political landscape hasn’t changed since the implementation of The New Deal, and I wouldn’t hold my breath for any future modifications. With that said, let’s take a look at the candidates. John McCain is about as fresh and invigorating as a Vera Lynn retrospective, without any of Ms. Lynn’s potential for nostalgic appeal. Also, his eroded reputation as a “Maverick” was never convincing to me in the least. You can’t be a senator as long as he has and be anything other than a Washington insider. Moreover, his choice of a running mate is absolutely mystifying. Palin has made a habit of saying things she has to explain or otherwise qualify soon thereafter. She is a clumsy, unseasoned political novice who transforms an uphill battle into Mission Impossible. It’s almost like he’s trying to lose. By contrast, Barrack Obama is tailor-made for the current social climate. After eight years of blatant lying, fear-mongering, curtailing of civil liberties, and a complete lack of consideration for the actual concerns of the people, the eloquence expressed within his confident public persona and youthful mannerisms make it easy for an angry, cynical, and demoralized electorate to digest his bullshit. Obama affords an opportunity for the one thing America needs at this point in her history – a suspension of disbelief. These things considered it doesn’t matter who wins. Politicians are like pro-wrestlers – they’re only adversaries when the cameras are rolling. At the end of the day, when the curtain falls, they’re all actors sharing the stage and the spotlight. In short, they’re co-workers who see past their occasional personal conflicts and ego-clashes to further the common good – which is, or course, their own advancement. This brings us to the other half of the equation – the American people. I haven’t watched a single debate; I didn’t watch a single episode of Hardball w/Chris Matthews or Meet the Press (R.I.P. Mr. Russert). I don’t need to know what the issues are, because I know what the issue always is – money. The truth is, people only think about the war in Iraq when compelled to give an opinion on it, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan is our generation’s forgotten conflict. Unless you are a veteran, or have a friend or loved one serving in the military in either of these godforsaken regions, you seldom if ever think about it – despite all your guilt-ridden protests to the contrary. This is the reason why McCain’s “War-Hero” aesthetic should have been re-examined and largely cashiered in lieu of a more immediate, relevant and marketable election-year image. Here’s the bottom line: We live in a completely transactional culture where everything has a finite value and intangibles are relegated to something akin to a childish ideal - a country divided along an innumerable set of sociological, economic, racial, religious and philosophical lines that simply categorizing us as “Haves and Have-nots” is insufficient and obsolete. A national body consisting of self-centered, myopic, media-saturated pseudo-humans who speak of compassion, honor, loyalty and family-values and live in a completely contradictory fashion. Have you ever noticed how politicians reference us not by our national identity, but the services we provide? We are consumers, constituents, voters or taxpayers – never citizens. When is the last time you heard a politician refer to us as citizens? We have absolutely no right to complain about this, because through their exploitation, deception and misdirection they are not betraying us – they are reflecting us. I know what some of you people are thinking, so let me save you the wasted effort. I (and people like me) are not “Disaffected”, so do not label us as such because it is dismissive and condescending. We are UNAFFECTED, and there’s a big difference.
topic: Current Events
[reply] [46 comments]

pages: back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 next