?

Log in

LiveJournal for battle fat!.

View:User Info.
View:Friends.
View:Calendar.
View:Memories.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.

Thursday, April 19th, 2007

(1 self-soiled sassy sasquatchy | oktopus)

Time:9:28 pm.
The products of this 'habit of believing', for both Buddha and Nietzsche, include substance, self, universals, and duration. Both philosophers radically deny the reality of these things in favor of a dynamic, interdependent stream of phenomenon that lacks any objective basis whatsoever. Instead, underneath our perceptions there is only what the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna called sunyata, and what Nietzsche referred to as the 'abyss', a void beyond the categories of being and nothing, true and false
The Buddha is said to have become aware of the fleeting, temporal nature of reality through his first encounters with a sick man, an old man, and a dead man
The Buddha, according to Nietzsche, saw in his own age, just like Nietzsche, that 'God is Dead'. But, rather than create a new avenue by which human potential could unfold, thereby passing beyond nihilism, the Buddha failed by creating a new religion that simply helped man adjust to nihilism. The Buddha's response to the possible 'awe inspiring catastrophe' 21 of his own time was to found a religion which, rather than help people overcome the newly felt meaninglessness of existence and create a new more meaningful vision of existence, simply helped them adjust to nihilism with a certain degree of cheerful acceptance
he nevertheless failed to understand nihilism for what it actually is-a world-view expressive of a psychological reaction of despair that comes from seeing through the illusion we were living under, seeing that 'the world does not have the value we thought it had'
The Buddha gives us nirvaa.na, the ultimate panacea, a state of cheerfulness and desirelessness wherein all terrestrial troubles and existential Angste are extinguished, and death will be met with nothing more than a cheerful sigh of ultimate relief. Nietzsche therefore sees Buddhism as 'a religion for the end and fatigue of civilisation'
Yet, although the Buddha ultimately failed to transcend nihilism, Nietzsche does regard the Buddha as being a real physician of the psyche who offers a real cure. Unlike other religions, Buddhism does not offer man fictitious goals, but only real ones: the Buddhist path does lead 'to an actual and not merely promised happiness on earth'
What we are therefore left with is simply 'the world' or, more correctly, the world and life as encountered and interpreted by its own latest prodigy, man. And when the man, Nietzsche, contemplates life and the world, he eventually concludes that 'the world described and defined according to its 'intelligible character'-it would be 'will to power' and nothing else'. 28 This notion of the 'will to power' becomes Nietzsche's replacement for 'God', and it is a notion derived from contemplating this world. It is through this notion of 'will to power' that the world and life become, once again, intelligible, and a new, more truly meaningful vision of existence can be created, taking us beyond nihilism. So how did Nietzsche arrive at this view?
Briefly stated, the Greeks Nietzsche so admired, whilst acknowledging the blind destructiveness that human nature is capable of, did not, like Plato and Christianity, alienate man from nature: they did not seek to explain what is best and most worthy in man by appealing to some fictitious, higher non-natural source but, instead, saw what is most worthy and best in man as a continuation of nature, as having its roots solely in this natural world:
AS WE SAW earlier, Nietzsche viewed the person as a constellation of various fluctuating forces whose individual and collective nisus was expressed in terms of a striving to overcome all resistance and accumulate more power, i.e., the will to power

As Sangharakshita tells us, Buddhism regards man ...
'... as one manifestation of a current of psycho-physical energy manifesting now as a god, now as an animal, revenant, tortured spirit or titan, and now as a man, according to whether its constituent volitions are healthy, unhealthy or mixed. Thus Buddhism does not think of sentient beings in terms of separate forms of life, one absolutely discrete from another, so much as in terms of separate currents of psychic energy each of which can associate itself with any form. Energy is primary, form secondary. It is not that man wills, but rather will 'mans'. 58
The first thing that the Buddhist has to do is to look at their various drives, passions and emotions-one could even say, 'look at their souls', using that term in a strictly poetic sense-and learn to discriminate between the weeds and the flowers
The general guideline that Buddhism gives us is that any activity, whether of body, speech or mind, that is, to some degree, motivated by unconditional generosity, unconditional friendliness and mental clarity, is to be cultivated and developed as that is where one's spiritual future lies
And any action, whether of body, speech or mind, that is motivated by acquisitive greed, animosity and ill-will, or mental muddle and confusion, is deemed detrimental to one's development as a human being
Here we find a clear example of Nietzsche's 'sublimation' proper, i.e., the transference of an affect from one object to another, so as to sublimate it into a 'higher' or, in Nietzsche's language, more 'powerful' state. The first step of this practice is to 'cultivate' (bhaavanaa) maitrii or 'loving-kindness' towards one's own self, in other words, to develop a healthy attitude towards oneself. To this end one can recollect happy and contented moments in one's life and desire that one's life will become more satisfying and fulfilling, thereby giving one's mind room for appropriate affects to arise. Then, from that state of healthy self-regard one calls to mind a friend and, on the basis of being in that state of healthy 'self-regard', a feeling of friendliness towards the friend can arise naturally
existential incompleteness due to spiritual ignorance. This incompleteness arises from being limited to one's own contingent and unenlightened perspective
Not only are birth, death, and disease painful, they are products of spiritual ignorance. To say that they are 'dukkha'implies that they are, as co-dependently arising oppositions, ultimately unreal. It is not, therefore, merely pain that the Buddhist wants to overcome, but the perspective within which these illusions (as well as their happy counterparts) are taken to be real
Kamma-niradha is the Sanskrit word for 'cessation of action'. This state is achieved through adherence to the eight-fold path, which guides the Buddhist into kusula, or 'skillful action'. Therefore, it is not simply ceasing to perform actions that the Buddhist believes will eventually lead one to his or her goal. Rather, the type of actions that are performed is the deciding factor. Likewise, it is wrong to conclude that just because one has attained Nirvana that one ceases to act
Obviously, Schopenhauer, after being so influenced by Hindu and Buddhist ideas about the effect that desire and will has on binding us to continued existence, completely dismissed the perplexing descriptions of Nirvana as 'meaningless words'. Unable to conceive of a state beyond the categories of being and non-being, he concluded that the final state that is entered into after dissolution of the will is complete non-existence. Hence, his diagnosis that the philosophers who postulated inconceivable states were merely 'evading'the nothingness that they feared. Diagnoses of 'psychological dishonesty'such as this became, in some form or other, staples of later existentialist thinkers. Nietzsche, of course, made similar attacks against Christianity as well as Buddhism.
For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, nothingness is what is left when these illusions are removed. This explains their sharply opposed responses to the human condition as they understand it. Schopenhauer and, according to Nietzsche, Buddhism, prescribe a surrender into nothingness that can only be actualized by extinction of the will. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts an affirmation of the illusion by becoming the creator of it. His überman, by accepting the groundlessness of his own 'truths'and yet maintaining them and continually creating them - wanting to create them over and over again (as opposed to wanting to escape the cycle) - represents an ideal response to existence.
So both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer greatly misunderstood Buddhism,by interpreting Nirvana as non-existence. The Buddhist response to them both would be that they failed to understand the system fully because they failed to adopt Buddhist practices aimed at enlightenment - at which point they would have developed the capacity to conceive of Nirvana




suffering develop after pulling back the illusion of life (he nevertheless failed to understand nihilism for what it actually is-a world-view expressive of a psychological reaction of despair that comes from seeing through the illusion we were living under, seeing that 'the world does not have the value we thought it had'
)...buddhism in N view just said to accept it (The Buddha gives us nirvaa.na, the ultimate panacea, a state of cheerfulness and desirelessness wherein all terrestrial troubles and existential Angste are extinguished, and death will be met with nothing more than a cheerful sigh of ultimate relief. Nietzsche therefore sees Buddhism as 'a religion for the end and fatigue of civilisation'), buddhism says

666
The products of this 'habit of believing', for both Buddha and Nietzsche, include substance, self, universals, and duration. Both philosophers radically deny the reality of these things in favor of a dynamic, interdependent stream of phenomenon that lacks any objective basis whatsoever. Instead, underneath our perceptions there is only what the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna called sunyata, and what Nietzsche referred to as the 'abyss', a void beyond the categories of being and nothing, true and false
For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, nothingness is what is left when these illusions are removed.
What we are therefore left with is simply 'the world' or, more correctly, the world and life as encountered and interpreted by its own latest prodigy, man. And when the man, Nietzsche, contemplates life and the world, he eventually concludes that 'the world described and defined according to its 'intelligible character'-it would be 'will to power' and nothing else'. 28 This notion of the 'will to power' becomes Nietzsche's replacement for 'God', and it is a notion derived from contemplating this world. It is through this notion of 'will to power' that the world and life become, once again, intelligible, and a new, more truly meaningful vision of existence can be created, taking us beyond nihilism.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts an affirmation of the illusion by becoming the creator of it. His überman, by accepting the groundlessness of his own 'truths'and yet maintaining them and continually creating them - wanting to create them over and over again (as opposed to wanting to escape the cycle) - represents an ideal response to existence.
[ shopenhauer] Unable to conceive of a state beyond the categories of being and non-being, he concluded that the final state that is entered into after dissolution of the will is complete non-existence. Hence, his diagnosis that the philosophers who postulated inconceivable states were merely 'evading'the nothingness that they feared. Diagnoses of 'psychological dishonesty'such as this became, in some form or other, staples of later existentialist thinkers. Nietzsche, of course, made similar attacks against Christianity as well as Buddhism.
Schopenhauer and, according to Nietzsche, Buddhism, prescribe a surrender into nothingness that can only be actualized by extinction of the will X.
existential incompleteness due to spiritual ignorance. This incompleteness arises from being limited to one's own contingent and unenlightened perspective
It is not, therefore, merely pain that the Buddhist wants to overcome, but the perspective within which these illusions (as well as their happy counterparts) are taken to be real
The first thing that the Buddhist has to do is to look at their various drives, passions and emotions-one could even say, 'look at their souls', using that term in a strictly poetic sense-and learn to discriminate between the weeds and the flowers
And any action, whether of body, speech or mind, that is motivated by acquisitive greed, animosity and ill-will, or mental muddle and confusion, is deemed detrimental to one's development as a human being
Not only are birth, death, and disease painful, they are products of spiritual ignorance. To say that they are 'dukkha'implies that they are, as co-dependently arising oppositions, ultimately unreal. It is not, therefore, merely pain that the Buddhist wants to overcome, but the perspective within which these illusions (as well as their happy counterparts) are taken to be real
Nirvana, however, cannot be described as existing, not existing, both existing and not, or neither existing nor not. For Buddhism, even nothingness is constituted by the relative contingencies that arise co-dependently as samsara.

SAME
Briefly stated, the Greeks Nietzsche so admired, whilst acknowledging the blind destructiveness that human nature is capable of, did not, like Plato and Christianity, alienate man from nature: they did not seek to explain what is best and most worthy in man by appealing to some fictitious, higher non-natural source but, instead, saw what is most worthy and best in man as a continuation of nature, as having its roots solely in this natural world
The first thing that the Buddhist has to do is to look at their various drives, passions and emotions-one could even say, 'look at their souls', using that term in a strictly poetic sense-and learn to discriminate between the weeds and the flowers

Friday, March 9th, 2007

(oktopus)

Time:2:24 pm.
Sean Cazzell
English 112
3/9/07



Arthur Miller's play The Crucible is a story about a witch-hunt in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts. The witch-hunt turns into hysteria and many are killed as egos, reputations, power and morality get in the whirlwind. The play casts a very dark light on women, omitting any strong female characters and constantly blaming all female characters for the dilemmas of the play. In Wendy Schissel's critique she argue that Miller's play reinforces typical female stereotypes and women are only used as a second class characters to support the male lead characters in their moral dilemmas. In the play the characters of Abigail and Elizabeth Proctor are viewed only as causing problems for John Proctor’s heroism, when they are never exalted as a martyr like John is for their equal is not stronger acts of heroism.
Abigail should be considered the hero of the play. The madness she has is extreme frustration caused by an overbearing Puritan culture. She is tied opposite John, a simple man lost in a chaotic universe, as a wild female trying to ruin his goodness. She is even called a whore on a number of occasions by John even though he pretty much raped her, and when he character disappears it is rumored she become as prostitute in Boston, what a perfect story to fit a young girl so strongly fighting a battle against her repression.
Abigail had the ability to turn what was considered a perfectly stable patriarchal Puritan culture completely upside down. She is never given the credit she deserves for such an astonishing display of a young girl in a repressive, patriarchal culture. Abigail is a very intelligent, seductive woman (despite her not being married) who should be exalted by critics, for although being called mad, is a voice of independent strength. Not even Miller gave due credit to the teenage female who caused a very large moral judgement to be placed on the life of every individual in Salem, the consciousness of the town, and system they live by. She is made to appear only a conniving young girl, gone mad with her young desires for John Proctor. The biggest act of madness is that Proctor is the one who issued this turmoil with Abigail, as he is the one who came to her in her sleep. Schissel points out how this is underplayed in the book and excused because of the belief of a male's natural habit to be attracted to younger girls. John's affair with Abigail is immoral, but Abigail is to blame to for being so beautiful. Schissel cleverly points out the madness of how the young daughter of a minister knows how to seduce a married man. Miler gives no explanation or any other critiques, suggesting it be in the inherent nature of he gender how she can accomplish this.
Abigail’s ultimate rebellion is against the repressive society altogether, but in the play written off as her jealous rage towards Proctors wife. A large part of the drama revolves around arguing who is Proctor rightful lover, the true hero, swatting away women as he wrestles with guilt and fights for morality. Abigail identifies Elizabeth less as the obstacle of her superficial desire, John, than the/an figure of sexual repression. A lot of the blame and aggression from Abigail is focused towards Elizabeth because she is physically was stops Abigail from her sexual freedom she associates with John, and it's Abigail turning against her own gender as she is taught to be guilty for her body as it is a symbol of her original sin as a woman and daughter of Eve.
Elizabeth Proctor is treated much kinder than Abigail but still falls to the same fate of being underplayed and stereotyped. Elizabeth is obviously more moral than her husband, the worst she thing she does is tell the truth when she believes she is defending her husband. This action alone, out of all the moral decisions she’s made (isn’t that what this play is about?) seals her fate to the audience. It’s not clear what else is expected of her, but Miller has no problem using Elizabeth’s wholesome naiveté to make John’s martyrdom even more mouthwatering. All her character ever does is defend her husband; the only antagonism she appears to have is having cat battles over John. She is put to death but still never frets; she solemnly supports the heroic male as he weeps on her shoulder for exactly the same fate.
What can be expected of Elizabeth? Schissel’s demonstrates in her review a long list of the constant nagging and insults John gives Elizabeth. She is built up to believe to matter what she is never good enough for her husband. She is made to feel guilty for his affair and her kicking out Abigail, and her anger against Abigail is never resolved. This woman is probably about to explode. But it is not in the nature Miller gave her, she does not throw due fits of rage but rather just has more and more children.
I enjoyed Schissel’s criticism of the play and spent a great deal of time trying to find such a feminist critique. I agreed strongly with everything she said except I think she still underplayed the importance of Abigail. Miller’s use of female characters shows the fear of women in a collective conscious. These girls posed a large threat to the town of Salem in the 1600’s and they to readers today as they challenge John’s heroics.

Thursday, March 8th, 2007

(oktopus)

Time:9:57 pm.
intro- play already going to be mysogyngistic becaus eo fHales books

are all these girls ot be the daughters of eve!?

abigails is as guilty for lust as proctor but he is forgivable because he is l=vituous but los tin a mad world, abigail is strong too. abigail wa s"taken in the night" it is not proctors fault that she is o sbeautiful?

confuses femenist rebellion with inmoral rebellion

Arthur Miller's play The Crucible is a story about a witchhunt in 17th century Salem, Massechusetts. the withhunt turns into hysteria and many are killed as ego's, reputation, power and moralitty get in the whirlwind. The play casts a very dark light on women, omitting any strong female charachters and constantly blaming all female charachters for the dilemas of the play, following the tradition of all women as the daughters of Eve. In Wendy Schissel's critique she argue that Miller's play reinforces typical female stereotypes and women are only used as a second class charachters to support the male lead charachters in their moral delimas. In the play the charachters of Abigail and Goody Proctor are viewed only as causing problems for John Proctors heroism, when they are never exalted as he to a martyr for their acts of heroism.

Abigail had the ability to turn what was considered a perfectly stable patriarchal Puritan culture completely upside down, she is never given the credit she deserves for such an astonishing display of a young girl in a repressive, patrarchal culture. Abigail is a very intellgent, seductive woman (depsite her not being married) who should be exalted by critics, for although being called mad, is a voice of independant strength. Not even Miller gave due credit to the teenage female who caused a very large moral judgement to be placed on the life of every individual in Salem, the conciousness of the town, and system they live by. She is made to appear only a ciniving young girl, gone mad with her young desires for John Proctor. the biggest act of madness is that Proctor is the one who issued this turmoil with Abigail as he is the one who came to her in her sleep. Schissel points out how this is underplayed in the book and excused because of the belief of a male's natural habit to be attracted to younger girls. John's affair with Abigail is immoral, but Abigail is to blame to for being so beautiful. Schissel cleverly points out the madness of how the young daughter of a minister knows how to seduce a married man. No explanation is given by Mille ro any other critiques, suggesting it in the inherent nature of he gender.
Abigails ultimate rebellion is against the repressive society altogether, but in the play written off as her jealous rage towards Proctors wife. A large part of the drama revolves around arguing who is Proctor rightful lover, the true hero, swatting away women as he wrestles with guilt and fights for morallity. Abigail identifies Goody less as the obstacle of her supericial desire, John, than the/an obstacle agaisnt her sexual release. A lot of the blame and aggression from is focused towards Goody because she is physically was stops her from her sexual freedom she associates with John, and it's Abigail turning against her own gender as she is taught to be guilty for her body as it is a symbol of her original sin as a woman and daughter of Eve.

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006

(oktopus)

Time:8:52 pm.
every year, statisitics hsow more and more people feel like they're privacy is being invaded. who these invaders are range from neighbors, city hall, congress, the grocery store to people across the world. what is being stolen all relates back to an individual's integrity and will to chose who knows what about him/her. the limits of privacy generaly are understood as pertaining soley to the individual so long as it doesn;t hurt anyone else, but so often this crossed under the idea of safety and protection. the biggest issue in the debate over privacy is defining and measuring privacy.
complaints in privacy invasion range from survellance cameras at the grocery store to stolen credit card numbers. it's important to decide the severity and illegality of the invasion and seperate it in it's moral nature. security checks and survellance cameras have a purpose of general good (even if it can be misused and misdirected good), serving a purpose of protecting either people being watched or the people watching the camera. compared to invasion of a more criminal nature where individuals might use privacy invasion strictly selfish gain.
the concept that privacy is sacred, that invading it should be kept to a minimum should be standard. privacy can be alternated with safety, creating problems. check point at an airport may cause one individual to feel violated while another may feel it is nessesary for their ultimate protection. hiding in the mountains to avoid the prying eye of video cameras on street corners in order to feel safe can be parralleled with writing to city council requesting more video cameras in order to feel safer. alternating privacy and safety happens again when the term safety is used as a weapon for invading privacy. the uniting factor in both of these examples though is the rationality of them. if a large enough movement of people are paranoid of safety checks than perhaps the safety checks aren't doing much safeguarding.
protecting one's privacy is an individual responsability. it;s obvious by the government's tendancy of flip-flopping what it defined as privacy invasion it's not to be fully trusted with the issue. maybe the only positive detail about the privacy debate is that it can be almost fully controlled by the individual. unlike so mnay major issues inflicting contemporary culture, this is an issue that is down to earth, effects everyone and can be easily taken into someone's own hands. it's an issue that simple using "common sense" can pretty well solve.
Privacy invasion can be fought against like any other movement can be fought for. the best examples are from Strossen's final paragraph in "Everyone is Watchjing You" despite the obsessive compulsive paranoia feel of the article, the final paragraph has simple and rational ideas that fit into the concept that protecting oneself and one's good's without invading other people'es privacy can be done. security cameras are fine but let's ask what they're filming and why, and put the power of protection itno the hand sof the community of people one trusts rather than the government or individuals with ties to major compnaies making legal cash of your privacy.

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006

(oktopus)

Time:8:33 pm.
the right to die should free to everyone. in fact it shouldn;t even be considered a "right", but an inherent choice available for individuals apon accepting that they're alive. euthenasia is an alternative life, but more specifically an alternative to living life in ways someone doesn't feel life should be lived. soemone has the freedom and the responsability to chose how their life will unfold, and therefor they have the right to do away with their life when thei ability to control how they will live any longer is taken away by forces out of their hands. euthansia should be an open and accepting possibility as a way to ease suffering. when death is the only way out of a permenant life of agony, it is the duty of doctors to let them die if the patient desires.
is killing worse than letting soemone die? no, it is more cruel to allow soemone to die in helpless torture than to help them die.
a major issue blocking the acceptance of euthenasia is the hippocratic oath, which states that a doctor shouldn't take direct action to kill a patient. but if a patient is in terrible pain, and will inevitably die in a matter of days after needlessly prolonged suffering and wishes to be euthanized, the doctor now has the options of not directly killing the patient but also doing no more good by keeping the patient alive, or helping the patient die painlessly. the latter should be chosen on the grounds that as individuals w ehave the right to chose the direction of our own life and a doctor's responsability to help those in pain.
dying in dignity is a right advocated by msot all dcotors. for many individuals the idea of being bed ridden and fileld with tubes ont heir journey towards a painful death ina matter of hours, day, weeks, or months is a terrifying one. many will chose to simply be euthanized instead, to avoid not only ther pain but the embarrassing and emotionally draining act of dying slowly in front of loved ones, with no control over his/her future.
euthenasia is an obviously more preferred course than suicide. denying a patient the right to death can lead to individuals taking it apon thermselves to end their own lives. to do so is damaging to the dignity of the patient and emotions of the loved ones. a doctor may be hit with strong backlash from the patient's family for denying the patient his/her wishes and therefor driving him/her to killing his/herself. it's a doctors duty to stop pain from spreading where at all possible.
weighing the moral delimas in euthenasia is hard and nessessary for all people, since everyone faces the option of one day being in so much pain and helplessness they may consider ending their own life. again, life belong to the individual and for some living is a far worse option than being dead, no one can deny an individual the freedom to pursue this concept and possibly act on it.

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

(1 self-soiled sassy sasquatchy | oktopus)

Time:8:35 pm.
the death penalty is already a barbaric act, outlawed in almsot all westernized countires of the world for such a reason. why on earth would it then be considered proper to send juveniles to the death penalty. individuals so youing can't be judged so harshly for acts that their perception of is completely distorted. and since they're so young it's ridiculous to thnik that they are responsable for how they think and that they can fully comprehend the consequencesof such huge decisions. the death penalty should not apply to juveniles

if a teenager murders soemone it is obvious they have a completely warped view of right and wrong. to punish them for, at such a young age, making a gigantic mistake that has already ruined their life for good by killing them is terrifying. to be 16 and know that not only willy ou spend the rest of your life in a prison, but to wake up and know that you'll spend the rest of your lif ein prison and your day of death is already decided is too much presure an defeat for soemone with such a gross mental incompacity as a teenage murderer.

living in prison isn't fun. inmates, despite popular belief, do work all day, with breaks to do such amazing activities as having fun outside in a steel barbed wire cage for 20 minutes, then at night they get to share a concret 8x8 cell with another man, for the rest of their lives. it's hard to think of any adult who would ever think this was a good way of life. so killing an inmate off because they have it too good with their most legally permitted lack of freedom is silly.

the possibility of rehibilitation for soemone os young is considerably higher than any older murderer. it be a watse if the prison system didn;t take advantage of this fact to hopefully develop techniques of rehibilitating msot all criminals soemday. instead of tax payer spaying to see a life wasting away, they might be more supportive if their money went to seeing prisoners doing soem sor tof good with htier forced time in prison.

maybe in the future the detah penalty can slowly be demantled, begining with killing teenagers. it's hard to believe that a serial killer, murdering 50+ people can be givent he same sentence as a 15 year old killing one.

Wednesday, October 4th, 2006

(oktopus)

Time:7:12 pm.
Over 200 years ago savy buisnessmen shipped humans across the Atlantic to used them as forced labor on american plantations. The practice was terrible and was abolished after the civil war. The scars of the legal slave trade still exist today in african american culture, the question is does the U.S. government need to apologize for what happened so long ago? No, the U.S. government shouldn't have to apologize for slavery.
The governmenty didn't actually support the slave trade, it was individual slave traders who ran the buisness, the government just didn't make it illegal. True it did make money from the trade, but it hardly supported it. In fact, it was a cause for the civil war, so obviously a large part of the government was concerned about the issue, concerned enough to go to war over it. If the government at the time of slavery is willing to commit to a civil war over it, it shouldn't need to apologize now.
Presently no one is alive who was a slave, it was generations ago. It is still is part of the diverse african americna culture in society, but today it is a sore topic and hardly anyone would ever consent to it being the best time in our nations history. If the government apologized today it would suggest that the people today did something wrong, when in fact they never did. No one today can be blamed for what their ancestors might have done.
There is a tax deduction in act right now that if you can prove you were ever related to a former slave you can get a write-off. It isn't an apology, but it is one of many financial compensations the government has offered to make up for what it did in the past. The government is using tax payers money to award those who have suffered under it's mistakes, mistakes that the typical american probably didn't support. The government is taking enough from the american people for what it has done wrong, it shouldn't take any more for what it didn't do wrong.
The government may not be prefect, and has a long list of terrors it has inflicted on the world that should more than apologizer for, but slavery isn't one of them. it never acted as a direct vehicle for slavery, and even battled for decades to eventually put an end to it. The government should be let off the hook on this one, because the only people who should apologize for slavery are the slaveowners.

(oktopus)

Time:5:10 pm.
My name is Sean Cazzell, 19 years old, currently a sophmore at Columbia College. I would like to transfer to SAIC and start the fall 2007 semester there. i have interests in a wide range of medium that a typical art school can't nourish. i want to come to SAIC so i will have the freedom of availability to all medium i wish to explore, including furthiering my esisting art training with painting, drawing art hiastory and photohrapgy. i have an interest in conceptual art for what it can communicatr that i believe painting cannot. I am fascninated more in the spectator's reaction to a work than the actual work it self. i feel the artist holds a great dela of power in his/her ability to alter and manipulate the emotions of an individual baced on what medium they use. with conceptual art i can apply different ideas of performance, sculpture, sound, video and installation into one to create an entire atmosphere where the viewers perception is under my control.
My art is full of personal symbolism, conflict and undeveloped charachters used to create a singular idea or emotion. i often the viewer only charachters without any sort of narrative device and utilizing just the relationshiop between the charachters and enviroment to create the ultimate feeling. conflict plays the most important role in my work: charachters are simplified greatly but still hold aspects of fine art, situations or charachters with a whimiscal nature combined with a form sexual perversion, relationships in class and gender struggle, and generalized concepts of good vs. bad taste. i love the relationships between things: the wya characters interact, the relationshop between social groups, the way one individual will react to another, all of these things have element si find extradorniary and interesting.
i am fascinated by the limits of art. i am obsessed with niave art and itl;s acceptance as a form of fine art. i wonder at what point does art become not art? what is the exact heirarchy of art? i question the power of culture to control art, culture affects people and art affectsrs people. once i understand the way people react to their world, with my art i can can create a world and control the viewers reaction.
my goals are to graduate SAIC with a BFA, continue to graduate school, and hopefully become a professional artist.

i often reference back to a handful of artists who strongly influence my work: Philip Guston, who i respect for redefining rules of abstraction and creating post-modernism in art. i feel his work utilizes concepts of high and low art and is a criticism of high culture. Jean-Michel Basquiat for his boldness in painting despite his lack classic art training or what's considered classic artistic talent. I love his work because of the estrnagement it possessed. Bruce nauman i respect greatly. i feel he represents a new mevement in art. i feel his work has meaning on countless levels and how he seems to perfectly understand how to use simplicity to communicate concepts.

Monday, October 2nd, 2006

(oktopus)

Time:7:52 pm.
intro: name school age My name is Sean Cazzell, 19 years old, currently a sophmore at Columbia College. I would like to transfer to SAIC and start the fall 2007 semester there. i have interests in a wide range of medium that a typical art school can't nourish. i want to come to SAIC so i will have the freedom of availability to all medium i wish to explore, including furthiering my esisting art training with painting, drawing and art hiastory and photohrapgy. i have an interest in conceptual art for what it can communicatr that i believe painting cannot. I am fascninated more in the spectator's reaction to a work than the actual work it self. i feel the artist holds a great dela of power in his/her ability to alter and manipulate the emotions of an individual baced on what medium they use. with conceptual art i can apply different ideas of performance, sculpture, sound, video and installation into one to create an entire atmosphere where the viewers perception is under my control.


reasons: need more, SAIC best school for what i want

GOALS: continue to masters, become professional artist

ABOUT ART & INFLUENCES: limits high art and lo-art,

My art is full of personal symbolism with undeveloped charachters used to create a singular idea or emotion.
conflict plays a major issue on my work. charachters are simplified greatly but still hold aspects to fine art, situations or charachters with a whimiscal nature combined with a form sexual perversion, relationships in class and gender struggle, and generalized concepts of good vs. bad taste. i love the relationships between things: the wya characters interact, the relationshop between social groups, the way one individual will react to another, all of these things have element si find extradorniary and interesting. i enjoy giving the viewr only charachters without any sort of narrative device and utilizing just the relationshiop between the charachters and enviroment to create the ultimate feeling.
i am fascinated by the limits of art. i am obsessed with niave art and itl;s acceptance as a form of fine art. i wonder at what point does art become not art? what is the exact heirarchy of art?
how much in control are peopkle to culture an dhow do they react in culture? where doe a culture begin and end ain time and distance? what defines a culture and as a culture encompasses many people do they all aghree on this same definition.
once i understand the way people react to their world, with my art i can can create a world and control the viewers reaction.



i often reference back to a handful of artists who strongly influence my work: Philip Guston, who i respect greatly for his criticiasm of present movement, and his jump from abstract expressions, which he worked so hard to get established, to creating post-modernism in art. i feel his work utilizes concepts of high and low art and is a criticism of high culture.

Jean-Michel Basquiat for his boldness in painting despite his lack classic art training or what's considered classic artistic talent. I love his work because of the estrnagement it possessed.

Bruce nauman i respect msot in his study of preexamined notions of language and meaning from absurd writers, and rethinking it with newly emerged artistic media such as video, performance and sound, as well as pushing limits of media with scultures of wax, neon or styrofoam.




Gunston - postmodernism
Basquiat - estrangement
nauman - absurdity, lo-art hi-art, language, new media

Wednesday, September 27th, 2006

(oktopus)

Time:7:19 pm.
intro: name school age My name is Sean Cazzell, 19 years old, currently a sophmore at Columbia College. I would like to transfer to SAIC and start the fall 2007 semester there. i would like to move up from studying the basics of drawing an dpainting to my strongher interest sin conceptual art including video, performance, and sound. i strongly feel i can;t express nmyswelf solely in what ia m learning now and would like a wider rnage of curriculum in order to fully understand the contemporary art world.

reasons: need more, SAIC best school for what i want

GOALS: continue to masters, become professional artist

ABOUT ART & INFLUENCES: limits high art and lo-art,

My art is full of personal symbolism with undeveloped charachters used to create a singular idea or emotion. my charachters are always laced with layer sof personal symbolism combined with symbols of contemporary society to create a relationship between my independent psychology and my interets in post-modenr society. conflict plays a major issue on my work. charachters are simplified greatly but still hold aspects to fine art, situations or charachters with a whimiscal nature combined with a form sexual perversion, relationships in class and gender struggle, and generalized concepts of good vs. bad taste.

i often reference back to a handful of artists who strongly influence my work: Philip Guston, who i respect greatly for his criticiasm of present movement, and his jump from abstract expressions, which he worked so hard to get established, to creating post-modernism in art. i feel his work utilizes concepts of high and low art and is a criticism of high culture.

Jean-Michel Basquiat for his boldness in painting despite his lack classic art training or what's considered classic artistic talent. I love his work because of the estrnagement i possessed.

Bruce nauman i respect msot in his study of preexamined notions of language and meaning from absurd writers, and rethinking it with newly emerged artistic media such as video, performance and sound, as well as pushing limits of media with scultures of wax, neon or styrofoam.


Gunston - postmodernism
Basquiat - estrangement
nauman - absurdity, lo-art hi-art, language, new media

Monday, September 18th, 2006

(oktopus)

Time:7:53 pm.
In almsot everywher ein the the present United states it is illegal for a homosexual couple to get married, and more and mroe frequently new laws and amendmenst are popping up to prevent homosexual marriage forever. This is a social crisis all across the nation. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, Black, White, Purple, Crossdressers, Astronauts, Parapalegics, Child Molesters, and even the Tooxic Avenger are allowed to get married. All of them, equally and basically without questions, are allowed to get marrie dunder primarily a single stipulation, one is a man and one is a woman (and human, which i only mention because of Mr. Avenger, sort of up in the air of what he is). It can bein a Christian church, a muslim one, a jewish one, in the Eiffel Tower, in a park, underwater, on an asteroid, whereever and the government will grant the couple a marriage liscense opening up the doors of fabulous wealth an doppurtunity to the beautiful couple just a slong as one is a man and one is a woman. This seems alittle odd. Why does the government care so much who gets married, just a slong as one is a man and one is a woman? Homosexuals deserve the exact same rights, including that of a marriage liscense, as everyone els ein the country.

No one can define the standards of marriage for everyone else. The definition of what a marriage exactly is is broad determined by different cultures and religions, soem with very independant views. There is no "sanctity of marriage" when "marriage" engrosses everyone who gets married. A singular liscense grants the same benefits under marriage for everyone who gets married. Someone can be "married" in the government's eyes for a day and then get a divroce, it;s still the same thing as a couple who'se been married for 187 years. A couple can have 17 children they force to dig holes all day in order to find worms that will be their dinner, this married couple has the same benefits under marriage as a couple who drive their children to soccer practice every week in their eco friendly car that runs off of Happiness. A homosexual coupke could be nay of these, and no reason they can;t have the same benefits as the day long marriage, the century long marriage, the abusive marriage or the perfect marriage.

Wethter soemone i smarrying for love, for money, for the hell of it, it;s none of the government's buisness. And for a lot of people the reasons are borad. marriage can be a savior financially for a lot of people. Marriage can be a very important act of symbolism to signify their relationship. It can be highly emotional, or drab and boring. This is for all people, and there's no reason economically or emotionally that a homosexual couple is different than a straight one.

it's ridiculous, unfair, and discriminating to not allow two people to marry just because they'r eof the same sex. Especially in a nation hwere just a matter pf decades ago blacks and whites werne;t allowed to get married, it seems supicious that anyone can so easily wlak in a courthouse and get a marriage lisnse, escept a homosexual couple. this does give hope though that soemday it will happens. advocates of gay marriage can be wained by the straict laws that are being put in place, but at one time it was a strict law that blacks and white coudln;t drink the same water, and that chinese couldn;t smoke opium but everyone else could. our nation has a long history of bias laws, and these gay marriage laws are no exception.

Gay marriage is a controversial issue with strong advocates on both sides. and with many controversial issues, a lot of people are getting hurt. This issue, however; seems silly and redundant. it's nonsense to propose that someone deserves less rights than anyone else because they want to try to marry soemone of the same sex.

Wednesday, October 12th, 2005

(5 self-soiled sassy sasquatchies | oktopus)

Time:7:24 pm.
Sean Cazzell
Persia
I. Persia
A. Rise in 557 after Mecedonia.
B. King Syrus.
C. Excedingly wealthy
D. Regional governors to avoid rebellion and make money.
E. Persia increased communication and transportation all over Empire.
II. Persian Society
A. First mass Empire to have religious and Cultural Toleration.
i. Toleration allowed them to grow and maintain wealth.
ii. Zoroastrianism: moral dualism, had huge effect on people


Macedonia
I Macedonia
A. Last Hellenistic Kingdom
B. Rise in 359-323 BCE
C. King Phillip II came to power in 360 BCE
i. Unites kingdom in 5 years
ii. Famous for Chaeoronea battle 338 BCE—defeats Thebes in Athens, unites all Geek city-states.
iii. Spread of Hellenistic ideals, anti-Persian.
II. Alexander the Great
A. 336 BCE – 323 BCE
B. Son of Phillip II.
i. Came to power at young age when mother allegedly killed Phillip.
ii. Slept with a dagger and The Iliad under his pillow
C. Conquered Persians quickly and spread empire to India and back.
D. Soldier revolt in 326.
i. Conquered Arabia and North Africa on return trip
ii. Died on way back.
E. Believed he was god. Significance of Divine Rule.
F. Pushed scientific advances and opened cultural contact
G. Creates Successor Kings with his generals. Each one established a personal monarchy.
i. Antigonous – Anatolia
ii. Seleucus – Babylon
iii. Ptolemy – Egypt
III. Hellenistic Society
A. Royal military and Administration
B. Polis’ but with limited power
C. Elite contributed to society to create balance
D. Poor, subsidized based agriculture
E. Women have more power but status still dependant on males; exception of queen.
F. Wealthy. Trickle down effect.

Essay 2

Sean Cazzell

ENG III


What if: A Characteristic of Genius was Immortality?


It is very interesting to see the development of someone’s thoughts if their death did not stop them. Would they all eventually go crazy like Nietszche? Or would the world just stop and history end like Hegel believed? But the world would have to keep moving and we would all be living in a perfect universe with science now obsolete since Einstein had solved every problem and his days are now reserved for doing crossword puzzles with Alexander. What if being a genius meant eternal life?
Overtime all the arguments and discussions get old and the great minds run out of things to say. Still active, geniuses have nothing better to do with their spare time but to continue their habits of arguing, even if it is completely trivial. Even with everyone no longer the listening, the philosophers sit around and discuss topics important to them. On the patio outside of Marx's house is Nietszche (or Dionysus, as he is now called). Stirner would be cooking up something delicious on the grill, probably some juicy German brats. This would be the typical Sunday setting for a group of philosophers whose times never came. Since all the geniuses are alive, many would take power over the world, these guys are meeting to try and stop this from happening.
"Sartre! Late as usual!" says Socrates as he sits in a smelly corner by himself. Four thousand years and he has yet to change his toga.
"Sorry! Camus' car was acting up again in traffic!" Sartre and Camus take a seat at the picnic table.
"I thought they were not friends?" Nietszche gossips to Goldman.
"No, they made up. They decided dynamic egoism in subjective structuralism was trivial to fight over."
"Pfft! Suit themselves!" Niteszche replies in a sarcastic tone.
"Last I knew Plato was pooping his pants and now he wants to run for govenor of Wisconsin?” asks Socrates.
"Because Chomsky is not near to desist him this time! He is assiduously employed in his new linguistic work, the Nature on Linguistics for Kids,” Stirnir says from behind a grill.
Socrates silences the group. "Poppycock?" They all puff on their pipes in wonder. Kierkergaard is in the corner crying. No one knows why he is there, they assume he invited himself over.
Music is a lot different with the great geniuses being immortal. Music never died out; music’s immortal and universal, so the great musicians are still going strong for the most part. The great composers keep on moving forward and composing. Philip Glass, not having to worry about death, now upgraded from daylong compositions to year longs ones. Beethoven said in his article on Glass' latest work Music That's Written in Boredom that, "judging from the reaction on everyone else’s face, it was a masterpiece." But on the newest symphony on his once idle, Mozart, Beethoven had this to say: "Mozart's 56,789,368 symphony is reminiscent of Surf Rock Guitar in G#. I think Mozart should stick with what he knows, angular Hip-Hop loops."
Many great thinkers have relived their childhood. With enough time, why not take the time out to find your inner child. All the artists and writers have done this and some for the third or forth time. Many say it helps them with their work, to help see the world in a new way. Picasso shows up at Pollocks pool house. The group is getting together for some swimming and to throw Jasper Johns a surprise birthday party! The festivities include a painting contest where everyone makes an abstract picture and your team has to guess what it is suppose to be, and a game where everyone defecates in a bowl and whosoever turd best resembles a president wins. Kandinsky and Eugene Ionesco are in the gazebo talking about how art has changed for them. "After my kids grew up I decided to move past children's stories and into romantic novels," says Ionesco.
Jasper finally arrives and he insists on playing pin the tail on the donkey. No one else does and fit of crying erupts. Kierkergaard was upset as well and immediately began crying. Most were sure they did not invite him so they assumed he invited himself.

Saturday, May 28th, 2005

(oktopus)

Time:2:40 am.
things to remember..."how do you say keevy in koreanese?" keevy said to holliek, funny...ha h ah ah ha

Sunday, May 15th, 2005

(oktopus)

Time:1:03 am.
yeahhahhahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahehehehehehahahaehhahehaehaheaheahehaheahehaehahehaehahehaehahehahahehahehehhehehehehehd dont erase this your god damn sonof a bitchQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(oktopus)

Time:12:51 am.
copy of picture for jenna!

Saturday, May 14th, 2005

(oktopus)

Time:12:22 pm.
so keevyt is like the greatest man alive, and a lot of you out there can't fully comprehend the greatness of keevy because he has like 4 people on lj...so here is keevy's latest, awesome post


"i promised myself i woudl devote a lil bit of time to my lj tonight, i havelots to bitch about, but dont know wehre to start... lets make a list of things i hate


first and most of all i HATE that god damn rap song ontheat cellphone comercial





i hate most of the days outta of a 7 day week, starting monday, cuz who likes mondays???





wednesday, cuz i have to wait to wait till thursday to find out i have to work this weekend





thursday, cuz i have to work this weekend,





friday, the same reason





saterday.... you know,



but sunday, i usally get sundays off, so god bless you sabbath of most religions except jewish and 7th day adventest




i hate rap songs that get stuck in my head,





i hate most of the ppl i work with,





i hate the randon pieces of scrap that fall frommy press and stab me in the leg





i hate my bed, cuz the lil springs hurt my back





and i hate my lack of ambition for me to flip my matriss to see if it would make it better

.



i hate the fact that my chiropractor shot himself in the head and he wont pop my back. because he is dead





i hate myself for nto letting my self go to anouther chiropractor to pop my back "

Thursday, May 12th, 2005

(2 self-soiled sassy sasquatchies | oktopus)

Time:9:48 pm.
Mood:tr.
DOOP!
[Unknown LJ tag]
crack the glass eye, fry the prosthetic pupil

two mouths massacre.
i can smell the elfen perfume from here.
santa brought of the gifts of
a furry scrotum on the face this year.
he sliced that glossy ass
and replaced your ears with a bovines.
"welcome to dinner," your husband always sighs.

exchanged those eyelashes for
tarantula silk. bloated your lips
with refried beards.
wait untill
your teeth bleed, santa will bake
it and jam it into your knees.
top heavy: rabbit vehemently unleashed
its gastrological fury into your chest.

crack the glass eye, fry the prosthetic pupil
maybe you can see, you're destroying yourself.
look like 20? what was so amazing about
harmone raged doorknob fuckfests anywas, and
now you're not just old, but ugly.
and can lick my wrinkles,
because they won't disapear.
santa won't beat me with his
scorpion steak knives this year.
fourteen wasted semesters at DeVry
or not, you're still fucking disgusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
expect the return of the all mighty rash

it be nice to exchange this
pious pie for a thick slice
of the critical casserol.
"for only a dollar more..."
no, i would not like to
supersize my inconvinience.

when i was ten i made a
miracle in my turtle panties.
why won't anybody
worship my mommy?
1st degree lachrymatory burns,
3rd degree ones from when the
seraph blew brimstone chunks
on my sense of accomplishment in my dreams.

around time we put an umbrella
over these crying statuettes
and break open that crusty
eye of arbitrary common sense.
call me crazy, but it seems the best defense
of further embarassment of the
radical, isolated, tap water free communities.

less planes dropping turds of practical priests
and more ships flexing their cannons
full of nutrition and drinks.
the result: severe reduction on refunds
of pseudo western culture and quasi
flavored intellegence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pleasureable tator tot dermal disadvantages

poor me my wine, serbian.

"dear, scarecrow.
you're not only scaring birds
but scaring off all your suitors.
that pike is so far up your ass
that they think if they tap the well
they might fall in."

serbian, you're cute but i am not
impressed by that extravagant head dress.
now tip that horned crest and
bring me my wine.

in the cabaret they let the
dead dogs lay about the halls.
the preternatural illuminocity
given off by these hounds of the night
shatter the balls of the great
cherberum de sol.
serbian, the dobermans of hell
are at your door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i bought your vagina a pirate hat and pistol

hemeroid ring necklace
in a mauve display case.
hello, welcome to my den.
set your broom here and let
the 17 gentlemen callers rest their cheeks.
i found a girl with 9 inch toes.
now i want to know if
anyhting else is so well endowed.
hemeroid ring necklace
and a bachelor in disguise.
i said, i love this hemerroid ring necklace.
i love the looks the neighbors give
and the winks of lady elizabeth
sitting three pews from the sermon.
i'll dress like an athelte and let
it adorn my burnt neck at
the masquer-aid powerball.
one wedding and maybe a funeral,
and, alas, i am the remaining gentlemen
caller, sitting appreciative and patient,
waiting to lick your clit-balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
take off your legs and stay awhile

i am a worthless bum
my name is crayon.
i hang up my brightest papier colles,
but life still gets me down.
i hang up my dense black cloak
on the elephant head hook.
god is in the house.
i should call the police,
but what terrible things
is god really capable of?
i am incapable of reproduction.
in any advanced society i'd
be destroyed, or atleast put to work.
something has to be done;
criminals are to be realsed
when able to function in society
and society functions about
as good as my penis does.
"all i ever wanted was to
feel you deep in my cock.
all i ever wanted was to never
feel this breaking apart."
i hum this to myself when
i am having sex with women.
i tell them it is role reversal
and that i am shy. pros:
no offense is taken when they ask
"is it in yet?" insofar lightning
doesn't touch the secret is safe
with us, teddy bear.

Monday, May 9th, 2005

(oktopus)

Time:10:05 pm.
Mood:yj.
hugest waste of time you could imagine just below poking out your own eyesCollapse )

Sunday, May 1st, 2005

(2 self-soiled sassy sasquatchies | oktopus)

Time:12:01 pm.
Mood:fth.
1327

i left myself a message last night while drunk...if anyone knows hwat htis numbwer means, don't hesitate to tell me.

Sunday, April 10th, 2005

(oktopus)

Time:3:20 am.
and steohen ate my peanut butter and threatneed to spit in it, he said i wouldn;t rm,ember so i wrote it down, and her ei go...!

LiveJournal for battle fat!.

View:User Info.
View:Friends.
View:Calendar.
View:Memories.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.