January 31, 2004

She knows the truth and it mocks her

"the unexamined life is not worth living" (socrates).
"concept of seeming versus being is portrayed
sometimes the most perplexing things in life turn out to be the most obvious since that's what people tend to take for granted. people don't always expect the expected, either. ironic"

Amneris, daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh in Disney's broadway production of Tim Rice and Elton John's rock-opera Aida, realized the Truth as it brazenly mocked her. Upon realization of this Truth, Amneris dramatically changed from a 'shallow' superficial "brat" to a profound, humble young woman.

In the beginning of the story, Amneris described herself: "I am what I wear, and how I dress." She specifically

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 8:02 PM | Comments (6)

January 29, 2004

Moon River

What ever happened to the Man in the Moon? I wondered if he ever met the Lady of the moon, Hina-Keha-Uri.

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 1:15 AM | Comments (4)

January 27, 2004

Haiku Lover

There's more to Haiku than three lines that follow the rhythmic pattern of "5,7,5".

From a little bit of extended reading I did, I found out that Haiku (I don't completely agree with all of the facts in this website yet) was originally an introductory verse to another type of poetry; I think it's called "Renga". I'm guessing that Haiku sets the mood for "Renga". This would make sense when a reader considers all the elements in Haiku. One might argue: "It's only three lines, how many elements could there possibly be?" From one of the books I've read (I forgot the title but it's about Haiku). The book stated that in a Haiku, there's a setting, an aspect of time, a provoking and inspiring idea and a mood and tone (There are more but these are all I remember). It's supposed to capture a moment and beauty in its 'simplest' form. It's like a sublime moment; "it's strong, lasting and uplifting" (Philosophy of Art)".

This is just a little Trivia on the history of Haiku. One thing I've learned in Philosophy of Art is that Art is not static, it evolves. My version of Haiku is a conglomeration of styles drawn from tradition and "modern interpretation." Feel free to post your own haiku in here!

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 1:40 PM | Comments (10)

January 26, 2004

Is Bobbing only for girls?

Is the style of your haircut a statement?, if so what kind of "bob" are you going to get the next time you're in the saloon or barbershop?

I found the story "Bernice Bobs Her Hair" very interesting. Please excuse the blatancy of my thoughts, but I'm going to try my best to write academically and thoughtfully about it. At first I thought it was going to be one of those Women stories (from EL250) as Paul defined it , but it wasn't. I thought Marjorie was an independnt woman, who was bitter because her heart had been broken so many times. She was inured by this and she became a 'playa' just like the guys, and she's wreaking revenge by breaking other people's heart and toying with the 'fellas'. I think she's a foil of Bernice. Bernice was portrayed as conservative, dull and righteous while Marjorie was 'modern', vivacious and 'cheap but fun'( Warren is a jerk and it's a good thing that Marjorie have him "whipped").

When Bernice followed the advice of Marjorie, I thought that Bernice was going to have a complete 'volte face' of character and value, almost similar to what happen to Brittany Murphy's character 'Tai' in the movie Clueless or the character of Vylette from the movie Jawbreakers. She didn't, but her character developed and matured in the end.

Marjorie is one of the characters you'd love to hate but at the same time feels sorry and pity for. It's ironic how she viewed women as "inane females, [who are] weak, whining, cowardly mass of affectations!" Inside she's probably not as tough as she tried to 'project'. I think she tricked her cousin into getting the haircut because Warren wasn't giving her the attention he used to give her. She appears shallow, and it looks like she's relying on her 'sex-appeal' to get the affections she craved.

My friend said that this story was about women's self-determination and self-liberation, it reminded me of the "Myth of the Bra-Burnings of the 60s" or when Brandi Chastain, the soccer player took off her shirt. or when Christina Aguilera "went black." I asked the question: Why would someone do something "radical" to liberate one's self? The Little Prince suggested:"To go against the norm/standards of a particular society (in Bernice's case the Patriarchal one)."
What do you think?

I loved the ending, it reminded me of Jan (from the Brady Bunch Movie) when she fantasies about cutting Marsha's hair. In a way it's the same but really different. Revenge is sweet.

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 8:45 PM | Comments (5)

January 24, 2004

Generalization

I realized that I had this 'disillusionment' that people who are considered artistic, intelligent, cultured, rebellious, different, etc etc, would be able to sympathize and empathize with those who are also considered "artistic, intelligent..." "Wow I was so "way" "super-dead wrong", the "stupidity"" of it just smack me right in the face.

My wise friend told me that an intelligent and artistic person is no different than a dumb and vulgar jock, of course I'm speaking in a hackneyed and stereotypical-pro forma way. They are the same in the "aspects" of their extreme views: one is just too "philosophical" and the other too "bestial and cannabalistic". This is so banal that it traces its origins back to Plato all the way to Nietzsche and continuing it to now, the present (this of course is from the triviality and the mini-teeny-weeny minuscule understanding of the author: I=Mike Diezmos). It's all about the Herd-mentality.

Did you ever notice flocks of birds flying together or schools of "fishes" swimming together? Naturally 'fishes" have this horizontal receptor parallel to their horizontal body; if the leader fish moves left or right, the sudden change in the water current would be sensed by the other 'fishes's receptors thus enabling them to "stay in their school" (Please excuse this trite and truncated explanation, the important thing is the idea/Form of this microcosm). Scientists concluded that this animalistic tactic is supposed to intimidate larger predators. This perfectly illustrates Plato's idea of Truth. In a "Layman's" terms aka Joe Six Pack terms there are three versions of viewing the Truth, the supposedly perfect and closest to Reality is called the Form or the Idea, the second one is an approximation of the Form (it could be a physical reproduction of something or etc.) the third one which is twice removed from the truth is an image/imitation of the second one, which is an approximation of the Truth (for example a picture of something). Well anyway to correlate this to the story about the 'fishes', the Idea that "the bigger the group is, the stronger it is" is inborn and innate in the nature of "fish-mentally". The fishes take this Idea "instinctively" and they form in groups called "a school". They follow this type of framework and group together. By doing this they are imitating the Idea (Bigger is stronger). The predator sees this image and imitation of a big fish and thinks "This fish is just as big as me, why should I mess with it?". Thus the predator is deceived by this image; the predator does not know the Truth.

What was the point of that 'narrative' you may ask? In general people liked to be in a group to feel secure and protected against harm whether it may be physical, emotional, etc. etc. So the "Artsy" type of people have a penchant to flock with other "Artsy" people and "jocks" have a predilection to huddle with other "jocks". It goes back to Plato's "State-mentality" which is further supported and seen in Socrates' argument and trial. In the times of Plato and probably earlier, the world was very barbaric, somehow, we humans have evolved pass that and now, we are not "as barbaric" as our ancestors. People in ancient Greek lived in cities entirely surrounded with walls. There was a hierarchy of people, it's almost similar to the "Great Chain of Being" (that's a whole new story) anyway, there was an order almost similar to a Caste System: the philosophers are the queens and kings and they served as the Head (who thinks for the people), the second set are the warriors and the fighters, they served as the Arms (who defends the people) and the third set are the artisans, craftsman and workers, they served as the Stomach and Feet (who are the people who sustains the community and keeps it moving) Each person has its place in society and once in a while a person from the "lower level" might move up to a higher ranking but that's a rare phenomenon back then. For the sake of simplicity, warriors shouldn't think, philosopher should just "measure the clouds" and common artisans should continue to act like a consuming sheep (Baa). Basically digressing from one's level is considered "taboo" and it places the "State" in danger. In the times of Plato, to think whether 'to fight or not' was not engendered in the mores of fighters. If they were to have thinking fighters, those fighters would die trying to negotiate a peace treaty. This should suffice the frivolous and rinky-dink philosophy of the "jock-mentality". Where does the "Artsy" people fit in? Well, they are the "Social" outcast/rejects/rebels, they think out of the box, they help us view things differently, they show us new "perspectives". In the context of Plato's time, this was revolutionary. For this reason Plato denounced all "Artsy" people except those who promote the "State". The reason why, is because it weakens the military; and if the State has a weak military reputation then other barbarians would try to conquer and oppress this State city. They left the "thinking" and the managing of people for the Philosophers. It seems like this battle between the "brains" and the "brawns" has been with us ever since "whenever, whatever".

Where am I getting at?Each group, class, herd, clique whether "Artsy" or "jock" most of the times lives "in a system (Watch The Movie the Matrix) where it has its own set of standards to live by. "This Ideology demands conformity, uniformity and discipline" (From a wise friend's report)." If that specific group is to conform properly to the given standards of their Matrix, then they earn the right to be identified with that group (Artsy or jock). There is a universal and objective Truth and there is the truth that is subjective. The standards and truths of each group is subjective to its own identity therefore any truths outside this matrix is considered false. It maybe specifically true for one group but false for another. The people in each group may be living lies but it's okay, they are safe inside their own "magic circle". So it is only natural to protect this "identity" (Herd-mentality) and if something threatens this; it is only perfunctory to destroy whatever is harming it. In the Artsy world if something is not artistic enough per se then it's not novel and daring therefore it sucks. In the 'jock' world if one could not throw a ball or run fast or do a front-lay-out flip-then-a-half-twist-semi-tummy-tuck-superman-death-drop-backflip-followed by three consecutive somersault landing in a split then what's the point of doing a sport, one might as well do golf. Since the standards are not met, these two worlds automatically go on "defense mode" and shun the individual for his or her effort in understanding the universal Truth and in uncovering Reality. The "Artsy" and the "jocks" perceived their system/matrix/environment as the only reality and "anything outside of this system becomes false" (wise friend). Hence both Artsy and jocks are blinded with their own arrogance and limited perspective of the 'real' Reality, because they are so immured in the the 'confines' of their Art or Sport.

Fortunately and serendipitously, there are people who are in the middle of the emotional spectrum, who are in the middle of both extreme views, who are hybrids and amalgams called Artsy-jocks, who are not disillusioned, who can distinguish between the concepts of" seeming versus being" and those Human beings who are not easily manipulated into "the herd-mentality(following others)" of living either in the Arts or jock world. These people do not live"within the context of a lie for the sake of security"(being in a group), but instead, they lived in the Reality of Truth: in the land of Forms/Idea/Abstract , free from the corporeal restraints and superficial deceptions of appearances (from wise friend report and from my own understanding of what I'm learning in class).

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 2:06 PM | Comments (3)

January 23, 2004

Village Idiot

The village idiot went into a bar. "While Mona Lisas and mad hatters, sons of bankers, sons of lawyers, turn around and say good morning to the night. For unless they see the sky, but they can't and that is why, they know not if it's dark outside or light." said the Village Idiot who's the most irritating and conspicuous invisible person. "What?" he heard somebody asked him. He looked but the anonymous someone just stared at him without blinking. Should he be bothered by this or should he just sit in his proverbial corner and 'vegetate'?

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 10:41 AM | Comments (3)

January 21, 2004

Other "fishes" in the ocean

"In death, Life does not end but merely changes/transforms..."

I recently finished reading Daniel Wallace's novel Big Fish. What got me interested in this book was the commercial for the movie and that my friend already had the book. I think in the commercial I saw popcorns suspended in the air and mermaids swimming. The book is really short too. I could have finished it within a day but I had to do other things. It's one of those books you could read several times and still enjoy it and find something new everytime you read.
It's written like a fairytale/Homeric epic, and it's like one metaphor after another. What would great literature be without "Perspective"? Reading this story and understanding it is a matter of perspective. I can't emphasis enough the omnipresence of "perspective"in this book. It's really great. One of the things I like about the story 'Big Fish' is that it reinforces what my teacher said:"In death, Life does not end but merely changes/transforms..."
If anyone read Big Fish by Daniel Wallace before, tell me what you got out of it, and for those who have not read this story, I recommend it for everyone to read, thanks!

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 9:17 AM | Comments (5)

January 20, 2004

Twinkies

"Twinkies, what are their shelf life?"
My friend was wondering about this. What do You think?

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 1:42 PM | Comments (10)

January 19, 2004

Intro to Blogging 101

I am finally introduced to blogging. I think it will be exciting, it might be a little hard because I have to think twice and censor what I am going to to be saying...

I am finally introduced to blogging. I think it will be exciting, it might be a little hard because I have to think twice and censor what I am going to to be saying. I also have to remember that this is not a journal. One of the fun things with journal is reading past entries written ten years ago and being able to laugh at the "incidents" that happened.
Julie's presentation on blogging was informative. I hope I remember them all.
The Yellow Wallpaper I read last week was different. It was not as predictable as I thought it was going to be. I noticed in the beginning that the narrator was a little nutz. My friend said the narrator was depressed, I did noticed how the narrator expressed her state of depression, she was still crazy. I thought she was one of those people who was a perfectionist that was why she was nettled by the yellow wallpaper that did not suit her taste. The ending confused me, I did not know if she committed suicide or not.

Posted by Michael Diezmos at 12:42 AM | Comments (2)