Thursday, December 24, 2009

Communion as a non-Christian

Today I had communion for the first time as a non-Christian. And it was on Christmas Eve. I'd been told that communion from a pagan perspective is a little strange, so I tried it out. And it's definitely weird.

It wasn't at a Catholic church, it was Baptist. So it was the little cracker with grape juice. Looking at the cracker with the realization that this is symbolic cannibalism is a little strange. I'm about to stick the body and blood of Christ into my digestive system and I don't even believe he's a god.

Normally I would have passed up the experience, but a friend of mine who is a pagan was caught in a situation where she had to do it or else she would reveal to her Christian family that she wasn't part of their religion so I tried the experience in honor of her. It's not one that I'll do again. Like her, I felt quite sick afterward and felt like I was betraying myself. I didn't go to the point of throwing up, but it was kinda close.

Communion has so much meaning applied to it for Christians. And I'm sitting in the church on Christmas Eve as a heretic and performing one of their more sacred rituals. Especially sacred to the Baptists since they only do it twice per year (albeit with grape juice and a cracker rather than good bread and red wine).

It's a feeling that I can't really write down easily. Again, I felt like I betrayed myself, but also I felt like I had betrayed the other Christians in the church, even though I didn't know any of them. I don't think that they would have really minded that much (a Catholic would be mortified), but I still felt that betrayal feeling afterward. Combine that with holiness and you have an idea of what was going on in my head.

Not planning on doing that again unless I become a Christian later in life. Even then I'm not sure if the ritual will make any more sense to me.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Oh Zeitgeist, You and Your Shenanigans

I know this is long, I know this will probably be boring. But please read it so you don't get caught by this dumb propoganda video and spot when you hear someone reference this crap like it's fact. I've done my best to make it somewhat entertaining.

Okay, I saw someone had posted this video here with the subtitle that Christianity is pagan. While it's true that there is a relationship between Paganism and Christianity, this video is NOT a good place to look. Go ahead and watch this portion.



The sunset thing is BS. The only thing that this video proves is that the guy is good with puns. Sunset comes from the same place as sunrise. Set, as in setting something down is the root word. Not the god Set which wasn't even pronounced that way in Egypt.

Horus was not born on December 25th. December did not exist yet and there's no way anyone could know when he was born in the first place as the calendars are different and births/deaths weren't recorded in the same way they are today. No one would have known about the date of Horus' birth and no one would have cared if they did.

I'll admit that I don't know much about Horus' human life. My understanding is that he didn't even have one. Though it's possible. And if he did, he would have been the miracle performing type. But we don't have anything to go on. All the legends of Horus are when he's a god. But there's some problems here with the rest of what it says about Horus.

He was not known as the son of god, lamb of god, or any of these things because he is the principle God. Beyond that, there weren't any lambs in Egypt. He was ruler of both the night and the day. The Sun was one of his eyes while the moon was the other. Ra is the god of the Sun in the way they describe in this video. But he was a giant beetle moving the sun across the sky.

This battle thing is interesting. It's true that Set and Horus were locked in battle after Osirus was killed, but it wasn't symbolized by day and night since Horus was ruler of the sky rather than the sun. Sun was Ra's territory, and also the eye of Horus.

Oddly enough, this thing claims that Horus was born of a virgin named Mary and then quickly says Isis afterward. It's possible that Isis is the root name for Mary, but I find it unlikely. And the big kicker is that Isis wasn't a virgin. Horus is also the son of Osirus.

Horus could not have been crucified. Crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet. It didn't come around until the Romans decided it was a cheap and painful way to kill people. And the only god in Egyptian mythology to have been killed in the first place that I'm aware of (could be wrong here) is Osirus, who eventually came back to life as the god of the underworld, completely different from what this video entails. This video is taking aspects of other gods and combining them into Horus.

I'm not familiar with some of the other characters mentioned in this video, but my suspicion is that the same BS is applied to them.

Here's some things that I know about it.

KRISHNA: That would be a picture of Jesus. Also Krishna was born in July. And was the eighth son of a princess. Doubt she was still a virgin.

DIONYSUS: Born of a mortal, son of Zeus. Born from Zeus' thigh because the mortal womb couldn't handle a god. And the idea of Dionysus being called the alpha and the omega and king of kings when he was the god of partying is laughable.

The film this is from is called Zeitgeist. This is a video that is filled to the brim with modified facts that only appeal to people too ignorant and lazy to look things up. I've seen people cite facts that could not have been gotten anywhere other than this video before. there's several more parts to it as well. Look up EVERYTHING you hear that is related to this video independantly. Chances are it just came out of someone's... well not their brain.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

We are God

Energy has existed as long as the universe has existed. Due to the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter, there is always the same amount of energy and matter in the universe. That being said, sometimes matter turns into energy and it is also safe to assume that energy can turn into matter.

Energy is the fuel of life. And probably has much to do with what many call souls. There is no part of the brain that we know of where the consciousness is contained, and there are records of people's consciousness leaving their bodies and seeing themselves and others while they were technically dead. Since the 'soul' has no matter, and the only forms in the universe are energy and matter, it is safe to say that our souls would be in the form of energy.

Our bodies produce energy from almost nothing. Our liver does the work of several nuclear plants. We are an incredibly complicated form that somehow finds the ability to run itself until we, for some reason, die. Perhaps the fuel is gone, perhaps the spirit is tired, perhaps the matter of the body simply cannot hold the spirit any longer.

You have always existed, and I have always existed. We were born in the stars, energy and matter pushing together to eventually for the elements through billions of years to what we are today. But life is not some joyride that we sign up for. It is simply the status of the energy and matter that happen to make up our individuality today. When we die, it will be dispersed into the universe and will likely come back again in full or partial form as another being, human or not.

We are God. God is our projection upon this energy and is only there because we want him/her to be. Worship God if it pleases you. Deny God if this pleases you as well. It will not matter because God does not care. God does not have the ability to care unless he does in your mind. And then God will only care because you are God.

Live. Life.

Monday, December 7, 2009

For Good Clean Fun with Police

From Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book

LACE (Lysergic Acid Crypto-Ethelene) can be made by mixing LSD with DMSO, a high penetrating agent, and water. Sprayed from an atomizer or squirted from a water pistol, the purple liquid will send any pig twirling into the Never-Never Land of chromosome damage. It produces an involuntary pelvic action in cops that resembles fucking. Remember when Mace runs out, turn to Lace.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Shocking Teachers and My Grandmother

From a user on another website by the name of "mystic-spiritus".

In English class today, we were discussing how a Puritan poet's religious views influenced her writing. I was reading to catch up, since I had missed the previous class because of a doctor appt.

All of a sudden, I'm being asked by the teacher "Can you tell me any other religions?" I thought she had probably already had all the generic answers, as I'm not usually called on first. So I answered "Paganism. It encompasses a group of religions and spirituality." Apparently I was wrong. According to her, Paganism is a lack of religion. She then went on to elaborate on how a few of the substitutes in the past few years had been 'white' witches and how they practiced 'good' magic, and how 'black' witches worshipped the devil.

I was so astounded I couldn't speak.

Another girl asked if Wicca would be considered a religion, and she said no. At that point I butted in and said it was, seen as its an approved symbol for veteran's headstones. When she asked if there were any witches in the class I remained silent - it was pretty obvious that she was against it. After that, she went on a story about how a town half an hour from our house had a group of 40 witches that were doing sacrifices awhile back. She said they did everything from small animals to cows and horses. And apparently they moved away (all 40!) when the town started causing an uproar. I find it kind of hard to believe, especially with her (in my opinion) incorrect views earlier. My dad works near the town everyday, and I've never heard him say a think about witches sacrificing anything there.

I think my favorite class has just become intolerable. I wish I could go back to last years teacher.. The whole curriculum is almost based around religious texts too (not of her choosing, atleast).

And to think, it was just 3 days ago that she was lecturing a student not to talk about religions you don't know about..


I think this teacher's story about the 40 witches is bullshit too. If I'd been where I am religiously now while I was in highschool, I think I would have had more fun messing with people.

I ran into a situation similar to this when I "came out of the broom closet" told my grandmother that I was a pagan. I've learned that Pantheist or Earth-Worshiper is a better way to put it because of the controversy behind the word Pagan. But She thought I was saying that I was so devoid of purpose in a way that is worse than atheist on some level or something.

We agreed to look the term up in the dictionary and here's what it it says.

Quoth the Oxford:

pagan |ˈpāgən|
noun
a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.
• dated derogatory a non-Christian.
• an adherent of neopaganism.


So basically when you say you're a pagan, you're saying that you're not Christian. So a Muslim is a pagan. There was another definition for Pagan with a capital 'P'. So I looked it up as well.

Pagan |pəˈgän|
ruins in Myanmar (Burma), located on the Irrawaddy River southeast of Mandalay. It is the site of an ancient city that was the capital of a powerful Buddhist dynasty from the 11th to the 13th centuries.


Not quite what I wanted it to say.

But I found this.

neopaganism |ˌnēōˈpāgiˌnizəm; -gə-|
noun
a modern religious movement that seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from traditions outside the main world religions, esp. those of pre-Christian Europe and North America.


A little more satisfying. But still not the definition of what I believe. But definitely closer to what I thought pagan meant.

But anyway, my grandmother was a little more satisfied with this response. It was in this conversation with her that I found out that my grandmother isn't a Christian. She confessed that she called herself agnostic, but was probably a pantheist as well. She understood what I was talking about when I talked about the mystery of life in relation to the earth and seeing life as something of reverence. But she made a few comments that made her sound like a Deist. So I showed her the definition.

deism |ˈdēizəm|
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Compare with theism .


My Grandmother said that she kinda agreed with that on some level. But still wasn't sure. She admitted that she hadn't really thought about it that much because she hadn't been asked about it that much. And thus had never really done the research.

She did ask about morality though. And I told her that I didn't believe in good and evil as much as I believed in positive and negative actions. That to define morality, one must consider the positive and negative effects of the actions they make, and act accordingly. A lot of times you can have an action that has both positive and negative effects, and you have to weigh the options. According to this outlook, it's impossible not to sin, but sin doesn't really matter int he first place because negative action isn't necessarily bad all the time.

This does make morality more subjective than objective, but there's really no other way to see it. Even objective morality is subjective from my point of view, because you define the objective morality as your own. Morality is purely created by humans in the first place.

This was a heartwarming experience on some level. I'd connected with my brother on subjects like religion and thought even though we're on opposite ends of the spectrum. But this was the first time me and my Grandmother had really connected as adults. It felt good.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Godzilla X The Kaiju Killer: Worth The Wait?


Part 1 of 6 of the film Godzilla X The Kaiju Killer


Okay, so we have this long awaited Godzilla fan-film with a kinda stupid title. I'd had no exposure to this before I saw the trailer. And honestly I was a little taken aback.


The Trailer


I had a few problems with this movie going in. I thought the idea would be difficult for me to relate to, but I decided to give it a chance. I've been a Godzilla fan practically since birth, as well as an experienced filmmaker myself. I've worked on several independent productions and small scale films. With this in mind, if the filmmaker is reading this, he needs to read this whole article. This is coming from a g-fan who knows filmmaking.

A little background: Apparently this guy has been working on this for for about five years. And for a one-man-show, I have to say it's relatively well done. Especially on a first attempt. However, he made a lot of newbie mistakes.

I'll go through the film by the different areas of filmmaking.

1. Writing: This was by far the worst part of the film. After giving the plot a chance, I got tired and confused very quickly. Each time I finished a 'part' of the film, I buried my head in my hands and bitched about how I had no clue what was happening. The characters are impossible to identify with, and it seemed like the beginning of a shitty anime.

As a writing tip, saving the entire plot for the end of the film doesn't make any sense. When dealing with characters and civilizations that no one is familiar with previous to seeing the film, you have to do more explaining than shooting us into the plot. It's fine for an opening sequence, but after a few minutes we need to know more than nothing about these characters. When watching it, I had no clue who any of these character were, what was driving them, what inspired them... everyone was very flat.

We don't know the origin of the Kaiju Killer, we don't even know what Godzilla's origin is (or why he's even there). I've seen some of the explanations of the film and none of them can be inferred from the film itself. This is, to say the least, a problem.

Names: Many of the names in this were... alien. I understand that it was kind of the point. But coupled with a confusing plotline and not explaining anything, it makes the film that much more confusing when someone says a name and I have no clue who they're talking about.

This problem is relatively common in movies with intricate plot lines and I've heard that this was an issue with Michael Mann in Public Enemies. It's very common in films that are one man shows. But you have to realize that even though you have it all straight, the audience doesn't have anything straight at the beginning of the film. It's your job as a storyteller to help them get to where you are, not expect them to already know.

This script should have been heavily workshopped with other writers before being locked into production. Even if the rest of the film is amazing, a bad script can ruin a production. I've seen it happen time and time again in movies I've seen and productions I've worked on myself. This film is not alone in that regard.


2. Sound Design: Great sound design. Sound effects were cool, and the dialogue was captured well. Props to the sound team. And Godzilla's roar was badass. The problem with the sound was the dialogue was difficult to understand. And it seemed like everyone was growling the whole time. Everyone was angry all the time regardless of their emotions.

Disturbed. Really? Disturbed wouldn't have approved of their music being used in a film like this. Neither would Three Days Grace. Lay off the heavy metal and stick with Akira Ifukube. The modifications on Akira Ifukube's music was pretty awesome. But, I got tired of Disturbed halfway through the movie because the filmmaker(s?) spammed the same song throughout most of the film.


3. Art Direction, Special Effects, and Production Design: Again, well done. The Godzilla suit especially looked pretty awesome, though a little bulky. The suits for the other characters looked pretty neat as well. But the problem with the other characters is that besides the dude that died really early (whoever that was) everyone looked too similar.

Though there were some drawbacks. A few of the characters looked very cardboard-y (the early dead dude) and The Kaiju Killer's monster suit looked very Bandai (and missing a horn? I've heard there's an explanation for that, but it wasn't in the film). It was also very floppy. The reason why I give such a harsh criticism here is because he had five years to make the film. This is not five years of work, this is considerably less.

Most of the time with TKK it seemed like there wasn't even anyone in the suit. It was just being thrown at the Godzilla suit. And there was also a headbutt sequence that lasted forever.

Headbutt.

Okay I'm done headbutting you... oh wait! I need to headbutt you again and again and again.

In one shot.

The fight scenes had a lot of the same issues that the Heisei movies had. The suits were relatively poorly constructed and very bulky, so there wasn't much they could do other than ram into each other. And when they weren't ramming into each other, they were flopping around on the ground as if they were bandai figures with no life whatsoever.

He could have used stop-motion, he could have made better models, but he didn't. The only real excuse for this mistake is laziness. He took five years and what resulted was floppy bandai figures rolling in dust that were filmed in a way that made things at least a little interesting.

Beyond the monsters, the aliens (and human?) in the movie looked like heavy metal rejects that had an illegitmate child with the new Planet of the Apes. I've seen this style used before the result is usually unappealing. Mostly it's used in crappy science fiction, and it tends to stay there. If this filmmaker wants to go anywhere with his production design (which is one of his better cards), he needs to break from this style.


4. Cinematography: Not many problems with this. Nothing was overexposed, most of the time we knew what we were looking at. But there were some issues during the fight scenes where I just wanted a wide shot to see what the hell was going on. And what was with the yellow look that the whole thing had? It seemed over saturated. When water is orange, you need to white-balance the camera.

That being said, there's promise in the cinematography here. Composition is good and lighting is very well done for an independent production, even though there's limited creativity in the shots. I would be interested in knowing what kind of camera was used, and how the lighting was rigged.


5. Editing: This film had a lot of newbie mistakes in the editing. Jump cuts everywhere. There's a scene when Godzilla comes out of the water and is walking around. And someone forgot to film inserts. The only reason for an editor to put this sequence together the way it was put together is if he didn't have much film to work with. Plus there were multiple shots that broke the 30 degree rule. So some of the cuts felt jarring. And what was with that smog shit everywhere? I get the purpose, but it was annoying on screen. It needed work.


All in all, this was a good attempt from a somewhat promising filmmaker. There's hope here, but overall this is not good work. The script ruined the production. I'm interested in seeing more from this guy, given that this was a first attempt. But this film is far from a masterpiece.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Depression

Depression is the greatest feeling. It's so extreme. Revel in it, because you are alive.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Obviously Racist.





Obviously he just hates black people.

Fucking racist.

House Rep. Joe Wilson SC(R) is a Racist?

Click for good fun


What? Why can't he just be a congressman that's pissed off with the President? Why do we have to call him a racist? Is every black person that didn't like Bush a racist?

I'm baffled. Why did the LA Times print this article? It starts off fair but then moves into some sort of agenda based rhetoric. It's irritating. This is making me want Joe Wilson to run for President in 2013. He had the gall to speak out to the President when he was expounding bullshit about a Bill that doesn't exist.

I don't even think his call out was just about the illegal immigrant thing. I think it was much more about the speech as a whole piling up on him. I'm going to root for Joe Wilson in this whole thing. The criticisms toward him after he apologized is insane. Why does he need to apologize twice?

Ridiculous.



Why do we jump to racism so easily?

My comment on the LA Times Article:

Where the heck did the race thing come from? I'm very frustrated by this article. It starts off fine albeit a little slanted, but then just goes crazy racist at the end.

"For liberals, Wilson represents the just the latest face of those who will never be comfortable with Obama, in part because he is the first African American president."

This is pure speculation. What evidence do you have that Joe Wilson doesn't like Obama because he's black?

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Satan

I would argue that Satan is more loving than God.

God didn't want us eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Why? What could be wrong with the Tree of Knowledge? We can put all the values we want on blind faith, but the interesting thing to note here is that God wants little followers, but Satan seems to want equals.

God loves you unconditionally, but will only act upon it if you respond to it. Even if you don't even know that he exists. Satan on the other hand will accept you into his realm regardless of whether or not you're a Satanist. Satan's love is truly unconditional because Hell is full of all kinds. He's got Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, Satanists, Atheists, Taoists, Scientologists, a couple Catholics and every single legitimate rock and porn star known to mankind.

Satan only has one rule.

1. No Christians allowed.

But if you're a Christian and you want to come hang out, he'll probably let you in. Besides, since when did Satan obey rules?

But there's also the golden rule.

2. Don't feed Cerberus

Monday, June 22, 2009

not dead

Just without internet for a while. I have it now, but God knows how much longer it'll be around.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Mannerism, the 'Death of Art' Movement, Purity, and Awesomeness

It's hot as Hell.

I feel like this person.



Stupid A/C is broken.



Anyway. This ties into the three recent art posts I have made, and shall be the apex of my floundering.

Art: Once Removed

Art: Twice Removed

Art: Completely Removed

Now

Shortly after the Renaissance Era, a movement began that moved away from the classic talent of Artists before. The importance of transferring reality onto a canvas was left behind. Suddenly warping the image for the sake of symbolism became more important.

Madonna of the Long Neck


This movement allowed more to be said with an image than perfect representation. Symbolism crept into different facets of the image. Here we see the Baby Jesus with extended limbs in a position that looks almost lifeless. This told us about Jesus' destiny. He had to die, and his death was set in stone even before he began life. This drift away from the classic view of Art would change everything.

And technically, centuries down the road, it allowed for this.

Infamous


Duchamp's Fountain rocked the very foundations of art in a similar way, just much more extreme. People didn't think it was art. Duchamp shook Modernism with this 'practical joke' piece that flirts heavily with the idea of Post-Modernism at the same time. He took a urinal, turned it on its side, signed it with a fake name, and called it a work of Art.

But this was only the beginning of how things could get shaken up.

Now I have mentioned the Death of Art Movement before. And I insinuated that it has already come. This movement will never be featured in a museum because it will never be considered 'real Art'. Hence the death of Art. This movement doesn't really care about critical acclaim, nor does it care if it gets any attention. It also could care less if it has any meaning within itself.

A now famous work of 'Art' in this newest art movement is The Awesome Face.

AWESOME!!!


No one knows who made The Awesome Face, but it has become one of the more famous works in the newest movement of Art. It is not Post-Modern because it doesn't rebel. It doesn't care. It doesn't even really have an artist. It's simply awesome. The Awesome Face gets used everywhere, especially the internet to convey that something is awesome. But, since it is often used sarcastically, the little meaning that it has isn't even consistent.

This makes The Awesome Face the perfect representative for the 'Death of Art' movement. Because the movement itself is Awesome... kinda. Not really... Sometimes. But that's why it's a good representative.

But if The Awesome Face were ever to be recognized by any critic as 'Fine Art' the said critic would be lambasted to death.

Thus, it is up to me.

The Awesome Face rocks the very foundation of civilization


This movement, when recognized as a movement, will shake Art to bits. How can Art with no credited artist be considered art? How can Art with no real meaning except to lampoon be considered Art? How can art that is this easy to make be considered Art?

Truth: All of these things independently have been considered Art before. Many of Duchamp's works fit into the mold. Such as this.

Bottle Rack


No meaning except about the meaning behind a signature. This is basically an autograph. But it's considered a work of Art.

Beyond that, several poems and songs written by 'Unknown' or 'Anonymous' have made their way around the literary and musical art world (which strangely doesn't often enter the 'Fine Art' world) to much critical acclaim (which for some reason is the method of legitimization).

So, a purchased bottle rack with a name written on it is Art. And a great poem with no name written on it is Art. So what the hell is the criteria?

What's awesome about The Awesome Face is that it is under the purest form of art. Much like the writing on bathroom stalls.



Now here's a work of Art that can't even be considered Art in a classical way without being a hypocrite. This isn't even technically the work of Art, it's just a photograph of it. Now, who then, shall go out into the world and find the red bathroom stall on which this was written (guys or girls bathroom?), remove it, and bring it to an art show to be put on display (assuming it hasn't been washed off already)? Certainly not the artist. So whoever brings this Art out of hiding in the world would be a fraud. So the photograph that someone took of it floats across the internet for the sake of appreciation, and the provocation of thought.

The Awesome Face, and the art pieces that it inspires all over the internet, are pure in that no one makes money off of them (except when they do), no one cares about critical acclaim (except when they do), and no one even takes credit for them (except when they do). They simply find their way around. And even when there are exceptions to this rule, the exception is embraced. If the modified works are 'good' they survive. If they're not... well... no one uses them and they fade into the dark recesses of the intertubes.

and on your desktop, they are the center of the universe,
your universe.


Those that survive will make people laugh, make people think, or make people facepalm at the stupidity, and still survive. Thus the internet has become the ultimate judge of what is Art and what isn't. And also the collective judge of what is worth keeping around.

Can we consider The Awesome Face (and the subsequent inspirations?) a legitimate work of Art? Probably not. But if it isn't, then it highlights the hypocrisy in the legitimized art world in a way that might suddenly legitimize it. But, at that point, if it were to be legitimized, that part of the meaning would be immediately lost (such happened with Fountain when it was legitimized. Legitimization caused it to lose it's meaning in a strange way). Thus becoming a perpetual flipping statement of Art.

Since Mannerism was the first dissenter (or among them, probably the most famous) from the conventions of Art. I credit Mannerism ultimately for allowing the following movements. Including Modernism, Post-Modernism, and the Death of Art. This means, of course, that the Mannerism movement is, indeed, awesome.

Thanks Mannerism



[/floundering]

Richard Dawkins says

that Pantheism is sexed-up atheism.

I say that atheism is pantheism without any fun.

:P

That is all.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Art: Completely Removed

Moar floundering.

Art: Once Removed

Art: Twice Removed

And following the fall of Post-Modernism, some have theorized that this will be the Death of Art. This is, of course, assuming that art isn't already dead. Maybe Art has been dead all these years and is waiting to come back to life.

There will be a point when the very concept of Art has been so battered and beaten that it will die. A concept can only take so much. Fine Art of our age has already fallen from popular opinion. The common man doesn't care about what's happening in the art industry.

Apart from video-games, movies, advertising, and other things that a lot of people don't really consider 'Art'. The Art that finds its way into a museum is now the type that is only understood by the pretentiously sophisticated of our generation. Beyond that little world, the rest of planet turns their eyes to art and shrugs.

Question: Is that because they don't understand it, or because they're already on the side of enlightenment that Art's evolution will eventually place it?

The Death of Art will be an interesting experience. It means that the life of the artist will be put aside and people will simply accept art as the Chinese and Japanese saw it centuries ago.

Part of life.

The art behind a weapon is the aesthetics, how well it kills, the designs down the side and the family inscription on the blade. There exists inside the Japanese katana an art of design, beauty, skill, and malice in the same creation.

Art or Weapon?


But when it comes right down to it, it's a weapon. It does what it does.

It kills.

Personalization identifies the owner with the weapon rather than provoke a viewer. The death of art will really be the death of Museums rather than the death of artistic concept. Art will come full circle by the end of Post-Modernism and return to its place thousands of years ago.

We made the mistake of separating Art from other studies. Art exists in biology, aesthetics, astronomy, literature, war, philosophy, and millions of other subsections into which humans have divided the study of life and the universe. Art by itself doesn't exist.

Art or Science?
It's both, and we shouldn't distinguish the two.
Art is not it's own subject, it encompasses everything.


Art or Painting?


The Death of Art will be something to celebrate because finally we can stop asking all the questions and searching for true originality. Because, honestly, originality doesn't exist. No matter what we do, we will use materials that have already existed, and put them on canvases that were already there. Using art to find yourself can be useful, but it can't be used to find originality.

Post-Modernism struggles to delay the Death of Art as long as possible, until every artist searches every crevice of expression in the search for true originality until finally it's admitted that originality is impossible.

After the Death of Art, art will be art for the sake of being art. But it will allow room for the entire system to start over from the beginning. But if it does, there will be a certain amount of enlightenment in the next cycle of artistic movements that this cycle couldn't understand.

Next time, we'll know that the search for originality and trying to define art as it's own subject became Art's causes of death.

And it will become not Art, but art.

Art: Completely Removed.

Post-Modernism. Art: Twice Removed.

First read the post on Modernism, and this will make much more sense.

So, in the same line of thought in asking about Modernism. What, then, is Post-Modernism?

And so my floundering continues.

Here's what Oxford has to say:

a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”


In other words. A sort of modernist response to modernism.

Modernism and Post-Modernism are both very rebellious movements. It's hard to apply any sort of rule or definition upon either of them. I called Modernism 'Art: Once Removed'. So it only makes sense that I call Post-Modernism 'Art: Twice Removed'.

If Modernism is a departure from structure and rules of classical art, then Post-Modernism is a departure from the departure.

The 'Art: Twice Removed' definition makes sense because Modernism and Post-Modernism define one another. Post-Modernism can even be considered a part of the Modernist tree, considering that it's so related. But given the extreme rebellious nature of Post-Modernism, it does to Modernism what Modernism did to the rest of Art.

The Post-Modernist looks at the entire history of Art and says, "Fuck you, I'm doing it this way."

And so he does


The canvas is left behind almost completely. Some still make Post-Modernist art on a canvas, not because it's the rules, but simply because there's no rules in Post-Modernism art so why worry about whether or not to use or not use the canvas in the first place. If it fits my vision, by God I'll use it. But may I remind you, it's not 'cause it's the rules.

Finally the very definition of art gets questioned on a very serious level.

The questions that we ask when looking at an 'art' piece get poked at prodded. Who made it? Do we care? Is there meaning? Do we care? Is the goal of art to make us think or simply get a laugh? Do we care? Is it about composition, meaning, or both? Do we care? What is composition anyway and why are we so damn concerned about it?

Do we care?
Do we care?
Do we care?

And if you do care... why?

And what the hell is the purpose behind all this Art stuff in the first place?

Ideologies behind Art and style get lost in the fray. The step that Pollock took with adding the screws and bolts into the painting get taken several steps further in the hopes for finding originality. Suddenly medias are mixed, styles blend, and we don't recognize Art anymore. Silk screening gets combined with painting and crayon in order to make a pretty picture.

And next to that piece in a museum will be a store-purchased pink bicycle with the words 'I'm an art piece' scribbled on the side with white-out. The base of art gets battered and ransacked until suddenly... the very concept of Art can't take it anymore.

And the death of Art is upon us.

Defining Modernism? Art: Once Removed

What is Modernism? Is there a definition?

Oxford says- a style or movement in the arts that aims to break with classical and traditional forms.

The above definition is probably the only thing that is going to be technically right in this entire post. I have been taking an Art History class for about a year now (honestly too long for any class to last) and the teacher has decided to let us flounder in finding a way to define modern art.

So here is my floundering.

People started messing around with the idea of modern art in the late 1800s and it continued into the middle of the 1900s. A group of people apparently started to question the definition of art. For example: can an overturned urinal be art?

answer: yes. decidedly.


Regardless of whether or not the signature matches the 'artist's' name. DuChamp basically founded modern art on a number of levels. I believe that he turned his entire life into a practical joke. Occasionally making 'real' art to please the masses while occasionally flirting with the idea of post-modernism before it existed.

I can see him smiling after finishing Fountain. Which in my uneducated opinion is more post-modern than modern because it not only breaks from traditionalism, it breaks from the breaking of traditionalism. Pissed off a lot of people.

But that's for the next post.

I'd label/define modernism as "Art: Once Removed". As the definition above states, Modernism is anything in the art movement that breaks from the traditional rules of art. Which is strange because that kind of happened with every single new movement of art from Mannerism on.

Mannerism asked the question: Do we have to show things as they physically are, or can we change it to fit our purposes? And thusly, everyone started drawing strange versions of Mary.

The first true Modernist painting?


After this drift from the rules, movements that broke the rules developed by the classical Renaissance era started up all over the place. Europe being the only place these advancements really happened. In other parts of the world, art stayed mostly the same because the only people figuring out the definition of art in the first place were the Europeans. Other civilizations (Aborigines, Chinese, Japanese, Zulu, All the Native American tribes, etc) simply accepted art as part of the rest of their life. They didn't see a distinction.

Personally, I think it's better that way.

But moving on.

After Mannerism, several movements broke away from the great and powerful Renaissance and moved into 'new' areas of art. All the while trying to find some vestige of originality that might still be left while still using the same paints on the same canvas to paint discernible subjects.

Then Modernism happened and changed the whole game.

sploosh!


Pollock used some paint. Sometimes he used other things. I saw a Pollock painting up close (not one above) once and walked up to it. I discovered nuts, bolts, and screws stuck into the paint.

Why? No clue. Probably had something to do with his image as a 'working man' artist. But it was certainly a different experience. Pollock had made as step in the direction of originality. Whether or not it's pretty is up to you. But it's certainly original.

All the while still being technically 'Art'.

Take it as you will.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

The Young Turks... oh dear God.

Meet The Young Turks.

This guy is trying really hard to be a legitimate journalist. He's been trying to get a spot on MSNBC, which would be a good place for him, considering how partisan he is.



No conspiracy theory at all... amirite?

I commented his channel with this. So I decided I'd post it here because I feel it's important. I'm not even going to bother addressing the issues in the video right now because I have so much on my plate right now.

But short answer is: Obama made a good decision here. The last thing we need is propaganda material while our troops are spread thin over the Middle East.

Here's what I left them.

unsubscribed.

This channel is way too partisan. If you're going to be interjecting your own opinion in the news, you're not a journalist, so quit trying to come off as one.

If you're going to claim to honestly put forth the news, then your opinion has to remain out of it. Otherwise it's no longer news, it's commentary. Journalists trying to be commentators is ruining journalism, and you're not helping.

Beyond that, your commentary is one-sided. It's obvious that you don't think for yourself. So you can't even really be a commentator without sounding like your parroting other people. Either quit and find something you're good at, or change your show. If you don't, you continue to hurt the integrity of journalism.

Monday, May 11, 2009

And So, I Must Leave The Internets... For Now

Editing a movie. The week shall be devoted to editing a movie I just shot entitled 'Real'.

The rest of my waking moments will be devoted to a second movie I'm producing/directing/writing entitled 'Land of the Faithless'.

Beyond that, I am finishing a final draft of a script for a movie by this dude that is a little overdue. This one is entitled 'Ultraman Sorta Episode 3 - A Moderately Threatening Invasion'.

'Real' cannot be posted on the internets, but if you want a copy, let me know and I will get one to you. As for 'Land of the Faithless', that one might go onto Youtube or Vimeo.

But my point!

I will most likely not be posting anything for at least a week outside of small shit. Just wanted to let ya'll know why.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Project Pitchfork: Requiem (Water Mix)



Dude, fuck yeah. This song is the latest thing to be playing in my ears over and over. It's off their album Ch'i.

I don't really know much about the band, but I've recently come across a lot of their music. It's pretty damn awesome. Have a taste.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Pantheist: A disconnected ramble about why I believe what I believe.

So, upon further examination of my articles Theism or Atheism and Thin Places along with my own thoughts on the world and how it's composed, I've decided pretty solidly that I'm a Pantheist.

I figured out some time ago that if there was a God, it probably wasn't a sentient being. And what sentience that God does have is ours, because we are linked to God.

God is just as much a part of us as we are a part of God.

God is a part of his creation and the creation is a part of God.

And, to complete the triangle, We are a part of God's creation as much as the creation is a part of us.

God, Creation, Us


We watch over the creation. This is where I think that the parable of Adam and Eve has some validity. We, God, and the creation are one and the same, even if different in concept. If there ever was any such trinity, that would be where it is.

I came across this belief when I read a concept in the Hua Hu Ching that basically read that we are all a part of the same whole. When I threw my understanding of God into that mix, I realized that I was a pantheist without yet knowing the term.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes we as humans have empathy for even the tiniest of animals? Have you ever saved a ladybug from a puddle? Have you ever rescued a dog from execution in an animal shelter (like Obama decided not to)?

NOTE: Yeah, I threw the Obama thing in there. I'm just really pissed that he didn't get a pound puppy instead of some purebred fancy breed. As an owner of two pound-pups, I'm kinda pissed that he didn't follow through on his promise to get a dog from a shelter. When he made that announcement, I was like... oh cool, at least I can like him for something. Turns out... not so much. Watching this guy break promise after promise is infuriating.[/rant]

Anywho.

Our empathy for animals of other species (as a whole) surpasses that of any other animal. Though sometimes the animal kingdom has its heroes.

As awesome as this is, why didn't anyone help that dog?


For any of you that want to know what the result is: The dog that was rescued died shortly afterward and no one can find the hero dog. After about a month of searching they called it off.

My point is that humans have a respect for life that far surpasses any other species. Even the hero dog of Chile only saved another of his species. If it'd been a cat, or raccoon in the road, no such action would have been taken (most likely, can't say for sure. That dog is pretty impressive).

But there's constant stories even among our own childhoods of finding a wounded bird and nursing it back to health, or feeding a stray cat. When we see the death of animals with our own eyes, sometimes we cry because those are our brothers.

Plants are People too


Sometimes we eat those brothers (both plants and animals), as we cannot survive otherwise. But this is the natural order of things as life consumes life all the time. But humanity will eat plants and animals while still having a pet dog and a garden. It's not hypocrisy as much as it's balance. There's a balance in life, death, and God. The responsibility of the human is to watch over it carefully.

In the parable of Adam and Eve, God charges us with the responsibility as rulers over the environment. We are to guard that cycle, because we, like it or not, are the only creatures that can truly handle that responsibility. Although recently our civilizations have become so narcissistic that they have forgotten this purpose.

So God, whether you can call the subconscious spirit of nature God or not, links us to everything, and each other. I think that if people realized that, we'd live much more peacefully with one another.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Egoism and LSD

(a midterm)

There are people who see the world the way they want to.

There are people who see the world the way it is.

And there's the artist.

My Brother, Hunter, aka: Atlas, is a serious artistic photographer. He has recently acquired one of these Blogs and will be posting soon if you wish to check him out.

Hunter focuses on existentialism and takes it to a completely different mental plane. He is the kind of person who has delved so far into his mind that sometimes he has trouble getting out. The result is an explosion of artistic creativity.

Lengthening Sensual Development


The above photograph with a smiling girl and paint splattered around her as if to come out of her ears is one of this artistic photographs, entitled: LSD, or Lengthening Sensual Development.

She's smiling as if she has reached a new high. The splatter paint looks as if her brains may have just exploded out her ears. But, she enjoys it.

But believe it or not, my brother's photograph makes no direct reference to Acid, except that LSD is a drug that expands your mind. This girl is on no drug other than herself. The brain has the ability to take you incredible places if you want it to do so. Some have tried to harness this ability through meditation, and those people are on the right track.

But, anyone can sit on a mat and hum for eight hours. The key to this act is sheer willpower and a resistance toward society. When your mind is grounded in the accepted reality of society, it becomes difficult to see the world from any other perspective. Once you are able to find this resistance. The result is an explosion.

An explosion that looks very similar to butterfly wings. Unique, colorful, and with the ability to fly, whereas before this metamorphosis you simply walked with everyone else.

Part of this resistance is the ability to go into the self and take apart the mind from the inside out. Organized religions, support groups, activist groups, schools, and even family can all act as a deterrent to this process. You must become the blank slate, and then create.

What you do at that point... is up to you.

Egoist, Jared Foust


Another work that comes along the same line was created by a close friend of mine, Jared Foust, aka: DaiKamanohashi, who recently discovered the difference between Egotist and Egoist.

Quoth the Oxford English Dictionary.
USAGE The words egoism and egotism are frequently confused, as though interchangeable, but there are distinctions worth noting. Both words derive from Latin : ego (‘I’), the first-person singular pronoun. Egotism, the more commonly used term, denotes an excessive sense of self-importance, too-frequent use of the word 'I,' and general arrogance and boastfulness. Egoism, a more subtle term, is perhaps best left to ethicists, for whom it denotes a view or theory of moral behavior in which self-interest is the root of moral conduct. An egoist, then, might devote considerable attention to introspection, but could be modest about it, whereas an egotist would have an exaggerated sense of the importance of his or her self-analysis, and would have to tell everyone.

He showed it to me along with the work of art he created, and I had an explosion of understanding of his piece and instantly fell in love with it. A word to describe intense introspection and self-evaluation existed. Nothing could describe the moment but the word 'cool'.

The three of us all have different paths to attaining the individuality which allows for great introspection. I've used eastern philosophies like Taoism and western religions such as Paganism, Hunter tackles Existentialism, and Jared simply embraces who he is and doesn't let a soul in the world tell him otherwise.

But even with these different paths, the goal is the same. Reach into the mind and pull out that world in which we truly belong. Art ensues as we try to invite that world into reality, and allow those in reality to gain a glimpse of who we are.

So there's the artist, who sees the world as he created it.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

A Woman's Place is the Kitchen and the Battlefield

Women's history is quite the boring subject for a number of reasons. It's only interesting if you're interested in domestic issues for the greater part of history.

Women's history had an awesome start in the Neolithic period, and in early civilization (Sumeria especially). But all that ended when people decided that Sumeria sucked and wiped them off the face of he earth. And then, with women's history being so focused on a small aspect of history, especially in the last thousand years, the rest of history became Man's history. Since that point, it's always been 'impressive' when we see a woman suddenly do something that gender roles of the time said they couldn't do. But these women are only popular for doing things that a thousand years ago would have been fine.

Women like Clara Barton and Sarah Rosetta Wakeman stand out as women of the Civil War period who did things considerably amazing for their time. But in the art of the time, there wasn't much that glorified this, even in the art by women. The 'Woman's place is the kitchen' mentality permeates through many women, even today.



It simply wasn't a woman's place to do anything other than cook or clean for her husband, make babies, teach, and walk around in a dress. While there's nothing inferior about these tasks, there's not much glorification of it. And sometimes I think that women's art in the 1800s and on is an attempt at glorifying domestic life.

But there's been a surge of artistic representations as of late of the woman-warrior, as rare as she is. Women have been popping up in video games especially as great fighters.

The Amazon of Diablo 2


In literal history, there weren't many fighting women. The pagans of Northern Europe (Gaul, Woads) had a few; there was obviously Joan of Arc; and the maiden archers of Scythia were a force to be reckoned with. But overall, the woman-warrior in classical European civilizations (Rome, Greece, Carthage, Macedonia, etc) is practically a historical fiction.

Most civilizations that employed women on the battlefield put them in positions where a small, fragile body could be utilized well. Even the Romans feared Scythian women on horseback with bows and poisonous arrows.

Scythian Noblewoman


And China has a large collection of woman-warriors. Mulan being the most obvious, but a better example would be Sun Shang Xiang, a princess of the Chinese kingdom of Wu whose handmaidens dressed in full armor. She would use hit and run tactics with cavalry to really mess with her enemies. And she was a great fighter herself, fighting in numerous battles during the Three Kingdom Period, utilizing both the sword and the bow.

But for some reason, around the medieval period, the powerful woman on the battlefield disappeared and never really came back, especially not to the scale of the Scythians who employed whole brigades of women. But in concept art and science fiction stories of ancient civilizations, we have the woman-warrior coming back.

I don't think she's in the kitchen


Scythia lives again, but only in the imagination of the concept artist. Rarely are these stories made into anything beyond the medium of graphic novels and sci-fi novels. Which are pretty fucking awesome, but aren't as mainstream as they probably should be. Maybe the woman warrior will truly return.

Holding the Treasure

Shaqerlee made a really cool response to my recent blog post, A Quest for Treasure, in which I took a quest into the internet for a lost photograph.

She brought up a good question with her title. Now that I have the treasure, what do I do with it? Honestly, I just wanted it for my collection of interesting photographs that move me. Occasionally I go into them and look for that piece of inspiration I need. As a film student, photography inspires me to expand upon the picture into a story.

The Treasure


This photograph in particular reminds me of how simple life really is. We complicate things too much sometimes. Shaqerlee even admitted that she would have separated life into seven parts rather than four. This photo separates life into childhood, love, wisdom, and death. And they are separated into Morning, noon, evening, and night.

Three of those are obvious with the exception of Wisdom being the fourth. It may not have been what the artist was intending, but I see that as what we are left with when we have nothing else. He's looking at his wife's grave which was placed on the spot he had a romantic day. A day important enough to be represented in the portion of his life symbolic of love.

The character has nothing left but his memories, and his wisdom that he has attained over the years.

It's quiet there.

And then he's gone.

Along with the tree who traveled with him.

Night falls.

But the kite stays as a tribute to his journey.

And new life begins.

Monday, April 27, 2009

A Quest for Treasure

(Found Object)

I had downloaded a photo to talk about it on here... or at least I thought I did. I ran into the issue earlier this morning when I suddenly couldn't find the damn thing. I have a handful of folders that I put insanely cool shit in, but after much deliberation and searching my computer for .jpgs, I apparently either deleted it or didn't even download it in the first place.

It was a really cool photograph. But the only thing I remembered about it was that there were some trees, a kite, people, it was set up in four photographs, and there was a life symbolism in it. I was going to write about it because it really inspired me. But the disappearance threw me into a rut. But I was determined to find it again.

Only problem. I had no clue whatsoever where I managed to find it the first time.

So anywho, I did some image searching on google for it to try and find the damn thing.

search: life kite
search: life kite tree
search: life kite four
search: life kite 4
search: lief kite four photograph

darn

search: life kite four photograph
search: photography life kite
search: fuck it
search: I hate you google
search: ???

I gave up.

But, being the brilliant technician of the internet that I am, I went to a SUPER SECRET WEBSITE and went to the requesting image forum. I put a description of the image in there and waited while looking around for other requests that I could fulfill.

After a while, someone else posted that he was looking for the same photograph. Didn't have it, but gave me a gift. Probably something he had found while doing the same search I'd been doing.



I really liked the picture, and it indeed has it's inspirational levels. But it wasn't the photograph I was looking for. So while sifting through the millions of requests for other stuff, I couldn't find anyone looking for anything that I had, given that I don't collect the type of stuff that people there tend to be looking for.

but, alas, after a few minutes more of waiting, myself and my friend in need both got what we were searching for.

delivered


So now, in addition to having the photograph and it's original meaning, it now has an extra personal meaning because of the quest to find it.

Life.

Diamond in the Rough: Born a Slave

There's a shitload of photographs in the world. Most of them don't speak to me at all. But sometimes I see one that truly affects me.

Richard Avedon, William Casby, born a slave 1963


As a History note, the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln was in 1863. So this photograph might have been taken exactly 100 years after the proclamation.

Slavery has a long history in human culture. Not all of it was bad. Roman slavery, for example, was mostly for prisoners, and even then still had a way out. Roman slaves could earn their freedom, and one even managed to become Consul. American slavery, however, had just about every negative connotation you could find. There was no future for these slaves, which is what makes American slavery so horrible.

It was racially motivated, the slaves were all foreign, and there was no way out of it for about 150 years. If a slave escaped, he could not blend in with the populous as a Roman slave could have. There were no other nations for him to escape to other than Canada or possibly Mexico if he played his cards right. In Rome, a slave could escape to Gaul, or simply disappear to another part of the Empire and restart his life, but in America, every black man was a slave until some began to inherit freedom. And even then, there was still no future for them.

Sometimes life was better for a slave black than a free black. Especially a domestic slave for the right household. However, if you read Fredrick Douglas' book My Bondage and My Freedom, you see that even a domestic slave that lives mere miles from the Mason-Dixon line can have the roughest life in the world.

And then there was another 50 years of debate before war broke out over it. And after that, another hundred years of racial struggle for the rights of these ex slaves' descendants to sit in the same restaurant as the previous slave owners descendants.

To put this in context, here's what happened the same year this photo was taken.

Culmination of a Century of Freedom:
Maybe he was there

I don't know how old this guy was when the photo was taken, but it can be safe to assume that he didn't live very long as a slave. However, the hardships with slavery didn't end with the emancipation proclamation. There was still about two more years of war over the issue, and then the shit hit the fan with reconstruction (letting southern states back into the union, the formation of the KKK, voting rights taken away from southerners, uneducated blacks being voted into political positions).

I would think that a conversation with this man would be an intense experience. There's historical accounts where you get a broad view of what happened in a civilization, and then there's the personal accounts of the people in that time. These accounts include the signs of the times if you will, but this man's personal account would include each job he has worked, the women he loved, the friends he had, the times he had within this hundred year span of history.

This man saw a century of intense advancement in all aspects of society. And it can be seen in his eyes. His life is hardened. But he has lived to see this moment. The moment is over, and he is long dead now. But he made it.

Life.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

ZombieJesus, Plant Ovaries, and Apache Indians

I am a user on a Christian forum that allows for open debates between the users. I've joined to throw about my two cents, even though I am sometimes disregarded for being a non-believer (and told to GTFO). Others, however, really like that I'm present there and don't want me to leave.

So I stay.

But anywho, something I posted there could definitely double as a blog post here. This was made in response to a discussion about contradictions in the Bible.

There's a lot of people in the world that hate Christianity for beliefs such as Hell, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, so-on such-as. So they look all over the Bible for insane verses and philosophical contradictions. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it's just stupid.

The reason why I left Christianity is that the worldview of Christianity, while it makes sense in it's own little world, didn't make sense to me when I took a few steps back and looked at the broad spectrum of things.

It especially seemed ridiculous when I realized that Christianity basically worships an immortal zombie (hence the phrase ZombieJesus on the internet).

Also, I was turned off by Christianity's resistance to other schools of thought that don't come explicitly from the Bible. The Tao Te Ching is obviously a tool of Satan because it's a philosophy that comes from somewhere else. A standard that Aristotle was never held to (examine the history of Galileo Galilei).

Upon leaving, I've seen a few philosophical contradictions in the religion of Christianity mainly in how it's practiced, rather than the Bible itself. There's a few places where the Bible is nowhere near as clear as it claims to be, but even if it was, and still adhered to the philosophical worldview it always has (sacrificing literally means something to God, God is a sentient creature, Jesus' death literally saves us from Hell even though he didn't actually die... Cause he couldn't... but died for our sins... wait what?), I still wouldn't be able to follow it because it simply doesn't make sense to me. It even seems crazy sometimes.

So I am where I am. fluttering above a few philosophical ideas and but mostly settled on the issue of religion. Still changing because I am constantly exposed to new facts, but I like it that way.


Zombie Jesus!


To which a user named Hope responded:
that's what bugs me. people lump Christians into a category of all being so judgmental and hypocritical. and yes, in reality, many of us are. but then there's the ones that really get it, that understand the life Jesus intended for His followers and the law of love that was established at calvary.

and i'm pretty sure Jesus did die. . . at least in the Christian perspective He did.

i agree about Christianity seeming crazy. sometimes i wonder why i believe what i believe, and i feel like just quitting religion altogether. but the thing i love about my faith is that i'm nowhere near understanding how things work out "logically", and i don't have to be. i've experienced God in intimate ways that i can't describe to anyone. just feeling His presence in my life and His love and comfort when i need it most. it's completely and utterly beautiful.

I find that last paragraph extremely interesting. With that, I wonder where she'll be spiritually in five years.

Me again
Right. He died, was supposed to be a sacrifice to be sent to Hell to pay for the sins of mankind, but cheated his way out of Hell (cause he's God, lulz) and came back to life in the form of his physical body, making him technically a zombie.

But then I go back an examine why he had to do all this in the first place. And it goes back to eating the wrong plant ovaries (fruit). The fruit in question gave us the power to tell the difference between good and evil.

Now disregarding whether or not it's possible to gain such wisdom from eating a kind of apple, is it really such a bad thing to have this knowledge? And why did God want to hide these things from us. And furthermore, why did he decide to hide it in fruit?

And once again, I don't understand why that makes us need to go to Hell in the first place. If Adam was dumb enough to take Eve's little plant ovary, giving us knowledge between good and evil, why does that make it possible to go to Hell in the first place when clearly Eve didn't know any better before she ate the apple?

If eating the apple was a sin in the first place, then clearly we had the ability to sin pre-apple. But only the ability to go to Hell post-apple.

So pre-apple we had the thinking abilities of a Dog. Which was, of course, a good thing. But the 'fall' of man flipped things around and allowed us to have some of the knowledge of God, which God apparently wanted to keep to himself... except that he put a magic tree in the middle of a garden that was full of said knowledge.

When the roots of the religion don't make much sense, I start to think it's a little crazy.

I know the comfort that you're talking about, as I have felt it before. But that doesn't mean that it's the Christian God. It could be the Great Spirit (Apache), which seems much more likely to me. God could not be God if he didn't do things logically. And since there's a large amount of logic missing when it comes to the base of Christian beliefs (in my eyes) my potential faith in those beliefs flounder.


All true, but doesn't make much sense when you put it that way


Hope responded a last time
Jesus was never supposed to be sent to hell. feel free to give me a verse that supports your claim to the contrary. and He was fully resurrected back to life. this definately makes Him human, not zombie.

the reason it was a sin to eat of that fruit was because God had told adam and eve not to do so, therefore it was a sin of disobedience. when they were protected from the knowledge of good and evil, they didn't have any problems. the world was perfect and they were free to have fellowship with God and there was no sin to hold them back.

it wasn't that they didn't have a knowledge of God before the fall, it was that they now had a knowledge of God AND a knowledge of sin. therefore bringing forth murder and adultery and all the other horrors that would have been preventable if they hadn't partaken of the ONE fruit from which they had been forbidden.

and i don't think your "great spirit" would give me comfort when i have no belief in him. in fact i have such a strong belief that my God is the only true God in existence that any other 'god' would probably not be in the mood to comfort me in my time of need.

the reason i base my religion on faith is that i wasn't there at the creation of the world. i'm not going to demand scientific proof as to exactly how the world originated, because that would be impossible. everyone claims their belief as fact and that gets us nowhere.

Friday, April 24, 2009

The Color Red... or Yellow.

Anytime Paul Gauguin comes up, I am reminded of this little tidbit from my childhood.


Calvin and Hobbes


I read this as a kid with Calvin's perspective. Who the hell is he? I didn't know, and I didn't bother finding out.

But... Well, he liked to paint.


Paul Gauguin, Vision After The Sermon


Red.

Smooth pasty red.

A lot of what impressionism is about has to do with the way the mind perceives color. Red classically represents a number of things. It can represent love, anger, passion, life (blood), or death (blood) depending on how it's used. But, some people, like myself, identify color with numbers, letters, music, and memories.

Five is yellow to me, for example. Always has been.

Uno anyone?


And there are several orange memories in my life, as as well as many blue ones. Last summer was particularly yellow.

Probably doesn't make any sense to you. Or maybe it does. Most people I've talked to who are 'creative and gifted' know exactly what I'm talking about, even though the colors don't always match up. It makes no sense to me why anyone would think that five is anything other than yellow. Because... it's so obviously yellow.

Uno disagrees.

Fuck you Uno, five isn't red.

Now it seems that yellow is one of the colors that inspires me the most. Quite honestly it isn't. It's very out of character for me. And I honestly don't really like the color if it's overused.

Vincent van Gogh, Night Cafe


And I think the same reaction would come from someone who hates the color red. But honestly, the color red reminds me of Dynasty Warriors, Orcs, and just about every Chinese film I've ever seen (House of Flying Daggers was Green, and Hero was every color in the book. But they did those things on purpose, which impresses me.). All of which are things or concepts that I enjoy. So the color red does something for me, and I'm able to appreciate this painting beyond the subject matter simply because of the sheer amount of red that it uses.

If something is red in my mind, chances are that I'll enjoy it.

My response to the painting has almost nothing to do with the subject of the painting itself, just the fact that it spams the color red everywhere. Alternately, the Night Cafe has the opposite problem with me because it has the color yellow fucking everywhere. Even the red is yellow. There are times when the color yellow can be used tastefully, but in this case, it doesn't seem right to me.

Monday, April 20, 2009

haha

Yes, I shall post this after bashing youtube.

Twice.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Youtube again.

So why did I bash youtube (or at least give it a hard time)?

Before I answer that, watch this.



Now if you could survive this guy's annoying voice and inflection, the message is that there's a possibility of corporations taking over youtube videos. So, all the vlogs, short films, and yes... even the youtube poop, will be destroyed by the onslaught of bullshit. Youtube is becoming just another television channel in the same way that Hulu became about a year ago.

Now the difference is that Hulu set out to do this. Youtube was just meant to be a video sharing site. Hence YOUtube. YOU made the videos (or stole them) and posted it. w00t. But now, it's going to be CORPtube. Or hulutube or whatever stupid nickname you want to give it.

I think that youtube is mostly crap, but I also don't watch TV because I think it's even crappier. Soon, youtube gems such as TheAmazingAtheist, Thunderf00t, LonelyGirl15 and other random things stuff I've subscribed to are going to be eclipsed by episodes of Family Guy.

Two years ago, youtube was better. Better free speech, clearer regulations, and less bullshit. But still overwhelming amounts of youtube poop. And it's only taken two years for even the poop to turn to shit.

Which seems to be the trend with time marching on. As years pass, we get exponentially more bullshit along with technology, comfortable living, blah blah blah.

Sure, youtube has allowed us to be able to share videos that we make with everyone in the world. But what does that give us? A bunch of people sitting on their asses watching videos on the internet. The only difference between that and TV is that there's some interactive applications, lower production values, and there's less commercials.

In the grand scheme of things, how is it good that our generation can be easily defined by this?

although... It's awesome that short films are becoming more popular as a result of youtube.



The Director of this short film.

However, it's hard to make money with them considering that youtube is mostly free (money being made off advertising). But with the oncoming of this HULUtube, the short film trend will disappear as shows such as Family Guy, Lost, and Heroes become a lot more readily available. This may also kill the DVD market for those shows, or at least damage it.

It also may be a good way to fight piracy. Make the money with the adverts rather than people actually purchasing the films for film's sake. But with this, independent filmmaking will die.