I thought of something yesterday-I hope it's not already been done
Imagine that you and your partner have registered to visit an art gallery showcasing art of an unknown artist. You hear people saying things about it, but no one wants to tell you exactly what kind of art it is. Arriving at the gallery, you see a line of people at the door with wristbands and a couple of security guards stationed all around the building. The windows are dark.
You get in line with the others and the security guard opens the door, and utters something into his walkie-talkie. Someone tells you to move into the dark doorframe, and as you do you can see a wall on the other side with a large white sign in bold letters, saying "Quiet Please."
Abruptly the door shuts behind you, shutting out all light. Quickly you reach for your partner's hand and everyone's breathing and chattering fill the corridor. A commanding voice breaks through- "PLEASE REMAIN CALM AND LOWER YOUR VOICES. A GUIDE WILL LEAD YOU THROUGH EACH ROOM IN AN ORDERLY FASHION. EVERYTHING THAT TAKES PLACE IS ALL PART OF THE SHOW. ENJOY."
-continued
7.16.2008
7.15.2008
Bioart
One day I'm researching a topic for my english class, the next I'm contemplating my career as an ethicist. If you haven't heard (and I'm sure you haven't) bioart is a very new art form that clashes with our current ethical standards specifically in medicine, animal testing, and property values of genetically-altered beings.
How cool is that?
Think about it- a new species is made in a petri dish when an artist comes along and jabs some dye into it and videotapes the process. Heard of the fluorescent cat idea? It was first pioneered by Eduardo Kac, who showcased the GFP Bunny, a live rabbit named Alba, which means white matter (and can specify different white things, like plants or brain matter). There are some artists who get tattoos then remove the inked skin with a laser and showcase it in a jar- others take the DNA code, transcribe it to Morse code, then translate to english. Interesting? Some artists will take live skin and manipulate it in labs for the cells to grow into lattices and odd shapes- and some people think that this isn't art?
Bioart creates new subjects instead of objects, which raises alot of questions pertaining to private property, such as condoning the use of a human's body for art and circumventing the need for organ transplants. There is also a debate concerning animal rights, which is still fuzzy even without the addition of bioart. I personally believe (and can logically argue) that animal rights activists as well as morally repugnant animal abusers are both flawed, but since animal rights activists are so "good" it is ignored the implications that they are making.
Animals exist regardless of humans, and they also will die regardless of humans. Yes, killing an animal is a direct action, but to make that a moral blunder because the animal was more vulnerable than a human is a lot like saying that no matter the circumstance, animals are lower than humans. It seems that either animal rights activists ignore this stance or they strategically use it to manipulate the rest of the population since it is such a common idea that humans are superior to other species. Granted, harming animals is wrong, but not because they are helpless or unwilling- rather, it is the act of the human agent who is the only factor because at least then a person is held accountable for their reasoning instead of relying on animals to be inferior.
Here's where the strength of animal rights activists fall apart: Relying on this moral vagueness of humans' treatment of animals allows for animal abusers to simply say that killing or harming the animal OUTWEIGHED any alternative. See? It becomes an argument where the more extreme the circumstance, the more you are right, which is the kind of thinking that leads people to believe that quantifying morals is not only possible, but preferable. Personally my view on animals holds up pretty well and while I have some problems with the treatment of animals, it's not because I imagine seeing their tear-filled eyes at the slaughterhouse.
Well, it's a long and controversial topic nonetheless. The animal rights bit shows that ethics can be manipulated with feelings, but that ethics can and should be reflective of a society's conscience-the decent parts, anyway. I'm thinking that there could more to bioart and bioethics if it were readily available to the younger generation, such as placing bioart and ethics curriculums starting in high school (which only a few have implemented some bioethics courses). Heck, if it were financially feasible universities could combine their labs with research made by Fine Arts majors- which may actually give an incentive to improve upon the technology currently available in the universities. Yes, it would be circumventing (I like that word) the planted ethical ideas about bioresearch, but haven't we come a long way from the Nazis? Or the Tuskegee experiments? The social implications are fascinating- imagine elementary schools with labs that allow children to make their own species and learn responsibility by not just being liable for an animal, but actually being its creator. Class hamsters could have purple skin or amphibious tendencies, something that someone has created to feed their head with curiosity... well, that's an optimistic view. From personal experience I know how children treat the class hamster and I don't think that there is hope to improve upon a child's cruelty by giving them more to play with- but for those who would choose to be responsbile for another life I could see how science, philosophy and art would definately take them places unimaginable by the rest.
How cool is that?
Think about it- a new species is made in a petri dish when an artist comes along and jabs some dye into it and videotapes the process. Heard of the fluorescent cat idea? It was first pioneered by Eduardo Kac, who showcased the GFP Bunny, a live rabbit named Alba, which means white matter (and can specify different white things, like plants or brain matter). There are some artists who get tattoos then remove the inked skin with a laser and showcase it in a jar- others take the DNA code, transcribe it to Morse code, then translate to english. Interesting? Some artists will take live skin and manipulate it in labs for the cells to grow into lattices and odd shapes- and some people think that this isn't art?
Bioart creates new subjects instead of objects, which raises alot of questions pertaining to private property, such as condoning the use of a human's body for art and circumventing the need for organ transplants. There is also a debate concerning animal rights, which is still fuzzy even without the addition of bioart. I personally believe (and can logically argue) that animal rights activists as well as morally repugnant animal abusers are both flawed, but since animal rights activists are so "good" it is ignored the implications that they are making.
Animals exist regardless of humans, and they also will die regardless of humans. Yes, killing an animal is a direct action, but to make that a moral blunder because the animal was more vulnerable than a human is a lot like saying that no matter the circumstance, animals are lower than humans. It seems that either animal rights activists ignore this stance or they strategically use it to manipulate the rest of the population since it is such a common idea that humans are superior to other species. Granted, harming animals is wrong, but not because they are helpless or unwilling- rather, it is the act of the human agent who is the only factor because at least then a person is held accountable for their reasoning instead of relying on animals to be inferior.
Here's where the strength of animal rights activists fall apart: Relying on this moral vagueness of humans' treatment of animals allows for animal abusers to simply say that killing or harming the animal OUTWEIGHED any alternative. See? It becomes an argument where the more extreme the circumstance, the more you are right, which is the kind of thinking that leads people to believe that quantifying morals is not only possible, but preferable. Personally my view on animals holds up pretty well and while I have some problems with the treatment of animals, it's not because I imagine seeing their tear-filled eyes at the slaughterhouse.
Well, it's a long and controversial topic nonetheless. The animal rights bit shows that ethics can be manipulated with feelings, but that ethics can and should be reflective of a society's conscience-the decent parts, anyway. I'm thinking that there could more to bioart and bioethics if it were readily available to the younger generation, such as placing bioart and ethics curriculums starting in high school (which only a few have implemented some bioethics courses). Heck, if it were financially feasible universities could combine their labs with research made by Fine Arts majors- which may actually give an incentive to improve upon the technology currently available in the universities. Yes, it would be circumventing (I like that word) the planted ethical ideas about bioresearch, but haven't we come a long way from the Nazis? Or the Tuskegee experiments? The social implications are fascinating- imagine elementary schools with labs that allow children to make their own species and learn responsibility by not just being liable for an animal, but actually being its creator. Class hamsters could have purple skin or amphibious tendencies, something that someone has created to feed their head with curiosity... well, that's an optimistic view. From personal experience I know how children treat the class hamster and I don't think that there is hope to improve upon a child's cruelty by giving them more to play with- but for those who would choose to be responsbile for another life I could see how science, philosophy and art would definately take them places unimaginable by the rest.
7.10.2008
I Choose Righteousness
If the hardest times of your life are what make you what you are, then I should be proud that my low points are endured with rationale and a conscious application of my obligations and morals. How the hell did that happen?
Since when did I forgo righteous anger to settle for the most pacifistic option? I'm known for my temper and self-righteousness but lately it seems I have set it aside to really question whether or not I have the right to be... right. Is this the key to peace? To a noble peace? Seeing the world in grey usually makes me feel lost, but black and white is so easy to abuse.
I guess with knowing that nothing is perfect, certain, or forever I can feel that my actions are not as insignificant. Once I've lost some of the black and white I've made the grey a solid color by acknowledging my ignorance. No longer does it seem appropriate to take my anger out on someone else for "slight" transgressions; nor is it right to arrogantly imply my superiority over others in some achievement or another, for I would be nothing without the history of the world to have culminated into my (our) present. Regardless, hubris has never been thought highly of except when it contributes to great drama.
Of course all these ideas can be challenged just by identifying "arrogance" and "slight transgressions" and when someone should care for something to appropriate or not- is the answer found in religion? Most religions follow an ideal that, for most, is almost ever fully satisfied and the believers are left to manage their own ideas either by government enforcement or individual discipline. EVERY religion, however, has left grey areas and has been watered down over the years; whether or not the religion has watered-down truth is debatable.
There's got to be some truth that's balanced between beliefs such as Jainism and Paganism that reveals our obligations to ourselves and to others. One who starves themselves out of piety and respect for other beings seems warped compared to a form of Paganism which practices many forms of sacrifice (no, not the Satanic kind) and self-empowerment; both have been abused (such as Jainists dying out and Wiccans scamming teenage girls). It's hard to believe there was a time when pious Christians would whip themselves bloody to represent their undying devotion to Jesus and his sacrifice- anyone who did that now would be hospitalized.
I don't know if the answer is in religion, but it seems to me that religion tends to muck things up if you've never felt strongly one way or the other. Relying on society and government, however, is much less satisfying, or even pouring over the philosophical texts of Aristotle, Bentham, Kant, Nietszche, and others can't adequately account for the massive wave of change that has occured just in the last fifty to one hundred years. The grey areas are still here.
The way I look at the world has changed, as it should, from the black and white lines to the solid grey void. From within I can mold it to shape my needs, but the needs are just as vague.
Since when did I forgo righteous anger to settle for the most pacifistic option? I'm known for my temper and self-righteousness but lately it seems I have set it aside to really question whether or not I have the right to be... right. Is this the key to peace? To a noble peace? Seeing the world in grey usually makes me feel lost, but black and white is so easy to abuse.
I guess with knowing that nothing is perfect, certain, or forever I can feel that my actions are not as insignificant. Once I've lost some of the black and white I've made the grey a solid color by acknowledging my ignorance. No longer does it seem appropriate to take my anger out on someone else for "slight" transgressions; nor is it right to arrogantly imply my superiority over others in some achievement or another, for I would be nothing without the history of the world to have culminated into my (our) present. Regardless, hubris has never been thought highly of except when it contributes to great drama.
Of course all these ideas can be challenged just by identifying "arrogance" and "slight transgressions" and when someone should care for something to appropriate or not- is the answer found in religion? Most religions follow an ideal that, for most, is almost ever fully satisfied and the believers are left to manage their own ideas either by government enforcement or individual discipline. EVERY religion, however, has left grey areas and has been watered down over the years; whether or not the religion has watered-down truth is debatable.
There's got to be some truth that's balanced between beliefs such as Jainism and Paganism that reveals our obligations to ourselves and to others. One who starves themselves out of piety and respect for other beings seems warped compared to a form of Paganism which practices many forms of sacrifice (no, not the Satanic kind) and self-empowerment; both have been abused (such as Jainists dying out and Wiccans scamming teenage girls). It's hard to believe there was a time when pious Christians would whip themselves bloody to represent their undying devotion to Jesus and his sacrifice- anyone who did that now would be hospitalized.
I don't know if the answer is in religion, but it seems to me that religion tends to muck things up if you've never felt strongly one way or the other. Relying on society and government, however, is much less satisfying, or even pouring over the philosophical texts of Aristotle, Bentham, Kant, Nietszche, and others can't adequately account for the massive wave of change that has occured just in the last fifty to one hundred years. The grey areas are still here.
The way I look at the world has changed, as it should, from the black and white lines to the solid grey void. From within I can mold it to shape my needs, but the needs are just as vague.
7.08.2008
An apt time for using the word 'FUCK'
FUCK.
So many stressful things come to bite my ass when I start attempting to live my life. My ex-roommate screwed me in so many ways, so I have to hope she was just too stupid to realize the effect she made on my life. Long story.
Wachovia has found new ways of scheming me out of my money. God forbid if you're a person with less than a grand in your account at all times.
These are the kinds of things that make my boyfriend say,
"Wow, shitty things just seem to happen to you." It's not all that bad, though.
My appetite has decreased but not to the point of severity, I had a good session with my psychologist today, I still made an 'A' in my first summer course, I haven't missed my classes, my boyfriend and I are still going strong, and I have a few people who care enough about me to take time out of their day to help me in some way.
Yet... I still feel guilty.
Remorse is still lingering over me, pushing down my neck because of what my roommate did to me (or what she may have not realized she accomplished). Guilt has usually been my motivation, yet now it seems to be channelled through more respectable activities. The guilt remains, however, so my accomplishments don't satisfy me in the same way that I feel it should for "normal" people. I get nervous when I do something right, so nervous that I lose the concentration I need to continue. I beat myself up for feeling elated about such an insignificant thing, then beat myself up for feeling so sorry for myself. It never fucking ends.
Time to work on my paper.
So many stressful things come to bite my ass when I start attempting to live my life. My ex-roommate screwed me in so many ways, so I have to hope she was just too stupid to realize the effect she made on my life. Long story.
Wachovia has found new ways of scheming me out of my money. God forbid if you're a person with less than a grand in your account at all times.
These are the kinds of things that make my boyfriend say,
"Wow, shitty things just seem to happen to you." It's not all that bad, though.
My appetite has decreased but not to the point of severity, I had a good session with my psychologist today, I still made an 'A' in my first summer course, I haven't missed my classes, my boyfriend and I are still going strong, and I have a few people who care enough about me to take time out of their day to help me in some way.
Yet... I still feel guilty.
Remorse is still lingering over me, pushing down my neck because of what my roommate did to me (or what she may have not realized she accomplished). Guilt has usually been my motivation, yet now it seems to be channelled through more respectable activities. The guilt remains, however, so my accomplishments don't satisfy me in the same way that I feel it should for "normal" people. I get nervous when I do something right, so nervous that I lose the concentration I need to continue. I beat myself up for feeling elated about such an insignificant thing, then beat myself up for feeling so sorry for myself. It never fucking ends.
Time to work on my paper.
7.03.2008
Separation Anxiety
How many times have I had to transition between locations, people, and state of minds for the past 8 years? I couldn't really count, but I think a good estimate would range somewhere between an impossibly large number and an inconceiveable sum. Maybe this is why people say that high school and college are the best years of your life, because setting out into the "real" world (though I don't know anyone who really believes that school counts as the "real" world) stimulates more in your life than ever before and again, assuming that the finish line is to meet the status quo with a 401K and 2.5 kids.
For the first time I've had to deal with a transition not only in my life, but in someone else's. When my parents divorced, I was 12-13 years old and I left my dad behind- I didn't have the stones to deal with him as a family, if only because he didn't either. During the whole process I just shut myself off, which is a habit I developed ever since sentience, and subsequently repeated the process for every transition I had to make. Being afraid of moving, of meeting new people, of being lonely, all of that ties back to simply being afraid of fear itself. I should be better at handling those "normal" things, but really I've just developed a more sophisticated disconnection. Now, I am part of a larger transitional point in my life where I not only try to improve myself, I attempt to solve my boyfriend's problems as well.
How does that apply when your significant other moves away for grad school? Dealing with schoolwork, maintaining a social life, eating, and anything else that constitutes as normal takes a large effort on my part. How can I meet someone halfway when my half seems so insignificant? Is my half worth only 1/5 of theirs? If someone asks you to handle their move and the rest of their belongings, is it selfish to refuse?
So, to address the problem with my current transition I guess I have to list all the things I'm accustomed to doing, then try to apply a realistic approach and be considerate of my boyfriend as well. I'm used to procrastinating, so I can't do that. I'm used to getting angry, so I can't do that. I'm used to avoiding people, so I can't do that. So far I've improved upon some major negative things, but it's still not good enough. I still can't help someone as much as I want to, and the things that I'm able to do are so insignificant it doesn't matter if they're accomplished or not. This is why I avoid so many things; I feel clumsy, useless, and overwhelmed if I try to do anything that involves someone other than myself.
It seems that there's not much of a solution other than slaving away for somebody, letting them procrastinate while I expend my energies on their well-being instead of working towards a balanced objective. If I try to work towards a balanced objective, my boyfriend gets emotional. If I try to calm him down, he gets mad. If I appeal to his weirdness, he starts to feel better but then never actually accomplishes what he needs to do.
This is his transition, I know, but it is mine as well. If we're both really serious then how will marriage fair when I'm supposed to put my spouse before everything else? How can I sit back and tell him to handle his own stuff, when everyone else around him apathetically appeals to his wants? Will he grow tired of me protesting? Am I just a selfish jerk?
In reality all I've ever wanted is stability- at least rationally. It's nice to have variation, but the degree of emotional and mental stress that comes with it makes me so tired and apathetic. I don't want to become apathetic. I don't know how to solve anything, but I know that I don't want that.
For the first time I've had to deal with a transition not only in my life, but in someone else's. When my parents divorced, I was 12-13 years old and I left my dad behind- I didn't have the stones to deal with him as a family, if only because he didn't either. During the whole process I just shut myself off, which is a habit I developed ever since sentience, and subsequently repeated the process for every transition I had to make. Being afraid of moving, of meeting new people, of being lonely, all of that ties back to simply being afraid of fear itself. I should be better at handling those "normal" things, but really I've just developed a more sophisticated disconnection. Now, I am part of a larger transitional point in my life where I not only try to improve myself, I attempt to solve my boyfriend's problems as well.
How does that apply when your significant other moves away for grad school? Dealing with schoolwork, maintaining a social life, eating, and anything else that constitutes as normal takes a large effort on my part. How can I meet someone halfway when my half seems so insignificant? Is my half worth only 1/5 of theirs? If someone asks you to handle their move and the rest of their belongings, is it selfish to refuse?
So, to address the problem with my current transition I guess I have to list all the things I'm accustomed to doing, then try to apply a realistic approach and be considerate of my boyfriend as well. I'm used to procrastinating, so I can't do that. I'm used to getting angry, so I can't do that. I'm used to avoiding people, so I can't do that. So far I've improved upon some major negative things, but it's still not good enough. I still can't help someone as much as I want to, and the things that I'm able to do are so insignificant it doesn't matter if they're accomplished or not. This is why I avoid so many things; I feel clumsy, useless, and overwhelmed if I try to do anything that involves someone other than myself.
It seems that there's not much of a solution other than slaving away for somebody, letting them procrastinate while I expend my energies on their well-being instead of working towards a balanced objective. If I try to work towards a balanced objective, my boyfriend gets emotional. If I try to calm him down, he gets mad. If I appeal to his weirdness, he starts to feel better but then never actually accomplishes what he needs to do.
This is his transition, I know, but it is mine as well. If we're both really serious then how will marriage fair when I'm supposed to put my spouse before everything else? How can I sit back and tell him to handle his own stuff, when everyone else around him apathetically appeals to his wants? Will he grow tired of me protesting? Am I just a selfish jerk?
In reality all I've ever wanted is stability- at least rationally. It's nice to have variation, but the degree of emotional and mental stress that comes with it makes me so tired and apathetic. I don't want to become apathetic. I don't know how to solve anything, but I know that I don't want that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
