The prison-house of language.
I'll be frank, even after all the research I've done, I still don't understand what this means. I mean, I have an idea of it's concept, but ask me to explicitly give you the terms proper definition and I would not be able to. So let me tell you what I think it means, and I go by the words itself. We are often held prisoner by the words we speak. All over the TV, and through out or lives, we are told to watch our mouths. We're told to be mindful of our tones for fear of people taking it the wrong way.
Comedians are often ostracized for their use of language. Lenny Bruce was arrested fifty years ago because of his words. Don Imus was fired because he called a bunch of basketball players, "Nappy headed hoes" in jest. Never mind that it was a terrible joke, he was vilified because of who he was (an old white guy) and because of what he said. Even I had this happen to me recently.
I claim stereotypes often come from the smallest grain of truth and immediately I was jumped on by one person who was offended by my tone. They may have claimed it was because they thought I was wrong, but they eventually made it clear they were more angry because of the language I used; because of my tone. This happens all the time to all of us. We constantly have to watch what we say and how we say it; and it's even doubly worse when you're in the public spotlight. No longer can you just speak, no longer are offhand remarks considered exactly that. They're poured over and analyzed to the point of ridiculousness.
This, in a way, makes us a prisoner. Especially of our own language, unable to speak our minds without fear of excommunication or "hurt feelings". This is what I believe the entire concept of "the prison-house of language" entails.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Got my website back
http://fadeisoutproductions.squarespace.com/
So that feels good, now all I need is to get my domain names back.
So that feels good, now all I need is to get my domain names back.
ENGLISH 101: BLOG FIVE-ELECTRIC BLOGALOO, SUMMARY EDITION
EXCERPT FROM THE REPUBLIC
By Plato, as told by ME.
Widely know as "Allegory of the Cave", this excerpt details a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, in which they discuss human nature concerning ignorance, and refusing to move past that ignorance even in the face of reality. Socrates presents this through a philosophical symbolization: The Cave. More specifically, human beings born in the darkness of a cave and living out their lives in that same cave, ignorant of the greater world.
They are bound by chains to this cave, and the most they know of the outside world exists only as shadows and outlines to them. But, what would theoretically happen should these prisoners be allowed to go free? Socrates presents this scenario to Glaucon; he explains in detail how such a person, formally chained in the darkness, would react to being shown the real world. How would this person react to the light, of which he is not accustomed? And if all the shadows he once gave names to were revealed for what they truley were, would he go mad?
These are the scenarios Socrates presents and gives answers to throughout the passage. In addition he also posits an additional sequence of events in which the former prisoner brings this new knowledge back to his former people. Their reactions and the eventual fate of the prisoner, including the reasons why, are all detailed here. And not just the fates of the specific prisoner are theorized here, but in the end, The Cave is used to parable the fates of most of those who try to bring truth to those who have their own reality are presented.
By Plato, as told by ME.
Widely know as "Allegory of the Cave", this excerpt details a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, in which they discuss human nature concerning ignorance, and refusing to move past that ignorance even in the face of reality. Socrates presents this through a philosophical symbolization: The Cave. More specifically, human beings born in the darkness of a cave and living out their lives in that same cave, ignorant of the greater world.
They are bound by chains to this cave, and the most they know of the outside world exists only as shadows and outlines to them. But, what would theoretically happen should these prisoners be allowed to go free? Socrates presents this scenario to Glaucon; he explains in detail how such a person, formally chained in the darkness, would react to being shown the real world. How would this person react to the light, of which he is not accustomed? And if all the shadows he once gave names to were revealed for what they truley were, would he go mad?
These are the scenarios Socrates presents and gives answers to throughout the passage. In addition he also posits an additional sequence of events in which the former prisoner brings this new knowledge back to his former people. Their reactions and the eventual fate of the prisoner, including the reasons why, are all detailed here. And not just the fates of the specific prisoner are theorized here, but in the end, The Cave is used to parable the fates of most of those who try to bring truth to those who have their own reality are presented.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
ENGLISH 101-Blog the Fourth-The Battle of Los Angeles
Not the movie people, although it does take inspiration from this very real "incident" that has come to be considered, over the years, as the first UFO sighting. In February 1942 tensions were understandably high. It has only been about two months since the Japanese have bombed pearl harbor and rumors were abound all over the west coast that an attack was imminent.
And with good reason: On Feb 23rd " a Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast near Santa Barbara, California, and over the course of the next thirty minutes lobbed 13 rounds of 5-1/2" shells at an oil installation." (source) It was the first attack on American soil since the War of 1812, and President Roosevelt saw fit to warn us of the dangers of "Japanese invaders" on our coasts in a radio address to the nation.
The attack came and went with little fan fare, but what happens next became ingrained in the hearts and minds of people all over the nation, and is now easily one of the greatest mysteries in the 20th century...despite nothing happening.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf2.html
http://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/thebattleoflosangeles.html
It was the very next day and all seemed calm, until 6pm. Numerous reports and rumors came in that another attack was on it's way. Flares and flashing lights were spotted off the coast, which many believed could be used to signal any Japanese ships to start an attack. But nothing happened.
Until almost 2 am, when something was picked up on two different radar stations heading toward Los Angeles. No one knew what this something was, but all air-raid stations were put on green alert, which basically means they were ready to attack if they had to. At 2:30 radar claimed the object was 3 miles from LA. A blackout was ordered and all hell broke loose as anti-air cannons opened fire over the sky of the city, and spot lights scanned the sky. Here is the only known picture of the incident:
Know what's funny about that picture? NOTHINGS THERE. The problem with almost everything I wrote above is the so-called (by me, admittedly) something that was tracked by radar. It vanished from radar almost 15-minutes later. What happened afterward is what set off all the excitement. Not long after the something was "spotted" the info center was flooded with reports of enemy planes in the area. What's worse, guess what started the actual shooting? A weather balloon. One, with a red flare, was spotted near Snata monica and thats when the shells started flying.
After that, all bets are off. Most of the sightings after the shooting started would/could very well be the shells themselves exploding and flying through the air and caught by the searchlights. With all the excitement, it's not shocking to me that people began to "see" enemy planes all over the place. The proof is in the aftermath really. After all the ammo spent, these "swarms" dropped no bombs, caused no damage, and left no wreckage behind. Either they were the best pilots ever, or they didn't exist.
The day after, the military came out and said it was a false alarm. In 1986 it was revealed a lost weather Balloon and a case of "the war time jitters" led to this event. I'm inclined to believe this, considering the time I'd say "war time jotters" was an understatement. These people were a ticking time bomb ready to go off. Of course, at the time and now, people don't believe the "official story". Mostly because, like all conspiracy theories, it's hard to buy a simple explanation for something so outrageous. I think it comes from the myth of a hyper competent government. How could they make such a huge blunder, attack nothing and scare millions of people by mistake? It must be a conspiracy!
Even the Japanese came out and said it wasn't theirs. They called the raid a "myth". I suppose that has lead to people calling this a UFO sighting. Because it can't be a mistake, something must've been out there, right?
No.
Our Government is just dumb sometimes.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
English 101-Blog Trinity:Superstious
I'm a big old gullible fool. I once had a girlfriend who would joke with me and tell me something false and I'd buy it hook line and sinker. I really hated her. Anyway, I've spent my lifetime falling for things and believing in bullshit. Like most kids I believed in Santa Clause, every Christmas was spent worrying about the reactions of my family members when coal would be among my presents. Yes, I was a little asshole. In fact, I think one Christmas my brother actually placed a black rock with the presents and I cried my eyes out. Jerk.
I spent most of the 90's believing the Knicks would win the NBA championship. I know, but I was like 12. Michael Jordan lived to drag me to reality. This sort of belief manifests itself every so often; case in point this past January and the New York Jets. I also used to believe High School was going to be like Saved By the Bell; what a disappointment that turned to be. I mean, I knew I wasn't no Zack Morris (and who is?) but surely it'd still be fun? I suppose it's the first time that I realized TV was a lie. You spent most of your younger years believing in this magic box but it's all bullshit. Even when it's supposed to be "on the level", like the news, it's not and everything coming from it can no longer be taken at face value. It wasn't just the unreality of Saved by The bell that made me come to this decision, it was formed over time, but it's the most memorable.
This doesn't apply to just television, movies are equally guilty. This'll lead me to another belief but I saw JFK by Oliver Stone when I was younger and I loved it. Mostly because, at the time, I was enthralled by President Kennedy AND his death. I remember telling myself I was going to solve it while checking out books about it at the library. So yeah, I believed in a conspiracy. To me, it was obvious Oswald didn't act alone. And I don't think that movie formed that opinion, although it certainly didn't hurt, I know where it came from: my Mother. She was a young girl when he died, so she grew up during the aftermath. Is it any surprise se believed what she did? Most people did, and still do I'm sure.
So I grew up thinking that not only did I know the "truth" about the murder, but that the movie JFK was factual. Fast forward many years later, a little past the birth of the Internet and during it's continued rise, and I become exposed to other world views and "truths". The first to fall was the movie itself; it seems so obvious now, but it never occured to it was heavily fictionalized. And if it wasn't that, things were just outright made up. Then there's all the other info thats out there, the reenactments of the shot, the computer simulations showsing that it was not only possible, but also likely that Oswald could have taken the shots by himself and you have a recipe for my dwindling belief in the conspiracy.
Even now I still struggle with these facts and find myself flip-flopping between beliefs. The most important thing I get out of all that was just how much BS my mother would feed me, things I believed in that I honestly believed until exposure to other people through the 'net/ Things like cracking your knuckles leads to arthritis, wearing my hat will make me bald (okay, maybe that came true), and all the other so-called old-wives tales I'm sure we've all heard a million times.
Did that make her a bad person and a terrible Mother? No, there's plenty of other reasons for that label. Kidding, but seriously: No, of course it doesn't. She was just doing the best she can with what she had. Using knowledge she'd heard and was passing it down. It's not wrong or right, it was just the way it was.
Can't blame her for that.
I spent most of the 90's believing the Knicks would win the NBA championship. I know, but I was like 12. Michael Jordan lived to drag me to reality. This sort of belief manifests itself every so often; case in point this past January and the New York Jets. I also used to believe High School was going to be like Saved By the Bell; what a disappointment that turned to be. I mean, I knew I wasn't no Zack Morris (and who is?) but surely it'd still be fun? I suppose it's the first time that I realized TV was a lie. You spent most of your younger years believing in this magic box but it's all bullshit. Even when it's supposed to be "on the level", like the news, it's not and everything coming from it can no longer be taken at face value. It wasn't just the unreality of Saved by The bell that made me come to this decision, it was formed over time, but it's the most memorable.
This doesn't apply to just television, movies are equally guilty. This'll lead me to another belief but I saw JFK by Oliver Stone when I was younger and I loved it. Mostly because, at the time, I was enthralled by President Kennedy AND his death. I remember telling myself I was going to solve it while checking out books about it at the library. So yeah, I believed in a conspiracy. To me, it was obvious Oswald didn't act alone. And I don't think that movie formed that opinion, although it certainly didn't hurt, I know where it came from: my Mother. She was a young girl when he died, so she grew up during the aftermath. Is it any surprise se believed what she did? Most people did, and still do I'm sure.
So I grew up thinking that not only did I know the "truth" about the murder, but that the movie JFK was factual. Fast forward many years later, a little past the birth of the Internet and during it's continued rise, and I become exposed to other world views and "truths". The first to fall was the movie itself; it seems so obvious now, but it never occured to it was heavily fictionalized. And if it wasn't that, things were just outright made up. Then there's all the other info thats out there, the reenactments of the shot, the computer simulations showsing that it was not only possible, but also likely that Oswald could have taken the shots by himself and you have a recipe for my dwindling belief in the conspiracy.
Even now I still struggle with these facts and find myself flip-flopping between beliefs. The most important thing I get out of all that was just how much BS my mother would feed me, things I believed in that I honestly believed until exposure to other people through the 'net/ Things like cracking your knuckles leads to arthritis, wearing my hat will make me bald (okay, maybe that came true), and all the other so-called old-wives tales I'm sure we've all heard a million times.
Did that make her a bad person and a terrible Mother? No, there's plenty of other reasons for that label. Kidding, but seriously: No, of course it doesn't. She was just doing the best she can with what she had. Using knowledge she'd heard and was passing it down. It's not wrong or right, it was just the way it was.
Can't blame her for that.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
ENGLISH 101: BLOG 2-THE SEQUAL
So the text book came today, and thank god for that. While I remember most of what was read in class, it was nice to be able to read and digest "Allegory of the cave" on my own and in the comfort of my couch. I think it's funny that the "story" itself is in a chapter that lists "The Matrix" as one of it's examples. Immediately while reading it, I couldn't help but see what parallels that movie was trying to make with this piece of work. I know that on the DVD they talk a lot about philosophies having a huge impact upon the story they were trying to tell, but I just never realized (or, I guess, had an interest in finding out) just how much.
This line: At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him," That line describes almost perfectly Neo's first moments awake in "the real". But that's not all, the rest of the passage is also telling:
"...and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?"
The bolded parts especially sync up to those moments in the movie; Morpheus is the "instructor", walking Neo through The Matrix and pointing out the flaws, he is the one who breaks the illusion and shows him the real. I just find it amazing how much they took but without outright plagiarism or bluntness. It's all so subtle and only there as some sort of "easter egg" for those with the knowledge to know. Is it any wonder why the movie is so loved and considered so influential?
More than the cool gun play, more than the martial arts, and more than the cool slow motion "bullet time", it isn't just a movie.
It's a work of art.
This line: At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him," That line describes almost perfectly Neo's first moments awake in "the real". But that's not all, the rest of the passage is also telling:
"...and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?"
The bolded parts especially sync up to those moments in the movie; Morpheus is the "instructor", walking Neo through The Matrix and pointing out the flaws, he is the one who breaks the illusion and shows him the real. I just find it amazing how much they took but without outright plagiarism or bluntness. It's all so subtle and only there as some sort of "easter egg" for those with the knowledge to know. Is it any wonder why the movie is so loved and considered so influential?
More than the cool gun play, more than the martial arts, and more than the cool slow motion "bullet time", it isn't just a movie.
It's a work of art.
Day one
Difference between my private and public self.
Good question. I think about it all the time. My public self is often timed and shy. Quick to follow a lead rather than be a trend setter. At home, around my fiancee, I’m loud and silly, and goofy. I laugh at my own jokes, especially stupid ones. Some might find this part of me obnoxious. This is not to say that either side of my selfs are mutually exclusive. Given time, I know my so-called “real” side will come out in any given situation. It’s happened before.
I guess you could say my public self is guarded and reserved, probably out of fear. Fear of judgment the most likely culprit. I spent a good deal of my life being the quiet wallflower in the room and thinking back upon it makes me sad. I remember I once spent a "date" with a girl not saying a single word! Granted, I was 15 or something, but still! The rush of embarrassment I feel thinking back upon that day just gives me the douche chills.
Even today, the smallest inkling of those old feelings still remain. Even now, as I meet new people, I often find myself shaking with nervousness; a feeling of fear that I KNOW should not exist. I have nothing to fear from this person? Why should I be so jittery? But it happens, and I try to deal. I try to merge my two selves and live a whole life where there is no difference between my public and private selves.
It's a process. A long one. But I've taken strides since I was that 15 year old fraidy cat, but the different selves I think will always remain.
I'll write more later. Maybe.
Good question. I think about it all the time. My public self is often timed and shy. Quick to follow a lead rather than be a trend setter. At home, around my fiancee, I’m loud and silly, and goofy. I laugh at my own jokes, especially stupid ones. Some might find this part of me obnoxious. This is not to say that either side of my selfs are mutually exclusive. Given time, I know my so-called “real” side will come out in any given situation. It’s happened before.
I guess you could say my public self is guarded and reserved, probably out of fear. Fear of judgment the most likely culprit. I spent a good deal of my life being the quiet wallflower in the room and thinking back upon it makes me sad. I remember I once spent a "date" with a girl not saying a single word! Granted, I was 15 or something, but still! The rush of embarrassment I feel thinking back upon that day just gives me the douche chills.
Even today, the smallest inkling of those old feelings still remain. Even now, as I meet new people, I often find myself shaking with nervousness; a feeling of fear that I KNOW should not exist. I have nothing to fear from this person? Why should I be so jittery? But it happens, and I try to deal. I try to merge my two selves and live a whole life where there is no difference between my public and private selves.
It's a process. A long one. But I've taken strides since I was that 15 year old fraidy cat, but the different selves I think will always remain.
I'll write more later. Maybe.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)