Transcendentalism

Transcendentalism is on the move, its everywhere. From posters, pamphlets, newspapers, to advertisements saying that it is a good thing… but what is it? As a Christian, the question becomes, who is this authority figure, and who makes the judgement calls from what is right, verses what is wrong?  The definition of transcendentalism is a simple idea. It is the indication of equality; people, men and women, having knowledge about themselves and the world around them that goes beyond what they see, touch, taste or hear. According to philosophers, this knowledge comes from intuition and imagination, not through logic or the senses. People can trust themselves to be their own authority on what is right. A transcendentalist is a person who accepts these ideas not as religious beliefs but as a way of understanding life relationships. However, I do not agree with what a transcendentalist may proclaim.

The whole idea of Transcendentalism originated in the 1960’s when Maharishi Mahesh Yogi came to the United States and was torn by all the issues at hand: race, riots, drugs, that all were ruining upcoming youth. He began lecturing on the virtues of “scientific” answers to all spiritual parts of man. People thought of him as a “savior”, who brought a time of “meditation” to many people. Transcendentalism can also be a type of meditation that claims to relieve anxiety, and fears. Essentially, it “opens the mind to greater things.” However, the worst anxiety a person can have is far deeper then stress, it has to do with life or death. Only God can eliminate that kind of anxiety.

Those who wanted to participate in this new ideology were asked to bring fruit, flowers and a handkerchief to their first session. These items were then placed in front of a picture of Maharishis master, Guru Nev, who passed away. The instructor proceeds to sing a song in ancient Sanskrit, language of the Hindu religion and the newcomer is supposed to bow afterwards. This song is in parses of Hindu gods and meant to invoke the spirits. One might be asking where the church stood with all this. Surly they didn’t buy into all of this. Wrong. Even the church leaders were sold on the idea and promoting it to their congregations. Christ is missing from the equation, replaced by idles, breaking the first commandment: “No other gods before me” God speaking.

God gives us clear guidelines to live by, told to us in the bible. We are told that our ignorant activities and fears are caused by our separation from Him.  We are not divine and cannot reach God by our own efforts; we cannot save ourselves, nor can we exercise or meditate ourselves out of our anxieties...only the Holy Spirit can help. The Bible warns about evil powers and spirits.  Evil spirits are real beings: they are personalities not just 'forces'.  Human beings cannot stand against beings that are made mightier than us, unless God is on our side. He is the highest authority and reins over everything, creator of all. (Genesis 1:1). He is the one who gives us courage and strength from evil. He still gives us the right to choose, acting the way we want. However, all he asks of us is to shine His light and spread his word to others to know that they are loved and can be forgiven.

As far as whether I am a Transcendentalist, I’m far from it. It goes against all my beliefs, and against everything that God stands for. He is my highest authority, not spirits nor any idles.

The Great Gatsby

Fitzgerald’s novel, the Great Gatsby, and Baz Luhrmann’s version of the movie were similar yet, different in a lot of ways. Though the movie stayed to the main plot, a few changes were done concerning Nick and Jordan, Gatsby’s murder by George and Gatsby’s death and funeral.

In Fitzgerald’s novel, the romance between Nick and Jordan almost seemed to be obvious. The way they looked at each other, or even when they kissed under the moonlight. In the novel they become a couple and break up near the end of the summer. However, in the movie it is not as distinct that they liked each other. Rather, close friends.  During one of Gatsby’s parties, Jordan was whisked away from Nike by another man, who danced with her and left with her.

Near the end of the book, Gatsby is murdered by George Wilson, the mechanic husband of Tom’s mistress. In the novel, Tom just says it was Gatsby’s yellow car that ran over Myrtle. In the movie, it made to have Tom look like a major villain convincing Wilson that it was all Gatsby. He was the one who slept with Myrtle and he must be stopped. In the novel and film, Gatsby is waiting for a phone call from Daisy by the pool, so they could make plans together and run away. However, in the movie, the phone rings. The viewer can see the hope in Gatsby’s eyes right before George shoots him. People watching then know it wasn’t Daisy; it was Nick calling to see if Gatsby was alright.  None of this happens in the book, besides George killing Gatsby.

In both versions, Gatsby is lonely in death. In the novel the only person besides Nick that shows up is Gatsby’s real father who saw that Gatsby had died in a newspaper. He was mourning saying he never saw Gatsby since he ran away from home, but he knew he would of made a change in the world. However, the film depicted his funeral and death in a curler way.  No one shows up, no one cared. Not even Daisy.

All in all, the movie was a good reflection on the book. Though some changes were made to enhance the drama filled romance of this time, overall it was a good movie that kept the viewer wanting to watch more—to see what happens next.

"Bowling for Columbine"

After watching “Bowling for Columbine,” I talked with my mom and asked what she remembered hearing when this horrendous event occurred. The shooters didn’t just shoot anyone at Columbine, but asked each victim whether they were a Christian, athlete, or of a different ethnicity. My mom remembers hearing about two girls in particular that were killed. One was a girl named Rachel. Everyone knew her as the girl who made every person welcome. She was a Christian, very involved with her youth group and fellowship of Christians at her school. She was the kind of person who didn’t leave anyone feeling left out. She was even acquaintances with one of the shooters. However, she was the very first target. Her parents found her diary after she passed away. Rachel had mentioned that she wanted some meaning to come out of her life. Her family created a program called Rachel’s Challenge, a program that equips students to bring positive change in there schools around the country. This program has helped students to not only include others and bond with their peers, but to give assistance to those students who think they are not worthy enough to live. In addition, there was another girl named Cassie who had also been asked if she was a Christian. She stood up for her faith. Michael W. Smith, a very famous Christian song writer and singer, wrote a song in her memory called “This is your time.” This tragic school shooting killed and injured many students and teachers. However, there was a positive that came out of it all. Schools developed new ways and technology to keep students safer.

Ever since that morning, on April of 1999 at Columbine High school, there have been numerous school shootings and other tragic deaths. According to the movie, there are 11,127 deaths in America from guns, more than any other country. Many say that it’s because of America’s history of violence, the mixed ethnicity, or even the problems that our country encountered with civil rights in the very beginning. Even though this is a major problem in our Country, we have to view having the guns is not the whole issue that is at hand. The gun isn’t the “one” who pulls the trigger, the person does. They fear what could happen. Some of this fear was shown in the movie, from the 911 attacks to other shootings that caused Americans to not trust one another. In order to feel safe, even in their own home, they feel like they have to have a gun loaded and ready for anyone who threatens them.

 Some people also do not have the mental stableness to be able to have this huge responsibility. We all have to view each individual as a human being who knows and feels pain--we are all equal. In the New York’s newspaper article we read, about Japan’s 4 rules and laws to own a gun, I believe they are on the right track as to what the steps are to require such a weapon. Japan has each individual attend classes, pass a written test, a drug test and a background check.  The question arises for a similar issue, why do we go through so many obstacles to be able to drive a motorized vehicle? In Virginia I had to drive for 40 hours practicing with a parent, drive with an instructor around a course and on the main roads for 2 hours at a time for a whole week, and go to a court hearing for 4 hours, instructions on how a car can be dangerous and to be used responsibly. I feel as though these issues are very similar, and a type of process America should be taking.

Sound and Fury

I never really noticed the difference between hearing and deaf people. Obviously I don't know what they are going through because I can hear, and in the hearing world. I have always wanted to learn sign language because I think it amazing to see people talking with their hands, expressing how they feel. It's "beautiful" like the Artinian's family said. However, Peter and Nita Artinian have a opportunity to give "the world" to Heather, their daughter. But, is a cochlear implant going to give her the world, or hurt her further? Peter and Nita are faced with a very tough choice and I think I agree with them on where they stand. 

Honestly, these kinds of documentaries are hard to watch. As the viewer it's hard to understand where these people are coming from. Most would say, "Just get the cochlear, it will make Heather's life so much easier." Well, would it? Looking at the big picture, yes... it may be easier for her to hear and be with her talking friends. She will be able to communicate and fit in. However, her whole family is deaf. Her mom, dad and brother. If Heather could talk, her parents wouldn't be able to help her with her speech. Heather would still have to sign at home- she would be in two different worlds. 

The family moved to have better schooling for their two children. It was a deaf community. Most would say they are sheltering themselves, to get away from all the chaos and confusion. I don't think they were. I cannot fathom living somewhere where I am the only one deaf. Everyone would still try to talk to you, and wont go out of there way to learn sign language. It's like what we talk about in class. There are a selected handful who are deaf, in comparison to the amount of people who can hear. Why not move to where everyone is lie you? Where even the local businesses even sign for you. I think it was a smart move, to move to where they were most comfortable living.

On the flip side, if the whole family, like Chris and Mari Artinian, were all hearing, and had a deaf child, I would do what they did and get Peter, there son, a cochlear implant. It would be so hard on Peter to grow up deaf. Chris's brother Peter was the only one deaf in their family. They showed how hard it was on both the family and Peter. I would want my child to be able to hear me, and be able to hear everyone else.

At my old school, one of my teammates was deaf. She had a cochlear implant. Without it she couldn't hear any of us talking to her. It was hard seeing her without her devise on. I saw the frustration and confusion when she couldn't hear us. It was hard. I am very thankful for technology now, that we can get the deaf community to hear if they choose. It brings on so many joys in life that many people take for granted. No one has to give up the deaf culture. People will still learn sign language since it is history. It will never go away. 

Scared of... The Dark

Scared of The Dark

 In the beginning of the world was only darkness. It wasn’t meant as a bad, scary, or obscure entity; just that there is absence of light. Why is it that humans, and some animals, adapt to sleep more at night rather than day? It’s because of time; the twelve month calendar that sets all of our daily lives into a schedule. My mom likes to stay up later at night since she feels as though she has more energy and can accomplish more since everyone else is asleep. However, is that the reason she stays up?

When I was little my mom explained what Heaven and Hell were; places you go after you die, what most people would call the afterworld. With us being Christians, my mom explained that Satin was once an angle, a beautiful one too. He however, turned from God and took some angles with him into a place called Hell. My mom went on to say that Satin can take on all forms. When you are a little kid you don’t know what to make of that. I took it that satin can “become” anything. As I grew older, I learned more and more what Hell was: a dark scary place with fire. More frightening from that, you’re separated from God for eternity.

Darkness became a huge fear, the sensation of being surrounded by blackness. Objects seem to take on a different form and shape at night, that time seems unreal.  Movement of your door or a tree branch scratching your window with the moon so dim you can barely see it in the huge sky and murky clouds.  I remember thinking Satin or one of his followers was under my bed and would grab me, take me under with no escape. Take me into the unknown, the dark unknown. They would cover my mouth so I could not scream. I would try to run but my legs collapsed under me and I fall. I would walk over to my light switch; take a deep breath, knowing that the light would help me for now. As soon as I turn it off, I know everything was fair game, including myself. I turned out the light and ran as fast as my little legs could carry me. Run so that no one could grab me. I jumped on my bed and pull the overs over me in a flash, so no one could harm me. I would take a sigh of relief, knowing that I was safe, for now. I closed my eyes, and then fall asleep.

 

 

 

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos Based Arguments in Campaign Ads

Throughout campaign ads, ethos, pathos and logos based arguments are made.  Sometimes it can be obvious as to what kind of technique they use to draw the attention of the voters. In Political Science we learned that most voters do not take the time to actually research about each candidate. Most vote based on the campaign adds. That’s why it is so critical to know what each advertisement is trying to convey.

The first campaign commercial that I chose was from 1952, the presidential race against Eisenhower and Stevenson. Eisenhower won with majority of votes. I will have to admit, those who put this ad together were ingenious. The song was very catchy and can get stuck in your head pretty easily. (I had to watch it a lot to get information out of it). Anyway, because of its catchy tune, most will remember “Ike” just because of the song. The pathos behind this is through a technique of bandwagon. “You like Ike, I like Ike, and everyone loves Ike!” This in itself is super simple but so effective!! Pretty impressive actually. The idea that EVERYONE is behind Ike makes the voter say, “Hey! I want to be a part of this!” Even Uncle Sam, the poster trying to get people into the military is all for Ike. This ties in with Ethos too. Through saying “Everyone loves Ike,” they show a variety of those who are all for him. Doesn’t matter if your young, old, even whole families with their pets like Ike.  The logos claim in this campaign ad is that Ike will get us to be where we are going as a country. “Day and night” we will stick with Ike “all the way to Washington.”

In the second ad, it is against Bush and Kerry in 2004 presidential election. Throughout the whole ad there are no words spoken, just flashed on the screen. The pathos argument was simply the music, the kind of music that was playing gave off a serious kind of vibe. However, that’s what contributed to the main idea of this ad. “Raising to the challenge” and to “turn the corner” for a “safe and strong Nation.” The diction here is very powerful. Not only that but the ethos and logos behind the message was both “Strong” and “powerful.” The words on the screen describe what’s going on in our country dealing with the “economy”, “stock market”, and “tragedy” our country has gone through. The way this campaign addresses it, while saying we will remain “strong” while “turning the corner” implies Bush will help our country move and pick up the pieces.

Both of these ads were very right to the point with what they were trying to come across as. In the book “Thank you for arguing”, it really hit on the key points in which Ethos fit into the big scheme of things. Both ads hit on the “audience expectations for a leaders tone, appearance, and manners.” The advertisements were both serious, while conveying they were the best for the job. The decorum argument tool also fits in, especially with Ike’s commercial. The fact that he could get everyone to “follow his all the way to Washington” reflects positively while meeting the voter’s expectations.

 

"Blurred Lines"

I remember hearing this song on the radio when it first came out, and I have to say I liked it. The song has catchy lines and you sing it without even realizing what you’re saying.  Like most music that comes on the radio, most people don’t know what the lyrics actually are saying or mean. Now that I have taken the time to read the lyrics, I can say that I am very disappointed. Robin Thicke’s song, “Blurred Lines” created this tension to if this song is morally harmful and discriminating women in society, which I believe it does.

In the articles as well as the video, it is obvious to see that Thicke is talking about women, but in a negative way. The first article, I believe, got straight to the point with “The women are clearly being used as objects to reinforce the status of the men in the video.” The fact that the men have all the “control and status” over the women shows through because the men are fully covered.  Meanwhile, the women are very scantily dressed dancing around the men.  What’s interesting is that Thicke told VH1 that he didn’t think they weren’t “ogling and degrading them”, just “laughing and being silly with them.” I do not for one second believe that’s true. The lyrics prove that alone. “Talk about getting blasted, I hate these blurred lines, I know you want it, but you’re a good girl, the way you grab me, must want to get nasty.” The message behind female identity to these men, from these lines, defines the fact that the girls in this video come off as wanting to portray their "good girl" act, then Thicke tells her and the rest of the audience it's okay to be a bad girl. It’s okay and socially acceptable to “unleash” her “animal” side that all she wants is “crazy wild sex” and it is therefore in our “nature” to “get nasty though the song does not come right out and say that, but it is implied thought the context of this song.

The song name itself, “Blurred Lines,” brings across some questions as to what are the boundaries. Are they really not noticeable when it comes between what’s right and wrong? Although the view can also get another view off of this song title and the meaning behind it as well. “You're far from plastic” as Thicke sings, can have the impression that girls are hard to read. We all have heard from many that girls are so complicated and you never know the right approach as to what to say as a guy. Well, Thicke is saying that we are actually human beings, who have feelings and emotions. But then he precedes to go on about “getting blasted” and that he hates “these blurred lines “between using girls or actually treating them with respect as humans.