After seeing Kristina reference a "sister-in-law" on Facebook, I became confused, since I knew that she was not married. (She is a law student.)
me: i'm looking at your pictures
and i have to say
you have no sister in law yet
Kristina: ?
sister in law?
like black friend?
me: wait
how is
your black friend
your sister in law
Kristina: like.. "sista"
....
me: -_-
Later, after accusing her of trying to make up a phrase that was already a phrase, I realized that she actually did have a sister-in-law; her brother is married.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Hunger Games Review
(I read the book a while ago, but it was brought up again recently in conversation. Here is my one sentence review.)
Never have I rolled my eyes so often while reading a book, partially because I felt compelled to actually read all of it.
(Here is my one sentence preview of what I think about further Hunger Games novels.)
I can't fathom the reason people are curious to find out what the feelings of a angsty teenage girl are!!!
(And as a bonus, Alan's review of the first few pages of Twilight.)
what kind of descriptive writing is "he was gorgeous"
Never have I rolled my eyes so often while reading a book, partially because I felt compelled to actually read all of it.
(Here is my one sentence preview of what I think about further Hunger Games novels.)
I can't fathom the reason people are curious to find out what the feelings of a angsty teenage girl are!!!
(And as a bonus, Alan's review of the first few pages of Twilight.)
what kind of descriptive writing is "he was gorgeous"
Monday, February 6, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Art, Music, and Beauty ~ What I Want To Do
I have recently begun to think differently of many art-forms, especially music. I listen to music because I enjoy beauty. The purpose of music as far as I am concerned is a beauty that is not possible to express in words. I do not pay attention to the lyrics of songs, because the effect they have on music is minimal compared to the atmosphere painted by the sounds of the music. Lyrics can only modulate; they do not set the level of beauty which a piece has. Excellent lyrics with poor instrumentation and execution will merely be a poem set to a poor backdrop. It will not be beautiful. Likewise, foul lyrics set to an excellent backdrop will remain beautiful unless the lyrics disrupt the mood of the music through inexplicable profanity or other distracting elements.
Until recently, I had felt that music was a source of beauty in and of itself, that music created its own beauty, that music was a source of beauty. But there was a time when there was no music or art. Where did the notion of beauty exist for these people? Did man invent or create beauty? Did the feeling of beauty not exist prior to art? If this was the case, what was the impetus for creation of art? Was it initially for the purpose of communication, after which man stumbled upon the possibility of creating beauty? Somehow I do not feel this to be the case. I believe that art was first (and continues to be created) for the purpose of representing a beauty which exists independently of art. (Although I would also argue that not all art is created for the purpose of representing beauty. There is surely art created for financial profit or social gain which has deceived people who do not know better or do not appreciate beauty.)
What is beauty, exactly? Does it exist separate the ability of man to appreciate beauty? Is it an intrinsic part of the universe? If there man did not exist, would there be beauty? Even in the eyes of man, there is disagreement over the perception of beauty. What is deemed beautiful in one person's eyes is not necessarily considered beautiful by others. Are there possibly people who do not believe in beauty? It is meaningless to debate whether or not beauty requires a beholder, since we are that beholder. All that exists can only be appreciated with knowledge of its existence, so it is immaterial whether or not something exists without knowledge of its existence.
Regardless, beauty exists beyond simply the notion of art. Art represents beauty, but it does not define beauty. I believe that beauty is a concept innate to people, that transcends even the ability to express or describe it. I have felt recently that music, despite having awakened me to many instances of beauty, in the long run can only limit my understanding of beauty. Music is beauty so far as beauty is understood by the creator of that music. To appreciate beauty through only the scope of music, or any art, is to limit oneself to the experiences of beauty possessed by others. If beauty truly is innate to each person, then there is beauty which can be beholden by me which is not described in any existing art. Since this understanding of beauty is innate to my being, I have a need to pursue that beauty as something discrete from art or any representation of beauty.
This is not to say that art and music do not have a role to play in the understanding of beauty. The expression of beauty occurs primarily through the mediums of art and music, and truly, it is difficult to even comprehend beauty outside of these mediums. I am merely saying that it is important to not limit one's understanding of beauty to those mediums, and especially not to the representation of beauty that comes from others. The comprehension of beauty is important and must be sought after, not simply accepted from others. Do not limit your appreciation for beauty to what you already know. There is more beauty to be had in the world, an infinite amount of beauty which deserves to be explored and yes, even represented in art.
~
My greatest desire is not to become a doctor. I would much rather do many other things, but I do have neither the financial means nor the logistical understanding to create opportunities for myself. Specifically, I want to be a writer. I want to have the time and motivation to put down all the thoughts that I have in my head.
I have been sculpting a concept/plot/backdrop for a novel which I want to write for some time now. I am both convinced that I will write this novel and that I will never have the time/motivation to do so. Part of me wishes to drop everything and put time into this idea, and another part believes that I have other responsibilities to take care of first, that I will put due diligence in when the time is right. The last part of me feels that this is all a pipe dream sustaining me through a life which I do not enjoy.
Perhaps the greatest folly of young people is the belief that the future will be improved, that it is possible to put in effort now and reap the benefits later. Here two views conflict, both seeing reasonable support from the older generations who reasonably have the experience to confirm or reject such notions. If it is true that one should spend youth preparing for later life, then why do so many seniors also advise younger people to take advantage of the time they have, saying platitudes such as "life is short", or "I was young once". Surely there is a reason that statements of the format "I wish I had done __________ when I still had energy/youth/time/friends" seem to be regular advice.
Societal norms surely change from generation to generation, but one can see clearly that the conflicting notions of "seize the day" and "do not be the lazy grasshopper" both have support in history. This is not to say one is more correct than the other; obviously they are just differing life strategies with differing end goals in mind. Each view places import on different values: stability versus excitement, sureness versus risk, conformation versus individuality, and so on. But in aspect both are on point: success. Whether financially, culturally, historically, or by simple measures such as family or personal fulfillment, people universally wish for success.
I understand that for the majority of us, it is simply not possible to do all that one wishes within a single lifetime. Though pessimistic, this takes into account the fact that generally the desires of people are those which are within the realm of difficult to attain. Happiness is not a tangible substance which can be worked for, bought, seized, controlled, or manipulated. Happiness is a state of being which occurs for those who are ready to receive it. There are roads to happiness, but there is no guarantee of reaching the final destination. Does this mean that my expectations should be tapered to include the possibility of failure? Is it unreasonable to make effort in any direction and hope for a measure of success? Perhaps success is only foreign to those who do not understand it; perhaps some people innately speak the language of success, seeing different paths to take or decisions to make. Then again, there is no person without unfulfilled desires, who is truly content with everything.
So then what should I do? I guess I will do what every other person has ever done: live to the best of my knowledge and abilities, though I do not even know what those are.
Until recently, I had felt that music was a source of beauty in and of itself, that music created its own beauty, that music was a source of beauty. But there was a time when there was no music or art. Where did the notion of beauty exist for these people? Did man invent or create beauty? Did the feeling of beauty not exist prior to art? If this was the case, what was the impetus for creation of art? Was it initially for the purpose of communication, after which man stumbled upon the possibility of creating beauty? Somehow I do not feel this to be the case. I believe that art was first (and continues to be created) for the purpose of representing a beauty which exists independently of art. (Although I would also argue that not all art is created for the purpose of representing beauty. There is surely art created for financial profit or social gain which has deceived people who do not know better or do not appreciate beauty.)
What is beauty, exactly? Does it exist separate the ability of man to appreciate beauty? Is it an intrinsic part of the universe? If there man did not exist, would there be beauty? Even in the eyes of man, there is disagreement over the perception of beauty. What is deemed beautiful in one person's eyes is not necessarily considered beautiful by others. Are there possibly people who do not believe in beauty? It is meaningless to debate whether or not beauty requires a beholder, since we are that beholder. All that exists can only be appreciated with knowledge of its existence, so it is immaterial whether or not something exists without knowledge of its existence.
Regardless, beauty exists beyond simply the notion of art. Art represents beauty, but it does not define beauty. I believe that beauty is a concept innate to people, that transcends even the ability to express or describe it. I have felt recently that music, despite having awakened me to many instances of beauty, in the long run can only limit my understanding of beauty. Music is beauty so far as beauty is understood by the creator of that music. To appreciate beauty through only the scope of music, or any art, is to limit oneself to the experiences of beauty possessed by others. If beauty truly is innate to each person, then there is beauty which can be beholden by me which is not described in any existing art. Since this understanding of beauty is innate to my being, I have a need to pursue that beauty as something discrete from art or any representation of beauty.
This is not to say that art and music do not have a role to play in the understanding of beauty. The expression of beauty occurs primarily through the mediums of art and music, and truly, it is difficult to even comprehend beauty outside of these mediums. I am merely saying that it is important to not limit one's understanding of beauty to those mediums, and especially not to the representation of beauty that comes from others. The comprehension of beauty is important and must be sought after, not simply accepted from others. Do not limit your appreciation for beauty to what you already know. There is more beauty to be had in the world, an infinite amount of beauty which deserves to be explored and yes, even represented in art.
~
My greatest desire is not to become a doctor. I would much rather do many other things, but I do have neither the financial means nor the logistical understanding to create opportunities for myself. Specifically, I want to be a writer. I want to have the time and motivation to put down all the thoughts that I have in my head.
I have been sculpting a concept/plot/backdrop for a novel which I want to write for some time now. I am both convinced that I will write this novel and that I will never have the time/motivation to do so. Part of me wishes to drop everything and put time into this idea, and another part believes that I have other responsibilities to take care of first, that I will put due diligence in when the time is right. The last part of me feels that this is all a pipe dream sustaining me through a life which I do not enjoy.
Perhaps the greatest folly of young people is the belief that the future will be improved, that it is possible to put in effort now and reap the benefits later. Here two views conflict, both seeing reasonable support from the older generations who reasonably have the experience to confirm or reject such notions. If it is true that one should spend youth preparing for later life, then why do so many seniors also advise younger people to take advantage of the time they have, saying platitudes such as "life is short", or "I was young once". Surely there is a reason that statements of the format "I wish I had done __________ when I still had energy/youth/time/friends" seem to be regular advice.
Societal norms surely change from generation to generation, but one can see clearly that the conflicting notions of "seize the day" and "do not be the lazy grasshopper" both have support in history. This is not to say one is more correct than the other; obviously they are just differing life strategies with differing end goals in mind. Each view places import on different values: stability versus excitement, sureness versus risk, conformation versus individuality, and so on. But in aspect both are on point: success. Whether financially, culturally, historically, or by simple measures such as family or personal fulfillment, people universally wish for success.
I understand that for the majority of us, it is simply not possible to do all that one wishes within a single lifetime. Though pessimistic, this takes into account the fact that generally the desires of people are those which are within the realm of difficult to attain. Happiness is not a tangible substance which can be worked for, bought, seized, controlled, or manipulated. Happiness is a state of being which occurs for those who are ready to receive it. There are roads to happiness, but there is no guarantee of reaching the final destination. Does this mean that my expectations should be tapered to include the possibility of failure? Is it unreasonable to make effort in any direction and hope for a measure of success? Perhaps success is only foreign to those who do not understand it; perhaps some people innately speak the language of success, seeing different paths to take or decisions to make. Then again, there is no person without unfulfilled desires, who is truly content with everything.
So then what should I do? I guess I will do what every other person has ever done: live to the best of my knowledge and abilities, though I do not even know what those are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)