A person must create a creator in order to escape sinking into depression. It gives mankind hope to think that someone is watching over them. This is an argument I’ve heard many times. Personally, the Creator actually depresses me to a certain extent. It would be sweet if there weren’t such a thing. But as I pointed out in my blog The Philosophy of God – http://www.writingforums.org/blog.php?bt=7239 – infinity makes existence impossible. Thinking of the universe without a first cause, an unmovable mover, one can expect that energy and matter are in constant turbulence. It will never cease to change and rearrange, and with infinity guaranteeing that all probabilities shall be fulfilled, I would get to live countless lives. I shall be a king, a beggar, whatever. Anyhow, it always makes me pause when I hear someone say that a creator is wishful thinking. Reality is usually not all that glorious – not nearly as glorious as unconstrained infinity.
I’m not an expert on playing the blues, but if I come across someone with a harmonica or acoustic guitar I usually end up playing the blues with them. It’s really simple to follow along. The blues usually starts off on the root note, which makes it simple to identify the key. Not only that, but you don’t have to worry about major or minor scales. You can play minor notes over major chords, no problem. Most of the lead notes are in the pentatonic scale. Here’s me playing the blues (That’s how I define it anyway). I throw all kinds of scales the E, A, and B chords, and they seem to work just fine. Just cut and paste this into your browser: -ttp://www.youtube.com/user/MrDragonGrim
This is Don’t Cry by Guns N Roses. I probably shouldn’t embarrass myself by posting this, but oh well. And I made quite a few mistakes, too. Just cut and paste this in your browser if you want to hear: -ttp://www.youtube.com/user/MrDragonGrim
Hey, I’m posting my essay in my blog just in case anyone wants to comment on the content. I hope you will.
Hey. There was a discussion about guitars in the Tavern, and I thought I might play some music written by Mitsuda and Nobuo Uematsu for Chrono Trigger. I think it is beautiful music. Though I don't do it justice. Also I suck at editing video I’m not sure if I can post a link. So either search You Tube for “Chrono Trigger, 4 songs on guitar,” or paste this into your browser, and deleting the space between the “h” and “t”: h- ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i8gI3ft278
Explaining Racial Politics In the modern political atmosphere, saying that you don’t believe in racism is near to saying you don’t believe in the Holocaust. And if you were to say you don’t believe in the Holocaust, and it would be fairly mind-blowing to do so considering the evidence, you are not a skeptic. By definition yes, but not by racial politics that will group you in with others who feel the same way – Neo Nazis, Islamic extremists. You cannot have your own opinion. And most collectivist ideologies believe this, including liberals. History is a powerful thing. On TV, I watched a black woman from America cry on the beaches of Africa, thinking of the slaves who suffered. I found this terribly troubling. Most would not find anything wrong with the scene. Many would understand it. I understand it also. I understand how misguided it is. I used to feel the same anger at religion when I learned of the oppression of science. It completely tainted my perception of religion. For a long time I could not study it objectively. I could not see the good and the bad – just the bad. But I never cried, or felt near to it, as did the woman standing on the beach. The emotion that filled her could fill anyone who is looking at events in history. The hurt one fills inside, perhaps strong enough to draw tears, can easily turn into simmering anger, the same heat that I feel coming from many of my liberal instructors. To make myself clear on the subject of ideology, I will note that this is not an attack on liberals as a whole, but on this specific topic. I do follow some of the ideas of liberal thought – not many, but some. I’m not an eclectic, I should definitely point out. I was raised in California and inherited a very extreme liberal ideology. As a lifelong skeptic, I was soon in discord with the school of thought. And I became an eclectic for a time, but I soon realized how inconsistent I was in my reasoning. I am not a conservative either. I consider myself a post-liberal, or a loose libertarian. Anyway, the anger from the past will not go away. If you deny racism, you are hitting a discordant note with anyone who clings to resentment derived from past injustices, and the perceived current injustices. A professor would say that you are perpetuating the white privilege that holds down minorities. Your view is not your own, but part of a collective that works as a single organism of institutional racism. The main argument against institutional racism is the "model minority." Asians in the United States excel, and if you just look at the Japanese, they do incredibly well. The counter argument is this: these Asians have a different ideology, and most come from middle class families in their own countries, and pass it down to their children in America. That’s why their successful. The counter argument is valid in factual content, but false in application. It gives reasons as to why Asians do so well. However, it does not counter the first argument. I will do my best to illustrate this: The model minority demonstrates skin color is not a factor regarding success in the United States (though this could most likely be applied to many countries.) it says no more than this, but is relevant because skin color is the point of interest. It directly confronts the subject of racism. The liberal counter argument works around the perimeter of the issue. Asians do have a different ideology, and that plays a big role. But ideology is not race-specific and therefore has no relevance. It is the same with socioeconomic factors. True, many African Americans are poor, but poverty is not the issue, and if poverty makes many African Americans poor, poverty cannot be racist since it is not a thinking being. Also, people are free to change their ideology at any time. Liberals use this argument to further their economic aims – to distribute wealth more evenly. Thinking this way, one would want to bring certain minorities out of poverty by using government policy and funds. The view above overlooks the individual. Should two people be treated the same and given the same opportunities? I think so, though individualism vs. collectivism is a very involved issue that I don’t intend to tackle here. It’s a struggle that has confused humanity since the dawn of man. Why is racism so political? Color of skin has little bearing on success – ideology is the largest factor, some of which is passed down through families and, particularly like the Asians, society. Without institutional racism, what excuse does race-politics have to exist? It must be plain old bigotry then. This is all I have to say about bigotry: I wish it didn’t exist. I think it is a horrible thing. I can’t stress that enough, but if I was given the ability to muzzle every bigot in the world, I would not do so. I would let those people continue. Who I’m I to decide whose opinion can be expressed and whose can’t. If you really want to look to history for insight, follow your own opinions and beliefs backward through the centuries, and find out if your ideas have ever been considered to be objectionable, if not outright forbade. But don’t take the lesson you learn in anger. Don’t simmer over what you learn. Do not let it darken your heart. Just learn and pass on your knowledge.
Sometimes I like to write a poem, though I’m probably not very good at it. Anyhow, it’s good exercise. This is my first attempt at something that doesn’t rhyme Dark Moon Deep rooted thoughts, they’ve lain in dark a dreary span. Glints of silver, blinding sunbeams soon distant through ebony clouds. Again it’s gone. But staring down, determined, there are Shadows. And on the ground they flutter dim like bats in shape to drink, letting one drop of red blood hit shadowy, parched earth. And would the dawn come with thoughts of black on a Dark Moon, which drinks down Blood like a fanged bat?
Low context culture: “Low context refers to societies where people tend to have many connections but of shorter duration or for some specific reason. In these societies, cultural behavior and beliefs may need to be spelled out explicitly so that those coming into the cultural environment know how to behave.” – Website, Culture at Work My argument against sociology continues. First off, I’ll go over some aspects that I accept. Education: when a Westerner goes to college, she is instruction to communicate freely and concisely. She will learn to organize her thoughts logically, and to bring her full brain to any conversation, even if she is to converse with her superior – the opposite of a military or high context society, where to whom you are speaking to will dictate your behavior. Not to say that Western Culture is zero context. She may joke freely with a coworker and then become more reserved with her boss. Small, isolated groups are always high context verbal communicators because they have so much shared knowledge and usually a structure with holy men and leaders who command deep respect. The Native Americans for instance, once had a very high context to their communication, and still do. Much is implied rather than spoken outright. Some cultures manage to preserve this way of interacting, such as the Japanese. It seems open and shut, until you look closer, and then it falls apart. Is the United States really low-context? Americans are taught to speak relatively low context, and in the business world this holds true. But moving away from verbal communication, what about the written word? Are books in any culture low context? The books do detail actions and characters in a clear manner, but even in school, the importance of symbolism will be stressed. When I think of popular books, such as The Wheel of Time, I picture very complex ideas, many left unsaid – just accept that it is a fake world where history is being manipulated (where it is mirrored and considered completely removed at the same time), where magic is real, etc. I will not even go into video games or television. What I’m wondering is this: Do sociologist depict entire cultures as low or high context purely on their business habits? Or are most of them Western-Culture educated and somehow blind to their own culture?
I’m writing this blog after reading “Politics and Words.” I hate when people in a field of study will take a word and try to steal it and change the definition to their own liking. Take for instance the multicultural education class I’m taking. It is race relations, which is under the umbrella of sociology. Of course many politicians and pundits use the terms and arguments of sociologists. The class I’m in places a lot of blame on me because of my heritage. I’m white and a U.S. citizen, which is terrible, I know. I was born with bad blood. I know I may not be as sensitive as older generation because I don’t see racism in my friends or fellow students. The study seems to be an exercise in drawing pain and hate from the past and making it a wedge to play in the political game. My professor says, “If a black man is in a bar, and he’s calling you a cracker or whity or whatever, you cannot say he is racist. You’re a professional now, and must use words properly.” His definition (the definition generally excepted in sociology) of racism is something like this: the subjugation and hate shown toward a minority by the majority. The true definition is a prejudice based on race, and using the term is perfectly fine in the situation – that’s what the word’s function is for. The professor’s definition sounds simple, but majority is not majority in this case. They define majority as the group that controls the means of production and power, which is only one facet of the word, but sociologist throw it around as if it were the only and prime definition. So a small facet of a word is being defined primarily with a small facet of another word. In other words, it’s convoluted.
I’m thinking of a short story. I’m wrapping up my revisions on the novel and need something to write. So I had an idea bloom in my mind. I thought I’d try sort of a young person’s short story with animals instead of people. The short story will be in four parts. The main character is named Jack. These are the four parts: Jack of spades; Jack of clubs; Jack of Hearts; Jack of Clubs. In spades he will show his prejudice. In clubs he will attack an enemy. In hearts he will change his mind about the enemy. And in diamonds he will be rewarded with treasure. Here is a small snippet. Jack of spades. This is where he shows his prejudice. Jack scurried up to the crow’s nest. His mouse nose sniffed the air, and he caught a stronger whiff of the massive beaver, whose back soon broke the surface of the water. He saw light shining on the dark, slick fur. Finally, the animal left the water on short legs and waddled up onto the bank. Jack’s lips curled in a smile. He looked out across the lake, the lake that was now open to him, and saw the distant sail he’d chased since dawn -- until the beaver had swam between them. He descended to the deck. “Mister Catsbane, the beaver is gone. I believe it’s time to proceed.” The canvas fell as mice untied the sails on all three masts, which were almost as tall as the reeds that drifted past as the ship gathered speed. Jack raised an eyeglass, and the distance leapt closer. “Frogs,” he said. He’d thought as much. “Aye, captain. They’re up to no good, being this close to the Rodent Kingdom.” Jack watched the frogs’ ship grow. The day was nice and clear, and he could make out the amphibians crowded on the decks and in the rigging. He saw one hop along the bowsprit, that mast that pokes out at the bow. Then he noticed a mouse with a wooden leg. “Pirates, Mister Catsbane. And there are frogs and mice aboard, working together. I can’t imagine how this happened, but we must put an end to it. I’m going to drive every frog from this lake.” Catsbane nodded. “You’re well on your way to it. You’re a dangerous mouse, Captain. Aye, the best mouse in the Navy.” “I do my duty.” Anyone think it is a good idea?
Finally, done with the rewrite. I’m going to print it out right now. Going to cost me 20$, oh well. Now I’ll hand it over to someone who volunteered to read it through a couple of time a direct my re-rewrite. I can forget about it for awhile and stop working myself to death. It’s strange, I’ve been working on my writing for years, yet the quality still improved as the book progressed. That just over the span of two months. I mean the writing kinda sucked at the beginning, until I rewrote it, anyway. And I think my ending is very strong, even though there are not more than five pages after the climax. I might add just a little at the end.
I finally wrote a novel, and I’m 69% done with the rewrite. It makes me want to give advice to those that procrastinate: Here’s the thing. If you’re like me, you are a perfectionist. You may spend forever revising a chapter – chapter 1 – until it is flawless. Then you’d go, “where’s this going. It’s not all that good,” and you start chapter 1 again. You’ve written a hundred chapter 1’s that go nowhere. Sure, it’s good practice. But eventually you have to write a story. You know, stop daydreaming and writing snippets and actually start the damned thing at the beginning and finish it 80,000 words or so later. But that not easy if you worry about every detail. That’s why you must write and worry about how good it is when you’re not so busy writing. Don’t hand ten pages to a friend and ask them how good it is. Just keep going. Write all the way to the end. The rewrite will give your obsessive side the room it wants to be picky and cynical. By the time you go back, you’ll know your characters. Plot holes will be apparent, and you can fix them. You can make your descriptions more descriptive. But save it for the rewrite. Right now all you need to do is write.