I will do this backwards. I will just say facts and then say at the end what I think.
Ophelia seems to need advice from Polonius and Laertes.
Laertes tells her to protect her heart which sounds like she is still innocent.
Polonius is whoring Ophelia out which means she probably has a connection to Hamlet on a level which is more than friends.
Hamlet tells her to go to a nunnery which seems to suggest that she could be sexually active.
Ophelia is startled by Hamlet's behavior but you never hear her complain which suggests a greater connection.
Ophelia is the opposite female of Gertrude and Gertrude definitely would have slept with him.
Out of every character to approach on his own, Hamlet approaches Ophelia.
I will say yes they had sex. I think it is hard to deny they have had sexual interactions but I think yes they had sex. I had facts for both and I do not think we will know. It would be easier to see if they had or had not based on body language and such but then the appearance verses reality thing comes in and changes that. I will say yes and I would enjoy to debate this.
Nextly tomorrow is hero day for me. I would like to talk about heroes.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Skakespeare or Shady
Here is the where a thought talk done Sunday lead.
There are people for and against music of all kinds and we call those tastes. You can stereotype tastes with a stereotyped person. In this thought talk it was said that classical music and Voltaire appeal to the more intellectual taste. Rap music seems to appeal more to the unintellectual. So is it that music is the outcome of the intellect of the person or that the intellect makes the music.
Shakespeare has more depth and layers in it. It has parallel structure and sylloloquies and extended metaphors. Shakespeare allows someone to read a page and then analyze the page to give away a deeper meaning. Then there is Harry Potter who is more shallow and what you read is all there is to it. This appeals to a lower crowd in literature.
This is more about taste than anything else. You could argue that the difference is that the vernacular is changed so that it fits the crowd it appeals to. For all we know in 400 years people will be analyzing Harry Potter.
Heres my question. Is the piece written to appeal to an audience or is an audience made around that piece?
There was a book written called The Jungle and it was written to just be a good story about an immigrant I think. Just an average Joe he lives in a meat processing facility. The book missed that audience for the most part and moved onto a Progressive audience who took that book as a sign for change. In that scenario an audience forms around that book.
A lot of instances have a book written for that audience. People will say that it will vary from case to case but I do not want that answer.
Let us look at music now. Fall Out Boy writes what they would view as a rock album or more an emo album yet it is taken as pop. Thus the audience has defined the work. You can have someone like eminem who is writing the album to raise awareness for many issues and that is denoted and everyone takes his work as something else. It seems that the author has some opinion in what he thinks his own art is but the world can change its purpose.
This is all quite postmodern but O well.
Does the audience define the piece or does the piece define the audience?
There are people for and against music of all kinds and we call those tastes. You can stereotype tastes with a stereotyped person. In this thought talk it was said that classical music and Voltaire appeal to the more intellectual taste. Rap music seems to appeal more to the unintellectual. So is it that music is the outcome of the intellect of the person or that the intellect makes the music.
Shakespeare has more depth and layers in it. It has parallel structure and sylloloquies and extended metaphors. Shakespeare allows someone to read a page and then analyze the page to give away a deeper meaning. Then there is Harry Potter who is more shallow and what you read is all there is to it. This appeals to a lower crowd in literature.
This is more about taste than anything else. You could argue that the difference is that the vernacular is changed so that it fits the crowd it appeals to. For all we know in 400 years people will be analyzing Harry Potter.
Heres my question. Is the piece written to appeal to an audience or is an audience made around that piece?
There was a book written called The Jungle and it was written to just be a good story about an immigrant I think. Just an average Joe he lives in a meat processing facility. The book missed that audience for the most part and moved onto a Progressive audience who took that book as a sign for change. In that scenario an audience forms around that book.
A lot of instances have a book written for that audience. People will say that it will vary from case to case but I do not want that answer.
Let us look at music now. Fall Out Boy writes what they would view as a rock album or more an emo album yet it is taken as pop. Thus the audience has defined the work. You can have someone like eminem who is writing the album to raise awareness for many issues and that is denoted and everyone takes his work as something else. It seems that the author has some opinion in what he thinks his own art is but the world can change its purpose.
This is all quite postmodern but O well.
Does the audience define the piece or does the piece define the audience?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I Unname Them
My last blog was about a sophomore at SCS is my study hall and not about ginger.
I do feel like leaving another though.
I am an avid text messager. I go heavily into the thousands each month. I do meet new people through text messaging as odd as it sounds. The first thing someone asks you when you send them a text and they do not know who you are is "who are you."
The very first thing they want is a name. They never ask for your political stance or your beliefs. Never how you feel about child abuse and abortion. It is your name. Out of every single thing to ask a stranger you ask for their identity. This is for an unlimited about of reasons but I will say 2. They need something to associate with or they do not like being in the unknown.
Let us go over the first. We love names. Names is what we categorize by. My phone book is organized by names. Not this is my best friend and this person is crass but their name. Names carry so much though. If I walked into a soda bar and asked for a drink and I never said my name it would not mean anything. I would be a stranger. Anything you hear from me is fine and your life is the same. If I went into that same soda bar and said my name was George Bush the whole thing changes. Now you have questions for me or complaints. The whole difference is my name is associated with something else.
If we did not have names it would be easy to start again as people say. You could go from place to place and you would start from scratch with every new person you meet. People are more focused on our names that they ignore anything else about us.
This blog is because in physiology tuesday I began texting a new person and she only cared about my name and would not talk to me unless I told her my name. I told her about how my dog died when I was 15. That event of my dog dying was one of the top 5 things that formed my mentality and such. She did not care though because she did not know my name. We are so focused on names and everything that comes with them that we ignore what does not involve the name.
The part about us not liking the unknown is fairly straight forward. We like knowing the name but this is also an extremely deep topic that I will speak of in the future.
Do not tell me your name. Tell me who you are. When you die your grave will give me your name so I do not want it until then.
I do feel like leaving another though.
I am an avid text messager. I go heavily into the thousands each month. I do meet new people through text messaging as odd as it sounds. The first thing someone asks you when you send them a text and they do not know who you are is "who are you."
The very first thing they want is a name. They never ask for your political stance or your beliefs. Never how you feel about child abuse and abortion. It is your name. Out of every single thing to ask a stranger you ask for their identity. This is for an unlimited about of reasons but I will say 2. They need something to associate with or they do not like being in the unknown.
Let us go over the first. We love names. Names is what we categorize by. My phone book is organized by names. Not this is my best friend and this person is crass but their name. Names carry so much though. If I walked into a soda bar and asked for a drink and I never said my name it would not mean anything. I would be a stranger. Anything you hear from me is fine and your life is the same. If I went into that same soda bar and said my name was George Bush the whole thing changes. Now you have questions for me or complaints. The whole difference is my name is associated with something else.
If we did not have names it would be easy to start again as people say. You could go from place to place and you would start from scratch with every new person you meet. People are more focused on our names that they ignore anything else about us.
This blog is because in physiology tuesday I began texting a new person and she only cared about my name and would not talk to me unless I told her my name. I told her about how my dog died when I was 15. That event of my dog dying was one of the top 5 things that formed my mentality and such. She did not care though because she did not know my name. We are so focused on names and everything that comes with them that we ignore what does not involve the name.
The part about us not liking the unknown is fairly straight forward. We like knowing the name but this is also an extremely deep topic that I will speak of in the future.
Do not tell me your name. Tell me who you are. When you die your grave will give me your name so I do not want it until then.
The Call of Duty
There is a large misconception with the people of America that the male is supposed to pay for everything. I am going to use an oddly twisted history to prove that this is not the case.
Back in the day prior to World War I women were completely reliant on their husbands. They did not have any money or education so their only chance of surivival was on this. An odd proof would be Mormonism and how their doctrines made back in the 1800s had the woman completely reliant on the male. Biblical times had the male as the provider and women as the home maker.
With this ideology it seems fit that the man pays for everything. Given my age everything encompasses dates and so forth and not so much as bills. The thinking with this mentality would be that it is just establishing the relationship as a dependance from female to male.
That is all fine and good until women get the vote after World War 1. Now they have the same amount of political sway as the male. Then they get the same jobs as males in World War 2. That is due to the war leaving jobs availible but after the war women continued to be a heavy presence in the work place. Then came women joining the military. That is my odd history to prove that women gradually got equality to the male.
Culuturally we shall look at it differently. 1800s you could beat your wife. 1920 you can not longer beat your wife but you can beat your kids. 1970 you cannot beat your kids. Kids grow up thinking beating is repulsive (which it is) so they do not inflict anything upon their kids or wives and thus make them more equal. That is a stretch argument though with little to support it and difficult to put into typed words.
So females want equality and that is fine. In that equality though they need to share everything equal. You cannot get every good side of the world and not accept any of the negative things. Females can join the military but cannot go to war. Females can have the same jobs as males but are not as prone to being fired since they can sue their employer for being sexist.
You cannot have every good thing in the world and not take any of the bad parts and assume it will all work out.
My point is this. Guys should not pay for everything and every date. If you want to be treated like an equal and not an inferior person than you should start paying for more and carrying your own weight. As it is with the common american girl, you have to pay for everything and do everything and feed them with currency and compliments just to keep their finger off the trigger.
If you want to be treated like an equal then balance this equation.
Back in the day prior to World War I women were completely reliant on their husbands. They did not have any money or education so their only chance of surivival was on this. An odd proof would be Mormonism and how their doctrines made back in the 1800s had the woman completely reliant on the male. Biblical times had the male as the provider and women as the home maker.
With this ideology it seems fit that the man pays for everything. Given my age everything encompasses dates and so forth and not so much as bills. The thinking with this mentality would be that it is just establishing the relationship as a dependance from female to male.
That is all fine and good until women get the vote after World War 1. Now they have the same amount of political sway as the male. Then they get the same jobs as males in World War 2. That is due to the war leaving jobs availible but after the war women continued to be a heavy presence in the work place. Then came women joining the military. That is my odd history to prove that women gradually got equality to the male.
Culuturally we shall look at it differently. 1800s you could beat your wife. 1920 you can not longer beat your wife but you can beat your kids. 1970 you cannot beat your kids. Kids grow up thinking beating is repulsive (which it is) so they do not inflict anything upon their kids or wives and thus make them more equal. That is a stretch argument though with little to support it and difficult to put into typed words.
So females want equality and that is fine. In that equality though they need to share everything equal. You cannot get every good side of the world and not accept any of the negative things. Females can join the military but cannot go to war. Females can have the same jobs as males but are not as prone to being fired since they can sue their employer for being sexist.
You cannot have every good thing in the world and not take any of the bad parts and assume it will all work out.
My point is this. Guys should not pay for everything and every date. If you want to be treated like an equal and not an inferior person than you should start paying for more and carrying your own weight. As it is with the common american girl, you have to pay for everything and do everything and feed them with currency and compliments just to keep their finger off the trigger.
If you want to be treated like an equal then balance this equation.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Why Do Right Part 1
Lauren was absolutely right.
I have every intention of atempting to offend 3 types of people in this blog and it is for good cause.
As is it we have people who just do bad things. You can define bad things as you wish because you will most likely be correct. We have the ignored people and we have the people overseeing both.
The bad people at Seattle Christian are stereotypically the more wealthy out of the bunch. They can afford most anything they like so naturally they need to resort to the lower level activities of society to make them content.
The ignored people are the good people who have a couple of few really good friends. They sit alone and are silent if they are not with their friends. No one knows their names. No one knows much about them besides their names if they know it. These are the people that can leave the school and no one notices. These are the people that make up a majority of the world. These are the people that keep the world floating.
There are the over seers. They are called teachers. I have had 4 classes today which showed this 3 times so I am basing evidence as a whole off of a small sampling. These teachers glorify the people fit into the first category. They must know that they are dumb because it is written on their face and the first category seems to try to seem dumb. Yet the teachers continue to glorify them by making them exceptions to rules and being lax. It is in their loose policies that they let these smart people slide more into their own sin but in doing so put the 2nd type of person lower.
The next part is based on a true story witnessed by Lauren Rubio. 4 people failed to do an assignment so they cheated on it and turned it in for full credit. These 4 people are from the first category. They received that full credit. They received a better score than some people that do it on their own. So you have the first group above the 2nd group because they did the wrong thing.
The teachers do not do anything about it. In fact they congratulate the first group at being so good at the assignment they really did not do. So now the opinion of the teacher is raised by the first group and is lowered to the second group because they are not as good.
The first group will most likely advance to a college of more merit than the first group for having superior grades and having more money than the second. This is still based on small samplings and stereotypes.
So here is the question:
Why do good?
What stops the second category becoming more like the first category? Pride? God? Moral law? Conscience? Peers? Fear?
Despite how bad these all sound, it is better to be caught and failed for 1 out of 100 assignments than failed for all the ones you did not do.
The response is that if they are caught and failed they will learn and do better. But here is the thing. The 3rd group has supported ans reinforced the 1st category for so long that they no longer see the harm in which they do and do not want to change.
It is all of our faults and we all fit into a category at some part in our lives. Why why should we do good if you are not going to stop us?
I have every intention of atempting to offend 3 types of people in this blog and it is for good cause.
As is it we have people who just do bad things. You can define bad things as you wish because you will most likely be correct. We have the ignored people and we have the people overseeing both.
The bad people at Seattle Christian are stereotypically the more wealthy out of the bunch. They can afford most anything they like so naturally they need to resort to the lower level activities of society to make them content.
The ignored people are the good people who have a couple of few really good friends. They sit alone and are silent if they are not with their friends. No one knows their names. No one knows much about them besides their names if they know it. These are the people that can leave the school and no one notices. These are the people that make up a majority of the world. These are the people that keep the world floating.
There are the over seers. They are called teachers. I have had 4 classes today which showed this 3 times so I am basing evidence as a whole off of a small sampling. These teachers glorify the people fit into the first category. They must know that they are dumb because it is written on their face and the first category seems to try to seem dumb. Yet the teachers continue to glorify them by making them exceptions to rules and being lax. It is in their loose policies that they let these smart people slide more into their own sin but in doing so put the 2nd type of person lower.
The next part is based on a true story witnessed by Lauren Rubio. 4 people failed to do an assignment so they cheated on it and turned it in for full credit. These 4 people are from the first category. They received that full credit. They received a better score than some people that do it on their own. So you have the first group above the 2nd group because they did the wrong thing.
The teachers do not do anything about it. In fact they congratulate the first group at being so good at the assignment they really did not do. So now the opinion of the teacher is raised by the first group and is lowered to the second group because they are not as good.
The first group will most likely advance to a college of more merit than the first group for having superior grades and having more money than the second. This is still based on small samplings and stereotypes.
So here is the question:
Why do good?
What stops the second category becoming more like the first category? Pride? God? Moral law? Conscience? Peers? Fear?
Despite how bad these all sound, it is better to be caught and failed for 1 out of 100 assignments than failed for all the ones you did not do.
The response is that if they are caught and failed they will learn and do better. But here is the thing. The 3rd group has supported ans reinforced the 1st category for so long that they no longer see the harm in which they do and do not want to change.
It is all of our faults and we all fit into a category at some part in our lives. Why why should we do good if you are not going to stop us?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
War All of the Time
I think war is grand. I moved my computer into my room because its just better here. Laptops are so portable. In my room you will see instantly 2 large civil war portraits. Over my bed is Confederate currency and a hand drawn sketch of Gettysburg. I have 30 books on war and some 20 war history movies. I truly do think war is grand.
I do like the battles and such but those bore me now. The battle of war is boring now but the purpose of war is riveting.
War has to be killing people. If war was blowing up cars that is meaningless. Cars can be replaced. Money can be replaced. Anything can really be replaced. People cannot be replaced. You cannot bring someone back from the dead and that is why war is about killing people. It is that loss of life that makes war killing people.
In a love for war I tried to come up with my cure for war. My plan for world peace.
The biggest issue with world peace is that it is truly impossible. See with every war there is a winner and a loser. The loser is then put into shame and then wants to somehow overthrow the winner. Germany tried twice. They were bitter.
It has Marx's belief in 2 classes. The lower will want to overthrow the upper so let us continue thinking like marxists. Let us use Marx's beliefs and make world peace out of it. World peace will come if everyone is equal but not everyone can win because there must be a loser.
So my strategy for world peace is this: Everyone must lose the same way.
If the entire world was hit by a meteor and a lot of people died... no one would care about their wars anymore. If aliens attacked the world people would join together and have world peace because they all lost together. No one is greater than another anymore because everyone lost.
They have to lose the same because if one person lost 1 sheep and another 5 the person that lost 1 sheep was a winner and the person that lost 5 would be jealous.
That plan sounds so completely doable yet it is impossible.
War will not end but in theory aliens can save us.
I do like the battles and such but those bore me now. The battle of war is boring now but the purpose of war is riveting.
War has to be killing people. If war was blowing up cars that is meaningless. Cars can be replaced. Money can be replaced. Anything can really be replaced. People cannot be replaced. You cannot bring someone back from the dead and that is why war is about killing people. It is that loss of life that makes war killing people.
In a love for war I tried to come up with my cure for war. My plan for world peace.
The biggest issue with world peace is that it is truly impossible. See with every war there is a winner and a loser. The loser is then put into shame and then wants to somehow overthrow the winner. Germany tried twice. They were bitter.
It has Marx's belief in 2 classes. The lower will want to overthrow the upper so let us continue thinking like marxists. Let us use Marx's beliefs and make world peace out of it. World peace will come if everyone is equal but not everyone can win because there must be a loser.
So my strategy for world peace is this: Everyone must lose the same way.
If the entire world was hit by a meteor and a lot of people died... no one would care about their wars anymore. If aliens attacked the world people would join together and have world peace because they all lost together. No one is greater than another anymore because everyone lost.
They have to lose the same because if one person lost 1 sheep and another 5 the person that lost 1 sheep was a winner and the person that lost 5 would be jealous.
That plan sounds so completely doable yet it is impossible.
War will not end but in theory aliens can save us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
