Evolution is the King of Wishful Thinking (insert New Found Glory song here)

Alright, my whole problem with the theory of Evolution is the whole chicken and the egg dilemma. Did apes develop large brains before or after their brain cavity expanded to retain it? Honestly, it just seems like an all-too-convenient explanation. I can give you the point where apes develop the ability to use tools to forage for food but there's no possible way you can expand that idea of using tools to the development philosophy, religion, and biochemistry that man enjoys today because those are so abstract that they require more than simple logic needed in garnering food. There are just too many questions I have that really don't work for me. Oh, and the whole mutations thing that works beneficially? How and when has that ever happened? Each and every mutation that I've seen be presented in nature is horribly corrosive to a life forms' ability to function in the wild. And then to assume that this example of a species not only survives to adulthood and then is able to breed and influence an entire population is just ludicrous. Honestly? People really believe that crap? 

You know what this sounds like (I'm borrowing Mr. B's joke here)? It sounds like the Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone is so eager to approve of (or disprove of, which is my understanding of why evolutionists are so up in arms about their theory) this idea that they ignore logical holes in an argument for the mere sake of proving something. That's not science. That's politics.

New ID

I never realized how much of a boon it is for me to be able to buy my own food before, but now that I have a new student ID, I'm very happy with not having to bum meals off people. I hate being unable to fend for myself, even if I'm not necessarily paying for it, the inability was frustrating. I know this is all making me sound like I'm spoiled, but when I start dealing with school, the last thing I need is to worry about who I have to call before I can get a meal.

Ouch

I lost my wallet, I'm depressed. Nuf' said. But hey, life goes on. 

"Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shallwe drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:31-33)

Fight Scenes

I've always relished action movies and those that involved in depth fight scenes whether it include Eastern warfare and the simplicity of a basic move or weapon and then expound upon it's simplicity(see the movie Hero), or the Western style witht the inclusion of weapon fire and explosions (historical reference, see the A-Bomb used to take out a nation of kamikazi's and movie reference, The Last Samurai where it's obvious that influence does not only go one way). Here are some clips that I find great from some awesome movies. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QQXOvRLkls&feature=related

Equilibrium-Great movie not only because Christian Bale's characer evolves in such a way as to play light on part of what makes us human, our God-given ability to feel but also has excellent fights that appeal to both Eastern and Western styles of both extreme discipline but applied to a modern setting. I enjoy the conclusion found in the end that emotion is not only required but is necessary to combat tyranny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C9XSf8QrFU

Bourne Identity- There are a ton of great moments in this movie but I like the combination of hand to hand and knife work done in this scene. You also gotta give it to a guy who can stab someone with a ballpoint pen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-nfrRSSVDA

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace- Colton may kill me for picking Episode I as my favorite fight scene but every other one looks way too scripted (or uses way too much computer generated work). Obviously it's Star Wars so a bit of the Force inclusion doesn't really work but hey, it's Star Wars.

The Distractions of Abstraction

Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I have been stumped today. Not stumped by someone or something I've observed but perhaps by my own thoughtless meanderings. For, you see, I went to an exhibit about modern art today with one of my good friends, my brother, and my headmaster. The Art Museum has an interesting exhibition available and my friend is writing a thesis paper on this sort of art so she found it all very interesting. I, however, took a much more side-winding way to get to an appreciation of this art. 

For those historical artists out there, the major players of this exhibit were Pollock, De Kooning, and many other famous Abstract painters. These are the ones where you see just gobs of paint spread over a canvas and no real line of thought ends up being represented. So, to me, I had no real point of reference when coming to terms with this kind of media form so it invariably led to early headaches for me. 

My resolution was to find what motivated these artists to paint as they did. Primarily, they were a reaction and breaking away from the form and truth of Modernism. Please forgive me if you are confused with the difference between modern art and Modernism. Modernism is more of a political and social mindset that was shaped mainly by Nationalistic views towards government (that unfortunately brought about the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini) and also influenced America by bringing it into the Golden Age of the 50s. Modern art is a trend towards a Postmodern interpretation of truth claims in which they believe there should be none and that art is merely the production of the artist, not one that is bound to a movement or an artistic period. Of course, the hole in this frame of mind is that this belief in it of itself is a claim to a trend or movement (one that resides in it's independence from what they perceive as prior restraint).

My own quibbles in coming to terms with this art is when I'm taking the position of the audience. When analyzing art from the position of the artist, it's easy to come to conclusions about him whether you analzye the brush strokes, his choice of color, or even the fact when you see that he has stopped his work and ceased to add more paint. However, here I am, in an art gallery, trying to analyze this art as it relates to me as an audience. How do you do it? I haven't the foggiest. What I'm left with is my analysis of what the artist represented and what he felt in that moment of painting for the most part. It all makes me feel kind of helpless, artistically wise. 

Perhaps my biggest problem is that feeling of helplessness. If these artists wanted their art to pretain to only their internal feelings, they ought to not have them published, or at least not till after their deaths because so much of what they're doing is for personal catharsis. This whole concept of painting to get emotion out onto a canvas with little to no consideration as to the perceptions of their current audience seems very selfish to me. Half of what makes this genre great is the culture created and now subsequently associated with this art, and I can appreciate that. But when they [the artists] create a society that is devoid of relating to the world and reality around itself, it loses all credibility in my eyes. I don't know, maybe in all of this I've merely shown my ignorance of their artistic style but I can't help but wonder why some people truly attest to these men as great thinkers of their time when they can't even relate all that well to life and the world around themselves.

Musings on Rockferry

I. Preface

                My first semester of college finished, I felt it necessary for me to muse on how it went, that through this I may improve how I deal with those of the future. Now, I think that something like this ought to be not merely constructed in a “dos” and “don’ts” combination for I assume who will seek to read this will not deal with the same issues nor deal with them exactly the way I do. So in my construction of this entry, I feel I must simply speak on what I feel I personally succeeded or failed in and leave others to deal with their conclusions for this semester of Fall ’08 on their own terms. Also, though I hesitate to include this, there will be aberrations in how people feel the semester went and if didn’t you either enjoy or deal with the problems I’ve had, I’m sincerely sorry and you may send all complaints to Michael Stern in Schurz, room 505.

               

II. Outgoing

                I wanted to start this chapter by pointing out what to me is its title’s ironic double meaning. In the onset of this year I came out of the recesses of the St. Louis private school system bracing myself for the invasion of my life by literally thousands of interactions a day with an institution 2500 times larger than the one I attended previously. Suffice to say I was happy with how this particular aspect of college turned out. I must say that I thoroughly appreciated the interactions I enjoyed in my FIG and through THE Fifth Floor Schurz. In many senses the separation between those of the FIG and those not involved in its activities was little to none and all in all I’ve never seen a tighter floor. I’ve always assumed that there would be bumps and wrinkles in the road, all relationships deal with that. While I’m also going to hesitate to delve into this argument, to ignore the existence of problems in a relationship means you’re not very close to that person or group in the first place. Because to be close means to know flaws that we all deal with and it’s the charge of all parties in a relationship to come to terms with this blatant fact.

                My other meaning to relate in the title of this chapter outside of the outgoing social life I benefited from is a more personal aspect of the semester in most every new college student when dealing with personal identity. I hope and am fairly certain that every collegiate feels this need to come to terms with who they are and how they come across to others they interact with on a daily basis. Well, I feel I’m not special in what I have to deal with in this regard. However, the fact is that some way or another we feel compelled to tailor our personal outgoing message to everyone else we meet. When weighing how I’ve dealt with this I’ve resolved that this topic is more a Jeckel and Hyde dichotomy than most other issues I’ve yet to relate.

                Effectively, I like to play off my own ability to be an open individual and relate that sense to others because it truly is difficult to conduct true friendships without some measure of transparency. One thing though that I’ve concluded differently is where transparency hits a major road block. Permit me to describe this semi-complicated issue as it seems to me for I draw on many other lines of thought and will attempt to combine them into one cohesive stream of consciousness. May I start with C.S. Lewis’ conclusions on the tendency of postmodernist thinkers to explain away everything they see as establishing a set of truth claims from Mere Christianity. He shows this pattern of explaining everything away as attempting to prove that what they are seeing is only a window and that there is something behind it that we truly need to see. However, their problem exists in when they disprove all they see, including that which they see beyond their window. For them, to see through everything is not to truly see at all.

                To tie this philosophical argument into my own situation I must also employ another analogy and that is of one of my favorite television characters in the title character of House. One of his catchphrases and one with which he assembles his own conclusions on life is that; “Everybody lies.” To him the issue is not merely what we lie about or even that we do but what truly motivates those around him to live like they do.

                I attest to both of these arguments by Lewis and House in that they are in complimentary disagreement. Everyone wears masks and it is through this that society functions. To be completely transparent to everyone you meet is to be a huge downer. It just is. That’s not as much of a big deal to me because I learned that lesson of whether I’m tight enough with that person to talk about who I am and what I’m dealing with. The other is really my PSA to those who think we aren’t calling their bluff. It’s mostly because I was so bad at hiding who I was from everyone that it kills me when I see people trying to do the same for whatever reason, and sometimes very badly. Compassion is a funny thing like that when it borders on your irritation for that attitude you see in someone and then are resolved to help that person out of what at first irritated you. Well to me, I’ve found to be irritated by people in this predicament and then feel some sort of need to help; so I do. And it's considered a virtue. Sweet

(More to come as I'm still typing, this was just the fruits of a sleepy afternoon in FL; oh, and if you didn't notice, I did not once mention Rockferry in this post, i just thought it was a cool title)