Opinion on Blogs

At the beginning of this blog, I posted a comment on how I was still making up my mind as to whether I hate or love blogs. I've decided on a mutual indifference.

At the beginning, I was excited and nervous about my first blog -- wondering whether people would find it funny or insightful. I tried hard on the blog, read it over several times, contemplated the messages and meaning behind the piece, and even had some of my friends proofread it for their opinions. However, as I've written more blogs and become more swamped by schoolwork, I have more respect for the blogging community. See I do NOT want to share my personal life, feelings, thoughts, and whatever opinions pop in my head. If I did that, I would want it to be 100% anonymous with no link back to myself. But I've seen that in order to make good blogs you have to do one of two things:
1. Write about something intellectually stimulating or interesting for all persons.
2. Write about your personal life.

Let's face it (ah, I can not believe I just used that cliche but I am keeping this anyway because it is more of a stream of consciousness than an actual piece of writing. But we all know that Americans and probably people everywhere (though I can not generalize for other cultures) LOVE our gossip. It is what gives our lives the subpar information which we fill our days with. Humans have such a need to be liked by others, I think it is an innate evolutionary trait which forces individuals of our species to grow close and reproduce. Which could explain why God made sex and love intertwined, but what a silly thing to do. I digress. Gossip. We all love gossip, even those who say they don't, do. So I've decided that if someone writes about a relationship or gossip which is interesting a "juicy" they can survive in the blogging world. A problem with this, is that you usually give away your personal beliefs on certain issues when you either support or criticize someone during your gossip rant. I do not want to do that, I value my privacy like every other American (and once again maybe other cultures).

Now let's address what the majority of my blog (or at least what I wanted the majority to be about) -- intellectually stimulating conversation which could help people realize other views. The great thing about this is that I CAN take a opposing side and argue it from an intellectual standpoint and still not tell anything about myself: except that I am a good debate/rhetorician. However, this is not possible with gossip. If I try to take on the persona of a senile old racist and defend them in gossip (to give one example) people will criticize me for that view on gossip. Intellectually, I could explain how people who are like that have been raised under a different value system than our own and it is hard to change set views. This would probably be a neutral argument, because it is just that: an argument rather than a personal opinion.

And so sums up my blog. I do not want to reveal anything substantial about me because if I'm running to be the next Supreme Court Justice and they find out I wrote a intellectual or gossip piece about support Communism or something I would be kicked out. Plus, I just do not fell anyone has earned the right to learn about the privacy of my life. So I would not want to post something personal on the Internet to have everyone to read unless it was anonymous. This is not, so I feel this blog will not continue past this current semester.

Blog #X (forgotten by now) completed for ENGL 102.

STREB: Brave

STREB: Brave. A motion and physics based acrobatics group who came to UNC this Friday and Saturday to explore perpetual motion with “superbly-conditioned performers.” (Some had serious guts, I’m sorry but if you want to see amazing physiques watch dancers like Alvin Ailey.)

I was less than impressed.

For any of you who saw the performance, I would love for you to comment on my comments.

Back to the point. I was underwhelmed truly because the reviews in the DTH had been more than generous when saying this group was a “danced based group” which used things like athletics (kick boxing) and machines such as steel poles and hanging wires. First of all, while I’m sure these performers could also be dancers the event was not danced based. I did not see any technical or implicit dance routines mixed in with the performance, besides a comical moment where they copied Michael Jackson’s Thriller moves and the Moonwalk. Secondly, the event was supposed to “push the body to the limits.” I thought this implied something more than simply seeing how much abuse a body could take. These performers would launch themselves at a plastic wall or the floor and land with a perfectly straight body with a crunching “thud” (for the male performers, I am already having doubts). While this was no doubt impressive that they could repeat this 100x over, from differing heights and positions, it got boring quickly.

The use of machines was excellent. For the ending act, they had a giant pendulum in which one person would stay in a circle and the rest would jump on and off, affecting the balance and making for an incredible physics display of centripetal force. (Refer to opening picture).

While this itself was wonderful and brilliantly conducted, I feel that the description of the show was highly misleading. In reality, this was a kind of Circus de Soleil with a focus on the physics in motion. However, I feel that while much of the performance was highly demanding on the bodies of the acrobats, the nuances of things like centripetal motion, impulse, oscillation, and other concepts were lost on the audience. It is very difficult to convey such a complex event and make it interesting to the average person and I feel that Elizabeth Streb did not accomplish this goal.

For those of you who have no idea what this show is about, I am sorry that I posted a review that you probably did not understand. But as far as the worth of the show ($10 for students, $35 for adults) and the time spent, I would not recommend this event over amazing performers that visit Chapel Hill every week.

P.S. Everyone make sure to go see Gilberto Gil if you love musical innovation.

Blog 5 for ENGL 102 completed.

The Heaviest Burden

Two things struck me today as I sat thinking of ideas to write about:
1. I have no idea
2. I have not explained my title to this blog

“Das Schwerste Gewicht” comes from the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche – a 19th century German philosopher. It literally means “the heaviest of burdens,” and refers to Nietzsche concept of the “eternal return.”

The idea of eternal return has perplexed philosophers: the idea that everything recurs as we once experienced it, ad infinitum. The reasoning behind this form of belief is that the universe is infinite, without a beginning or end, and time itself is cyclical. While most view time as linear, having a distinctive start and stop, yet what if time was not linear and could be bent into a circle? What if, one is reborn, over and over, to relieve one’s life exactly in every pleasurable and painful detail? For the sake of this blog, I do not intend to provide the extensive metaphysical proof for this concept but merely suggest it as a possibility for defining the universe.

Like the pessimist person I am (perhaps more of a realist), I view the concept of eternal return as saying that a life which disappears once and for all is weightless. Most people tend to hold one life as sacred, as special and unique. However, this concept of eternal return suggests that something which does not repeat itself, whether the life was horrible, beautiful, its horror and beauty mean nothing. Doesn’t this distress you? Do you not feel afraid of this concept? Most do. If every second of our lives is doomed to be repeated, we are nailed to eternity as Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross.

Nietzsche himself created this analogy:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' – The Gay Science

Back to das schwerste Gewicht. Nietzsche called this eternal return “the heaviest of burdens” because in the world of eternal return the weight of unbearable responsibility lays on every move we make. But is this really so terrifying? Is lightness truly admirable over heaviness? Heaviness gives our lives meaning, it keeps us from floating around in life without purpose, without meaning. It keeps us connected to the earth, our origin and source of our strength. In the era of love poetry, the woman longs to be pinned down by a man’s body. Conversely, lightness allows man to become half real, almost angelic. Take leave of his earthly body and soar among the splendor of the sky. Which one shall we choose? Lightness of heaviness?

Controversial Issue: A Reply

Well I've been siting here trying to get multiple things done at once, failing to do any properly, so I've decided to write about something that I already have previous knowledge about. Devon wrote a piece titled "Controvercial Issues" and I've decided to respond simply to share my views and my research on this topic. Because most of my opinions are formed in fact and evidence (not religious basis unless they are credible morally) I'm sure my views will change later on when more research is done. But for now, I'd say I'm thoroughly confused.

First argument: Homosexuality must not be a choice because who would choose a lifestyle of discrimination. Therefore it must be part of their biological system.
While this is a classical argument to support the thought that homosexuality must be a genetic trait and thus not a choice, a couple of examples can significantly weaken this argument. An example from the family system theories of psychology illustrates that girls in an enmeshed family (where each member is too greatly involved in the lives of the other members) tend to develop higher rates of eating disorders than the average girl. Of course no one would choose to be bulimic or anorexic, presumably, but simply because that is true does not prove the origins of behaviors are biological. Let me give the simplistic version of each of the systems of psychology which explain behavior:
Biological -- abnormal (deviant) behaviors are the result of incorrect balance of neurotransmitters, the genes have a specific coding for a certain behavior, or structural brain abnormalities exist which cause changes in behavior.
Psychodynamic -- behaviors are influenced to a large extent by the unconscious, mostly formed during our childhood years
Behavioral -- Influences of reinforcements and punishments produce behavior
Cognitive -- Thoughts and beliefs shape our behaviors and the emotions we experience (very complex school of thought)
Humanistic -- Humans have an innate capacity for goodness and self-actualization yet the pressures from society to conform to certain norms interferes with the fulfillment of this capacity.
Social -- Interpersonal relationships shape personality development, family systems shape personality development, and/or social structures of society shape personality development.

Well that was a long list. Sorry about that, but essentially there are hundreds of theories within each of these schools of thought which can each point to a different origin of homosexuality separate from genes. The first argument does not hold enough evidence to point to genes as the origin.

You bring up the point of bisexuality, but do not actually discuss it any further. Interestingly enough, a classic argument against homosexuality is a "slippery slope" style of argument -- if we accept homosexuality, how will we be able to punish other sexual deviant acts (such as beastility, etc.). I do not support this view, but I have read an interesting study in the New York Times titled "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." It suggests the in men at least, there is no hint of bisexual arousal, that they only have sexual preference towards one gender or the other. I do not think this study eliminates bisexuality as a concept, but I think this is the first of much research needed to study this sexual orientation.

Lastly, since this blog is getting quite long, I would like to point out one of my own original thoughts on the subject (it may not be original, but I have never heard it before). In Biology 101, one of the first things we learn is that the sole biological purpose of life is to survive long enough to reproduce and pass your genes further into the gene pool. Now this is not saying this is the purpose of life, but it directly contradicts the biological origins of homosexuality. Considering that Darwin's theories on evolution have been proven time and time again through models and experiments, how is it that homosexuality has come to exist as a gene? It goes against the basis biological function, a homosexual cannot pass on his genes because those genes will do nothing to continue the human race. Thus we arrive at a problem, one which I feel has not be addressed enough nor given enough scientific validity.

Sorry about the length of this blog and sorry that it's not particularly funny or witty. Tis a shame. But I hope it at least presented those who are curious about this topic with more information to make a better educated guess about the origin or homosexuality.

Third blog for ENGL 102 completed.