Poetry Essay

The poem “So Much Happiness” by Naomi Shihab Nye is, as the name implies, a meditation on happiness. The speaker begins by contrasting happiness with sadness. When one is happy, one does not really know what to do. Nye compares sadness to a wound, something that can be dealt with and treated. We may have souvenirs from sadness, much like we would have a scar from a wound.

Happiness, on the other hand, cannot be held. Any souvenirs do not begin to touch the actual emotion involved because happiness “doesn’t need anything.” The only thing it leaves one with is a different perspective. With happiness we “wake up with possibilities”. Sadness may make us look to the past, but happiness makes us look to the future. For example, compare being in a relationship and being happy with it to being in a once happy but now unhappy relationship. In the former, one may be filled with hopes of dates, stolen kisses, plans to travel, to marry etc. All of these are hopes for the future, whether distant or near. If the relationship has turned sour however, even the sweetest memory of the lover is made bittersweet.

Happiness is transient; it “goes away when it wants to”. Upon reading this, one might wonder if Nye is saying happiness is hopeless. While Nye speaks of the initial cause for joy being temporal, she leaves us with the feeling that the new perspective gained is not. Even moving from a paradisiacal tree house to a quarry “cannot make you unhappy”. We are still left with the idea that “everything has a life of its own”.

Nye concludes by saying that happiness is too large to be held inside. Instead happiness radiates into everything that surrounds the happy person. We cannot take credit for this beneficence, just “as the sky takes no credit for the moon,” we simply hold it and let it radiate from us. Through this simile we are able to see happiness as a glowing orb that lights our way, once again into the future.

This last stanza can be compared to the first which speaks of holding sadness in one’s hands. This is an interesting progression: first the speaker talks of sadness as something one holds, then she says that happiness doesn’t need one to hold it, and finally she admits that one holds it the same way the sky holds the moon. This last claim implies that sadness does need to be held to exist. This comparison is the key to understanding the true result of Nye’s meditation. Happiness happens, while sadness is something we must take responsibility for. If we let go of sadness, instead of radiating, it will simply cease to exist. By showcasing our happiness, we not only have a better chance of gaining perspective, but shine a light for everyone as well.

The following is a poem with the same basic theme that I wrote as response to Nye’s poem.

I am banishing you,

Small pitiful you,

Undeserving you,

Undeserving of any tears, time, or thought.

I made a mistake, but I won’t let you tell me that I am one.

I embrace You

Grand, shining You

Triumphant You,

Conquering the doubt, fear, chaos.

I embrace You lightly like light, knowing You will come back over and over again…

I lost her to neon lights and ecstasy
I lost him to the narrow passages of his mind
I lost them to the Vista from which I had to recover
I lost her to The Other Side, where I was always scared she was going
I lost him to smoke and holy water
I lost them to the land of peachtrees
I lost her to the real world
I'm losing him to the streets and I might break
I lost Them and I never hope to find them
I keep losing pieces of my soul,
Or at least you all have torn at them
Maybe you will stretch it far enough
To
Save
You

Mythological Analysis-A Paper That Was Too Short

“Barn Burning” by William Faulkner is the story of young Sarty’s conflict with his father Abner. Abner is a man who will not change his course for anything (including manure) and is a temperamental arsonist.

This story makes me think of a reversed story of Helios, whose son’s pride and recklessness scald the earth as well as kill him. Helios allows his son to drive the sun chariot against his better judgment and many lives are destroyed. Sarty also goes against his better judgment to testify against his father out of familial loyalty. His often reckless father commits arson when ever his pride is hurt. Sarty, like Helios ends up lamenting yet frustrated at his relative’s actions. Prometheus also stole fire (power) from the gods and gave it to man. Destruction is a power Abner has that brings him closer to the rich DeSpains-everyone is vulnerable to fire, and through its use Abner feels invincible.

This story also has an archetypal father vs. son power struggle. We can see this in stories of how Zeus overcame his father, the story of Oedipus, etc. Sarty is indirectly responsible for his father and brother’s deaths. With this he becomes the patriarch in the family, but also to some extent, its destroyer. When Sarty is called on to testify against his father and Abner later beats him for supposedly considering it, it shows the first severing of the father-son relationship.

In these scenes, Sarty is a helpless boy, by the time he runs away from home he is a power in his own right. Sarty’s familial duty gradually fades away as Sarty is unable to empathize with Abner. Sarty tells Abner he understands his anger, which Abner takes as implicit approval of arson. At this point Sarty realizes he must take over in order to survive and protect his family, much as many mythic sons kill their fathers in self-defense or as vengeance.

Faulkner and Fathers

In William Faulkner’s stories “A Rose for Emily” and “Barn Burning” (Faulkner), the protagonists both must deal with overbearing fathers. Emily’s father refuses to let her have boyfriends, and Sarty’s father Abner is an arsonist. We see how these authority figures dominate their lives indirectly, in “Emily”, and directly, in “Barn”. Faulkner creates a world in where no one is innocent, the need for control can be dangerous, and a break with authority can be necessary yet tragic.

Neither Emily nor Sarty are truly innocent, which traps them within an assumed innocence.

Emily is never allowed to experience romance until her father is dead, which makes her innocent of normal male-female relationships, but sadly experienced in a dominating, suppressive one. Her only other relationship is with her serving-man. It is very possible Emily views all men only as potential slave masters or slaves. There is no innocent first love, only a twisted one-sided relationship.

Sarty has also experienced hardship, due to his father’s pyrotechnics. Sarty is very aware of society’s laws and reactions to his father’s crimes. He has seen the destructive power of fire and his father shows this same destructiveness when he beats Sarty. Sarty tries to relate to his father, but cannot due to his experience of what arson really does.

In both stories, to be innocent is to be ignorant.

The townspeople are innocent enough to dismiss the smell at Emily’s as bad cooking or hygiene, and therefore miss the glaring evidence of murder. The pharmacist, while not completely naïve, does not have enough persuasiveness to stop Emily from buying arsenic because he has no experience with the situation.

Sarty’s siblings seem innocently ignorant as well. While we find it hard to believe they could be anymore innocent than Sarty, especially the accomplice older brother, they do not to seem to have the same grasp of their father’s actions. The sisters are lazy and unintelligent, and the brother follows Abner blindly.

In both stories, the need for control is dangerous and destructive.

Emily’s father controls her, and this leads to her wanting control over her lover, Homer Barron. Her desire is so strong she kills him, keeps his corpse and never leaves her house. Her home has become her own world in which she can control everything, even her lover. He will never tell her he’s not in the mood, that he doesn’t like the curtains, or that she shouldn’t go out tonight. More important for Emily, he will never leave her, at least physically or by his own volition. He can forever remain the ideal-no need to discover he’s a philanderer or an addict.

Abner exercises control over his family and over the element fire. Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to humanity, as a way to bridge the gap between them. This is basically how Abner utilizes fire. No barn is fire proof, no matter how much money or pedigree has gone into it. His employers may abuse him all they want, all men

are equal in the face of fire-and all are subservient to the one who controls it. Fire also represents rage, as both can be destructive and lose control in an instant.

Faulkner shows the sometimes tragic necessity of breaking with authority.

When Sarty finally betrays his father’s actions openly, it is at least partly in the interest of his family. They cannot keep travelling an losing jobs. They cannot constantly be put in the position of being made to commit perjury or take responsibility for actions that aren’t theirs. Sarty cannot continually be physically and mentally abused. The struggle of family vs. ethics/law/etc. is unsustainable, particularly for a child. Yet when Sarty hears gunshots, he knows it is likely that his father and brother are dead. Sarty will then have to reconcile the feelings of responsibility he may have.

In contrast, Emily never breaks with authority until she breaks what is the most crucial law-murder. Perhaps it is inevitable that those who feel oppressed will revolt, and perhaps it would have been better for everyone if Emily had done so earlier in her life. “Barn Burning” shows this necessity much more explicitly than “A Rose for Emily” does. We don’t actually know to what extent her father controlled her; it may have been very slight. It may have been incredibly abusive. We don’t know if it directly influenced her murderous ways, but one can reasonably assume so. One cannot act according to another’s desires forever. These stories show us the same thing experience has-the longer an emotion stays under wraps, the hotter it will grow, and the more combustible the release will be.

It may have been better for Sarty to turn in his father in the beginning as well. If Abner went to prison, it would have saved two lives. Perhaps what Faulkner is trying to say is that we should not subject anyone-ourselves or others-to someone’s own desires. Faulkner mentioned that the human heart was oftentimes in conflict with itself (Robbins)-add someone else’s heart and life in nearly unsustainable.

“Works Cited”

Faulkner, William. Selected Short Stories of William Faulkner. New York: Random House Inc., 1962.

"Edit Submission: Short Story Essay- Major Paper ." SLCC Virtual Campus. nd. 27 June 2008.

The Personal Life Philosophy of Khrystine Kelsey

In a speech given at West Point Military Academy, author Ayn Rand espouses the reasons one must adopt a life philosophy. The components of philosophy are the most basic questions, one must answer them in order to think, act or survive. According to Rand, the components of philosophy are metaphysics (who/what/where am I?), epistemology (how do I know?), and ethics (how should I behave?) with its subcategories of politics (how shall I behave in relation to others?) and aesthetics (what ideas, images, and inventions/creations will I support, utilize and enjoy?) Using this outline, I will attempt to explain my own life philosophy as clearly as possible.

Who, what and where am I? As a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I feel this question is best answered by the following statement from the Church’s library: “We are daughters [and sons] of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him.” I adhere to the belief that I am a literal spiritual offspring of a God and Goddess and that it is my destiny, should I live up to it, to become a Goddess in my own right. I have been placed specifically on the earth at this time and in this situation to follow that destiny. We humans are “god[s] in embryo.”

How do I know? Assuming the main goals of existence are joy and self-actualization (to be examined later), how do we know our metaphysics and actions are correct? We generally experience and interpret the world through three ways; that is action, emotion, and rational thought. If we wish to reach correct conclusions, it is best we give all these interpreters due consideration.

Action is necessary to a long life and for most healthy humans, a happy one. We must take the action of eating in order to survive for example. Action is the center of our experience because it is both a result and a cause of our thoughts and emotions. We desire to kiss our boyfriend, we commit the action and enjoy it, and therefore we desire to do it again. Action without thought, however, is often harmful and stunts progress. (It is doubtful whether one can act without emotion as there is likely at least a desire to perform the act.) If one discovers fire, burns oneself, and out of fear never utilizes that power again, many developments may never be reached (such as light, warmth, cooked food). Truths one discovers through action are called self-evident.

Emotion is important to consider chiefly because it is undeniable. Everyone experiences emotion except possibly severely disordered people such as psychopaths. Emotion is what creates our desires, it seems directly connected to physicality (e.g. the body needs sustenance; this prompts the desire to eat.) With this in mind however, emotion is not purely the body (as is action) nor purely the mind (as is reason) but seems to mediate between them. For example without the emotions of love or compassion, when one feels the desire to eat one could simply steal another human’s food. Emotion seems to me the chief component in moral decisions. If something feels wrong, chances are it is and ones mind has not been able to explain it yet , nor ones body to know what action to take. It is emotion however that is most dependent on the other two faculties of knowledge. On an individual level, it is emotion that should be strongly examined. Emotion and action without reason may result in crimes of passion and further unhappiness, emotion and reason without action leads to non-productivity and, again, further unhappiness.

Reason is the champion of our age and rightly so. Most decisions that lead to happiness and productivity are largely founded on reason, and it continues to be the driving force in society. All conclusions should indeed make logical sense. If action is the way in which we progress and emotion our motivation for doing so, reason is the language we speak. It is the cornerstone of our actions as it is ultimately what decides if the action will result in further happiness. It finds the best way to express or satisfy our emotions. Many philosophers grant reason supremacy, as it is the clearest and most necessary way of dealing with each other. Like action and emotion however, it is also dependent on the other members of the experience trinity. As Aristotle’s syllogism demonstrates, reason can quickly lose credence if founded on false or faulty premises. For example, take the faulty premise that all women like to cook. While cooking may be an activity with many merits most rational beings can appreciate, it is very risky to say that all women enjoy doing so. If we take this premise as true and add the self evident premise that Monique is a woman, we can conclude that Monique likes to cook. But what evil will be wrought when we force Monique to spend time cooking, when she does not derive pleasure from it! That may sound extreme until we consider the following.

The Aryan race is innately supreme to all other races. Science declares this as false, the DNA of one race is not any stronger or weaker than another. But let us take this false premise and play with it. Adolph is of the Aryan race, Elie is not. Therefore Adolph is innately superior to Elie. This follows the logic, does it not? Yet our emotional center is becoming queasy. Adolph, on this false premise executes Elie and six-million or so other non-Aryans. This is the perfect example of why we must employ reason and listen to our emotions and body. An SS officer beats a Jewish woman; he throws up afterwards and feels an unknown guilt. His body, his feelings show him something is wrong, if he only he would use his reason to check his premises…

Aristotle aims to prevent this by having all logic stem from definition. E.g. All animals are living things of such a type that are endowed with traits which allow them to flourish. Human is an animal. Human possess traits of reason, emotion, and ability to act. Human endowed with reason, emotion and ability will flourish. This brings us to the next question.

How should I behave? So we now have a basic compass to guide our behavior. Is the action possible? Does it “feel right”? Does it make sense? Now we check that we are not rationalizing. Is it truly impossible, or is it that I don’t desire it? Do I really feel good about the decision or is it just easier? Does this course really make sense or am I avoiding certain facts? All these questions of course tie directly back in to metaphysics. Who are we? Where are we? Even wearing a sweater doesn’t pass this test if we’re somewhere hot and humid in July. It also begs the better question, what is the purpose?

If we are on Earth training to be Gods and Goddesses, what other purposes does that imply? If we are going to be omnipotent, omniscient beings, we have the purpose to learn. In the Old Testament God says “I AM THAT I AM” to Moses. If we too are to be Gods and Goddesses, we must know ourselves completely, be our best potential most perfect selves. In my religion we also believe that “Men are, that they might have joy.” We can add from this three other things to consider. Will this action increase my knowledge? Will it ultimately bring me joy? Is it worthy of me, an embryonic deity?

How should I behave in relation to others? The important facts to remember are that others are also pre-divine, and it is immoral to impede their education, happiness and health. However if that is unethical it is absolutely unacceptable to impede their freedom. Freedom is self-evident. Everyone must answer the basic philosophical questions, and they must answer for themselves. To destroy one’s own education, happiness, health and individuality is immoral, but is one’s own to destroy or cultivate. The taking away of freedom “for one’s own good” is a contradiction in terms. No matter how ethical one may seem to behave, limiting their freedom will limit their capacity for education. It will limit their capacity for happiness. It will entirely eradicate their divine individuality. Freedom must never be limited. This includes individuals’ freedom to live and gain property as well. As an entitled heir or heiress of heaven we have the right to defend our property, person, and others’ properties and persons from immediate danger. This may come in the form of other countries, other people, or even our government. Those who violate others’ properties and persons must be removed from the society, as they have obviously lost respect for human dignity. We must strive for societies which protect us from these people while still allowing us as much freedom as possible.

What ideas, images, and inventions/creations will I support, utilize and enjoy? Individuality is perhaps the ultimate ideal of my philosophy. We must honor our “divine nature” and “individual worth.” It is also moral to encourage others to do so in such a way that does not limit their freedom. We can do this through our aesthetic principles. We will buy art that shows humans as beautiful and heroic. We will see plays and movies that uphold ideas such as honor, courage and freedom. We will listen to music that pleases us, that helps us to further understand ourselves. We will read what is well written, use what is efficient, wear what is beautiful and well made. When asked what we think, we shall speak. We will live in beautiful places, encourage open minds, and defend truth, freedom, and our divine individuality.

Bibliography

Rand, A. (1982). Philosophy: Who Needs It .New York City, NY, Signet

LDS Church. (2001). Young Women Theme. http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgne xtoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=725fbe 335dc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Moyer, T.J. (1993). “The Family-Now and Forever.” Ensign. 10-12.

Ross, W. D. (1955). Aristotle Selections. NY, Charles Scribner’s Sons.

(1958). Holy Bible, King James Version. Philadelphia, PA, National Bible Press.

(1974) The Book of Mormon: Another Testament Of Jesus Christ. Salt Lake City, UT, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

A different kind of writing...

July 29, 2008

The following is a long paper I wrote with several other people. They will be kept anonymous, for their protection, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Reality Show Judging: a New Code of Ethics

Salt Lake Community College

Group Community Writing Campaign

Abstract

Reality TV shows' lack of fairness, ethics and good judgment are making an impact on popular culture. There is a lot of disagreement and discontentment with the values that are being transmitted to the viewers. Through research of several different types of reality shows, we have come up with ideas and ways to improve these shows. The most important things we are looking for are (1) qualified judges, since they represent justice (2) stopping multiple voting (3) assuring that judges cannot change their mind after a decision has been made, and (4) establishing a strict code of ethics between contestants and judges (which also includes: no unprofessional interaction and professional conduct on the parts of both contestants and judges, throughout the entire process, including prescreening). The expected outcome is a fair and enjoyable reality TV show.

In the last decade, the genre of reality television has become culturally iconic. TV shows, on which contestants compete, in particular, have enjoyed immense success. Programs that add viewer voting into the setup are watched and participated in by millions of people. The populous now has an even more direct influence on the “next big thing,” whether musicians, dancers, comedians, or even pets. As entertaining as these shows are, however, they are not immune from criticism. Upon closer examination, one can find many problems with the prescreening techniques, the voting process, and the objectivity of the judges -- problems which could be less glaring with some minor adjustments. How do so many obviously untalented people get on TV in the first place? Is it possible some fans are able to “pad” the votes? How does the audience influence the judges, and how do they influence each other? We will attempt to explore these questions, among others, through the specific formats of four popular reality shows that are centered on four different kinds of talent. We will examine the credibility and objectivity of the judges on each show, explain the effect of viewers or audience members on the eventual outcome, and examine what the code of ethics seems to be, if indeed there is one. We will then put forth specific ideas on how each show, and reality competitions in general, may be improved.

The most popular reality show right now is American Idol. American Idol is a hallmark television program with millions of followers. Idol was created by Simon Fuller, the Spice Girls Svengali, and first aired in England in 2001, as Pop Idol. It came to America the following year, with a new name but with the same purpose: to find market-friendly talent among an enormous pool of amateurs and wannabes (Frere-Jones, 2008, p.74). It has a simple dynamic plot that has captivated America for eight seasons. Every year judges that work for the show travel to different cities in the U.S. searching for talented singers. Long lines of hopeful young performers make their way through preliminary screenings anticipating their moment in front of the three famous judges: Simon Cowell, a successful, hit-making executive for BMG Records in Britain who created and helps produce the series, Paula Abdul, a popular singer and choreographer, and Randy Jackson, a veteran musician (Duffy,2002).

Reality competitions are only as good as the judges who preside over them. The American Idol panel, the gold standard of the genre, proves that the right combination of critiques can add professional insight, comic relief or a verbal jab (much to the delight of the audience) (Kinon,2008, p.1). Each judge has a distinct personality and role on the series. Simon is usually the most critical and direct. His opinion is however the most valued because of his experience in the music industry. Simon is paid to deliver his criticism in a nasty way, although he's usually right. "He's just being honest, saying it in blunt fashion. It's just constructive criticism," said Justin Guarini, a personable Pennsylvanian who was among the favorites to win it all (Duffy, 2002). And then there's Paula -- if she could find it in herself to do a taping sober, she might give some good feedback. John Rich of Nashville Star thinks she's downright disrespectful to contestants with how nonsensical her commentary is (Sample, 2008, p.3).

These performances in front of Simon, Paula, and Randy are called the preliminaries, though the contestants have already been seen by another professional panel to eliminate those that are obviously not qualified- or so you might think. The reality is that these first acts from all over the country can be some of the most entertaining, although sometimes at the singer’s expense. In these episodes of American Idol the judges will send a few singers they think have a shot at winning to a second round in Hollywood. These are also the episodes that showcase a variety of obviously bad auditions. The judges, though honest, can be cruel. This of course is entertaining and is usually a crowd pleaser.

"I think this kind of competition, going in there live, singing a cappella, is as brutal as it can get," says Abdul (Duffy,2002). Although each contestant agrees to the terms and condition of auditioning for the show, it might seem mean spirited to show these obviously bad auditions for amusement and public scrutiny. Some of the contestants who might even be mentally ill or psychologically challenged are ridiculed by the judges and their performances are aired on primetime television. Does this aspect of the contest distract from the real goal of helping an amateur singer rise to the top and become a success?

"The original idea was to do a show that shows what the music business is really like-illogical, sexist, all the things," stated Cowell (Duffy, 2002). The contest's intentions may be pure but judges can be brutal, especially in the preliminaries. In one instance, the usually kinder and more sympathetic Paula and Randy were unusually rude.

“If you were looking for insensitive behavior, Randy and Paula were your go-to judges. The two of them breaking into hysterical laughter as 22-year-old James Lewis sang "Go Down Moses, Let My People Go," was the cruelest moment of the night. They might be forgiven for not having the back story, but the producers made sure to let the viewers in on the fact that the Philadelphia tour guide had been encouraged by his co-workers to audition, obviously some sort of cruel joke on their part, which the producers were happy to help with” (Kerwin,2008, p.30).

Though it may seem the judges have the final word in the preliminaries by the next phase of the contest it’s not just the judges who affect the outcome. Except for the early stages of the competition, when the judges winnow a group of about two hundred down to twenty-four, they can only file amicus briefs. They can say, "It was just O.K. for me, dog," banish singers to cruise ships, and make everyone cry, but the people have the power (Frere-Jones, 2008, p.74).

The judges critique contestants on their vocal ability, song choice, presentation, and other aspects of pop craftsmanship. The American public, though, decides who remains in the running, by phoning and texting in votes after Tuesday night's broadcast (Frere-Jones, 2008, 75). This is an exciting opportunity for the American people to get involved. They feel that their vote might be the deciding facture of who stays on the show and competes until the end or who goes home. American Idol does "an immense good in getting younger people interested in singing." Finkle (2006, p.18) notes that "competition, as we know makes you get better.” Each week contestants are cut based on the popular vote received from text messages sent into the network from the masses. But text messaging voting, though it involves the viewers, has its disadvantages. There is no limit on how many times a viewer can vote in. While interviewing coworkers at my job I found that many of those who voted texted in dozens of times. Therefore the outcome may be a little skewed.

According to Frere-Jones (2008, p.75), seventy-four million votes were cast in the finale of the 2007 season. The problem with the voting may not just be the amount of times one can repeatedly vote, but the lack of experience the general public has with actual musical talent. Simon Cowell’s critiques, though harsh at times, represent real value.

The viewers need to compete only with Simon; Jackson and Abdul both give us plenty of opportunities to feel superior. The self-flummoxing Abdul is physically incapable of not reassuring the contestants. One of the few variables that Jackson seems able to track is pitch (Frere-Jones, 2008, p.75). Even if the professional judges' opinions might be off at times, surely the general public is even less qualified to judge the real art of singing. Finkle (2006, p.18) wrote, "I don't think that the most important factors are being addressed by the judges more than half the time. You're dealing with a range of watchers who [include] musicians and record producers who know what is marketable. According to Finkle (2006, p.13), there are people who vote for contestants because they're cute. Undoubtedly the winner in the grand finale of the show will become an American idol. A show as big as American Idol, is open for all types of people who want to take advantage of it (Keveney, 2006, p.40). Does this contest undermine the real talent that exists in America? Just because it’s popular doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the most valuable. What the judges say about the contestants does not always sway the voters, although Cowell - the only judge who is able to dependably articulate why he thinks certain performances do or don't work - probably affects some (Frere-Jones, 2008, p.75). Hopefully America will realize that to really find the best of the best a popular television show, though it may have many fans, should not be considered the greatest resource for finding America's most talented singers.

In addition to people pets are also expected to hold their own in the world of reality television. Each episode of Pet Star has a talented group of animals and their owners who show off their special talent competing against one another. The winner of the show for that day will receive $2,500 and return at the end of the season and compete for $25,000 in cash and prizes with the other finalist from that season (“Mario Lopez,” 2008, p.1). Any type of animal can participate in the show as there is anything from lizards and ponies to the average dog competing. To showcase your animal’s talent, all you need to do is call or e-mail the producers and they will send you a form to fill out about the talent that will be shown and what type of animal you have. There are also questions not just about your pet's personality but also your personality. According to Borgenicht (2004, p.10), in his book, “Reality TV Handbook,” if you would like to pass the prescreening you need to make your personality more interesting then it really is.

The host of the show Pet Star is Mario Lopez. Mario has been a celebrity star since 1985 in an ABC comedy series (“Mario Lopez,” 2008, p.1). It is unknown if he owns any animals, but he seems to love each animal that comes on stage with him. Mario makes a wonderful host as he is able to get along well with the animals and the panel of judges (C. Cole, personal communication, July 7, 2008).

The panel of judges is made up of celebrities. The judges will stay for that season then next season there will be new celebrities judging the contestants. Some judges are Ben Stein, Susan Yezzi, Billy West, Brad Pitt, Melissa Pertman, and Brett Butler to name a few (“Animal Planet’s,” 2008, p.1). For each show there are always three judges on the panel. The main things the judges have in common are that they are well known celebrities that are either annoying or funny (C. Cole, personal communication, July 7, 2008). The article “Favorite Reality Television Judges” by Andy Dehnart (2008, p.3) states, “Judges on reality shows need to be knowledgeable, articulate and entertaining, or some combination of those.” Dehnart’s point is that you don’t need to be an animal trainer or have an educated knowledge of animals to be a judge deciding America’s talented animals but you need to be funny and well known.

The judges vote after each animal has preformed their talent on stage giving them points from 1-10, 10 being the best (“Mario Lopez,” 2008, p.1). The judges are to write in their score before they begin to share what they thought of the animal that just preformed. Their comments are not as rude as other reality shows, but uplifting. As the judges may not be educated about the animal that is performing, the judges may not be as awed by a pet that is not incredible. If you really knew the animal and the behaviors of that animal you would find it either normal or simply amazing. An example of this is from the episode on July 7, 2008; the first contestant, a border collie jumped for Frisbees as the owner threw them while the second, a potbellied pig, went through an army obstacle course. The judges gave the Border collie one 9 and two 10s, while they gave the pig two 8s and one 9 (Ross, 2004). Both performances were well done with little mistakes. To me this was unfair judging. If you knew about the two animals you would know that Border Collies learn very fast and are very smart while potbellied pigs are stubborn and hard to train. The correct way to judge this show is to have judges that actually know about different animals and have studied their personalities.

The code of ethics that is illustrated in Pet Star shows professional conduct. As the backstage and the true prescreening of the show are not shown, there is no way to find out if there is unprofessional conduct or unfair prescreening. In most reality competition shows the judges meet the contestants before they are brought on the show, this can be unfair and cause discrimination or prejudging. A change that should be made in Pet Star is to have educated judges that know animals and their natural behaviors. With this change in the show there will be fairness in judging and the right “pet star” will be found.

While the comments on reality shows are often amusing, one show’s purpose is to find the funniest person in America. Last Comic Standing is a reality show in which stand-up comedians compete for the favor of NBC producers, celebrity talent scouts, and of course, audience members. If they succeed in this endeavor, as of the sixth season, they win, “a $250,000 grand prize including an exclusive talent deal with NBC, a brand new Honda, and a starring appearance in Jubilee! at Bally's Las Vegas.” (“Information About Last”, 2008, p.1). Comedians that attend auditions, are given a chance to perform in live showcases, and are narrowed down to only the best. Then they are voted on by the audience.

The show is hosted by Bill Bellamy, who is a comedian. Bellamy has hosted Def Comedy Jam and received an NAACP Image Award. The show also boasts “special correspondents” Fearne Cotton, ANT, and past winner Debra DiGiovanni (“Information About Last”, 2008, p.1).

The participants on the show are diverse. Anyone who thinks they are funny finds their way to the auditions. Many of the contestants who are successful have been doing stand-up for a while, but their styles differ widely. The most recent season started off with the expected satire on everyday life that stand-up generally consists of, as well as a man who impersonates dinosaurs and mosquitoes and one totes his rather large bass fiddle onstage (Hurwitz, 2008). Auditions are open, and it is up to the many celebrity talent scouts to decide who will go to the next round. The scouts don’t always agree about who is funny, but if one sees potential s/he can usually convince his/her fellow judges to give the contestant a chance. The producers are pretty good about which auditions make it into actual air-time: bad comedians are only shown to give the scouts an opportunity to explain what they are looking for or an interesting aspect of the show, such as when a comedian refuses to be rejected, as shown on a recent episode. However, this is not always the case. In one episode, we see a shirtless man in clown make-up make one bizarre statement before the scouts command him to leave. It is likely that the producers show this audition to highlight all the strange diversity of comedy, but it seems just as likely that they had another thirty seconds of air-time to fill (Hurwitz, 2008).

The talent scouts consist of several comedians and comedic actors. While many viewers would agree that these people are funny, and they have obviously found success, one may ask why they are any more qualified to know what’s funny than anyone else. Just because an actor can deliver someone else’s lines well, we give them the credit for being funny but, what about the writer? After all, stand-up comedians have to write their own material as well. Perhaps this is the reason that nearly all of the show’s talent scouts have experience in stand-up, improvisational comedy, or writing. All have been trained in the art of comedy, yet comedy is still highly subjective. After all, what makes someone laugh? Connie Weiss (2008, p.1) quotes Susanne Langer as saying that this is the wrong question-that humor is only one of the “causes of laughter.” Weiss points out that laughter can come from relief or surprise. We may find some things funny that one close to the situation would not, our detachment provides the humor. In contrast, we may find a dark or satirical joke amusing precisely because we can relate to the situation. Weiss observes that comedy often surrounds tragedy, perhaps as a way of dealing with it. This is valid, as satire or “spoofs” have become increasingly popular, and directors like Mel Brooks have based their career on them (T. Dirks, 1996, p.1). It is also what stand-up tends to be about-experiences are embellished or under exaggerated in order to see humor in them. A qualified judge would be one who understands what makes other people laugh and why. The scouts and judges are aware of these techniques, and they have honed their own comedic ability, but they are not free from bias.

While there is no popular vote in Last Comic Standing until the final round, placing more emphasis on professional opinion than many shows, although, viewers still have influence. Comedians perform in showcases, in which judges and the general population are able to see their talent. This is an important part of the process, comedian Tony Jaeger states that “Ultimately, the number of people in your audience that are laughing is the key to comedic greatness” (Jaeger, personal communication, July 7, 2008). It is important to test the hopeful comedian out on an audience. This however, definitely influences a judge’s opinion. Laughter is infectious and a judge may suddenly see a comedian as much funnier (or less amusing) in front of an audience. This also has subtle influences on the viewer who looks forward to voting. The cameramen focus on those members of the audience who seem to be having the most fun, presenting an infectious mood to the viewers as well. There is something to be said for a live connection as well. Comedy is much funnier in person, and it’s much funnier in the front row than in the back. Judge Lonny Ross stated that comedy doesn’t always translate, and though he was referring to cultural differences, it could apply to live versus filmed comedy as well.

Compared to some reality shows, Last Comic Standing runs fairly professionally. However, to limit the judge/audience influence on each other, it might be helpful to split the sections of the show. For example, the talent scouts could choose their favorite comedians from the audition. Those comedians could then perform in a showcase for an audience who votes once for their favorite-this audience would not include the judges. This would consist of the first elimination, and the show would proceed with similar guidelines until a winner is chosen. This would respect the importance of the live audience, check the people’s influences on the judges, and still allow the professional influence to be paramount.

In addition to singing, pets, and comedy, dance as become a popular subject for reality shows. America’s Best Dance Crew is a TV show broadcasted through MTV where dance groups known as “street crews” compete for money and prizes. Randy Jackson, a very successful Grammy Award-winning producer who is also a judge in the aforementioned American Idol, created the show. America’s Best Dance Crew is hosted by Mario Lopez (previously Pet Star’s host), and he hosts quite well. He does however, get overexcited sometimes and starts to demonstrate certain empathy for some of the contestants, usually when they do something totally out of the box and Mario shows his emotion in an exaggerated way.

As I previously mentioned the participants here are called “street crews”, though many of them really aren’t; most of them look pretty preppy or at least they are middle class. They might even go to dancing academies. It’s very strange how the judges refer to them as if they came from the streets even if they are not. It looks absolutely fake how some of the judges would tell them that they know what it is like to come from the streets and how difficult it is to overcome, that is annoying, even though some of the contestants really do come from the streets and most have been dancing in the streets for a long time. Only two or three groups at the most out of the twelve that compete are from the streets (Kubicek, 2007, p.1). These contestants are usually the ones that have the best qualities and do the best performances. Mario Lopez needs to remember that he is the host and he has to show partiality and not favoritism to the street dancers. The main purpose of the show is to make streets dancers famous, and when they bring people that have been going to academies or schools to the show kind of contradicts the purpose of the show (Ominous, 2007, p. 3).

The jury consist of three judges; JC Chasez, Lil Mama and Shane Sparks. JC Chasez used to be one of the members of NSYNC. Lil Mama is a former rapper-singer. Last but not least, Shane Sparks is the only professional dancer of the jury. Here is where the biggest problem is, the jury (Cudworth, 2008, p.2). Not including Shane Sparks, who is the only judge that makes good observations to the contestants’ performances and provides them with a constructive critique, JC Chasez and Lil Mama are very questionable participants on the show. Lil Mama is the main problem because of her poor critiques. There is lack of constructive comments, and the way she expresses herself makes her very hard to understand. Besides she isn’t really a dancer, she is a singer, so we could say that her experience is not relevant. Then we have JC Chasez, who has been out of the scene for almost six years. After NSYNC tore apart he tried to start a solo career, which turned out to be a big failure (Cudworth, 2008, p.2). He gained a lot of experience dancing with his group and he probably learned some basics, but let’s face it, he was just a pretty face.

The voting system is very simple, call as many times that is necessary for your favorite crew. I personally don’t vote for the contestants, but there is some sense of coherency of who is going home and who is staying in the program. We could say that there is some fairness in that part. There have only been two seasons so far, and none of the judges have changed their decisions nor have any argued the reason why certain crews have gone home. There has never been any intimate interaction between contestants and the people in charge of the show (judges, hosts, producers, executives, etc.) so that speaks volumes about the ethics of the program (Kurtz, 2007, p. 69).

In conclusion, to have absolute fairness in the show Mario Lopez would have to stop showing his favoritism. It is not necessary to kick him out, if he would just improve in that he would become a better host. Two of the judges definitely would have to be replaced for others more capable and with more experience, of the same caliber of Shane Sparks to be more specific. This way all spectators would enjoy a more fair TV show and would with no doubt keep watching it (Hill, 2005 p. 47).

As we have made evident, with the creation of a code of ethics and small changes in the voting and prescreening processes, as well as choosing highly qualified judges, reality competitions could be about real talent. These changes will result in better conditions (and chances) for the contestants, more respected judges, and an even more enjoyable experience for the viewers.

References

‘American Idol’s’ Personality Crisis Concerns Simon Cowell. (2008, April 16). Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://weblogs.variety.com/thesetlist/2008/04/american-idol-1.html?query=Idol American Idol Website (n.d.) Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://www.americanidol.com/

American Idol Website (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2008 fro http://www.americanidol.com/

Animal Planet’s ‘Pet Star’ Judges. (2008). Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://amiannoying.com/(S(t3qj4vy042k4qo55znb4tsra))/Collection.aspx?collection=4606

Baker, B. (n.d.) What’s Wrong with American Idol? Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://www.vocalist.org.uk/whats_wrong_american_idol.html

Borgenicht, J. & Saade, J. (2004). Reality TV Handbook. Philadelphia: Quirk Productions, Inc.

Cole, C., Viewers of Pet Star. Personal Communication, July 2, 2008.

Costello, B. (Ed.). (1991). Webster’s College Dictionary (3^rd ed., p.731). USA: Random House.

Cowell, S. I don’t mean to be rude, but… Backstage Gossip from American Idol & other Secrets That Can Make You a Star. New York: Broadway Books.

Cudworth, C. (2008, March) America’s Best Dance Crew? Only you and JC Chasez can decide. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://www.ramcigar.com/media/storage/paper36/news/2008/03/26/Entertainment/americas.Best.Dance.Crew.Only.You.And.Jc.Chasez.Can.Decide.html

Dehnart, A. (2008). Decisions don’t come easily to reality TV Judges. Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22669984/

Dehnart, A. (2008). Favorite Reality Television Judges. Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22544440/

Dirks, T. (1996). Comedy Films. Retrieved July, 7, 2008 from http://filmsite.org/comedyfilms.html

Duffy, M. (2002). Judges' barbs tend to overshadow talent hunt. Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120220051.html

Finkle, D. (2006). Idle ‘Idol’-atry. Back Stage East, 47, 18.

Frere-Jones, S. (2008). IDOLATRY. New Yorker, 64, 74-75.

Frey, J. (2008, May 1). The Verdict on Reality Shows? The Judges Hold the Appeal. Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052002086.html

Hill, A. (2005) Real TV: Factual Entertainment and Television Audience. Los Angeles, CA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.

Hurwitz, P. et al. (Producer). (2008). Last Comic Standing [Television series]. California: National Broadcasting Company.

Idol Upset Rebukes Judges. (2008, May 22). Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://gawker.com/tag/reality-tv/?i=5010385&t=idol-upset-rebukes-judges

Information About Last Comic Standing Show. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://www.nbc.com/Last_Comic_Standing/about/

Jaeger, A., Comedian. Personal Communication, July 7, 2008.

Kerwin, A. (2008). Will America see a kinder, gentler 'Idol' this season? Advertising Age, 79, 30.

Keveney, B. (2006, January 16). ‘Idol’ musings from the judges. USA Today, p. 4D.

Kinon, C. (2008, June 18). 'American Idol' vs. 'So You Think You Can Dance' judges. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/06/18/2008-06-18_american_idol_vs_so_you_think_you_can_da-2.html

Kubicek J. (June 2008) “Interview with America’s Best Dance Crew Judge Shane Sparks” Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www.buddytv.com/articles/americas-best-dance-crew/exclusive-interview-with-ameri-2063.aspx

Kurtz, H. (2007) Reality Show. New York: Free Press.

Magistra. (2008, May 23). American Idol: Save Idol! Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/blog.php/?p=30107&cat=39#more-30107

Mansfield, B. (2008, April 16). A ticket home can be theirs for a song. USA Today, p. 1D.

Mario Lopez. (2008). Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/petstar/mario/mario.html

Mish, F. (Ed.). (1995). Comedy. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10^th ed., p. 229). Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Ominous, A. (2007, June) “How to Create a Successful Reality Show” Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/272381/how_to_create_a_successful_reality.html?cat=39

Ross, R. (Writer), & King, A. (Directer). (2004). Pet Star [Television Series Episode]. Lachman, B. (Executive Producer). Animal Planet.

Roye, S. (2001). Comedy Evaluator Pro. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://www.killerstandup.com/comedy-evaluator-pro.htm

Sample, K. (2008, June 20). American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance judges: How do they compare? Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/06/20/american-idol-and-so-you-think-you-can-dance-judges-how-do-they/

Wade. (2008, June 5). Reality TV Judges. Retrieved June 29, 2008 from http://www.theapels.org/?p=11

Weiss C. (n.d.). What Makes Comedy Funny & Can We Write Comedy, Too. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://www.chatham.edu/PTI/Comedy/Weiss_02.htm

The Utah Museum of Fine Arts: Monet to Picasso

The exhibit was amazing. I looked at the works in a different way than most of the other people, especially the paintings. I want not only to see the painting, but to see the brushstrokes, to be inside it, to make love to it. I want to live in the world of the painting for as long as possible. In fact I was a little overwhelmed. I wanted to just stare at each painting for an hour or more in order to absorb it fully.

I was thinking of what I was looking at, and I was thinking there should be more of a physical response to it. I should faint or cry or have some outward manifestation towards so much beauty. When I saw the first Van Gogh, I found it hard not to scream or to cry. Nevertheless, I only smiled.

I am always amazed at how looking at art affirms certain aspects of my philosophy. In a painting from the blue period of Picasso, the accompanying placard speculates that it could be a comment on profane love versus perfect love. The painting features a couple on one side and a woman and child on the other. I thought very clearly, “No, sexual love is not profane.” It was uplifting to be so sure of myself for once.

My favorite part of the exhibit was Auguste Rodin. I wasn’t expecting any work by him, let alone his most famous work, The Thinker. I knew that Rodin thought that one is able to express mood through the body just as well as the face. His work truly exhibits this. It is almost strange that his sculptures don’t move. There was a rather large sculpture of a nude young man that had been controversial in his time. It was my favorite because it seemed so strong. It seemed to express a love for humanity and a quiet joy in being alive.

Overall, it was an amazing experience and I would love to go again.

Computer Ethics

Plagiarism and software piracy are illegal in the United States, and are generally agreed to be morally wrong as well. However, our world is changing fast. New words and phrases such as Napster and Random Access Memory are being invented every second. What do the words plagiarism, software piracy and copyright infringement mean?

The dictionary* defines plagiarism as “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.” As a would be writer, I find plagiarism morally reprehensible. It is the ultimate “sell out”. One who desires to achieve recognition but is so unwilling to work for it has no self-respect and likely self-esteem issues as well. That being said, as a would be writer I am also aware of influences from other authors seeping into ones work. For example, I easily could have begun this paper by saying, “It is a truth universally acknowledged that plagiarism is wrong.” I would not begin the paper this way because that statement is probably not true, but readers of Jane Austen will find it eerily familiar. The first line of Jane Austen’s book Pride and Prejudice begins “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”** If I ever write the phrase “It is a truth universally acknowledged,” is that plagiarism? It is such a nice concise way of saying things, but certainly a “close imitation” of that sentence. We both speak the English language after all, surely some words will overlap. How many consecutive words must be said and not attributed for something to count as plagiarism?

Software piracy is another tricky issue. If my boyfriend buys a bunch of CDs and then uses a CD burner to make me a mix CD for my birthday, is that piracy? Should he have bought those songs a second time on iTunes and then erased them once he had the hard copy? I suppose that would be the most moral, but no one has provided a satisfactory answer to this question. What if he takes songs from CDs he already owns and makes himself a mix? Should he have purchased those songs a second time? I personally feel that that would be rather stupid. He must pay to put them on another CD but he can build a play list on his iPod and get the same experience for free? There is the rather immoral act of defining the point until it is ludicrous. Even Rene Descartes admitted some things have to be just given. How far does our ownership reach? We can listen to music on the radio for free, but to listen to it on our computer we have to buy it? There is a logical gap here. Yet even I will agree that a mix CD seems to be in a different category than highly expensive software, or even a complete disc of one artist’s music. But the question still remains-where do we draw the line? Should we pay for radio now? (Some of us do, and enjoy it.) Should we ban libraries, which are the closest some individuals get to having a formal education? Libraries lend music and books to people all the time. I can get a CD from the library, listen to it constantly for free and if it is worth buying, I buy my own copy. I can also download a CD from an illegal website, listen to it constantly for free, and if it is worth buying, I buy a copy. If it is not worth buying, I didn’t waste my money and the musician got some free advertising out of the deal. I don’t see how this is different from radio or the library. The article on which this paper is based claims that bands do not appreciate this as they prefer to do their own advertising. This makes me question how many musicians the author actually knows. The musicians I have been lucky enough to hang out with appreciate any and all advertisements. Can you think of any other possible reason Ozzy Osbourne would bite heads off bats? Metallica’s many court cases particularly amuse me. Music has always been about protest and double checking the status quo, from Woody Guthrie to the Sex Pistols to Christian rock. Metallica has a lawsuit every time someone says their name. They even sued Victoria’s Secret-who is going to think that Metallica the band and Metallica the perfume are the same thing? A band that gave mothers of the early nineties nightmares.

In conclusion, these things are hard to define. I have already made this paper twice as long as it needs to be, and will spare the reader details of my own philosophy of property rights except to say this: To take something that belongs to someone else, from an apple to an idea, and say that it is yours is wrong and degrades all humanity. To be touched an inspired and overjoyed by another’s creation is a love of humanity. That is the true difference, and the true line that must be drawn. We cannot force people to love truth, but those who do should not be punished for finding it-they are the one’s who know when something is worth paying for, after all.

*"plagiarism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 23 Jun. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism>.

** Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Great Britain: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1999.

Constructing a Life Philosophy Paper

Why is philosophy important? Everything is a reflection of our philosophy-even the time we got up today (and our attitude upon waking). Are we “morning people” or “night people”? This is just one example of many incidents that give our views on life, whether we will or nil. It is then important to examine what those views are, to ask ourselves if they will lead to happiness and indeed, what that happiness we may be vaguely searching for is. In chapter one of Constructing a Life Philosophy, several individuals try to do just that.

We begin with M. Scott Peck. Peck sees life as a journey with various destinations or goals along the way. Each of us has a map-a complex viewpoint or philosophy-that tell us how to get where we’re going. Problems arise when the map has errors, either in where we are going or in the legend. A false map will not lead us where we want to go.

As an example, Peck tells us of “brilliant but unsuccessful” computer technician whose wife has left him and the children have gone with her. At first, the man did not appear to be very distressed about his marriage, only his children. Neither did the man seem distressed over his lack of career and financial success. As Peck talked to the man he discovered that his childhood had not been the best. While the man’s parents were not aggressive towards him, they were often neglectful. The man defended his parents, but found it hard to trust people; particularly authority figures that he believed did not have his best interests at heart. However he was very affectionate with his children, a relationship where he was the authority and therefore had the “upper hand” as it were. Peck believed that every time the man attempted to reach the destinations of familial or financial success the map would warn him not to trust the other crucial parties such as a spouse or supervisor. The man must change his map to read not to trust his parents and other people that really had let him down. Peck admits that while facing the truth may be very painful, it is necessary to reach our goals in life.

Plato also discusses the painful necessity of facing the truth. Plato, like Peck, uses a symbolic allegory to describe our search for truth and happiness. Plato describes the typical individual as living in a cave. While in the cave the individual must face the back wall on which (s)he sees shadows of everyday things like plants, animals, vehicles and such. As this is all the individual ever sees, this is his whole idea of reality. Plato then supposes he releases the individual from the chains and shows him what has been creating the shadows-small toys and models. The individual cannot believe it and it is likely that the toys will seem less real to him than the shadows on the cave wall. The individual will be in denial, much like the man defending his negligent parents in the first viewpoint. Once the individual is used to the models Plato speculates on leading him out of the cave to face the real world. The individual must adjust to the light, the wind, an entirely new and different view of reality. Like the man in the first viewpoint, it may be easy for us to slip back into old beliefs, to have a desire to run back to the cave. However, once the individual sees real plants and animals he gradually comes to appreciate them and feel how truly unrealistic the shadows were, how little his reality matched the truth. Yet were he to tell other individuals in the cave they would likely disbelieve him and even think he was trying to do them a disservice.

Sam Keen and Anne Valley-Fox also emphasize the importance of the story. They claim it is the stories we and society tell that shape our philosophy. These stories can be beneficial or detrimental. For example, an individual influenced by Watergate may develop a healthy skepticism of government or they become paranoid of all authority. The above stories, if incorporated into one's world view may encourage one to face hard truths, or they may influence one to create drama in a twisted attempt to discover further knowledge. The key, say Keen and Valley-Fox, is to find a story that helps an individual to achieve one’s goals. All philosophy tells a story, and all stories create a philosophy.

So now that we know that it is important to search for happiness and meaning and that truth and our stories are key to understanding, the next questions are: what is happiness? What gives life meaning? How do we go about finding it? The following viewpoints all agree it must be our decision to look for meaning and to cultivate it in our lives. However, they differ on where we should start looking.

Richard Robinson claims life has no intrinsic meaning and that individuals are entirely responsible for creating their own paths. This is nobler than many philosophies or religions he claims because it does not relieve any responsibility from us or give any blueprint for how we should act. He does advocate the ideas of brotherly love and courage as these are necessary to survival.

Charles Colson disagrees with Robinson. According to Colson, the only thing that can bring us true happiness and meaning is finding peace with Deity, particularly the Christian idea thereof. Colson tells a story that is full of wrong turns and scandal. On the suggestion of a friend, Colson prays and begins to study Christianity. Colson feels what could be called spiritual manifestation that Christ is the Savior. With the extreme differences between Robinson and Colson’s respective ideas, they both agree that the decision to find meaning is ours.

Riane Eisler advocates honor of the female Deity, as represented by and manifested in nature. If religion and society were not male dominated, Eisler insists, we would be less exploitive of natural resources and of other people. Eisler strongly emphasizes the ideal is not a female dominated society either, but rather one that is based on partnership. Like Robinson and Colson, Eisler believes we should seek each other out in order to better each others lives. Partnership, or an equal society, will encourage balance among the world which will leave us with socially and economically rich societies.

Like Colson and Eisler, Emil Brunner also encourages a relationship with Deity. He holds the belief that evidence of God’s power and love is everywhere, which mimics Eisler’s divine view of the earth. According to Brunner, the very idea that we were created by God implies a purpose. Like Robinson, Brunner claims it is our responsibility to find our individual life plan, which Brunner believes comes from God. It is likely that the results of an individual living by Brunner’s ideas and one living by Robinson’s would lead very similar lifestyles. This is very interesting considering their original idea of what gives life meaning are essentially polar opposites.

Brooke Medicine Eagle’s view is reminiscent of Eisler’s, although Medicine Eagle perhaps focuses more on the Human-Earth relationship than the Society-Earth relationship. Medicine Eagle believes that as all things are creations of Deity, all living things are children and manifestations of that Deity. Therefore all things, including ourselves, deserve respect and honor.

Despite the many differences in the various viewpoints we can see a couple themes. All seem to agree that we must constantly be striving for truth. All, whether explicitly or implicitly, accept the importance of stories and their influence. All believe that to some extent we are responsible for our own happiness-which does not have to be frightening as Robinson reminds us. All agree we must respect ourselves and other people. A trusting relationship with a higher power seems to be important, even if that higher power is our own human potential. Perhaps the most important thing we can glean from these writers is that, while there may be vast differences in belief and culture, we all to some degree want the same thing. Diversity and unity is possible, and as long as one lives with honor we can respect them.

Mathematics and Beauty: A Golden Connection

Beauty is mysterious.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” “Beauty is an illusion.” These ideas make beauty seem so subjective, so transient. Surely many prefer it that way. But what of us who crave the eternal? What of the scientists and philosophers who seek truth, the artists and engineers who sense all of time in one raised eyebrow or perfect pediment? Is that for naught?

What if there was some magical property that justified the beautiful, that widened, not narrowed our definitions thereof? What if the whole world was beautiful?

There may be no magic spell, but there is however, the next best thing: an equation. The Greek letter phi is defined as the following: (a+b)/a=a/b. If we simplify these terms, we are soon left with Phi^2-Phi-1=0. As we can see, this is a quadratic equation, and the only positive solution is (1+√5)/2=1.61803399.

What does this have to do with beauty? This is where things get interesting. As we will soon see, this ratio seems almost omnipresent. We can see it in faces, in flowers, in fruit, and even in fountains. All these beautiful things often have this ratio as a common thread between them. One may argue that this is just as subjective as anything else. As we examine the history of the ratio, we shall see why this particular philosophy of beauty deserves merit.

We start with Phidias, who was born in about 430 BCE in Greece. Phidias was a sculptor, painter, and architect, generally regarded as the greatest of his time. Favored by the leader Pericles, it is generally believed that Phidias designed the statues that reside in the Parthenon. We do not know much about Phidias, and cannot say for certain he knew of the ratio, but he seems to have employed it in his work. It is for this reason we call the ratio phi, the transliterated first letter in Phidias’ name.

Our next character is the philosopher Plato or Platon, born in Athens, Greece in about 427 BCE. In one of Plato’s dialogues, Honor, he describes 5 solids, all convex regular polyhedrons. Some of these solids are related to the golden ratio. In fact, it is possible to combine the solids and find even further examples of the golden ratio. Once again however, we do not know if Plato was aware of these relationships or not.

The first record of the golden ratio we are aware of occurred in the mathematician Euclid’s (or Euklidis’) book Elements. This book is so influential, we are still required to study it in secondary schools. Euclid, who was also Greek and born in about 300 BCE, actually defines the golden ratio. Euclid described it as the extreme and mean ratio.

It wasn’t until the middle-ages and the work of Italian mathematician Fibonacci that we were able to learn more about the ratio. In his The Book of the Abacus Fibonacci describes a sequence of numbers where each number is the sum of the two numbers before it, e.g. 3,5,8,13,21 etc. It can be observed that the farther we take this sequence, the closer the ratio of any two consecutive numbers (3/5, 5/8) gets to phi. While he did not discover this sequence, he popularized it, and it is now known as the Fibbonacci sequence.

Luca Bartolomeo de Pacioli, Italian mathematician and friar, wrote The Divine Proportion, published in 1509. This book was illustrated by Leonardo Da Vinci and explored how the ratio related to art and architecture. It also showed how the proportion applied to people-with proportions on the face and body being close to phi. The following quote shows Pacioli’s thoughts on the ratio:

The Ancients, having taken into consideration the rigorous construction of the human body, elaborated all their works, as especially their holy temples, according to these proportions; for they found here the two principal figures without which no project is possible: the perfection of the circle, the principle of all regular bodies, and the equilateral square.

(Emphasis added)

Johannes Kepler was a German mathematician, astronomer, and astrologer born in 1571. Kepler was mainly concerned with uniting astronomy and physics, and in doing so was able to show that planets did not move in orbs (circles) as previously thought, but in orbits (ellipses). We were able to find that golden ratios often show up in ellipses, and Kepler later said

Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel.

So far we have seen the ratio in shapes, architecture, art, people, and in the shape and movements of an ellipse. Those who think Phi is just a coincidence are losing their arguments. In the eighteenth century, Charles Bonnet, a Swiss naturalist and philosopher is finding it in plants. The spiral phyllotaxis (or leaf arrangement along the shoot of plants) going clockwise and counter-clockwise is often two successive Fibonacci sequences. We also find this in the spirals of the nautilus shell and the petals and seeds of the sunflower. German mathematician Martin Ohm begins to describe this ratio as “golden”.

French mathematician François Édouard Anatole Lucas studied the Fibonacci sequence and is the namesake of the related Lucas sequence, whose ratios also get closer and closer to phi. Lucas came up with a formula for the nth Fibonacci term, which is as follows. Fsub (n+1) = Fsub (n) + Fsub (n-1). He also gave the sequence the name Fibonacci Sequence.

It wasn’t until about 1909 that phi became the symbol for the ratio, as given by Mark Barr, an American mathematician. Today even more exciting connections are being made to the golden ratio by individuals such as Roger Penrose among others.

Gustav Theodor Fechner did studies that show that 75% of people prefer golden ratios, and subtle (highly unscientific) evidence in our culture seems to support this. Others, like George Markowsky, say it is all coincidence. But we may find that is not even the point. The point is that we find things such as order and symmetry to be worthy of our time. The point is that when we see beauty, we joy in it. H.E. Huntley says this is a response driven by an inner desire to create, and to see that it is good. He says:

Man is by nature a creator. After the likeness of his Maker, man is born to create: to fashion beauty, to originate new values. That is his supreme vocation. This truth awakens a resonant response deep within us, for we know that one of the most intense joys that the soul of man can experience is that of creative activity. Ask the artist. Ask the poet. Ask the scientist. Ask the inventor or my neighbor who grows prize roses. They all know the deep spiritual satisfaction associated with the moment of orgasm of creation.

I would add that beauty shows us our values. Do we value order & intelligence or do we value the dark primordial chaos from whence we came? Do we value this beauty we find even on ourselves? Do we value that we are perfectly made, by God or nature, to be beautiful?

I will end with the ratio as defined by Adolf Zeising.

[A universal law] in which is contained the ground-principle of all formative striving for beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art, and which permeates, as a paramount spiritual ideal, all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical; which finds its fullest realization, however, in the human form.

Is that not something we can value?

The House of Chanel

The Parisian fashion house Chanel is probably among the most influential fashion lines in the world, both at its birth in 1910 and today. The House was founded by Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel, more commonly known as Coco Chanel. Such iconic fashion items as the little black dress and tweed suit became mainstream because of Chanel, and Chanel number five is one of the most popular perfumes today. Chanel is also famous for it’s quilted fabric, made with a secret technique to keep it strong. Chanel’s philosophy was that style should be effortless, elegant, and tastefully sexy. The line soon became associated with wealth. Many things that are known as classic French styles were created or reinvented by Chanel, and Chanel herself seems to reflect the French aesthetic. Attributed with saying “Luxury must be comfortable, otherwise it is not luxury” and “A woman is closest to being naked when she is well dressed”, the look is the classic idea of elegance without excess. When Karl Lagerfeld took over in 1983, the line got a new slightly more daring attitude, but is still characterized by unique designs, luxurious details, and impeccable quality.