All my words come back to me in shades of mediocrity.

Ever make fun of yourself and then have it come back to haunt you? You say something offhandedly about yourself that you don't do well at and then people use it against you ALL the time. Me too.

One thing I love about Paul Simon is that he makes fun of himself in his own songs and can get away with it without losing respect.

Or maybe I'm just too cocky to let it go time after time. That's probably it.

Anywho, I realized that if anyone actually reads this blog my wording can be quite confusing because, well, I don't use words in the same way that other people use them. I use them in the way I think they should be used. So it's definition time (yippee!) This is just for clarification so I don't get in too much trouble. :)

Feminist: one who works for the rights of both men and women (See Mary Wollstonecraft or Florence Nightingale.)

Chauvinist: one who is blatantly advocating special privileges for their own gender while pushing aside the rights of those of the other gender (See the modern Feminist movement.)

Myth: a historical tale for which no evidence can be found to prove the occurrence - not associated with the validity or lack thereof of said tale. (See Oedipus Rex.)

truth: a fact that is applicable and necessary to know for one's own life but not necessarily applicable to the lives of others. (See Friedrich Nietzsche.)

Truth: a fact that is applicable to all and independent of all of human thought; a universal. (see Immanuel Kant.)

God(s):
1. an all-powerful and all-knowing figure that is generally seen as being human-like in general who is in control of all of human affairs and the whole of this World. Does not always have to follow His or Her rules set aside for humans as His or Her plan for existence is above Absolutist theory. (see Western theology and Theistic existialism.)
2. Truth (see Eastern theology esp. Taoism.)
3. The Great mystery(ies) (see certain individuals from one of the following: Roman Catholicism, Paganism, Islam, Episcopalism, etc.)

Romantic: relating to an scenario, place, or thing that is desirable aesthetically pleasing, but not necessarily realistic - not related to love. (see "World Peace" ideologies.)

Atheist: one who does not believe in Truth. (See - no one actually, I don't think this is possible.)
"Atheist": one who critizes a Western version of bibically literal God(s) without seeming to understand differences in views from said version of God(s). (See Richard Dawkins.)

Christian: one who follows the Nicene Creed esp. relating to the trinity. (See the Roman Catholic church.)

Liberal: one who wishes for the government to be involved solely with the safety of its individuals and not with every detail of the lives of said individuals. (See modern libertarian movement.)

"Liberal": a modern Democrat who insists upon sticking to party lines and participates in name-calling to prove they are the superior party. (see Chris Matthews.)

Conservative: a person who sticks to the values they believe have been important in the past. (See what many in Utah consider themselves.. sorry can't come up with anything other than that.)

"Conservative": a modern Republican who insists upon sticking to party lines and participates in name-calling to prove they are the superior party. (see Bill O'Reilly.)

There. Those are the words that I use "incorrectly."

I'll probably think of more later.

Oh! And FYI if anyone's actually reading this or the rest of my blog: I'm not going to include quotation marks or cite any quotes from the following if I use them in my status any longer: Cat Stevens, Paul Simon, or Oscar Wilde. It was getting a little redundant.

"Tell us all a story about how it used to be.

Make it up. And then write it down. Just like history." - Paul Simon

So I've just started to read Arabian Nights. So far it's been quite interesting. It's one of those classics that you think you know all about until you actually sit down and read it. My use of wikipedia has increased significantly since I've started it because, frankly, I know next to nothing about Islamic folklore.

The book itself has reminded me of something I've questioned a lot recently: the historical accuracy of everything. I'm a critic. Myth is so often based in some place or thing that actually existed. It seems like it takes a lot of twisting and turning and in the end you come out with a great, but highly unlikely, story.

Oddly, the myth of Ali Baba is likely entwined in another myth: that the story was in the original Arabian Nights. Critics today think that a French translator added the story in later.

The myth of Oedipus the king makes me think twice. Most people hear of the Thebian plays at some point in their lives, but it is little discussed that there are many, many more documents recording the myth prior to Sophocles with many other parts to the story. This leaves me thinking that Oedipus probably did exist and the story has been twisted.

And here's where I shoot myself in the foot. For, as we all know, it's ok to question mythology as long as it's not the mythology of the majority.

The story of Lot's wife has always bothered me.

I caught this loophole a while back:
"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." - Genesis 19:26
So.. if Lot's wife is behind him how could he possibly know that she turned into a pillar of salt. Odd.

But what I find really interesting is that there is a place named Mount Sodom where the the story would've taken place that is absolutely covered in salt formations. You can see them here. These flats lead me (and many others) to believe that the flats came first, a traveller found them, and then the story was made up off of an already existing character-Lot- that was in Jewish mythology.













In this picture you can see the landmark that I would guess sprung the specifics of her turning into the salt pillar. It's actually been named "Lot's Wife."

History seems to call for an acceptance of ideas where one cannot find absolute proof (which is impossible with everything I guess) with a little bit of cynicism about everything.

So call me a heretic, but I think it's a good idea to take most of history with a grain of salt. (Not a pillar.)

Welcome to the circus

Ever notice how issues regarding certain groups have become the new circus? A way of entertainment by "throwing the Christians at the lions."
We treat issues as if there are no people really behind them. Whether it be those on social security, illegal immigrants, abortionees, gays, minorities, other countries, politicians, torturers, or torturees.

Does anyone really care about both the woman and the child in abortion issues? Of course not. They are both a source of entertainment for those who need a cause. Does any feel bad for both the tortured and the torturee? Of course not. They likewise are a show for the general public to watch.

"When you see a man beating a dog and you feel as bad for the man as you do for the dog that's when you know you've got it."

I heard this quote at a lecture one time (it was attributed to the Dalai Lama, but I haven't found anything to confirm that) and it's stuck with me since.

How often would we, as humans, be willing to help both sides? To see both sides of the very human issues and try to help anyone who is hurt by the situation, not just one person.

Instead there seems to be two reactions to such issues:

1. One becomes entirely obsessed with defending the rights of one of the above people seeing no problems with the potential results of their quick decisions. The person is made into a circus in that they are not treated as a person, but a cause. The person that "liberal" people will want to have as friends merely because they wish to appear "liberal" but do not actually care about the person. "When everybody loves me I will never be lonely." should very well be the theme of the person from then on. They are purely entertainment for the mass of liberal thought. Not someone who might actually need someone to care.

2. One decides that the person is not really a person and that whatever the issue that is brought up regarding this person must lead the person to be "evil." Evil is a tricky word. It effectively dehumanizes those who are given the label disregarding circumstances from society that one might've brought upon the person to be labelled as such, ie - ignoring mental illness, ostracization, abuse and other home situations, etc. This person is treated as a circus in that they are not human. They never will be. Forget all of the background and possible horrors of their lives. They are damned and thus fuel for argument. A circus of what was never allowed enough of a chance.

So be a part of the circus or try to change it. It's not likely to change throughout all of humanity. We've thrown the Christians at the lions, set up our "freak shows", burned down cities, destroyed lives, etc. all for entertainment in the past. Today we simply ruin lives by choosing not to recognize them as such.

And, yes, I know I'm a hypocrite. I've done my fair share of extreme side choosing and creating a circus out of people.

Absolutely disgusting

Ever have one of those days, weeks, or even months when all food seems to be absolutely and ridiculously disgusting?
Blegh.
That's been this week for me. Everything sounds gross.

Sometimes I feel intelligent

and then I go to family parties.

~sigh~

"I am not young enough to know everything."

-Oscar Wilde

The other day I was thinking about a class last year and the ways in which I thought that I could've fixed the class and suddenly the though came to me "Of course I could've. I was in High School. I had the answers for everything."

Anyway, now that I've mocked myself twice, I just wanted to say how amazing Oscar Wilde is.

"Reading an Oscar Wilde play is sort of like life being perfect." - Tosh Berman

If you have not ever seen or read anything by Oscar Wilde I demand that you stop reading right now and go down to the library and check out the text to the play "The Importance of Being Ernest" or "The Picture of Dorian Gray." Don't check out the video - Hollywood's corrupted Wilde plays.

"I can resist everything - except temptation."
"I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying."
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame."
"To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
"I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies."

You probably are wondering where this rambling came from. Well, I started another Oscar Wilde work today and was, of course, not disappointed. And I found a pleasant surprise the other day - a little book called "De Profundis" a love letter from Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas when he was in prison and doing hard labor for "gross indecency" (at least he didn't get the hemlock like Socrates).

Goodness. How does one properly express the literary genius that is Oscar Wilde? I am in awe.

Go read.

Take THAT communism!

I learned a secret tonight.
An ultra-important, historically significant secret.
Want to know?

I learned what the cosine button on your calculator actually does. No, I don't mean that I learned that I could press the button and it would give me the answer. I learned how to get the answer (approx.) without a calculator.

It's called a Taylor series:

cos(x) = 1 - x^2/2! + x^4/4! - x^6/6! + x^8/8! - . . . to infinity.
You have to use radians instead of degrees. That took me a while.
It's not possible to calculate any of the degree exactly according to this series, however, because it both uses pi (which has no apparent end or pattern) and the equation is infinite.

If you already knew this equation, don't tell me. I consider finally learning it to be a success against the calculator that was ruling my ruler life and would like to pretend I actually learned something tonight that isn't covered in classes often enough. (It wasn't in my trig. class. As it seems to always be the book simply said to press the button.)

Granted, I did read somewhere that the calculator uses a more effective method, but still!

Huzzah! I have won!

While I'm on this tangent (hahaha) I should probably include my recent love for Pascal's work.. the triangle, the wager, etc. Pascal rocks my socks.