TOKAR

Note: The ideas present in this journal are my own, and no one has to agree with them. They are nor right, nor wrong, nor neutral, nor existence, and have no time nor space, yet they somehow exist without existing. Capiche?

Two weeks ago we had the honor to attend an Inter-ToK presentation on The Life, The Universe and Everything by Andy Fletcher, and also had the luck to have a more personal discussion with him as a class. Many, if not most of the ideas and theories presented by Mr. Fletcher were solely based on mathematical evidences, which in turn are based on observations. These observations are in turn based on other mathematical evidences, which are also based on observations, as an unending loop that goes from mathematical evidence to observation and vice-versa. All these theories, as many other things in life, can not be proved nor disproved. However, Mr. Fletcher looked so confident and so…certain about these theories that seem so far fetched. In fact, so far fetched that the human imagination can barely grasp the concepts. It is true that many of the things we have in life can not be proved or disproved either, but at least we can “see, smell, touch, taste, hear” them, experience them, and “know” or at least “imagine” that they are there. And even with all that, we dont always believe in them. In addition, a belief can change (for example Santa Claus…I know he is still hiding somewhere, never managed to catch him). How can Mr. Fletcher be so sure of all these things surpasses me…but not as much as the question “Why?”. And it is indeed a good question. Although all the theories presented are interesting (especially the relativity theory which I like and admire greatly), WHY do we want an answer? Do we need an answer? What for, if every answer will need to a new question? It’s not like we can have the answer to everything…in fact we never will.

Metaphorically speaking, knowledge is a hydra. Hydras are mythological creatures similar to a snake/dragon monster that had nine heads. Everytime you would cut a head, two would grow back. By the way, Hercules managed to kill this monster by cauterizing the neck everytime he cut a head. Back to the topic, knowledge is a hydra; everytime you find one answer, two questions pop up…and this time, it is impossible to cauterize. And it might take a lot of time to find an answer, in fact some things might just be answerless. Maybe a smart scientist will one day come up with a very difficult question, will ask it to the world and will leave in a rocket going to the speed of light to come back 10 minutes later (which equals many thousands of years later) so the others will have worked out the answer for him…that would be mean but funny. Anyways.

Out of the many theories discussed, all are weird in a way and acceptable to a certain extent. Ok, we might be made up of 99% nothingness, we might eat 99% nothingness and breath 99% nothingness. Maybe for these scientists and mathematicians, nothingness exists. For me, nothingness is nothing, and as far as I know, my arm is something. It’s an arm, with skin, hair, bone, cartilages, blood, flesh, and a whole lot of other stuff, and that is perfectly fine for me. I don’t need to know how many atoms my arm is made up of, or how many quarks, I’m just happy with the fact that its there. If my arm is 99% nothingness, what happens with the people that lost their arms due to a mine or some accident…a few things come to my mind: 1) their arms was 99% percent nothingness before the accident, therefore they never had an arm and couldnt have lost it. 2) their arm was 99% nothingness, now its 100% nothingness. Ok I am exagerating, maybe we do have 99% nothingness according to math, and it is something interesting to consider and ponder about as it makes us reflect on the significance (or insignificance) that we represent. But I am happy being what I am, whatever I am.

The black hole theory was another strange and senseless theory. There was no time and space, yet it was there 5 minutes ago at that location, but it doesnt exist because it is made of 99% nothingness. Yet, it has infinite gravity. If you enter it, which you cant because it would take you infinite time to get in, you will get spaghettified, which although it will kill you, you will be still alive. Furthermore, the spaghettification process will be fast, although there is no time. Its just weird, and I get this feeling that all these theories contradict eachother. In my opinion, a lot of hypocrisy is involved in these theories, because as I see it, someone invented a formula, prayed/hoped so that nobody could prove it or disprove it, and would amass recognition from different communities, and maybe would even gain wealth from it.

Another interesting yet seemingly impossible theory is the being at two places at the same time. You can be at two places at the same time and be the same whole person. But now, what if we mix this theory with the black hole theory? Is it possible that you are in a black hole and in your house on Earth at the same time? According to them, no, because blackholes have no time or space, yet you can be inside, but if you are what would happen to your other you? I wonder if I can say hi to my other self and shake hands, that would be funny. And what would happen if one of the two you’s would die? Does the other one dies too? Let me guess…we don’t know, math hasn’t shown evidence of this yet. I might seem close-minded…anyways, whoever wants to believe in these theories can, and I will support him or her 100%, although I myself won’t necessarily agree with these. In addition, I dont need to know how blackholes work since it is impossible to enter one, and they dont exist since they are 99% nothingness, and they have no time nor space. Why would I need to know how it works? In my opinion, these theories involve a lot of fatih, not religious faith, but scientific faith. These theories are on their own some sort of religion, and an individual can beilieve in them, agree with them, think they exist, know they exist, but it will still be at an individual level. In addition, there are no evidences to prove or disprove anything in these theories, just like there is nothing to prove or disprove religion and God.

To conclude, I really enjoyed both the presentation and discussion. I think it was a great opportunity for us to think, and consider how little we are in such a huge universe (or multiverse). How significant we are to eachother, how unsignificant we are to the rest. For some people, this conference might have been a life changing experience, for others it might have been a great nap…For me it was a very interesting presentation that made me realize not what we really are, but what we really are not. Although my life will not drastically change after this experience, the conference did help me furhter believe in the quote “All I know is that I don’t know anything”.

            I originally intended to present this controversial topic in my ToK presentation, but it seemed too difficult to do so back then. Since it is a very interesting topic, I will still present it, here on my blog. However, I will not follow any formal citations method and will instead add a parenthesis with the information.

Art exists in many different forms. Sculpture, paintings, graphics, drawings and such are part of the visual art. Dance, film, music and theater, as well as literature, are also forms of art. Throughout the years, art has, in all of its forms, interpreted, presented, or made allusion to nudity. Many famous masterpieces or important art represent nude people, and sometimes even persons making love; yet, it is recognized as beautiful art by many people. What difference is there, if any, in the interpretation and importance that we humans give to nude art and pornography?

Art, nudity and pornography are different, and every individual’s perception of what these are will also be different. The area of knowledge of art is one of the most subjective of all the areas of knowledge, which explains why persons interpret it differently. Nudity may or may not be included in the AoK of Art, but it is a part of many art pieces. Nudity is present in many forms, for example, the famous sculpture of David by Michelangelo Buonarroti. This 5.17 meter tall statue represents the biblical King David, nude, and it is recognized by many as a masterpiece, and some even consider it a symbol of the defense of civil rights. Vitruvian Man, by Leonardo Da Vinci, is the drawing of a nude man, legs and arms stretched. Michelangelo did not limit himself to sculpting nude man, but also painted many important figures nude on the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, such as Adam, Eve, Jesus, and others. A noticeable part of the Sistine Chapel is the one labeled “The Fall of Grace”, in which Adam and Eve both appear nude next to each other. Pablo Picasso has a more modern style that is less detailed and more abstract, but still includes nudity, such as in “Les Demoiselles D’Avignon”. Another Renaissance painting named “La Fornarina” by Raphael, also presents nudity by illustrating a single nude woman smiling. All these art pieces, famous and important, widely recognized masterpieces include nudity. Of course, the importance and recognition of these art pieces is debatable and can be argued, but many people and important art communities consider them to be masterpieces. These art pieces illustrate both, men and women, sometimes together, other times separated, but share many things in common. All of these art pieces include nudity, and are recognized by many as important art. To add a little variety to the list of nude art, most of you will remember “Symbiosis”, the merging dance performed by Pilobolus that we saw in class. Although it is not recognized as much, it is art and not pornography. But then, when does art becomes pornography? Is it just like crossing a line, on one side its art and the closer you get to that line, it becomes less art until you cross that line and it becomes pornography? If that is the case, what if you stand on the line, would it be neither art nor pornography, or both?

The answer is 42. Just kidding. Every single person can interpret it as they want, but as I see it, many factors affect the decision of whether it is art or pornography. I see it as a line, on one side it is art, and on the other it is pornography, because I don’t think that an art piece can be both art and pornography at the same time for a single person. I emphasize on the fact that it is for a single person, as this is very subjective. To illustrate it with math, I will use numbers. Imagine we have a number line from 0, which would be pure art, to 10, which would be pornography. Some persons might think that the limit will be at number 5, while others might have this limit as some other number. Of course, this line can have adjustments, caused by a variety of factors. A person might set the line at 5, but then after a few years of experience, or after living in a different culture, might change the number to a higher or lower one. Although this is very subjective, as mentioned before, it is also very cultural. In most of Western Europe, nudity is seen in a very different way than in the Middle East, due to cultural differences. In the Middle East, for example, Muslim women must wear the burkha, while in Western Europe there are many semi-nudist or nudist beaches that anyone, regardless of age and gender, can enjoy. This cultural difference might explain why the limit could be set at a very low number such as 3 in the Middle East, while it could be at a higher number in Western Europe such as 8. This, however, does not justify or imply anything else than the fact that there are higher chances for western Europeans to have higher limits and Middle Eastern people to have lower. It only means higher chances, because as mentioned before, although culture is a factor that affects where the individual puts the limit, it still is subjective, based on beliefs, ideals, past experiences, and many other factors.

The Ways of Knowing apply to this judgment or decision of whether it is art or pornography in different ways for each individual. Sense perception, which includes the five senses, is the main element that allows the interpreter to perceive the art piece, whether it is through hearing, seeing, or touching. The other two senses, smelling and tasting, are not as relevant for the interpretation of the forms of art mentioned earlier. With the three senses mentioned (sight, hear and touch), a person can interpret a work of art and decide what it is, give an interpretation, a symbol, a meaning to it. Then, through emotions, the person can associate feelings and ideas to the work of art. If the person feels shocked or offended (emotions) from seeing (sense perception) a nude sculpture, he or she might decide it is pornography. However, reason, along with past experiences, can affect how the person reacts to the art piece. For example, a Muslim extremist individual from Middle East might see the sculpture of David (sense perception) and at first feel offended by the nudity (emotion) but will then figure out that in other cultures it is alright to be nude (reason and experience). Through reason, an individual can interpret his own interpretation, and can try to explain himself or others why he feels or thinks this way when interpreting a certain art piece. Finally language is very important as it is one of the most important filters affecting the decision between art and pornography.

The simple definitions of what is art and what is pornography are evidences of the implications of language. Art can be defined as “the quality, production, expression or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance” in other words, something exceptional according to a set of principles (decided by a majority of people). According to this definition, the masterpieces mentioned before are still art. Pornography is more difficult to define. The first definition (from dictionary.com) describes pornography as “obscene writings, drawings, photographs especially those having little or no artistic merit”.  With this single definition there is already a lot to say. The definition states “obscene” materials, but obscenity is very subjective and varies from person to person, just like the limit at which art becomes pornography. The second part of the definition is very interesting, and I would agree with it: materials with “little or no artistic merit” so that would mean that is not exceptional according to the set of principles previously mentioned, which again supports the idea that it’s subjective. Another definition of pornography (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) states it is “sexually explicit [material] whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal”. This definition is more ambiguous then the first mentioned. According to this definition, two factors are needed in order for something to be pornography: it needs to be sexually explicit, and it needs to primarily cause sexual arousal. The problem with this definition is that anything containing nudity is sexually explicit, so all the masterpieces mentioned above have at least the first factor needed to be considered pornography (according to this definition). The second part of the definition is very subjective, because we can not know what the purpose of the nude sculpture, drawing or painting was unless the author tells us. Some strange people can be sexually aroused by almost anything, while others will rarely be aroused by anything, making this decision subjective. And anyways, the arousal of the individual would be its own interpretation/reaction. It will not necessarily be the author’s purpose, so unless the author is still alive and tells us what the purpose of the art piece is, we can not know if it is pornography or not (according to this definition).  Finally, a third definition (from The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005) describes pornography as material “designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality.” This definition is somewhere in between the two mentioned previously. Material “designed to excite” sexually is similar to the second definition. The second part of the definition mentions that it is a violation to public authorities and opinions, which is similar to the first definition in the way that it does not follow a set of principles. The fun and interesting part that is not part of the definition, but is added next to it, is the following “American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material.” The part mentioning American courts is irrelevant; the important part is when mentioning that they have “not yet settled on a satisfactory definition”. This sentence supports the idea that defining pornography is very difficult, and also supports the subjectivity of the whole issue.

To conclude, art cannot “become” pornography, it is either born as art, or born as pornography, and this depends on each individual’s interpretation of the material in question. Each individual has, either consciously or unconsciously, an abstract limit past which art will not be considered art, but pornography. This abstract limit and interpretation will be based on the ways of knowing and on other factors such as culture and past experiences. Depending on these factors and on the many filters that affect individuals, especially language, a person might change of opinion toward a past interpretation of a work of art. In addition, the individual can have a wider view of the other interpretations when aware of his own limitations. For these reasons, the thin line between art and pornography is drawn by both, persons individually, and by important communities or majorities.

The Yin and the Yang, very common words, and many different connotations. The Yin Yang originated from Taoism in China, and is generally represented as union. It actually relates to the men and women (or women and men) stereotypes seen in class. To begin, each symbol has different meanings. Together, they are meant to be opposing, rooted together, transform each other, and be balanced. However, when on their own, it is a different story.

Yin is the black part, and represents female, receptive, yielding, negative and nurturing.

Yang, the white part, represents the male as active, dominating, positive, and creating.

Just by this rather small list of words, you can notice many stereotypes that we had analyzed as being positive and negative. Note, for example, Yin (the women) is represented as black, which is a color often used in negative events (funerals) and representing fear. Furthermore, Yin is presented as receptive and yielding, two other stereotypes that we had discovered, and it is also nurturing, which shows the “public/private” part of stereotypes. Most important of all, it shows negative. The meaning of this word can vary, and should not be taken for granted, as negative can mean something “bad” as well as an electric current. One can directly see the contrast between men and women (or women and men for those who insist), as Yang is white (a color often attributed to “good”), active and creating. However, the male is also described as dominating, which goes along with the stereotypical attributes, even when being negative. Finally, Yang is portrayed as positive, which, just like the Yin, can mean “good”, or could be an electric current. This reflection shows how cultures that are very different from our western culture may still present very similar stereotypes and ideas.

I found this article particularly interesting as it brings a few ideas in my mind. These include: “Cold War”, “the supreme USA” and “Bush’s self-centered approaches”. To begin with, the article talks about China’s launching of a missile in space to destroy an old Chinese satellite. Furthermore, the article describes some space policies and some of USA’s decisions regarding space control.

Since a few years ago, China has been evolving economically, and politically, at an incredibly fast rate. Nowadays, China is one of the leading countries in the world, and the competition between USA and China is high. This is ironic, because although USA and China are very close commercial partners, they are also adversaries. This brings to the second point. USA, often considered (or considering itself) as supreme, or superior, is probably the reason why China and the US are adversaries. And this is due to our dear mister George Bush junior, ex-president of the United States of America. He governed the US for 2 mandates, and many will agree on the idea that he messed up badly the economy (and many other aspects) of the US (and the world).

There is one aspect of the USA that some, in fact many people, dislike. And it is the way that sometimes, the country representatives feel the necessity to “attack” in an indirect or direct way, another country. Just to name a few: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, etc. Sometimes there are good reasons (self-defense), but it can also be for “bad” reasons. One can already notice the subjectivity of this issue, and it is something we have already discussed a lot: “good” and “bad”. And I might mention again a quote that I used many times in the classroom: “A country’s freedom fighter is another country’s terrorist”. I think this exemplifies really well the contrast between the subjectivity and how people relate to a certain event. Anyways, I’d like to mention Mr. Bush’s quote saying that the US would “preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space” and “dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so”. The former president of the USA also mentioned that the US would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests”.

I interpret this as “regardless what other say or do, we are superior, we do what we want, and if we deem your actions as threatening our ideals, we will use force against you”. And I think this is how it has sometimes been. The real problem I find is that sometimes, highly placed US officers, presidents and others of such, seem to confuse “capabilities hostile to US national interests” with “capabilities hostile to OUR interests”. I believe this has happened many times, and although I have no evidence at the moment (because I haven’t searched well enough, and anyways, you might not believe the sources…again, subjectivity), many conspiracy theorist will be completely sure that this has happened. However, most conspiracy theorist will go too far and seem like extremists, with far-fetched ideas that can’t be proven as correct. And now that I think of it, maybe we should call these ideas theories, because even if they can’t be proven, they have not been disproved either.

To conclude my opinion, why should the US have the rights to operate in space, and China should not? The missile China sent was directed to one of its own satellite that was too old to function properly. And anyways, the USA also tried some space weapons and lasers, so they should not be complaining.

Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6278867.stm 

Although I suggest people to read the article before reading this journal, I will still summarize quickly the whole issue. Scientists found a way to choose the sex of the baby since already a few years ago, and it was not approved until just recently for the motives of a study. The Knowledge Issue, if you want one, sums up to “should parents be allowed to choose their baby’s sex?” and my personal biased answer is no. However, I will try to show both, the positive and negative sides of this innovation.

Genetic and sex engineering is a wonderful discovery, and it is evolving more and more every day. Scientists are still at the stage of only modifying a few traits (in this case the gender), but with all the advances in technology, “make-a-baby” will soon be a reality. An unimaginable amount of diseases and sicknesses could be prevented, eliminated, and completely gotten rid of. Humans will be able to live and evolve in a friendly world with no, or very little, birth defects and problems. No physical or mental incapacitations; a world in which humans live free of problems. This may sound nice and awesome for some of you, and the rest might dislike genetic engineering, but it is a possibility in the future of the human race.

Many religions and sub-religions, especially from the Christian branch, will oppose to this scientific progress. It is most probable that the argument used to defend their point of view will be similar to “God made us this way for a reason” or “our bodies are God’s sanctuary and we should not modify them”. And there is nothing wrong with it, as it is their point of view, their beliefs, their religion and their culture. The scientists will probably use the counter-argument of “Yes, ok, but you do not have to choose the gender of your baby, we are not forcing you to use genetic engineering, you can have a normal, natural baby”.

The problem with this argument and counter-argument, is that it leads to an interesting issue presented the movie Gattaca (1997, by Andrew Niccol). For you to understand the following idea, I will also give a brief summary of the sci-fi movie Gattaca. In the future, humans developed genetic engineering to the point that they can determine everything about a baby, even make it immune to certain diseases, and plan his future career before the baby is even a fetus. A couple decides to have two kids, a natural one, and a “custom-made” one. The natural baby always wanted to be an astronaut, but because he is natural made, he has 95% chances of having a heart attack at 30something years old, therefore he is destined to be a garbage picker. While his brother, the “created” one, is perfect, and eventually becomes a highly placed officer.

The baby engineering issue is not new; there are even older versions of similar sci-fi stories that present this issue. If I remember well, one of Isaac Asimov’s novels also presented a similar conflict. The fact is, baby engineering has been, and still is, a very controversial issue that dates from long ago.

The problem, as I see it, is similar but different to the Christians’ probable and over-used argument. It all starts with just a gender selection, and then since we can choose gender, why not choose eye color, and why not skin color, height, and all the physical characteristics that make the human being be as unique as it is? The richness of the human race is its variety. We, humans, are what we are today, not because of our similarities, but because of our differences. Some might not feel the same way, but I do believe that the differences in culture is what makes humans unique and special, and more developed (up to a certain extent) then other living beings in this planet. Now, to answer the question mentioned above: because once you have gone through all the physical traits, why not start and choose the abstract attributes such as intelligence, possibilities of getting a certain disease, etc.

The problem with genetic engineering is that the outcome is unknown. We don’t know what will happen, and humans are generally scared of the unknown. What will happen with genetic engineering? Will humans become more racist than before? Maybe not; maybe humans will be less racist. What if we become a society in which once you are born, depending on the genes you have, you will be destined to live X time and work at Y factory until you die? This would mean the destruction of freedom. Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” describes a similar situation. When the society needs a certain amount of garbage pickers, the society will genetically create people with just enough intelligence to carry with this job and be happy with it.

In my opinion, although genetic engineering sounds delightful, I think it is a temptation that we should not try. As mentioned above, the richness of the human race is its diversity. Plus, whatever the outcome is, nature is well done, and we are just beginning to realize how our interferences can destroy it easily. Nature is well done and balanced, that is a fact. But when humans begin to interfere with it, the results are often negative, sometimes catastrophic, but rarely as positive as it would be if we hadn’t done anything. When looking at the human population on Earth, one notices a pattern in genders: there is a very similar amount of males and females (something like 55% to 45%), and these percentages have been similar throughout the human history (although this is debatable as we can not go back in time and check). The same coincidence happens in animal populations: the male and female ratio is very close. This becomes even less a coincidence when taking in count the X and Y chromosomes (only the male carry the Y chromosome). Now, taking the rather silly example of the Chinese population, one can notice how human interference with nature can cause grave effects. Before the “only one child” policy, Chinese people would usually have more than one child, and would not mind the gender. At that time, the male-female ratio was very close. After this one child rule was approved, Chinese families would not have the right (another controversial issue) to have more than one child (or they would have to pay). This caused a Keynesian multiplier effect, or snowball effect: families did not wanted to have female babies anymore, as they were not “correct heirs” for the family, and they could not work “as much/as well” as males in that society. Nowadays, young Chinese men have great difficulties finding women, and some even “buy” women from North Korea or other adjacent countries.

To conclude, genetic engineering would provide great help, but will probably destroy the balance and equilibrium, and thus compromise the survival and relative freedom of the human race.

Article: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/Story?id=1253458

In class, we mentioned a few different stereotypes that are generally mentioned in our different cultures; however the list can continue and reach the many hundreds, maybe thousands of stereotypical statements. When analyzing the stereotypes, we categorized them as having positive or negative connotations.  As concluded, language is one of the filters that affect the connotations, as individuals might have different interpretations of the same sentence. The connotations resulted in a majority of negative stereotypes for the female, while the male had considerably less negative attributes.
When looking into the depths of my memory, however, I remember a legend/myth from Ancient Greece. Of course, as all legends and myths, we do not know how much is invented and how much is true, but there are evidences that a certain tribe, called the Amazones, did exist.

The Amazones were a tribe of warrior women, often described as rough, harsh, violent, aggressive, merciless, strong, active and powerful; attributes that were agreed on in class as being typical male stereotypes. The Amazones, and their queen Antianeira, lived around the Black Sea, according to Greek mythology. These women were characterized as being extremely brave and powerful combatants, with an incredible dexterity with the bow, spear, javelin, glaive and shield, with which the Amazones are often portrayed. In fact, it is said that these women would cut off their right breast in order to increase their expertise with the bow. Although this theory is possible, scientists suggest that performing such an operation at that time would require important skills, as this medical intervention would have low chances of survival.

Before I go on, it is important to illustrate at least two main points present in the paragraph above: first of all, the Amazones were mentioned as strong, powerful, etc…which are characteristics that were (and are still) attributed to women. This would contradict the fact that these are specifically male stereotypes, and at the same time it supports the idea that stereotypes are primarily based on culture. The second point I would like to outline is the scientists & doctors opinion on the breast-cutting operations. Taking in count that this civilization, or culture, lived at least 2000 years BC, it is normal that any kind of operation would have high death rates, and therefore required high knowledge/specialization/skills. This would imply one of two things: 1) the Amazones had extremely developed medical skills, or 2) the Amazones and the breast-cutting theory are false, impossible or improbable. The first observation would mean that the stereotypes attributed to men were in fact, also attributed to women…or, the second observation shows it as incorrect, leading us back to the stereotypical “women are inferior” idea.

When looking deeper into the Amazone culture (or legend), it is said that this civilization killed the male babies, or mutilated them. This rather uncommon practice (which supports the “merciless” stereotype) was performed so that the males would not use their power against the women. This could suggest, depending on how one interprets it, that men have a stronger physical strength then women. The reason why Amazones performed this mutilations (such as making the males blind, or unable to run, or in some way discapacited) was to keep them for reproductive reasons. This would change the whole idea that men are the fertilizers and women are just the carriers of the baby, because even though the women in the Amazone civilization still carried the baby, the men did not fertilize the women willingly; he was forced to, almost as if in a rape. Furthermore, the father would never see the child, and the child would never know who the father was, so that she would feel no pity for men. Another theory suggests that the Amazones did not mate with the discapacited males, but instead, invited once a year men from another tribe that they had conquered. These men were forced to procreate with the Amazones, and were then sent away back to their villages. Even if these men were not forced physically, they had some sort of political pressure, as if they did not comply to the Amazons demand, they, along with their village, would suffer heavy consequences. With this information, one can see that the common male/female stereotypes were completely changed, and in some cases inversed. To furthermore support this idea, it is important to mention that the Greeks were scared of the Amazons. The legend says that it is because of the fierce behavior of these uncommon ladies, although recent theories suggest that the Greeks were scared of the Amazones because of their matriarchal system.

Although the Greeks were scared of the Amazons, and all this information seems to counter the common stereotypes, many Greek myths and stories related Greek heroes defeating the Amazones. Many Greek heroes, such as Bellerophon, Achiles, Heracles, Theseus and Priam, encountered the Amazones. Some of them even succumbed to the Amazones, which would imply the “femme fatale” stereotype. However, these Greek heroe managed to “escape” from the evil grasp of the Amazones, and a few of these Greek heroes defeated or slayed the Amazones. This would support the idea that men are the strong ones, surviving the evilness of women, etc etc.

When discussing about the video “Symbiosis”, I mentioned “Creation”, as in the origins of Earth and humans. I also mentioned that this feeling probably came from an old (possibly extinct) passion of mine: Ancient mythologies.

The ancient Egyptians were polytheistic, and believed in many different Gods. Two of the most important Gods of this ancient religion, although not worshiped as the others, were Nut and Geb.

Nut is the Goddess of the Sky, and Geb is the God of the Earth. They created the Earth and humans, however, these two lovers had to be separated so that mankind could survive. This is the tragic reason why Nut and Geb are side by side, but never touching.

After reading Nicholas D. Kristof’s article on “What, me biased?” I decided to try the test. After seeing the multitude of tests, I started with age, and two others before finally finding and doing the “2008 US Elections” test (which would show the “racism” in your unconscious mind). After doing the tests, you can either have a slight, moderate, or strong feeling for one of the two options, as there is no neutral. For the young vs. old test, the results said I had a moderate preference for young over old people. Although I don’t think this test proves anything, I didn’t mind and supposed that because of my rather young age, I had a preference for young, even though I consider myself indifferent toward age. When getting to the black vs. white test, I laughed a bit, because I consider myself with no preference over skin color at all, as between age 3 and 9, all my friends were African descendents. Anyways, I did the test, and it ended up saying I have a “moderate preference for white people over black people” and a “strong preference for Obama over McCain”. Does “preference” mean racism? Of course not. Yet, I don’t think I have a preference over people, due to my past experiences. Then, when trying to interpret the answers under another point of view, I noticed that even though I had a moderate preference for white, I had a strong preference for Obama (who is black). By the way, I use the word “black” as for me, black and white are just colors and I do not consider them offensive at all. I am aware, however, that it is not politically correct to say “black”, but we should say “African-American”. And now that I come to it, how ironic it is that we should say “African-American” for “black”, but we say “white” for “white”. Shouldn’t there be like a new, more political word to refer to white people? (In my opinion: of course not. But try to see this under the other perspective). It is funny how racism has lead to over-racism, then to inverted racism, and that now everything is exaggerated. Just to say a small example, since the beginning of the French language, the expression “arête de faire le singe” (stop acting like a monkey) has been used as an indirect to say to anyone “behave a bit better”. For many years, teachers have used this expression (some teachers even used this expression with me back in primary), as young students (between primary and middle school) can sometimes try to “be the clown of the class” (careful, this expression might be racism as well…just being ironic). Two or three years ago, a French teacher (in France) made the mistake to use this expression to a student whose skin was not white. The teacher did it without any kind of bad intention. However, another black teacher (who happened to walk by in the hallway) heard it and reported it to the mother of this student, who made a lawsuit. The teacher was sent to jail 6 months and had to pay a fine. This is just to show how dumb racism and inverted racism has become. Now, back to the topic, some people would say that it is strange I have a preference for white yet I also have a preference for a black candidate. I personally don’t think I have any preference, and I do believe this test is correct…but only up to a certain, very imprecise point which I can not define. After the test, when asked “On a scale of 0 to 6, how much do you consider this test to reflect…results to be correct…etc?” I put down a 2. Simply because I don’t believe the test was correct, because when doing the test, the few times I made a mistake was because of the nerves of my fingers due to the sometimes repeated pattern (left, right, left, right, left, rig…oops, it was left again). Anyways, the problem of knowledge: how can we know if this is really reflecting (or not reflecting) what we are in our subconscious. And are we all really racists, even if it’s just slightly? Anyways, racism exists since hundreds, maybe thousands of years. And before racism, discrimination existed, which is sad. And for the record, I’ve said and I’ll say it again, I’m not racist, even if the test said I had a “moderate preference for white people […] and a strong preference for Obama”.

Wordcount: 755

            As a French citizen, I was very interested by a possible new and very controversial reform of the law. To give a little insight, France is a developed country like many others, with the same problem as many others. As of today, children under the age of 18 are not responsible for the crimes they commit, even if these crimes are planned with malevolence. Instead, the parent would be responsible for the acts, and in the worst scenarios, it could either end up in a high fine, the child going to a reform school, or the parent going to jail. As a result of this, adults would train young kids into thieving expensive things because they would not be responsible. Thefts with violence from these adolescents or children also occurred. A new law reform project (which will be voted in May 2009) wants to reduce the age for entering jail to 12. This would mean that instead of paying a fine or having the parent going to jail, kids between 12 and 18 would go to jail just as an adult would. Is this correct? Should it be approved or not? Why? And what would be the effects?

            Minors stealing, committing crimes, and not suffering from any kind of punishment, that doesn’t sound right. But minors going to jail, loosing their childhood and education, don’t sound right either. Ethics and reason affect the most this problem. When a child does become really responsible for his bad actions, like pranks, or theft? My answer would be “when he is mature enough”. But how can we measure maturity with our subjective views, with all these filters. Plus, every individual is a different case; people don’t have the same maturity or consideration at the same age. Here comes the problem, as I think that for criminal acts performed by minors should be studied individually. What causes the criminal rates for minors to go up? Poverty has been shown to be a factor that promotes criminality, but I don’t think we could say France is poor. However, life in most of Europe is usually expensive, and not all families can live comfortably. This can be due to a large number of reasons: maybe the parents of the family were, at some point, lazy and did not work well enough in school to have a good job. Maybe they still are and prefer to live unemployed with the French government paying them a few hundred Euros per month. Maybe it is just bad luck. But something at some point causes some families to be poor. However, many poor families have lived in the most ethically correct, and respectful/responsible environments, without committing any crime. So then, whose fault is it that minors commits crimes? I don’t think that minors would on their own decide to kill someone, or to really still something. Some might indeed shoplift due to poverty, but then it would be theft by necessity, and not by malevolent. Psychology showed that minors between 10 and 20 years old are mostly influenced by their family and/or their peers. Frequenting bad persons could cause a minor to commit a crime, or to be used for committing a crime. But it would be hard to really force a good, healthy, well-educated child into committing a crime; therefore it is also the family’s responsibility. With education and healthcare being free in France, it is just a question of moral education, which is the responsibility of the parents (or guardian). The parents are supposed to educate their child, teaching them moral responsibility, social ethics, showing the importance of education. As some persons say metaphorically, a child is growing plant that needs a farmer to watch over it so it grows strong and healthy. If the parents don’t teach their child how to differentiate between good and bad, the child will most probably be tempted to do bad actions, or will show little importance on teaching moral responsibility to its own children, causing a chain reaction, or “snowball effect”. What will be the effects of imprisoning minors aged 12? In my opinion, the child will grow without education (at least without moral education, as the minors’ prison will probably teach them high-school) and will grow with hatred towards government. This will bring back to the snowball effect, which will cause negative effects. That’s why I certainly do not agree with this possible new law. But then, imprisonment is due to the failure of the individual, of the parents, of educational system, or of society? Probably a mix of all of these. The solution that I think is best would be to make campaigns to promote social and moral responsibility, ethics, and parents’ education toward children.

Wordcount:786

Interested? Here’s the article (might want to translate it though):

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101269603-la-prison-des-12-ans?xtor=RSS-450

After reading this article, I felt the urge to respond as I have very varied opinions on the article, and on Turkey being already in the European Union, and I don’t know where to start. I preferred to make this a journal rather than a comment. To begin with, I ask myself “how can we possibly make frontiers when we are all subjective?” and well, for me, I think that Europe (up to the commonly used geo-political barrier Ural Mountains) has more or less similar nature and nurture (culture, appearance and ideas). Europe is not the oldest place on Earth to be inhabited by humans, but it is a continent whose history is so great, so ancient, that it ends up mixing together. It is true that Europeans are very different: North and South Europeans are very distinct; the same goes for Western and Eastern, and even the different places of a single country such as France have very different people. For example, the people of north eastern France are very similar to the south-western Belgians or Germans. Sometimes we don’t even know when a region starts and when it ends. Europe’s cultural diversity is so great, and has existed for so long, that it has eventually mixed while keeping separate as well. Like drops of oil in a glass of water. I personally believe that Europeans are very similar throughout the continent up to the border between Bulgaria and Turkey. I don’t consider Turkey as European, not because of the religion, but because the people and culture are very different, even the ways of thinking. Of course, the people of Turkey are still humans just like us, after all we are all the same, but the cultures are way too different. Some would argue that the cultures in Europe are very different, and I would accept, Europe is very similar and at the same time very different. But at what cost did Europe became Europe? At the cost of war and thousands of millions of human deaths. After all these wars and problems (and a few minor wars that still occur), Europeans ended up accepting their differences and becoming united in a certain way. This is why the different cultures (of which every nation and group are very proud and fond of) keep Europeans together (apart from some extremists). Now, adding Israel and Palestine to Europe would be a drastic change. I believe the reason Turkey was accepted into the European Union, although not geographically or culturally inside Europe, is because of economic reasons. Turkey is the best and easiest way from Europe to Asia, therefore accepting Turkey was like a strategic alliance. I don’t think Turkey should be part of the European Union or of Europe, and just to be sure no-one misunderstands me, I am not racist, I am against racism. After living in many different countries, continents, seeing different cultures, I can only say that I really appreciate these differences. My whole family, up to and including my grandparents’ parents, have lived at some time in other continents, which is probably the reason why my family likes so much cultural diversity. But I don’t agree with Turkey being in Europe or the European Union (or the European Soccer Cup), or with the entrance of Palestine or Israel. I do agree however with Mr. Sarkozy, who proposed a Mediterranean Union (which would include all the countries around and close to the Mediterranean Sea). This Union would accept all those non-European countries who want to have better trade relationship and benefits, (which will eventually cause cultural exchange). I also think that Turkey, the countries in the Persian Gulf and Iran/Afghanistan etc are not exactly part of Asia; I think they are part of the Middle East. These countries have similar cultures, (although very different religions,) and most of them are actually at war against each other. I am still surprised at how they are able to stay at war for so long, which is a sad thing, as some of them have been at war for as long as 500 years!(By this I mean not only the nations against each other, but also the different ethnicities [Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis] and the different religions). All these wars are actually similar (although more brutal because of new technologies) to the ones that Europeans had hundreds of years ago. Another thing I have noticed, which I do not like, is the fact that when Europeans go to some Arab countries, European women are forced to wear the veil, although it is not their cultures. Some European women have even been aggressed in some Arab countries because of not wearing the veil (I also heard some European families have been killed, but I will not accept this fact as I do not know whether it’s true or not). However, Arabs coming into Europe fight for “the right to follow our cultures and let our women wear veils at public places such as schools, banks etc”, and we (in my opinion) dumbly agree. This problem occurred specially in Western Europe (France, England, Ireland, Spain), and I don’t know if this happens in Eastern Europe. But I ask myself, how can they force us to wear veils when we go to their country, but also force us to let THEM use veils when they come in OUR country. I think it’s dumb, ironic, and I disagree with it. They (not all) do not respect our practices and culture at their country, although we are forced to respect theirs in our countries or we will be named “racists”. I don’t know whether this is inversed racism, or just some dumb mistake of our part. So to summarize this: country frontiers are very subjective, and can be decided by geographical, political, economical, or cultural references. I think Turkey was mistakenly accepted into the European Union, and that it should have belonged to the Mediterranean Union (as well as other countries of the area).

Wordcount: 997