Submit an Article | Bookmarked Articles

Viewing Articles About All - Page 1

The world	January 2, 2009, 3:38AM
by: Vampireofthedamned
What has our youth come to when they no longer look to the stars when they are lost, our parents no longer incorporate the values that we once knew in our society. With all of the gadgets that children have now there is no need to worry where your child is, and for some reason, that also gives new parents the right to be lazy. What happened to hitting your child when they did something wrong, what happened to being able to yell at your own child when they did something they shouldn't do? Why has our government stepped in so much, they have made it impossible for any good parent to actually be a good parent. In the good days, when parent's raised their own children, their child stayed within screaming distance. The parent would yell their name, and it would be time to go home. But now, now since everyone has a cell phone, a laptop, other communications, parents don't worry as much. I ask these parents, why do you not worry? What has changed, when did the world become a safer place, when did the child rapists go away? When did the molesters and cruelties of the world disappear? All of our cell phones and other strange gadgets only make it easier for predators to attack children, to steal children, to kidnap women and do terrible things. What happened to a child stepping outside to look at the sky? Have they become to obsessed with their overly protected cartoons on TV that no longer incorperate any values because parents said it was too violent? Have they all forgotten where they came from. Its as if our new generation of children have no idea what really goes on in the world. They watch these cartoons that have no violence, no sexual innuendo or anything, and the best part is, its totally random and usually about candy or other bad food. What happened to the old school movies, with subtle cruelties like in the original Lion King with the nazi symbols everywhere. These were things that children did not notice and were meant for the parents if anyone, does anyone remember how Lion king told you indirectly to listen to your parents and to never forget who you are? Be yourself and nobody else. The movies now are nothing but trash. Children are now unable to learn about the terrors of the world because parents have shielded them from even the most basic of all places to learn in, their cartoons. Children don't learn anything from their schools, from their shows, and certainly not their parents. I mean, why would they? It is because of their parents that they cannot hear of it anywhere else. If the parent's wanted that duty for themselves than their children would have been told, but quite obviously, most of them, have not been told. It is terrible to hear about children being stolen, and even the most cautious parents losing their children to terrible people and other cruel things that no human being should have to go through, but I cannot help but wonder, where were you? Their parent, their guardian. Were you 20 miles away because somehow that cell phone you let your daughter use was supposed to protect her from the man with a knife to her throat? This is what bothers me even more, the parents have lost their values as well, perhaps even more than the children. All the while that they petition to remove violence and blood from TV, they let their children become the pimps and hoes of the next generation. And, even while getting these very shows removed, they complain how their children will grow up with low quality cartoons. Its sickening. Someday, I hope that children will learn on their own, that they must stop what they are doing, and look to the sky for some of their answers about life, they must look within themselves. They will see what a shell their parents have made for them, and I can only hope for the future of our world, of our life, that the children of the coming age realize the world for what it is before it is far too late. Before all the beauty that is life, leaves them forever. Russell McC.
topic: Rants
[reply] [0 comments]

Has Christmas lost its true meaning?	December 25, 2008, 6:56AM
by: Syn
Some see Christmas as getting free gifts from people who love you. Others see it as a day to get with family and be around the ones you love and who love you back. Then you got those who go to Christmas mass. Which brings me to the next part of the article. It is a mixture of many things one being spending time with family on this of most religious days. Yes it was originally a religious day. Christmas is the day the Jesus Christ was born. As you all know a lot of people no longer celebrate it as the day that he was born. A lot more people are using this day to spend money on outrageously over priced gifts on those they love. Has it really come to this? You may ask. Yes it has, many people across the globe who celebrate this day are no longer looking forward to spending time with their family or to celebrate the day that a icon of religion was born. I personally do not believe in the same god or savior. I believe that there was a man named Jesus Christ, but that is besides the point. My point is that we the people of this planet, those of us who celebrate this day but don't believe in god or Jesus Christ, need to stop being so materialistic and concentrate on our families. Your life cannot be that bad that your parents do not love you enough to spend 300-500 dollars on you for a game system. Obviously they love you. So today go spend time with your family, eat a good dinner, and enjoy this holiday.
topic: Rants
[reply] [4 comments]

Have yourselves a good one.	December 24, 2008, 8:05PM
by: eon
I think I would be remiss as a webmaster if I did not wish the entire site a wonderful and joyous holiday season. And since I live in unmitigated, abject terror of the possibility of being remiss: Have yourselves a wonderful and joyous holiday season. I hope your Christmas is the best fucking Christmas ever and that your New Year ain't too shabby either. All I ask is that you find yourself a mistletoe to share with someone or just do something really nice and unexpected for someone for whom you might otherwise not. One or the other, it's your choice. ILUGUIZE, be good and be safe.
topic: Site News
[reply] [38 comments]

childlike faith	December 11, 2008, 12:41AM
by: kira-kira
Responsibility... It's a word taught to us from elementary school all the way up through life. You have to be responsible for your homework, for remembering to tell your parents that your teacher wants to have a meeting, for getting yourself a job, a scholarship, a career, a life. As you get older, responsibility becomes greater and greater. You are responsible to make money to pay rent and bills and you're responsible to get those bills paid on time and you're responsible to keep your own home and a family. Responsibility. It's a word that children fear. Kids are always so eager to grow up but they are afraid of the responsibility that must come with growing up. But life is not about responsibility. It is about children. It's about kids. Inside, you should never grow up. Think about it for a moment. As you get older, you become less open to experience and more conscientious and more agreeable and conformed. You lose childish joy in the small and simple things. You no longer smile at a bird sitting in a tree that is trilling a beautiful song. You realize that "adults" are not entertained by staring at the people driving the cars that you are passing. It's about joy, hope, and faith. As we grow older, it is harder to hold onto these. Essentially as we get older, we tend to think of ourselves as more and more experienced or wise. But are we really? What more do we really know that we didn't know as children? As children, we knew that friends mean more than anything else. As children, we knew that smiles can be found anywhere and any situations can be made funny in some way. As children, we dared to hope and dream that the world is ours. When we are old, we cherish memories instead of the present, we tend to see the darker side of the world, and we realize that we have little to no impact on the world. So we begin living like the past is more important, that the world is dark and evil, and that we can't make a difference. But if we think like children, we live like we can make a difference and change things and then we do. We can. Everyone grows old at some point. Life is cut short and we end up realizing that there are so many things we wish we could have done but didn't end up doing. We all get sucked into thinking that the world is black and that we are just one person who has no say in what is happening and has no power in the big picture. Never lose the child inside of you or you will live without hope and without joy. That is a life I never want to live.
topic: Advice
[reply] [60 comments]

Say What You Want	December 10, 2008, 6:29PM
by: kira-kira
My desk is pushed up against my window, solely for the purpose of me sitting on it and staring out the window at the world. I hate being confined to a small space, but I'm not a fan of the cold that comes with winter either. I sit on my desk while I work and read and when I'm bored. Often I notice people walking by on the sidewalk outside and it occurs to me, that they don't know that I'm watching. This is not to sound like me stalking people. Rather, even when people aren't be looked at and think that no one is there to see them be themselves, they still act confined to their lives. This to me, is the ultimate conformity. People, when they are alone, act the same way they do when trying to appear "normal" in front of other people. People are free to admit that they dance in their underwear while alone in their rooms because it is considered to be normal when one is alone. Isn't that weird? People lose themselves to the world. Identities are being stolen but not by thieves looking for money. They are being stolen by a world that craves uniformity. What happened to individuality? To not caring what other people think? America as a society is losing its individuality because people are too into conforming to their stereotypes. No one has an opinion of their own anymore. Instead, they think whatever it is that their "in-group" tells them to think. It used to be that people were different when they were around people and were themselves when they were alone. They used to be an individual independent person who cared about but did not depend or rely on what other people think or say. Today, it is rare to find someone that really does care about everyone around them, not just their friends, but it is so common for people to change according to what society wants them to be. Just look at plastic surgery. I'm not saying there is something wrong with trying to make yourself better, but there is something wrong with trying to turn yourself into something you were not meant to be. Tattoos and piercings are accessories, but completely and permanently altering your face and natural beauty is a societal ritual for people who don't think they're pretty enough to face the world. There is nothing wrong with who you are. There is nothing wrong with showing the world exactly who you are. We need to stop hiding from the world. We need to stop pretending that we are different inside closed doors and windows. We need to stop covering up who we are to please a world that doesn't really care.
topic: Rants
[reply] [2 comments]

Women's Roles in Ancient Greek Culture	December 5, 2008, 12:15PM
by: CrimsonTearzx
I had to write this essay for English class. I got a 90% out of 100 on this. In Euripides' classic play "Medea," one of the most vital concepts to comprehend is the role of women in Ancient Greek society. Due to how Ancient Greek civilization was constructed, women like Medea had no freedom. The same circumstances also prohibited females from having authority so Mdea had no way to deal with her tragic betrayal. Women were considered to be envious of the same sex, which many people in the play, such as Jason and Creon, considered to be her downfall. Therefore, females were labeled emotionally inferior to men and incapable of making important decisions. Ancient Greek culture was built in a way that prevented women from having independence. Divorce was not an option for women. Only the male could terminate the marriage, but very few men wanted to do that. In the marriage, women were supposed to be faithful while the men could go out and have a plethora of mistresses and other wives. As Medea observes, "Surely, of all creatures that have life and will, we women are the most wretched. When, for an extravagant sum, we have bought a husband, we must accept him as possessor of our body...for women, divorce is not respectable; to repel the man, not possible." (Euripides 24) This establishes the reality that Jason ruled Medea and she could not leave him for fear of being scorned by society. Medea then asserts that "if a man grows tired of the company [of his wife] at home, he can go out, and find a cure for the tediousness. We wives are forced to look at one man only." (Euripides 24) This demonstrates how Medea's free will was obliterated by the law the women could not commit adultury. The result is that women were scorned or disgraced if they divorced and committed infidility. In addition, females lacked power. Medea, in one passage, rants about how women are powerless in terms of marriage and society. She mentions that if she carries out her plan of killing Glauce and the children, she would not have a place to life because she would be disgraced. When she finds out she is exiled, she panics because she knows that she can not support herself and her two sons because women were not allowed to work. Medea states that "women [are] useless for honest purposes, but in all kinds of evil, skilled practitioners." (Euripides 29) Putting it succinctly, Medea hints that females, in general, had no power when it came to Ancient Greek society. Ultimately, Medea was powerless in her marriage and in the society she was brought up in. When Jason makes his entrance into the play, he lists all the reasons why Medea should not be angry. He brings up the thought-provoking idea of sexual jealousy. He claims that all women are sexually jealous of other women. He argues that "women have reached a state where, if all's well with your sex life, you've [got] everything you wish for, but when that goes wrong, [all] at once, all that is best and noblest turns to gall." (Eurpides 34) Jason implies that women will give a man anything as long as the man pleases her. If the male commits adultery, the woman will be jealous. When Creon, the father of Glauce, banishes Medea, he brings up the same theory. He states, "you are barred from Jason's bed, and that enrages you." (Euripides 26) He concurs with Jason about the issue of sexual jealousy but hints at the implication that women have a lot of self-esteem, or emotional, problems due to the sexual jealousy commonly found in females. In summation, women were not able to live their lives as freely as men due to the sexist attitude of Ancient Greek culture. Medea, at the end of the play, has given up everything for the love of a man who gave her nothing in return except infidility and betrayal. She committed murder because it was the only way she could think of getting revenge. She could not commit infidility for fear of being deemed a harlot and being condemned to die. SHe could not get a divorce for fear of how the society would view her. THe way that society brought up women is the main reason why Medea had to lower herself to such atrocities. She did not know any other way because the culture would have used her as a scapegoat for other women who came after her.
topic: Essays
[reply] [0 comments]

Parallels Between Jesus Chrst and Osiris/Horus	December 4, 2008, 2:47PM
by: ChaosandDevistation
In many pieces of literature throughout history there has been a common theme amongst them, the fact that ideas used in one piece may be used among many others. This idea is seemingly the most evident when it comes to ancient religious scripts. The literary example I wish to bring forth for discussion is one that for me has extreme significance in my life and that is the Christian Bible. What is also of great interest to me is the Ancient Egyptian society and their belief systems. The god’s of this ancient society I wish to compare is that of Osiris and his son Horus to that of the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the prophet and son of god in the Christian religion. Jesus was born in Bethlehem to a virgin woman by the name of Mary. They refer to this as the Immaculate Conception, before Christ was born Gabriel an angel came to Mary and told her that she would give birth to the son of god. The angel also came to Joseph and told him to not fear for taking Mary as his wife and he explained the child within her was conceived by the holy spirit and that when the child was born he was to be named Jesus which means Savior. This child was born in a barn among the animals; many people came from all around being led by a shining star that was directly above the birthplace of Christ. These people came to bare gifts to the son of god. Christ was raised as a normal boy of this day alongside his cousin John, now referred to as John the Baptist. John the Baptist was the one who baptized Christ when he was a bit older. The young man attempted to teach the people the word of the Lord. He performed a great many miracles and told people of God’s love and spoke of heaven. An example of one of his miracles is in Luke of the New Testament when Christ healed a leper with his words. The passage states that the Leper fell before Christ and begged of him to cleanse him and too make him clean. With a simple phrase the leprosy had left the man and Christ asked that the man to not speak of this to anyone but to present himself to a priest and to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Jesus was betrayed by a man named Judas a good friend of his and after the last supper Christ was captured. He was then brought before the Roman Governor Pilate and was then accused of corrupting the Jewish people with talk of his god. Pilate’s original plan was just to have Christ beaten and then released; however the crowd watching the horrid display shouted “Crucify him!” In an attempt to appease the people Pilate had gave the order to have Jesus beaten and then crucified upon the people’s request. The guards created a crown of vines with thorns to place upon his head; they also dressed him up in purple robes to make a mockery of the royal lineage. They referred to him as the “King of the Jews” however they spoke this in a manner that was highly disrespectful. When they finished beating him they made him carry this large wooden cross up a large hill to a place called “Golgotha” which means place of a skull. This cross was set up in between two criminals and Christ was hung upon it, nails were hammered into his palms and one through his feet. As he hung there he prayed for forgiveness for the people whom did this too him. He begged his father and told him that these people did not know what it is they were doing. For three hours he hung on the cross as the public who had followed as well as the soldiers mocked him, he spoke that if he was the son of god that he could save himself. After these three hours Jesus cried out “Why have you forsaken me?” As he waited his soul slowly left his form as he committed himself to his father and the body of Christ hung limp on the cross. Upon his death the sun darkened and the earth trembled as the Roman Captain realized truly what had happened and who this man truly was. The soldiers knew that Christ was dead but instead of breaking his legs like they did with the criminals they stabbed his side with a spear and water flowed from the wound. Then his body was taken down from the cross and carried off by two of his followers Joseph and Nicodemus. They then wrapped the body in linen and laid it to rest inside a cave and then covered then entrance with a large boulder and a guard stood to protect it. Three days passed after the crucifixion and another great earthquake swept over the land as an angel of the lord had removed the boulder from in front of the cave. The guard that stood to protect the tomb ran in fear as Christ’s followers came to the tomb looking for the body in fear and confusion. The angel reminded them of what Jesus had said, that he would raise again on the third day. On that day Jesus approached the disciples to speak to them, he described that what had happened needed to have happened so that we could be forgiven for our sins. He then instructed his disciples to go forth and to teach his practices and to spread the word of the lord. To teach the people that we are forgiven for our sins and that one day we may join him and his father in heaven. Upon researching the mythology of Osiris I have come to a conclusion that there are many similarities between the two. However, first I wish to describe the story of the god and the god’s and goddess’s involved. Osiris was the god that ruled over the entire earth not long after its creation. He had a brother named Set and a sister named Isis whom he later married. Osiris’s brother was very jealous of Osiris and plotted together with seventy-two mortals. The plan was during Osiris’s banquet they had brought in a chest that had been especially prepared for him. While Set was showing off the chest the seventy-two people took their turn lying down inside of it. When Osiris lay down in the chest Set closed the hatch and nailed it shut. Set then took the chest and sent it down the Nile. Isis had discovered what Set had done and took off trying to find this chest however, she was too late. Once she had recovered the chest the body had been removed and torn apart into fourteen different pieces and thrown all across Egypt. Isis did her best to find all of the missing pieces of her husband/brother. When she had finished outing him back together in a Frankenstein like manner she gave him the breath of life resurrecting him. Upon this resurrection she became impregnated with Horus. With the resurrection of his father and the birth of Horus, Osiris trained him to become his avenger. Osiris then descended to the underworld where he ruled over the afterlife. Horus then took off and killed his uncle Set and became the new ruler of the earth. The similarities between the religions are striking, at least comparing the bible to this myth in general. The first similarity I would like to touch on is the Osiris and Set sibling relationship. When reading about this myth I immediately remembered the story of Cain and Abel. When Cain became so jealous of the life Abel was leading that he killed his own brother just as Set did to his own. However, I would really like to compare this myth too that of the story of Christ. First you can see how the conception of Christ can compare to that of the conception of Horus in the way that it was not a tradition type of conception. However, it is untold if Isis was or was not a virgin at the time she did become pregnant with Horus in an untraditional manner. Also you can also get down to the ideas of the resurrections of both of these beings. I read somewhere that it is the requirement for any god or prophet to in some way shape or form to cheat death, for them to achieve godly status. However, with Jesus Christ you had the love of god and that is why he had to die. Then you have the death of Osiris which was because he needed to become the ruler of the underworld. Osiris needed to be like god how he is ruling from heaven in the Christian religion. Horus became the ruler of the earth and its people just like Jesus ruled over the people spreading the law of god. Horus did the same as his father ruled the underworld which is exactly like the Christian heaven. Both men went through the trials and tribulations of life for the better of their people and that alone makes them similar in their desires for humanity. A lot of scholars like to argue that the resurrection of Osiris was not a true resurrection. Also that comparing the two is running along the line of blasphemy. A Christian scholar had a conference with a Dr. Geisler about this very subject matter his name is Farrell Till. Mr. Till disagreed and Dr. Geisler because he believed that the resurrection of Osiris was a bodily resurrection and that the similarities between Christ and Osiris were astonishing. Dr. Geisler chose not to refute against the speech Till had made, and Till continued on adding more reasoning similar to those I presented; such as the immaculate conception. What I would like to leave you with in this paper is my general belief. I believe that all these things have happened; that all of these people did in fact exist. The way that I can make sense of all of these similarities is not some copy-cat theory, I feel that the people of different cultures took these stories; changed them a bit to fit their culture, changed the names of the characters to suit the people they are trying to reach and made them into their own religions. Down at the heart of all religion it comes down to the same points, live your life well, be a good person and have faith in something
topic: Philosophy
[reply] [0 comments]

Freedom and Power: A Rational Perspective	December 2, 2008, 8:21PM
by: Sapient
The freedom to do as you wish allows for others to do as they wish to you without restraint. In this sense, you can be a slave, for you are always at the possible whim of another person. The world is just a giant struggle for power and domination. When no one has any formal power over one another, there is the power of freedom to over-power and dominate each other at will. This freedom to over-power each other then makes people potential slaves to one another, for there is nothing to prevent the domination of one person over another. So, I'd rather be a slave to the state, to avoid become the victim, than to be a possible slave to everyone, to become a victim for sure. I equate anarchy and libertarianism together in my mind, metaphorically. To me, the lack of order in any realm is dangerous, for in a world of free will and the struggle for power and domination, the last thing anyone should wish for is ultimate freedom. I wish to give up some of my freedom in order to secure my safety from others, as less freedom from me means less freedom in others. In a world of domination and free will, the most beneficial form is order, not anarchy. We all give up some of our freedoms in order to secure our safety from one another. This can apply to politics or to economics, equally. Just as we can become dominated politically, we can become dominated economically (as Bertrand Russell ultimately observed). So, it doesn't really matter the context: more liberty and more freedom ultimately means less safety and less order and more anarchy. Regulation is the only way. To me, it's just as foolish to wish to get rid of any institution of control as to get rid of the intervention of such an institution in economics. Anarchy ignores the reality of the constant struggle for power among people and their free will to do as they wish without cosmic restraint. Libertarianism also ignores this basic reality. Our only bet is to find a self-regulated form of order among ourselves and live under it. This is the greatest way to secure our will to not be dominated, as our wish to dominate others, politically or economically -- or however. So, freedom is overrated, naive, and dangerous in a world where free will and the will to dominate naturally combine to result in atrocities, pain, and viciousness. You will never be totally free of others; we are all biologically inclined to dominate, over-power, and spread our influence out into the world. We are always slaves to all which exists. So, I do not value total freedom, or freedoms which less secure my safety and fairness in relation to others. I value order. It's the only thing which can realistically deal with the reality of our freedom of will and will to power and domination -- or, basic human nature. The will to freedom is ultimately a naive ignorance of this human nature. So, I think -- politically -- everyone is wrong. The amoralists. The anarchists. The pure capitalists. The pure nihilists. The Communists. And the pure socialists. We should never neglect the realities of human nature, so we should never neglect the need for organized, rational order, in politics or economics. All are ultimately based on some form of naiveté of human nature. Too much freedom, or too much faith in humanity -- they all ignore the dangerous reality of the will to power and the destructive power of the freedom of will.
topic: Philosophy
[reply] [5 comments]

Blood, Sweat, and Acid: Shamanism In Popular Music	December 2, 2008, 12:48AM
by: Ozymandias
Pop music, when properly employed, can be an invaluable spiritual tool, at least as effective as meditation or prayer. Let me here note that the term “pop music”, as it will be used in this essay, does not refer to music that is necessarily commercial or adolescent in nature, but any music that does not qualify as classical, folk, or world music. The music itself, in its purest form, is primal and rhythm-based, recalling the tribal rhythms of the ancients, used to call forth spirits. It is not the music, however, with which this paper will concern itself, but rather the element of performance, the delivery of the music. It is my view that the most sublime, spiritual aspect of the music is its delivery; however, performance is typically viewed as secondary to music, and even effort is put into the act of performing, it is typically nothing more than dead, hackneyed dance moves and vapid, uninspiring gestures. A true pop concert should be less a revue and more a drama. In order to convey my point, I will have to give a brief review of several concepts in aesthetics and spirituality which are essential to my argument. Theatre itself was created by the Greeks in order to celebrate and connect with Dionysus, the anarchic deity of wine and revelry. However, since its inception, theatre has slowly devolved into a simple pastime, a form of mild entertainment, which seems to be the fate of all art forms. At its height, however, it was an opportunity for worshippers to heal themselves and become one with the divine, to heal themselves of spiritual and psychic affliction. (Nietzsche) Theatre, or its primitive equivalent, has existed in other cultures for identical purposes. In other cultures, however, this primitive theatre is generally referred to as shamanism. The image of Native American medicine men, African witch-doctors, and Asian shamans, masked and dancing, is a familiar one. The shaman’s purpose is to enter into a trance, by means of psychedelic drugs, dancing, chanting, music, and dressing in elaborate costumes. During this trance, he journeys to the spirit world, where he (and, by proxy, the entire tribe) is healed. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche identified two distinct drives in theatre (and in art in general), which he labeled the “Dionysiac” and the “Apolline”. Dionysiac art, says Nietzsche, is drawn from a primal, spiritual region of the mind, and is ecstatic and mystical in nature. Apolline art is deliberate, refined, and harmonious. Imagine, for instance, the difference between a Native American war chant and a painting of a fruit basket. Nietzsche claimed that theatre has degenerated from its original Dionysiac state to a form of Apolline art, and a return to its original form is necessary. (Nietzsche, p. 14-21) One of the first to recognize the necessity of a primal mysticism in art was the poet Arthur Rimbaud. He wrote feverish, hallucinatory poems that explored the darker, primal regions of the human psyche, made plain to Rimbaud through the frequent, immoderate consumption of alcohol and hashish. Rimbaud said, “The poet makes himself a seer by an immense, long, deliberate derangement of all the senses.”, an idea that brings to mind the medicine man’s frenetic peyote trance. Rimbaud’s work would inspire innumerable successors in all different fields of art. One notable group of Rimbaud’s aesthetic offspring were the surrealists, a movement composed of many artists of diverse media, all devoted to the same ideal; tapping into and expressing the subconscious mind via art. Of the surrealists, there was one man who did more to re-introduce the Dionysiac into theatre than anyone before or since. This man was Antonin Artaud, a French aesthetic philosopher, playwright, actor, filmmaker, and photographer. In his theatrical manifesto, the Theatre and its Double, Artaud likened the theatre to the plague, a violent purgation of the decadent and sickly aspects of our being, and to alchemy, wherein the practitioner/actor is metaphorically transformed from base metal into gold. His theatrical ideas were heavily influenced by the shamanic practices of Mexican natives and the mystical theatre of Asia, particularly Bali. He recognizes the transcendent spiritual experience that is true theatre, and explains how to attain it. He stresses the importance of the non-literary aspects of the theatre: pantomime, music, dance, set, and intonation. Essentially, he claimed that theatre should be a spatial, performance-based art form, rather than a literary one. He referred to his brand of theatre as “Theatre of Cruelty”, in reference to his ideas about using borderline obscenity in order to shock the audience out of its complacency. Now, we come to the essence of this paper; popular music. 1967, a man named Jim Morrison rose to international prominence as a performer, the singer of the rock group the Doors. Morrison was a student of Artaud, Nietzsche, and Rimbaud, and had a deep interest in shamanism, particularly that of Native American cultures. He applied these studies to his performances, and is widely recognized as the first to introduce theatre into rock n’ roll music. His shows included intuitive, primitive dancing, poetic and musical improvisation, intentional provocation of the audience through obscenity, and simple, but poignant theatrical gestures. These included Jim falling to the stage floor and writhing as if in pain at climactic moments in songs, rubbing the microphone stand against his genitals in order to make himself erect, and even a somewhat complicated routine which involved Jim being mock-executed. All of these were performed under the influence of massive doses of psychotropics, primarily LSD, marijuana, and alcohol. (Davis) As important and revolutionary as Jim Morrison was, his innovation was only a stepping stone for the man known as Iggy Pop. Pop took Morrison’s relatively tame antics to a whole new level with his prot-punk rock group, the Stooges. Pop was known to mutilate himself with whatever was at hand, cover himself in peanut butter and raw meat, expose himself onstage, and roll around on top of shattered glass. Pop is famous for having invented the “stage dive”, wherein the performer leaps into the audience. Pop was a musical and theatrical pioneer, and his work has inspired countless imitators in the form of the punk rock movement that began in New York in the early Seventies. The punk rockers were another group of artists with a mind for apocalyptic, energetic pop music with stage shows that grew increasingly outrageous, violent, and brilliant as the decade wore on, culminating the antics of hardcore musicians like Darby Crash and Black Flag.(Ambrose) Despite these explorations into the theatrical possibilities of pop music, I believe that the true extent of pop theatre has not been realized. In a sense, pop music has an inherently shamanic quality, in that it is primitive and rhythmic and provides catharsis for the performer and listener, but this is potential that can be expanded on. The aforementioned performers (and many others) have explored the theatrical, shamanic possibilities of pop, but only in a rough, experimental fashion. There is no extensive body of theory from which performers may draw, only a handful of video clips and biographies. This stems from the idea that pop music is more a form of entertainment than of art, an idea I find absurd. Music, in pop theatre, holds essentially the same place as literature in Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty; it is not the centerpiece of the performance, but rather a prop, a mere element of the theatrical whole. The music is by no means inessential or unimportant, but it is not central. It provides an aural counterpart to the spatial action taking place onstage. This spatial action should coincide with the music, and music with the action. For instance, during a gentler part of the performance, the band might play a somber jazz ballad while the performer stands completely immobile at the microphone stand, delivering his lines with a downcast expression. During a more energetic moment, however, the band might play a rousing punk rock song, filled with feedback, dissonant howls and clashing instruments, and insistent, tribal drumming, while the performer slashes his chest open with a broken bottle and urinates on a bandmate. No extreme should be shied away from; only pure, unmitigated expression can truly fulfill the potential of pop theatre. It often happens that the vilest of actions are the ones most capable of bringing on spiritual awareness, of shocking the performer and the audience out of spiritual and psychic slumber. This, however, is where many artists stray- they treat the audience as a woman to be seduced, they attempt to “win over the crowd”. I can conceive of no greater artistic sin. It is not impermissible to include the audience in the performance, but the object of the performance should never be to elicit a response from the audience, only to free the spirit of the performer. If the audience is a woman, then it is a whore, to be used for the performer’s own ends. This is a point at which I diverge with Artaud; he believed that the audience should factor into the performance, whereas I believe they should be disregarded entirely. The most important device available to the performer is delirium. There are many ways to attain a delirious state- meditation, intensive dancing, even fasting- but the most potent, and easiest, is the use of drugs. The most effective drugs for this purpose are psychedelics such as cannabis, LSD, and mescaline, as well as alcohol. These drugs lower mental inhibitions, allowing the performer freer expression than a sober, restrained mind might. Psychotropic drugs have been used since the dawn of man to transcend normal patterns of thought and attain the divine, and serve the same purpose in pop theatre. Many would say that pop music is a form of entertainment; that it’s purpose is relaxation and pleasure. Many would say that the sort of performance I have proposed here is vile and obscene. I would say that they are wrong. The great performers have never been entertainers- they have been men who sought catharsis through music and performance. Pop music is ultimately derived from the tribal rhythms of Africa and from black spirituals, neither of which was a form of entertainment or relaxation, by any stretch of the imagination; their purpose was spiritual catharsis, as is the purpose of pop music. Since pop’s inception, it has been denigrated by the Establishment as obscene, vile, and a deleterious influence on the youth and the culture in general. Countless attempts have been made to suppress and censor the music and the performances, from Elvis Presley’s first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show being censored due to perceived sexual posturing all the way up to modern times, where we find hip-hop music heavily criticized as being misogynistic and immoral, the same charges brought against many earlier genres and artists. In conclusion, popular music is an art form that has been left relatively unexplored in terms of its spiritual and theatrical potential. The intensive aesthetic theory that is developed for other art forms has rarely been considered in the case of pop music, and I believe that it is important that it is. Ambrose, Joe. Gimme Danger: The Iggy Pop Story. New York: Omnibus, 2008. Artaud, Antonin. The Theatre and its Double. New York: Grove Press, 1958. Davis, Stephen. Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend. New York: Gotham Books, 2005. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. New York: Penguin, 1993. Rimbaud, Jean Nicholas Arthur. Selected Letters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
topic: Philosophy
[reply] [22 comments]

Why women love jerks	November 26, 2008, 9:49PM
by: Buffalo
They always say "Nice guys finish last." Millions of nice guys are still perplexed as to why this is, well as I was standing about thinking, I realized why. Jerks seem more appealing due to survival instic. A man who can beat up someone, doesn't care how he appears and will treat her like shit? AMAZING. It's all based on the fact that when we were all just living in caves and wearing loin cloths, the men would go out, beat up a deer or something and bring it back. Today, they go out and beat up some guy who brought us flowers. It's all revolving around the same sense of us women folk thinking "Oh, he's a badass, he can provide for me and bring me home food and I wont die." What nice guy has ever brought a dead bear, freshly killed on the first date to a girl's door step? None, that's how many. So if you're still sitting there thinking "why me, why me, WHY ME?!" Or that retarded statment of "She's only with the rebel because women love to change people." You can stop now. You want the girl? Beat up some small nerdy kid and bring her home a 10 point buck. She'll be swooning over you in no time.
topic: Rants
[reply] [5 comments]

pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 next