So I've been taking this class for about two weeks. That's 5 classes (including today's).
Wikipedia defines it as full-contact hand-to-hand combat developed in Israel that involves wrestling, grappling, and striking techniques. It's known for extreme efficiency and brutal counter attacks and is taught to elite special forces around the world. It's derived from street fighting emphasizing on threat neutralization, simultaneous defensive and offensive maneuvers, and aggression.
Sounds pretty intense. Well it is.
Training, according to me and wikipedia, is aerobic and anaerobic. We do a lot of running and physically trying "warm-ups" which normally have us sweating and panting by the beginning of class. We do a lot of pad work which involves long sessions of repeated striking and moving. We've done drills where we were "attacked" while our eyes were closed and had to deal with the situation instantly after opening our eyes. We also do a lot of training at the peak of exhaustion which helps deal with the adrenaline of being in a real fight.
First class we learned how to get out of a two-handed frontal choke like when someone rushes you and is trying to literally crush your neck. We learned some subsequent counter attacks which seem pretty brutal.
Class 2 we learned what I call the pez-dispenser. Basically its the counter to a from-behind choke hold like you would do on the playground to give a noogie, except you're giving it to someone to hurt them. Anyway, the way you position yourself as soon as you get in it, you have the opportunity to get some leverage against them and put them in a pretty bad position.
Class 3 was pretty intense. We did groin kicks and hammerfists which when used in conjunction is pretty nasty. We also were taught open-palm strikes which can be pretty useful in a long fight.
ON that, while it's ghastly to imagine condoning groin strikes, the point of Krav is to get through a fight/get out of a fight quickly by debilitating your opponent. And if you're fighting against more than 1 dude... you need to do some otherwise deplorable things.
Class 4 we revisted the choke and incorporated the palm strike which on the one hand seemed like a good idea, but in order to get out of a real tight choke, you typically need two hands which this maneuver doesn't allow for. Hopefully won't have to test the theory. Did an interesting drill where half of the class stood in a circle and closed their eyes the other half walked around and attacked them. Half of the walking group had pads so if you were checked by a pad you had to open your eyes and punch it quickly or if someone put a front-choke on you you had to open your eyes and deliver the proper counter. It was scary to be just standing there with your eyes closed and feel someones hands come around your neck.
This past class we learned elbow strikes. We were taught 7 different positions for which to deliver strikes and it was a serious core and shoulder work out. Useful stuff I'm sure.
Overall, a good investment. I'm enjoying the class and look forward to what I can learn from it. Still not sure everyone who shows up has paid for it which makes me feel like a putz for actually doing so... but what can you do?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On Free Will
To continue my brief series of philosophical discussions, I'm talking today about the notion of free will. I don't think I'll actually be positing any sort of final claim on the issue but I'll surely be exploring what is an interesting perspective.
This came up when we were discussing... Spinoza? Or... Leibniz? Err... well doesn't matter. I thought it was an interesting notion and I want to share.
We go through our lives believing that we are in full control of everything we do. We choose when to wake up, what to eat, whether or not we want to go to class or work. We make "choices" every day. We believe that we have a personality that makes us a unique snowflake among the six billion people that live on the earth.
But consider this: maybe we have zero free choice. Maybe we make no choices that are of our own accord.
Think about this. Say we have a personality. Say it is the governing force behind everything we do. Perhaps it is the genetic rule book that serves as the guidelines for all we do. I chose to wake up 11am today. According to my genetic rule book, I was predisposed to get up at that time. The way I act towards people and what I do in my free time, what I believe and think about, it's all pre-determined. There is nothing I do and nothing about me that is in my control. Say I choose to get up at 9am instead and I choose to go running outside for the first time in my life. Free choice, right? Wrong. The only reason I was able to break from routine is because I recognized a genetically and personality-driven pattern and according to that pattern, deviation is possible only when I recognize it. Say I walk a certain way on my way back from the Gym. As I'm walking, I realize that I always take this path and I suddenly veer off on a different one. The only reason I took the different path was because I recognized that I always take a certain one and purposefully deviated. Even the deviations in the pattern are pre-determined.
Another interesting look at free will is given to us by social psychology. A radically conservative, hardcore social psychologist would say we have no personality. He would say that every moment of the day we are in a situation which molds the choices we make. Naturally, situations can only provide us a certain few options that we can take and so we are always confined within the situation. The choices we make in the situation are based on how we view ourselves inside of the situation. We are in desperate need to constantly fulfill the human desires for social and self-acceptance and thus, the choices we make in a situation are always geared towards those needs.
Now you could say that our personality factors in a little to the decisions made in situations and of course our personality drives us to the situations we find ourselves in... but that only lends credence to the first postulation I brought up. But still, I find it crazy that we are completely governed by the situations we find ourselves in. My main interest in psychology is social psychology, mainly in social cognition and mob mentality. I just find it interesting how the goals and mentality of the group always, always supersede the mentality of the individual.
So what does it mean to be human? To be the moral agents of the world? To be able to held morally accountable for our actions which we can make in a rational and autonomous way? Yes. Absolutely.
The question is, while we are morally accountable for everything we do, right or wrong, are we making these choices from true free will? Or are we governed by something we cannot control?
This came up when we were discussing... Spinoza? Or... Leibniz? Err... well doesn't matter. I thought it was an interesting notion and I want to share.
We go through our lives believing that we are in full control of everything we do. We choose when to wake up, what to eat, whether or not we want to go to class or work. We make "choices" every day. We believe that we have a personality that makes us a unique snowflake among the six billion people that live on the earth.
But consider this: maybe we have zero free choice. Maybe we make no choices that are of our own accord.
Think about this. Say we have a personality. Say it is the governing force behind everything we do. Perhaps it is the genetic rule book that serves as the guidelines for all we do. I chose to wake up 11am today. According to my genetic rule book, I was predisposed to get up at that time. The way I act towards people and what I do in my free time, what I believe and think about, it's all pre-determined. There is nothing I do and nothing about me that is in my control. Say I choose to get up at 9am instead and I choose to go running outside for the first time in my life. Free choice, right? Wrong. The only reason I was able to break from routine is because I recognized a genetically and personality-driven pattern and according to that pattern, deviation is possible only when I recognize it. Say I walk a certain way on my way back from the Gym. As I'm walking, I realize that I always take this path and I suddenly veer off on a different one. The only reason I took the different path was because I recognized that I always take a certain one and purposefully deviated. Even the deviations in the pattern are pre-determined.
Another interesting look at free will is given to us by social psychology. A radically conservative, hardcore social psychologist would say we have no personality. He would say that every moment of the day we are in a situation which molds the choices we make. Naturally, situations can only provide us a certain few options that we can take and so we are always confined within the situation. The choices we make in the situation are based on how we view ourselves inside of the situation. We are in desperate need to constantly fulfill the human desires for social and self-acceptance and thus, the choices we make in a situation are always geared towards those needs.
Now you could say that our personality factors in a little to the decisions made in situations and of course our personality drives us to the situations we find ourselves in... but that only lends credence to the first postulation I brought up. But still, I find it crazy that we are completely governed by the situations we find ourselves in. My main interest in psychology is social psychology, mainly in social cognition and mob mentality. I just find it interesting how the goals and mentality of the group always, always supersede the mentality of the individual.
So what does it mean to be human? To be the moral agents of the world? To be able to held morally accountable for our actions which we can make in a rational and autonomous way? Yes. Absolutely.
The question is, while we are morally accountable for everything we do, right or wrong, are we making these choices from true free will? Or are we governed by something we cannot control?
On Evolution
First of all, I just watched some Boston Legal with my Dad. As far as legitimate dromedies (thats, dramatic comedy) go, it's THE best written I've ever seen. It's got legitimate legal practice mixed with humor and serious intelligence and hits hard on actual issues. But I noticed a few things about the lawyering portrayed on the show. Mainly that the lawyers exhibit strong skills reflecting deep psychological knowledge, acting skill, and philosophical backgrounds. They know how people function, know how to lie or speak in such a way that is convincing, and in their most compelling arguments don't cite complicated legal code, but ask deep, probing questions about humanity. In the last one, Alan Shore asked what it means to be a human. What kind of question is more philosophical than that? And tell me, what academic field involves the detailed study of morality, ethics, and logic? Philosophy!
So what would be the BEST preparatory undergraduate study for a rising lawyer? PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND THEATER! What Am I doing? haha. See, I have a plan. I've had a plan all along.
Onto the topic at hand.
I'm going to go into an involved discussion about evolution or creation. I am a Christian but I am also a firm believer in evolution. Thus, I believe in intelligent design. That is, an evolutionary process that was set in motion according to the will and omniscience of a creator with a plan. I believe that in my view, all of science is compatible with religion.
Again, that's not the point. I'm going to set aside my beliefs (sort of) and outline the mythology that both camps of the debate subscribe to.
First, creation. Now, I have to admit... Creation, to the non-believer, sounds far-fetched. If you have no concept of the power of a omnipotent being, then I can imagine how crazy it sounds. We start off with a vacuous abyss. Then, God molds the earth. It happens, as I assume, suddenly. Genesis simply says, "in the beginning." I assuming it is much like the ancient Egyptians say, that is, out of an infinite ocean came Atun and he created all that is (more or less). Specifically, Genesis says "the earth was without form and void" so I imagine this is the case. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." See the similarity?
In a talk I gave a while ago, I mentioned the word eschatology and said in passing that many religions hold the similar mythologies as Christianity. Maybe some will say, "No Dylan, that's absurd." But it's true. If you read ancient creation stories and ancient myths about the end of times, you'll see that they all sounds incredibly alike. I say that these were passed down by the will of someone much greater than I with a plan greater than I can imagine. I say that there is truth in all these stories because they were inspired by a divine entity.
Anyway, So God says let there be light and there is night and day and then he creates Heaven, land, plants, seasons (except in places like Florida and the arctic lololol), stars, birds, whales, animals, and man. He made Adam and Eve and the rest is history. We know that Adam and Eve were kicked out (for lack of a better phrase) from Paradise and then we have humans.
Now again, I believe this story for the most part. There are certainly parts I find hard to believe. Most importantly, I know that we are here through a plan greater than our own. I don't need to get into what I do/don't believe/understand and why because that's not the case. But it's easy to see how one might not believe this stuff. It's a lot to get around their heads. But as I know it, faith opens many doors, even unto knowledge.
So... the other side is EVOLUTION. Dun dun dunnnnnnn... Here's how the story goes.
One day there was a burning hot singularity sitting in the middle of a vacuous black abyss. Before that there was possibly another universe--who knows. Then, the thing just up and exploded. Maybe it got too hot or maybe spun too fast--who knows. It erupted and sent crap flying everywhere and because of what we know about matter and possibly dark matter (which as Mr. Gregorio puts it, "explains a lot of stuff we can't otherwise explain), things started clumping
Actually, let me go back to that for a second. For those who completely discount Creation because "evolution makes so much more empirical and scientific sense," can we talk about "dark matter?" An invisible undetectable thing that only exists because it satisfies a HUGE variable in the equation? Because its the only thing that explains how the universe can spin without flying apart? Hahaha... you guys...
Anyway, so stuff starts clumping together (and I sincerely apologize for any hardcore scientists who would hang me for paraphrasing this in such a cavalier way) and stars form from gas that collects which came out of the large, dense floating ball of everything. Around these burning balls of gas clump other matter which clumped from other matter. So we now, at this point, have burning balls of gas with matter spinning around them. One of these happens to be in the Milky Way galaxy in our very own solar system which doesnt have a name. One of these spinning balls of matter is EARTH! Ta-da! But wait, at this point, Earth is a giant ball of FIRE! Ahh! (sorry I'm being incredibly insensitive to this.) So it's burning and it's burning and then it stops burning and... well gosh I don't remember how we got from A to C on this one (Sorry Gregorio) but somehow the earth stops burning and the atmosphere settles and then we have WATER! Then somehow we have PLANTS! Ta-da!
Now comes the best part. So we have this semi-new semi-volatile earth and it's probably raining a lot and there are some trees (probably palm trees) and a ton of water...
oh wait I forgot! An asteroid or something hits the earth and breaks off some stuff and forms the MOON!
Anyway, so it's raining and crap and just like a sci-fi movie where an asteroid hits and is full of aliens, an asteroid hits the young earth and I guess it's full of CELLS! Not just any cells... but SINGLE CELLS. I mean, SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISMS... I guess. Anyway, somehow these single celled organisms ride this asteroid through the volatile atmosphere and land in the water. They stew for a hundred years or something or there's a lightning strike and they start multiplying and form fish. And the fish grow legs and form the TYRANNOSAURUS REX. But some grow legs and form other things like lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) and likely monkeys. But not in that order. Anyways, the T-rex dies and then I guess Pangaea breaks apart at some point and then monkeys turn into humans somewhere in Africa and they migrate and there's an ice age blah blah blah and then they build New York City!
Sorry. Really, I'm sorry that wasn't fair. I shouldn't trivialize these well-thought out theories that may be based on a modicum of science. I mean it makes some sense to theorize based on old stuff we found but that's like saying it's going to rain today only based on the fact that it rained Saturday of last week (which it didn't). That's also the fundamental problem with the scientific theory, empiricism, and inductive reasoning in general... Making PREDICTIONS based on observations of things that happened in the past. Sure, you can be 99% certain sometimes and maybe even 100% but there's no rational reason to think that the world won't flip upside down the next time. Not the point.
I just think that the theory of evolution, while very plausible, has some holes in it. Additionally, you have to admit, that it sounds a little crazy (especially when I talk about it). Sure, an arbitrary creation is no less crazy sounding, but at least Creation covers all the plot holes.
I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm just saying that on their own, these stories have their faults. But an omniscient, omnipotent being who set these events in motion... now that's something I can sink my rational teeth in to.
And if I'm wrong, as always, I'm happy to talk about it. Convince me wrong, please. I'll happily admit it.
So what would be the BEST preparatory undergraduate study for a rising lawyer? PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND THEATER! What Am I doing? haha. See, I have a plan. I've had a plan all along.
Onto the topic at hand.
I'm going to go into an involved discussion about evolution or creation. I am a Christian but I am also a firm believer in evolution. Thus, I believe in intelligent design. That is, an evolutionary process that was set in motion according to the will and omniscience of a creator with a plan. I believe that in my view, all of science is compatible with religion.
Again, that's not the point. I'm going to set aside my beliefs (sort of) and outline the mythology that both camps of the debate subscribe to.
First, creation. Now, I have to admit... Creation, to the non-believer, sounds far-fetched. If you have no concept of the power of a omnipotent being, then I can imagine how crazy it sounds. We start off with a vacuous abyss. Then, God molds the earth. It happens, as I assume, suddenly. Genesis simply says, "in the beginning." I assuming it is much like the ancient Egyptians say, that is, out of an infinite ocean came Atun and he created all that is (more or less). Specifically, Genesis says "the earth was without form and void" so I imagine this is the case. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." See the similarity?
In a talk I gave a while ago, I mentioned the word eschatology and said in passing that many religions hold the similar mythologies as Christianity. Maybe some will say, "No Dylan, that's absurd." But it's true. If you read ancient creation stories and ancient myths about the end of times, you'll see that they all sounds incredibly alike. I say that these were passed down by the will of someone much greater than I with a plan greater than I can imagine. I say that there is truth in all these stories because they were inspired by a divine entity.
Anyway, So God says let there be light and there is night and day and then he creates Heaven, land, plants, seasons (except in places like Florida and the arctic lololol), stars, birds, whales, animals, and man. He made Adam and Eve and the rest is history. We know that Adam and Eve were kicked out (for lack of a better phrase) from Paradise and then we have humans.
Now again, I believe this story for the most part. There are certainly parts I find hard to believe. Most importantly, I know that we are here through a plan greater than our own. I don't need to get into what I do/don't believe/understand and why because that's not the case. But it's easy to see how one might not believe this stuff. It's a lot to get around their heads. But as I know it, faith opens many doors, even unto knowledge.
So... the other side is EVOLUTION. Dun dun dunnnnnnn... Here's how the story goes.
One day there was a burning hot singularity sitting in the middle of a vacuous black abyss. Before that there was possibly another universe--who knows. Then, the thing just up and exploded. Maybe it got too hot or maybe spun too fast--who knows. It erupted and sent crap flying everywhere and because of what we know about matter and possibly dark matter (which as Mr. Gregorio puts it, "explains a lot of stuff we can't otherwise explain), things started clumping
Actually, let me go back to that for a second. For those who completely discount Creation because "evolution makes so much more empirical and scientific sense," can we talk about "dark matter?" An invisible undetectable thing that only exists because it satisfies a HUGE variable in the equation? Because its the only thing that explains how the universe can spin without flying apart? Hahaha... you guys...
Anyway, so stuff starts clumping together (and I sincerely apologize for any hardcore scientists who would hang me for paraphrasing this in such a cavalier way) and stars form from gas that collects which came out of the large, dense floating ball of everything. Around these burning balls of gas clump other matter which clumped from other matter. So we now, at this point, have burning balls of gas with matter spinning around them. One of these happens to be in the Milky Way galaxy in our very own solar system which doesnt have a name. One of these spinning balls of matter is EARTH! Ta-da! But wait, at this point, Earth is a giant ball of FIRE! Ahh! (sorry I'm being incredibly insensitive to this.) So it's burning and it's burning and then it stops burning and... well gosh I don't remember how we got from A to C on this one (Sorry Gregorio) but somehow the earth stops burning and the atmosphere settles and then we have WATER! Then somehow we have PLANTS! Ta-da!
Now comes the best part. So we have this semi-new semi-volatile earth and it's probably raining a lot and there are some trees (probably palm trees) and a ton of water...
oh wait I forgot! An asteroid or something hits the earth and breaks off some stuff and forms the MOON!
Anyway, so it's raining and crap and just like a sci-fi movie where an asteroid hits and is full of aliens, an asteroid hits the young earth and I guess it's full of CELLS! Not just any cells... but SINGLE CELLS. I mean, SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISMS... I guess. Anyway, somehow these single celled organisms ride this asteroid through the volatile atmosphere and land in the water. They stew for a hundred years or something or there's a lightning strike and they start multiplying and form fish. And the fish grow legs and form the TYRANNOSAURUS REX. But some grow legs and form other things like lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) and likely monkeys. But not in that order. Anyways, the T-rex dies and then I guess Pangaea breaks apart at some point and then monkeys turn into humans somewhere in Africa and they migrate and there's an ice age blah blah blah and then they build New York City!
Sorry. Really, I'm sorry that wasn't fair. I shouldn't trivialize these well-thought out theories that may be based on a modicum of science. I mean it makes some sense to theorize based on old stuff we found but that's like saying it's going to rain today only based on the fact that it rained Saturday of last week (which it didn't). That's also the fundamental problem with the scientific theory, empiricism, and inductive reasoning in general... Making PREDICTIONS based on observations of things that happened in the past. Sure, you can be 99% certain sometimes and maybe even 100% but there's no rational reason to think that the world won't flip upside down the next time. Not the point.
I just think that the theory of evolution, while very plausible, has some holes in it. Additionally, you have to admit, that it sounds a little crazy (especially when I talk about it). Sure, an arbitrary creation is no less crazy sounding, but at least Creation covers all the plot holes.
I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm just saying that on their own, these stories have their faults. But an omniscient, omnipotent being who set these events in motion... now that's something I can sink my rational teeth in to.
And if I'm wrong, as always, I'm happy to talk about it. Convince me wrong, please. I'll happily admit it.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Integrity
In the past I have complained a bit about my "job." The fact is, I'm thankful to have it and regardless of how much it sucks, it's good, practical experience that I will need.
Broadside, as a production, is a good paper. The people working for it are good, smart people who seem to (most of the time) strive for the best production possible. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a part of the team.
I do think I have some legitimate complaints.
1) Trying to turn my stories into something they're not. Sometimes by the end of the editing process, it's like I didn't even write it.
2) Not really taking a firm stand on anything by keeping a tight grip on what can be said.
and the most important complaint of all...
3) A lack of overall journalistic integrity. And of course, I'm not directing this at the whole paper since the news is reported fair and things like that. But what I am angry about is a recent column that has appeared twice in Broadside that makes me feel like no one is even paying attention to what is going on.
In lieu of what seems to be the end of what I thought was a rather inappropriate sex column, is now an even more over-the-top and even more tasteless in-your-face shock column by a certain duo of GMU senior girls. Now... I'm okay with expressing oneself and I'm certainly okay with a little shock and awe... but this column is simply too much. Using explicit sexual language and tasteless jokes puts this way beyond the aforementioned sex column that was at least smart. There's no reason for this garbage to be published and it makes me wonder who green-lights this stuff.
Personally, I find the material published inappropriate and seriously lacking in any quality. It's not only poorly written but tasteless and offensive. I know at least a dozen people who find it offensive and I feel like in our very politically correct world, even one offended person should matter, especially for stuff like this. I mean it's one thing if the publication is being intelligent and backing up it's claims while being offensive... but to be offensive just to be offensive isn't what should be published in a university newspaper. Especially one that no one even really reads to begin with. While I think controversy is good publicity, controversy is NOT what should be driving people to pick up the paper, read the column in question, and then throw it away. We should be informing and entertaining while enriching people's lives with stuff they care about. I like to think that's what I provide with my work and I'm kind of ashamed to be in the same section as this crap.
So what should I do? Well I plan to speak with my editor about it. Again, I don't think we should be publishing inappropriate and offensive material. If I was a true nobleman I would make a very public resignation in protest of what Broadside is doing, but honestly I don't think they would miss me enough.
Free speech is one thing. I understand that they have the right to say what they want. But as for George Mason University Student Media publications... we should be striving for excellence--for journalistic quality. That's not what we are seeing here and I firmly believe that free speech has its limits.
This is certainly more than about just some girls who want to shock people. It's about free speech at large. Really, and I mean REALLY... where do we draw the line? When considering our founding fathers and their intentions for free speech, how much did they actually want to give us? I think that they did not want mean for us to have as much as we try to assert or claim is our birthright. (Which of course brings up the HUGE issue of what our natural rights are if we have any.)
If I may posit a reductio ad absurdum, if we let free speech truly be free--to give it access to the mass media as a whole, what would it look like? Any idiot could write for the Wall Street journal or the New York Times and reduce these extraordinarily respectable publications to mere babble and rambling about what the author thinks is true and relevant. Even if they were to allow just one controversial column, don't you think that they would lose respect? And again I'm not talking about a writer making controversial claims with rational, well-thought-out evidence with which to back them up. I'm talking about someone just being downright offensive just so they can be offensive.
Maybe I'm overreacting but I think that there's something wrong with this picture. I ask, "Where is our integrity?"
Broadside, as a production, is a good paper. The people working for it are good, smart people who seem to (most of the time) strive for the best production possible. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a part of the team.
I do think I have some legitimate complaints.
1) Trying to turn my stories into something they're not. Sometimes by the end of the editing process, it's like I didn't even write it.
2) Not really taking a firm stand on anything by keeping a tight grip on what can be said.
and the most important complaint of all...
3) A lack of overall journalistic integrity. And of course, I'm not directing this at the whole paper since the news is reported fair and things like that. But what I am angry about is a recent column that has appeared twice in Broadside that makes me feel like no one is even paying attention to what is going on.
In lieu of what seems to be the end of what I thought was a rather inappropriate sex column, is now an even more over-the-top and even more tasteless in-your-face shock column by a certain duo of GMU senior girls. Now... I'm okay with expressing oneself and I'm certainly okay with a little shock and awe... but this column is simply too much. Using explicit sexual language and tasteless jokes puts this way beyond the aforementioned sex column that was at least smart. There's no reason for this garbage to be published and it makes me wonder who green-lights this stuff.
Personally, I find the material published inappropriate and seriously lacking in any quality. It's not only poorly written but tasteless and offensive. I know at least a dozen people who find it offensive and I feel like in our very politically correct world, even one offended person should matter, especially for stuff like this. I mean it's one thing if the publication is being intelligent and backing up it's claims while being offensive... but to be offensive just to be offensive isn't what should be published in a university newspaper. Especially one that no one even really reads to begin with. While I think controversy is good publicity, controversy is NOT what should be driving people to pick up the paper, read the column in question, and then throw it away. We should be informing and entertaining while enriching people's lives with stuff they care about. I like to think that's what I provide with my work and I'm kind of ashamed to be in the same section as this crap.
So what should I do? Well I plan to speak with my editor about it. Again, I don't think we should be publishing inappropriate and offensive material. If I was a true nobleman I would make a very public resignation in protest of what Broadside is doing, but honestly I don't think they would miss me enough.
Free speech is one thing. I understand that they have the right to say what they want. But as for George Mason University Student Media publications... we should be striving for excellence--for journalistic quality. That's not what we are seeing here and I firmly believe that free speech has its limits.
This is certainly more than about just some girls who want to shock people. It's about free speech at large. Really, and I mean REALLY... where do we draw the line? When considering our founding fathers and their intentions for free speech, how much did they actually want to give us? I think that they did not want mean for us to have as much as we try to assert or claim is our birthright. (Which of course brings up the HUGE issue of what our natural rights are if we have any.)
If I may posit a reductio ad absurdum, if we let free speech truly be free--to give it access to the mass media as a whole, what would it look like? Any idiot could write for the Wall Street journal or the New York Times and reduce these extraordinarily respectable publications to mere babble and rambling about what the author thinks is true and relevant. Even if they were to allow just one controversial column, don't you think that they would lose respect? And again I'm not talking about a writer making controversial claims with rational, well-thought-out evidence with which to back them up. I'm talking about someone just being downright offensive just so they can be offensive.
Maybe I'm overreacting but I think that there's something wrong with this picture. I ask, "Where is our integrity?"
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Modicum of Validity
What to say...
Well I recently performed in my first ever improv show. Well... it was just a series of improv games performed in front of an audience. I used to be firmly convinced that I couldn't ever come up with things on the fly but I actually did really well and it felt great. I gotta say... I want to do it again. Paul is excited and convinced I should take classes. I would like to perform with him...
I was walking behind a girl today. She was moving at the speed of slow and when I moved to pass her, I noticed she was talking on her cell phone and wearing a tiara. I understand you might wear one if it's your birthday... but to wear it around campus? Really? Unforgivable.
I had my first radio show today. Mine! Hah! No longer a guest host on the Enclosed Instruction Book. I played some Paramore, Bloc Party, and some other good stuff. I talked about music and events on campus. Overall, great time. I think it went well. I want to record it so people can access it online and listen to it on their mp3 players but I found out there are legal issues with recording the full show and making it available. Apparently, it might as well be piracy because of the music on there. And I doubt people want to just listen to me talking for a total of 15 minutes. Anyway, it went well and next week i'll be flying 100% solo.
Had philosophy of animal rights today. That's not it's real name, but I'm really starting to think it might be PETA 421 instead of PHIL 421. I mean, it's a good class but we're talking about why humans are "speciesist" (a word made up by Peter Singer) and how because we can speculate that they feel pain and are conscious that they deserve equal treatment as humans. While I love animals, I don't know how I feel about this. One argument is that if we refuse to kill an infant or someone in a vegetative state, we have no rational justification to kill an animal since in all three cases, we're dealing with a conscious organism that feels pain in some sense.
My professor yelled at me at the end of class for not participating. I had nothing to say.
I don't want to say anything without at least a
modicum of validity.
Well I recently performed in my first ever improv show. Well... it was just a series of improv games performed in front of an audience. I used to be firmly convinced that I couldn't ever come up with things on the fly but I actually did really well and it felt great. I gotta say... I want to do it again. Paul is excited and convinced I should take classes. I would like to perform with him...
I was walking behind a girl today. She was moving at the speed of slow and when I moved to pass her, I noticed she was talking on her cell phone and wearing a tiara. I understand you might wear one if it's your birthday... but to wear it around campus? Really? Unforgivable.
I had my first radio show today. Mine! Hah! No longer a guest host on the Enclosed Instruction Book. I played some Paramore, Bloc Party, and some other good stuff. I talked about music and events on campus. Overall, great time. I think it went well. I want to record it so people can access it online and listen to it on their mp3 players but I found out there are legal issues with recording the full show and making it available. Apparently, it might as well be piracy because of the music on there. And I doubt people want to just listen to me talking for a total of 15 minutes. Anyway, it went well and next week i'll be flying 100% solo.
Had philosophy of animal rights today. That's not it's real name, but I'm really starting to think it might be PETA 421 instead of PHIL 421. I mean, it's a good class but we're talking about why humans are "speciesist" (a word made up by Peter Singer) and how because we can speculate that they feel pain and are conscious that they deserve equal treatment as humans. While I love animals, I don't know how I feel about this. One argument is that if we refuse to kill an infant or someone in a vegetative state, we have no rational justification to kill an animal since in all three cases, we're dealing with a conscious organism that feels pain in some sense.
My professor yelled at me at the end of class for not participating. I had nothing to say.
I don't want to say anything without at least a
modicum of validity.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The Project
A) Someone (Ethan) suggested to get a Tumblr. It seems like a great blogging site as well as giving "seamless" integration with facebook and things that I use (as well as a plethora of other crap I don't need). Well that poses a problem for a dozen reasons, among others, I've already posted a dozen things here (all of which have stellar literary quality) and I refuse to TUMBLR them down the drain.
B) I think these posts will be a lot more streamlined from now on. A lot more "Here's what I thought about today" and less "Dear Diary, Here's what I did today."
So Dear Diary... Here's what I...
Haha...
But really, sitting in Acting 2 made me think a lot about sitting in Acting 1 (surprise, surprise) and the moment I got inspired to with a legitimate idea for my first novel. In order to help me write it, I think I'm finally ready to reveal the idea here (minus a few details so I still maintain artistic license, suspense, and so no one will steal my idea). World premiere.
So here's the concept. In one way or another about a dozen unique characters came out of my Acting 1 class. In presenting each of these characters, another student from the class was used in conjunction making it seem like Character A is best friends with Character B while later Character B was all the while talking to Character F. Know what I mean? So in my head I wrote down every characteristic that I observed and in a notebook I have about a dozen named characters with full biographies, personality traits, relationships, and mannerisms (even a few hobbies and occupations). I put them in a city and I have ideas for how they will interact but I guess what's really holding up the whole project is a few key plot points... you know... the beginning... the middle... the end. I mean, I've got individual scenes all mapped out but I can't for the life of my figure out how to start the chain. I think once I get going I can really put some shape to the beast.
Anyway, point is, if anyone wants to help or has any ideas, they can get acknowledgments, co-authorship, or even money. Yeah, I'm THAT confident in what this could turn into. It's too legit to quit.
And really, that's what this whole thing has been about. Trying to get myself to think everyday about putting words to paper... or at least keys to a word document. I figured if I thought, "Hey that's a good thing to blog about," I could finally say, "Hey that's a great thing to WRITE A STORY about" because I know when I finally get down to it I can just keep going and going.
Movies have been giving me good plot inspiration (for better or worse since people will read it and say, "Wait a second, didn't they do that in that one movie?") for other ideas I have (to be revealed later). Obviously, that doesn't help me now.
So... whose in on
The project?
B) I think these posts will be a lot more streamlined from now on. A lot more "Here's what I thought about today" and less "Dear Diary, Here's what I did today."
So Dear Diary... Here's what I...
Haha...
But really, sitting in Acting 2 made me think a lot about sitting in Acting 1 (surprise, surprise) and the moment I got inspired to with a legitimate idea for my first novel. In order to help me write it, I think I'm finally ready to reveal the idea here (minus a few details so I still maintain artistic license, suspense, and so no one will steal my idea). World premiere.
So here's the concept. In one way or another about a dozen unique characters came out of my Acting 1 class. In presenting each of these characters, another student from the class was used in conjunction making it seem like Character A is best friends with Character B while later Character B was all the while talking to Character F. Know what I mean? So in my head I wrote down every characteristic that I observed and in a notebook I have about a dozen named characters with full biographies, personality traits, relationships, and mannerisms (even a few hobbies and occupations). I put them in a city and I have ideas for how they will interact but I guess what's really holding up the whole project is a few key plot points... you know... the beginning... the middle... the end. I mean, I've got individual scenes all mapped out but I can't for the life of my figure out how to start the chain. I think once I get going I can really put some shape to the beast.
Anyway, point is, if anyone wants to help or has any ideas, they can get acknowledgments, co-authorship, or even money. Yeah, I'm THAT confident in what this could turn into. It's too legit to quit.
And really, that's what this whole thing has been about. Trying to get myself to think everyday about putting words to paper... or at least keys to a word document. I figured if I thought, "Hey that's a good thing to blog about," I could finally say, "Hey that's a great thing to WRITE A STORY about" because I know when I finally get down to it I can just keep going and going.
Movies have been giving me good plot inspiration (for better or worse since people will read it and say, "Wait a second, didn't they do that in that one movie?") for other ideas I have (to be revealed later). Obviously, that doesn't help me now.
So... whose in on
The project?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Animalistic Musings
Three in one day?!
Well... I already told my professor I wasn't going to class (see previous post) and thus I am taking a pity day for myself to think. Plus, he said if I just kept up with the reading, I'll be fine. And thus, I am reading the book and will just go to class from now on (seeing as how there will be zero conflicts in the future).
Anyway, I wouldn't be much of a philosophy student if I didn't posit some questions every now and then.
I would like to go back to something I talk about a while ago concerning human evolution and our place on the earth, in the universe, etc. What with all that's going on with the theater fiasco it makes me think a lot about why we do these things, why I feel the way I do, and about life in general. If you think about how a lion carries out his day, he eats, sleeps, defecates, and that's pretty much the extent of it. Instinctively, lions know how to hunt and how to take care of their young. What intrigues me is how lions perceive their environment. They obviously recognize a particular patch of land as their own and recognize a certain shape of animal that they like to eat. They have some degree of learning. That brings me to an interesting quote we read in Hume about how animals do in fact have some sort of elementary reasoning abilities. Typically, when we say, "What's the difference between animals and humans?" we say, "the ability to reason." Personally, I don't think we have any rational ability to say that's true. Animals certainly reason and biological psychologists and behavioral psychologists can tell you that their behavior can certainly adapt and change.
I guess the point that I'm trying to make thus far is that animals and humans, on the most basic levels, are not so different. We have basic adaptation and reasoning skills and we have a short degree of instinctual skills, what we might otherwise call a "gut reaction." Our brains are not even so different since scientists are able to identify pleasure and pain receptors in the brains of rats, an animal far removed from the primate line. It could certainly be reasoned that humans have some sort of basic relation and similarities to all mammals. In some ways, all animals (but mostly mammals).
Where the differences in humans lie is our ability to utilize our higher brain functions. That is, our ability for abstract reasoning, to make complicated choices, and complicated emotions like love, jealously, remorse, and so on. From a purely biological perspective (which I admit I'm no expert), humans, by reason, must have SOME extra glands or synapses that cause different hormones to flow in our brains, causing these feelings of love and genuine emotion. What else could explain the reason that we can build civilizations and learn and feel complex things? Sure, you could argue that lions can't build things because they don't have thumbs. In fact, you could say that the only reason humans, at whatever point in history, ascended to greatness because of our thumbs--that is, our ability to pick things up. And maybe that's true. But then I must posit the ultimate question: Why? Why do we have thumbs? Accident? You would say "evolution" but now we're just arguing semantics. I do believe in a kind of evolution but I don't believe in astronomical chances. If I did, I would play the lottery more often since you have a better chance of winning that then evolving into a creature with thumbs.
So maybe thumbs is the reason humans evolved to having success in the primitive world and maybe that's the reason human brains have evolved to such a level such as being able to love another human unconditionally. Maybe when the first batch of humans that had thumbs conquered the non-thumbed batch, they were able to flourish and write epic poetry and worship gods. They were able to sing and to love. I suppose that's possible. But then by reason, you would say that all animals should be able to choreograph elaborate dance numbers and solve complicated ethical dilemmas. I mean, there are a lot of species on this planet that are as old as us, that have been evolving with us. If all brains develop at a constant and predictable rate (which I don't know if they do), then theoretically we shouldn't be too much farther ahead of anyone else. Unless someone's ancestor ate the only genius lion.
It can be said that from abstract thinking, all knowledge is born.
We would know nothing unless someone did some exploring or hypothesizing. No math, no reading, no engineering, no nothing. And in this vein, all knowledge started off as PHILOSOPHY.
So there.
Anyways, it still perplexes me to think about the differences between us and the rest of living creatures. Why are we designed the way we are? Through endless mistakes made by mother nature we have two eyes positioned above a nose and a mouth in front of our heads which is settled on a spinal column which runs the length of our back which holds complicated nerve systems that allows us to move our appendages. Again, I don't believe in that kind of luck. That's like throwing a bowling ball into a dark china shop and truly believing you won't break something. I'm not saying I don't think it happened, I'm just saying it stands to my reason that it was guided by someone/something that knows a lot better than we do.
And thus we have the modern human that emerges a long, long time ago. We have the Greeks who posited philosophical theories on math, astronomy, physics, and life. We have the Egyptians that made amazing and complicated structures. There's also the Mesopotamian civilization that contains the earliest recorded religion. (That obviously was NOT in chronological order.) It just amazes me how all of a sudden there is a species on the earth that is flourishing at an exponential rate and all the while developing its knowledge of the known world and most importantly, its self-awareness and even more amazingly, still developing its paradigm of its role in the universe.
Let us think for a minute about how language was born. Obviously language means nothing without more than one person. Even in the most comical fashion, how did one caveman start talking to another caveman in such a way that they both understood? Even for one to draw pictures that made sense to the other involved the first one processing in his primitive mind the idea of a picture being a symbol for something else. And in the second one, he had to associate that picture and connect the symbol and determine the meaning all on his own. Then they both agreed on a sound to make that would tie it all together? We see an apple and we immediately hear the word apple and see in our heads maybe a taste, smell, and a feeling of an apple and we associate all of these things simultaneously and at some point, that had to happen on more than just an individual level. Sure caveman #1 could associate these things in his mind by himself, but he then had to communicate those ideas to his cave-mate. Wow.
And the first lie? Once communication was established in the community, someone came up with the first lie. And this is another amazing feat. Think about it. What goes into a lie? You see a disadvantage to telling someone how something really is because in your mind, you can abstract the consequences of certain communication in your head in an instant. You then decide on a new, equally plausible story and decide to tell that instead, despite knowing its not true.
Then perhaps you feel remorse? Knowing the consequences of the lie and being able to abstract in your head the consequences of someone else believing a falsehood. Or knowing that the consequences of something you did would hurt someone.
And theater? Song? Philosophy? To be able to abstract your feelings and communicate them in a form that is pleasing as well as thoughtful is another amazing human invention. To rationalize in a systematic and convincing fashion? This furthers our understandings of things and allows us to look at things beneath the surface. The lion sees the sun setting in the west, but we can understand it to mean that this side the earth has turned away from the sun. We then associate night with different things, and even feel inspired to communicate those associations. The lion sees his dead prey and all he can think about his food. We see a dead human or something and we feel remorseful or sad. Or we feel alive and happy (if you're psychotic). We associate primal things with ourselves and in the grand scheme of things, beyond what any other creature can do.
Humans are capable of a many great and wonderful things. We are also capable of terrible things. We are the only creature that is self-reflective and able to think outside of itself. So, why us?
Now I understand that someone might read this and say, "Dylan you're retarded." That's great. Thales of Miletus posited in the 5th century BC that everything is, in some way, made of water. Obviously he was wrong but he made an observation based on what was known at the time (at least to him) and made a rational argument for it. If I am similarly at fault, I would be happy to chat. I am always happy to admit not knowing something.
And maybe I can make someone think. Or maybe these are just
Animalistic Musingings.
Well... I already told my professor I wasn't going to class (see previous post) and thus I am taking a pity day for myself to think. Plus, he said if I just kept up with the reading, I'll be fine. And thus, I am reading the book and will just go to class from now on (seeing as how there will be zero conflicts in the future).
Anyway, I wouldn't be much of a philosophy student if I didn't posit some questions every now and then.
I would like to go back to something I talk about a while ago concerning human evolution and our place on the earth, in the universe, etc. What with all that's going on with the theater fiasco it makes me think a lot about why we do these things, why I feel the way I do, and about life in general. If you think about how a lion carries out his day, he eats, sleeps, defecates, and that's pretty much the extent of it. Instinctively, lions know how to hunt and how to take care of their young. What intrigues me is how lions perceive their environment. They obviously recognize a particular patch of land as their own and recognize a certain shape of animal that they like to eat. They have some degree of learning. That brings me to an interesting quote we read in Hume about how animals do in fact have some sort of elementary reasoning abilities. Typically, when we say, "What's the difference between animals and humans?" we say, "the ability to reason." Personally, I don't think we have any rational ability to say that's true. Animals certainly reason and biological psychologists and behavioral psychologists can tell you that their behavior can certainly adapt and change.
I guess the point that I'm trying to make thus far is that animals and humans, on the most basic levels, are not so different. We have basic adaptation and reasoning skills and we have a short degree of instinctual skills, what we might otherwise call a "gut reaction." Our brains are not even so different since scientists are able to identify pleasure and pain receptors in the brains of rats, an animal far removed from the primate line. It could certainly be reasoned that humans have some sort of basic relation and similarities to all mammals. In some ways, all animals (but mostly mammals).
Where the differences in humans lie is our ability to utilize our higher brain functions. That is, our ability for abstract reasoning, to make complicated choices, and complicated emotions like love, jealously, remorse, and so on. From a purely biological perspective (which I admit I'm no expert), humans, by reason, must have SOME extra glands or synapses that cause different hormones to flow in our brains, causing these feelings of love and genuine emotion. What else could explain the reason that we can build civilizations and learn and feel complex things? Sure, you could argue that lions can't build things because they don't have thumbs. In fact, you could say that the only reason humans, at whatever point in history, ascended to greatness because of our thumbs--that is, our ability to pick things up. And maybe that's true. But then I must posit the ultimate question: Why? Why do we have thumbs? Accident? You would say "evolution" but now we're just arguing semantics. I do believe in a kind of evolution but I don't believe in astronomical chances. If I did, I would play the lottery more often since you have a better chance of winning that then evolving into a creature with thumbs.
So maybe thumbs is the reason humans evolved to having success in the primitive world and maybe that's the reason human brains have evolved to such a level such as being able to love another human unconditionally. Maybe when the first batch of humans that had thumbs conquered the non-thumbed batch, they were able to flourish and write epic poetry and worship gods. They were able to sing and to love. I suppose that's possible. But then by reason, you would say that all animals should be able to choreograph elaborate dance numbers and solve complicated ethical dilemmas. I mean, there are a lot of species on this planet that are as old as us, that have been evolving with us. If all brains develop at a constant and predictable rate (which I don't know if they do), then theoretically we shouldn't be too much farther ahead of anyone else. Unless someone's ancestor ate the only genius lion.
It can be said that from abstract thinking, all knowledge is born.
We would know nothing unless someone did some exploring or hypothesizing. No math, no reading, no engineering, no nothing. And in this vein, all knowledge started off as PHILOSOPHY.
So there.
Anyways, it still perplexes me to think about the differences between us and the rest of living creatures. Why are we designed the way we are? Through endless mistakes made by mother nature we have two eyes positioned above a nose and a mouth in front of our heads which is settled on a spinal column which runs the length of our back which holds complicated nerve systems that allows us to move our appendages. Again, I don't believe in that kind of luck. That's like throwing a bowling ball into a dark china shop and truly believing you won't break something. I'm not saying I don't think it happened, I'm just saying it stands to my reason that it was guided by someone/something that knows a lot better than we do.
And thus we have the modern human that emerges a long, long time ago. We have the Greeks who posited philosophical theories on math, astronomy, physics, and life. We have the Egyptians that made amazing and complicated structures. There's also the Mesopotamian civilization that contains the earliest recorded religion. (That obviously was NOT in chronological order.) It just amazes me how all of a sudden there is a species on the earth that is flourishing at an exponential rate and all the while developing its knowledge of the known world and most importantly, its self-awareness and even more amazingly, still developing its paradigm of its role in the universe.
Let us think for a minute about how language was born. Obviously language means nothing without more than one person. Even in the most comical fashion, how did one caveman start talking to another caveman in such a way that they both understood? Even for one to draw pictures that made sense to the other involved the first one processing in his primitive mind the idea of a picture being a symbol for something else. And in the second one, he had to associate that picture and connect the symbol and determine the meaning all on his own. Then they both agreed on a sound to make that would tie it all together? We see an apple and we immediately hear the word apple and see in our heads maybe a taste, smell, and a feeling of an apple and we associate all of these things simultaneously and at some point, that had to happen on more than just an individual level. Sure caveman #1 could associate these things in his mind by himself, but he then had to communicate those ideas to his cave-mate. Wow.
And the first lie? Once communication was established in the community, someone came up with the first lie. And this is another amazing feat. Think about it. What goes into a lie? You see a disadvantage to telling someone how something really is because in your mind, you can abstract the consequences of certain communication in your head in an instant. You then decide on a new, equally plausible story and decide to tell that instead, despite knowing its not true.
Then perhaps you feel remorse? Knowing the consequences of the lie and being able to abstract in your head the consequences of someone else believing a falsehood. Or knowing that the consequences of something you did would hurt someone.
And theater? Song? Philosophy? To be able to abstract your feelings and communicate them in a form that is pleasing as well as thoughtful is another amazing human invention. To rationalize in a systematic and convincing fashion? This furthers our understandings of things and allows us to look at things beneath the surface. The lion sees the sun setting in the west, but we can understand it to mean that this side the earth has turned away from the sun. We then associate night with different things, and even feel inspired to communicate those associations. The lion sees his dead prey and all he can think about his food. We see a dead human or something and we feel remorseful or sad. Or we feel alive and happy (if you're psychotic). We associate primal things with ourselves and in the grand scheme of things, beyond what any other creature can do.
Humans are capable of a many great and wonderful things. We are also capable of terrible things. We are the only creature that is self-reflective and able to think outside of itself. So, why us?
Now I understand that someone might read this and say, "Dylan you're retarded." That's great. Thales of Miletus posited in the 5th century BC that everything is, in some way, made of water. Obviously he was wrong but he made an observation based on what was known at the time (at least to him) and made a rational argument for it. If I am similarly at fault, I would be happy to chat. I am always happy to admit not knowing something.
And maybe I can make someone think. Or maybe these are just
Animalistic Musingings.
Counting Chickens
Well... the results are in and out of the 101 people who auditioned, maybe about 40 or so got called back. Yours truly... was not one of them. Yes, I know, I know I was confident--even going as far to say, "I'll let you know how call-backs go." But that obviously won't be happening and now I don't have a good reason to skip my awful personality theory class, much less drop it.
I think I didn't make call-backs (and here is not the time for me to be self-deprecating or insecure) because for the FIVE male roles (for the entire semester) that I was going to be going for, I don't fit the description for any of them in the slightest. One was a sixteen year old boy which I haven't been able to pull off since Freshman year, and the other four were men 30+ which I won't be able to pull of til after I graduate. I won't say that I didn't get called back because I'm not good or the monologue was a bad choice or the directors just don't like me (which is still highly possible), but I will say that maybe they didn't want to bother calling me back because I just don't fit the descriptions of the characters.
I think that's fair, right? Sure, I would have at least liked the chance to read for the characters and maybe change their mind. But hey, you win some, you lose some.
And no, I would never work backstage. I've never aspired to do work behind-the-scenes and I won't start now.
Still, I would be lying to say I wasn't hurt and mildly devastated since I had the impression that I would be in good favor for these parts. Regardless, the six year-old thing to do would be to cut off all friendships I've made in the theater department as a public protest of the unfair treatment I've received and a demonstration that I don't really care about any of this.
But I'm not six and that's not right so I guess the grown-up thing to do is to say, "It's fine, they didn't want to waste their time or mine on characters that I wouldn't even look like," and to remain friends with everyone and a familiar face around the department so everyone is constantly reminded of me and hope to the Lord and all his grace that somehow I'll catch a break.
So for those keeping score, that's 1/4 failures for this semester and 1/4 successes. The Radio Show (name pending) is still quite up in the air. I received an email from the director saying I should come to his office on Thursday to discuss the equipment and answer and questions I might have. So... it's highly possible that this could be happening by next week. I'm going for Wednesday at 5pm or sometime Monday-Friday before 2pm. We'll see.
And the other potential success? Not looking great, but we'll see. The semester is young but I think it might be aiming a little high on this one.
But I'll try to hold future speculations and/or predictions about my future lest I be...
counting chickens prior to emerging from their eggs.
I think I didn't make call-backs (and here is not the time for me to be self-deprecating or insecure) because for the FIVE male roles (for the entire semester) that I was going to be going for, I don't fit the description for any of them in the slightest. One was a sixteen year old boy which I haven't been able to pull off since Freshman year, and the other four were men 30+ which I won't be able to pull of til after I graduate. I won't say that I didn't get called back because I'm not good or the monologue was a bad choice or the directors just don't like me (which is still highly possible), but I will say that maybe they didn't want to bother calling me back because I just don't fit the descriptions of the characters.
I think that's fair, right? Sure, I would have at least liked the chance to read for the characters and maybe change their mind. But hey, you win some, you lose some.
And no, I would never work backstage. I've never aspired to do work behind-the-scenes and I won't start now.
Still, I would be lying to say I wasn't hurt and mildly devastated since I had the impression that I would be in good favor for these parts. Regardless, the six year-old thing to do would be to cut off all friendships I've made in the theater department as a public protest of the unfair treatment I've received and a demonstration that I don't really care about any of this.
But I'm not six and that's not right so I guess the grown-up thing to do is to say, "It's fine, they didn't want to waste their time or mine on characters that I wouldn't even look like," and to remain friends with everyone and a familiar face around the department so everyone is constantly reminded of me and hope to the Lord and all his grace that somehow I'll catch a break.
So for those keeping score, that's 1/4 failures for this semester and 1/4 successes. The Radio Show (name pending) is still quite up in the air. I received an email from the director saying I should come to his office on Thursday to discuss the equipment and answer and questions I might have. So... it's highly possible that this could be happening by next week. I'm going for Wednesday at 5pm or sometime Monday-Friday before 2pm. We'll see.
And the other potential success? Not looking great, but we'll see. The semester is young but I think it might be aiming a little high on this one.
But I'll try to hold future speculations and/or predictions about my future lest I be...
counting chickens prior to emerging from their eggs.
Terrible
I've been awful at keeping this up, sincerely. I mean, the last post was WEDNESDAY of LAST WEEK? Where have I been? Okay I had a night class Wednesday night so that might be it.. But i didn't even talk about Acting 2... it's not like Thursday was a trying night. Anyway, let me backtrack and cover some ground.
Acting 2 was last Thursday morning, preceding the ever-awful philosophy/lit and social psych. It wasn't bad. Mary Lechter is our modestly famous acting teacher who really knows what she is doing. We did some pantomiming and went over the syllabus which is very, very work intensive. But so far, so good. I think it will be a fun class, maybe. Either way, if I don't get casted in a play, I will be doing some sort of acting.
Ugh the problem with retrospective posts is that I'm not always 100% on what I did in a day. So I completely don't know what I did Thursday night or Friday. I can't imagine it was too exciting. Well Thursday was Theater convocation where all the teachers, officers of the Mason Players, and interested students gathered to discuss the upcoming year... wooo.... boring. And Friday was a preliminary sit-down reading of the two upcoming studio shows this semester. So I guess that was that.
Saturday went with some friends to the Kennedy Center to see a Mister Paul Laudiero (remember that name because he's going to be famous in some capacity) perform in a page-to-stage of "Still Beating Hearts" which he and his cast-mates were fantastic in. Then traveled to 14th St. in DC to watch him do an improv show. I always feel so classy and hip when I go to these things. Like one of those quintessential art guys.
Sunday was chill. Nothing to report.
Labor day I did some work with Paul on our monologues for today's audition as well as did some homework for phil/lit.
Today was a big day though. Got up, went to work with Paul some more (since he changed his monologue last minute), and went to my two classes for the day. Then I sat around a bit and went to my very first Krav Maga class. Seriously, from Day 1 the instructor was kicking my butt. Warm ups alternating between strafing and running backwards, stance work, punching form, and how to get out of a frontal choke-hold (as well as counter-attacks) was certainly more intense than I ever imagined. I feel that this will be a lot of fun and will be beneficial if I can learn it and practice it and internalize it. The worst workout was the non-stop punching, push-ups, punching exercise during which I literally thought I was going to die.
Afterwards I quickly showered and went off to audition for the GMU Players Fall 2010 lineup. My monologue was, as it turns out, a compilation from Mark Twain's Excerpts from Adam's Diary which is actually a hilarious bit of literature. The actual audition went wonderful. I hopefully made the judges laugh for potentially the first time all night and overall felt good. Callbacks are all night tomorrow night and so I'll definitely be missing my Personality Psych class.
The rub is that for all of the shows, they want to practice wednesday night while i have this class so I potentially have to drop it and pick up something else... ugh. What a pain. Hopefully keeping that class won't affect my chances of getting casted. I guess I could always ask.
I'll be sure to update on how call-backs go and, of course, how the final cast posting goes.
Oh and a few nights ago I had a slight inkling to work some on my novels. And plus with my beginning Krav Maga training, I might have more inspiration to do so. Maybe this thing is working after all?
Either way, when it comes to posting, I'll try not to be too
terrible.
Acting 2 was last Thursday morning, preceding the ever-awful philosophy/lit and social psych. It wasn't bad. Mary Lechter is our modestly famous acting teacher who really knows what she is doing. We did some pantomiming and went over the syllabus which is very, very work intensive. But so far, so good. I think it will be a fun class, maybe. Either way, if I don't get casted in a play, I will be doing some sort of acting.
Ugh the problem with retrospective posts is that I'm not always 100% on what I did in a day. So I completely don't know what I did Thursday night or Friday. I can't imagine it was too exciting. Well Thursday was Theater convocation where all the teachers, officers of the Mason Players, and interested students gathered to discuss the upcoming year... wooo.... boring. And Friday was a preliminary sit-down reading of the two upcoming studio shows this semester. So I guess that was that.
Saturday went with some friends to the Kennedy Center to see a Mister Paul Laudiero (remember that name because he's going to be famous in some capacity) perform in a page-to-stage of "Still Beating Hearts" which he and his cast-mates were fantastic in. Then traveled to 14th St. in DC to watch him do an improv show. I always feel so classy and hip when I go to these things. Like one of those quintessential art guys.
Sunday was chill. Nothing to report.
Labor day I did some work with Paul on our monologues for today's audition as well as did some homework for phil/lit.
Today was a big day though. Got up, went to work with Paul some more (since he changed his monologue last minute), and went to my two classes for the day. Then I sat around a bit and went to my very first Krav Maga class. Seriously, from Day 1 the instructor was kicking my butt. Warm ups alternating between strafing and running backwards, stance work, punching form, and how to get out of a frontal choke-hold (as well as counter-attacks) was certainly more intense than I ever imagined. I feel that this will be a lot of fun and will be beneficial if I can learn it and practice it and internalize it. The worst workout was the non-stop punching, push-ups, punching exercise during which I literally thought I was going to die.
Afterwards I quickly showered and went off to audition for the GMU Players Fall 2010 lineup. My monologue was, as it turns out, a compilation from Mark Twain's Excerpts from Adam's Diary which is actually a hilarious bit of literature. The actual audition went wonderful. I hopefully made the judges laugh for potentially the first time all night and overall felt good. Callbacks are all night tomorrow night and so I'll definitely be missing my Personality Psych class.
The rub is that for all of the shows, they want to practice wednesday night while i have this class so I potentially have to drop it and pick up something else... ugh. What a pain. Hopefully keeping that class won't affect my chances of getting casted. I guess I could always ask.
I'll be sure to update on how call-backs go and, of course, how the final cast posting goes.
Oh and a few nights ago I had a slight inkling to work some on my novels. And plus with my beginning Krav Maga training, I might have more inspiration to do so. Maybe this thing is working after all?
Either way, when it comes to posting, I'll try not to be too
terrible.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
RE: blog project
In last night's post I mentioned that this thing doesn't seem to be working out too well.
Well I would like to qualify that by saying that like taking medicine, it takes time to work.
Hah! Self-justification!
Well I would like to qualify that by saying that like taking medicine, it takes time to work.
Hah! Self-justification!
New class and radio show
Today was a standard day. One that will probably serve as the epitome of a productive day at college and what is potentially a routine for wednesday.
Got up, went to the gym, went go get food, ate food, reviewed some cds, went to the Broadside office, worked on a story, didn't talk to my editor about my lack of power, reviewed my monologue, co-hosted Martin's radio show, went to class, ate, now typing.
And that's about that.
Tonight's class was Psychology 324: Personality Theory. It was... painful; so painful I started doodling. Well it's not that the class will be boring as much as it will be awkward and slow. I think the material will be interesting but the professor is way too into things and borderline oblivious. He had the audacity to split us into groups to figure out what personality was. Not only do I not like group work in college (since we're above that, right?), but it's mainly that I don't like sitting around talking about what we will be talking about. And yes, I recognize that the entire first week of classes is pretty much talking about what we will be talking about, but it's just so boring and I really just want to get into. This guy dragged the whole class [metaphorically] kicking and screaming through a boring lesson that was mainly just a preview of what we will actually be covering next class. Suffice it to say, there was no reason for us to be there even two hours of the potential two hours and forty minutes of the allotted class time.
Tomorrow: Acting 2! Which I'm legitimately excited about because it will be a fun class and hopefully not be an excruciating 3 hours of note taking.
So tomorrow: New class. Hopefully within two weeks: a radio show.
Got up, went to the gym, went go get food, ate food, reviewed some cds, went to the Broadside office, worked on a story, didn't talk to my editor about my lack of power, reviewed my monologue, co-hosted Martin's radio show, went to class, ate, now typing.
And that's about that.
Tonight's class was Psychology 324: Personality Theory. It was... painful; so painful I started doodling. Well it's not that the class will be boring as much as it will be awkward and slow. I think the material will be interesting but the professor is way too into things and borderline oblivious. He had the audacity to split us into groups to figure out what personality was. Not only do I not like group work in college (since we're above that, right?), but it's mainly that I don't like sitting around talking about what we will be talking about. And yes, I recognize that the entire first week of classes is pretty much talking about what we will be talking about, but it's just so boring and I really just want to get into. This guy dragged the whole class [metaphorically] kicking and screaming through a boring lesson that was mainly just a preview of what we will actually be covering next class. Suffice it to say, there was no reason for us to be there even two hours of the potential two hours and forty minutes of the allotted class time.
Tomorrow: Acting 2! Which I'm legitimately excited about because it will be a fun class and hopefully not be an excruciating 3 hours of note taking.
So tomorrow: New class. Hopefully within two weeks: a radio show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)