OMG TOK

Body piercing is the practice of puncturing or cutting a part of the human body, creating an opening in which jewlery may be worn. This is a type of body modification. Piercings are interesting for me because, like tattoos, they have these acceptability cycles. In many ancient civilizations, body piercings were percieved with positive attitude. Egyptians are thought to have pierced for reasons of status and honor. Moreover, piercings accentuated a persons beauty in ancient Egypt. The Romans pierced their nipples as a sign of virility, and slaves had genital piercings in order to prevent accidents when they acted as gladiators. Aztecs and Mayans were also in the mix, and are most recognised for the tongue piercings a well as several ear piercings. Shammans, for example, are often portrayed as heavily pierced. Both of these cultures used piercings as a means to intimidate opponents in battle. What I intend to portray via these examples is that piercings were regarded as something positive, however this changed with time.  Throughout most of the 20th century, for example, piercings were not as widely seen and their representation was not positive anymore. People with piercings were rebellious, criminals, outcasts. However, that has, once again, changed recently. People rebelled in years such as the 60′s and piercings are now more accepted. One can observe how places like Italy have an abundant piercing culture with their own set of conceptions different from the ones in the west. For example, in countries like the US, people with some piercings in their right ear are percieved as homosexuals. Moreover, one does not often see children pierced. However, in Italy, children are seen with piercings and it is not weird, and the whole right ear = gay conception is unexistant. However, I think to myself what is it about piercings that has made them so ambivalent in the accpetable spectrum? First of all, I thought about the term body modification. From a religious standpoint, it is my opinion that to modify’s one body would not suit well with beliefs such as christianity. From previous observations and knowledge, I gather that any way in which one violates what God has given a person is considered offensive and wrong. Therefore, by modifying the way your body looks you create a conflict with several religious movements. As I researched, I was initially surprised that Rastafarians do not allow body piercings, but my shock quickly faded. One of their most vital doctrines is the fact that the body of a rastafari must always, underany circumstance, remain whole. This explains the long dreadlocks. The fact that some cultures view piercings as a desacrament (i dont really know if that is a word) of the bodty could explain a reason for the antipathy towards piercings. On the contrary, piercigns are viewed by many asan artform, which, in my opinion, is a reason to consider it as a good thing. People with piercings and tattoos often refer to their own bodies as a type of canvas or other artistic element where one can display the beauty of art. In this case, the art is the piercing itself. People pride themselves on being able to look beautiful with a piercing, and choosing the right one to match their characteristics as a human being. Piercings also reflect a sense of rebellion in a person, and people are often attracted or amazed by this type of behavior. However, as I have explored in previous journals (music), popularity is not necessarly a good quality. In this case, the fact that many people regard piercings as “cool” is not a good enough reason for me to qualify them as acceptable. Personally, I think they are art and people have the right to show off their body in whatever way they desire. Piercings, though, remain a kind of lesser taboo in our society. One often sees people nervous before getting one, not only because of the physical pain associated but also due to the fact that other people will have varying opinions on their newly acquired art piece. I personally would like to get a piercing (i used to want double conebells in the eyebrow but was convinced by a friend i should get a captive ring or a circular conebell; im going for the circular conebell), yet I would not dare to do it until I turn 18, simply because I know my family wont aproove. Even when Im 18 they would not aproove, yet the fact that I am more grown would affect their perception. This relates again, to a person’s right to modify their own body. Parents have control not only over their children’s bodies, but many other aspects, until they are of certain age and it is not different for me. XD. 

Marijuana refers to any preparation of the cannabis plant into a form which can be consumed as a drug by humans.  Because of its status as a drug, marijuana has gained a taboo status which, in turn, has created many misconceptions regarding its use. My following blog is not regarding the origins, effects, or any other details revolving marijuana (though it may contain some of these), but rather the implications of its legalization. 

Marijuana has already been legalized in certain places, most notably the Netherlands. It is important to remember that prostitution is also legal in the Netherlands, which creates a perspective that this is a much more liberal country than say, Costa Rica. One could argue that Costa Rica has also legalized prostitution (as far as I know it has), yet there are many laws and restrictions which make it harder for people to legally access this service, in contrast with Amsterdam where it is at your feet. However, why is it that the Netherlands has successfully legalized marijuana and Costa Rica seems to be nowhere near this? When I say successfully I base it on characteristics such as the features the Netherlands offer for smokers, such as coffee shops, tasting cups, etc. Part of the reason is the religious background of each country. CR seems to have a much more intricate religious system which rules people lives even more that in the Netherlands. And this is just an example of a cultural factor which affects a political decision. Moreover, the reason also lies in the political “gameplan” of each country. It appears that, by legalizing marijuana, the Netherlands has drastically increased tourism and reduced a certain section of crime. By this I mean that by allowing citizens to legally acquire cannabis they have eliminated the need of drug dealers and druglords exponentially. To further combat these criminal offenders, the Netherlands has a tolerant view towards cannabis farmers, allowing them to grow their own cannabis for personal use. This has not been effective globally, however, seeing that Spain also allows home owners to grow cannabis yet they remain somewhat entrenched in drug conflicts. This, however, does not seem to be the strategy of CR. CR believes that taboos will keep people away, while the Netherlands seems to believe that by removing taboos, people won’t need to glorify something like marijuana. From the criminological point of view, the Netherlands strategy seems to be better.

The legalization of marijuana seems to boost tourism in Amsterdam, and CR is a country very much dependant on tourism, but does this mean CR should consider legalizing marijuana? Yes, CR should consider legalizing marijuana for the aforementioned factors, yet consideration does not imply acceptance. Personally, I would agree with the government considering it because I believe one should consider every possibility, yet I don’t believe CR is an apt country for marijuana to be legal in. First off, the rate of acceptance would probably be very low, and, secondly, the government would not be able to fully regulate it. 

The legalization of marijuana, throughout history, has had another major implication. This is referred to as the spiritual use of cannabis. Throughout history, many religions have adopted drugs as ways to meditate and get closer to their gods. Probably the most popular one is the rastafari movement. However, the ties of marijuana to a taboo are so strong that rastafaris are suddenly seen as dirty, ill intentioned, unwise people. Most people don’t realize they are following their religion and that their perception is not ultimate. Moreover, the “banning” of rastafaris is so strong even music tied to it is seen as incorrect. Robert Nesta Marley, the musician popularly known for the invention of reggae, is widely seen as a dirty, weed smoking, crazy man, without considering his musical innovation and importance for the rastafari movement. Personally, I really like his music yet I have been witness to the misconceptions people associate with it. Once, I plugged my iPod into my sister’s car and listened to Bob Marley, when my sister turned worried and asked why I was listening to pot music. She acted as if I had been smoking in front of her, when in fact I was just listening to a genre of music which I, personally, don’t associate with marijuana. I see the connection, of course, but I don’t relate the act of listening to reggae to the act of smoking cannabis. The legalization of marijuana due to a religious factor is an aspect that should be taken very seriously. If a certain group of people faithfully believe in its use for a closer intimacy with their spiritual god, then who is there to say they shouldn’t be able to do it? Who, in the first place, classified marijuana as a hard drug? In my opinion, marijuana has more characteristics associated with social drugs (alcohol, nicotine) than with other harder, more violent drugs (cocaine, meth). My reason for this is the very characteristics of cannabis. So far, there is no substantial evidence in favor of condemning marijuana as an addictive drug. However, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the body does not create a biological addiction to it, as it does with nicotine or alcohol. There are, however, claims that people do develop psychological addiction, yet this is just a fancy term to describe people who continually use it. Unlike people addicted to nicotine, anyone who smokes cannabis and quits will have absolutely no withdrawal effects or secondary, undesirable, conditions. They may want to go back, but this is strictly a desire, not a need. Going back, to the religious point of view, it is reasonable that people whose religion includes the use of cannabis are attempting to be permitted to use it. This, for them, is just like praying for Christians. From this point of view, I personally would like to agree with the legalization of marijuana.

            The legalization of marijuana is something that cannot be easily discussed on a worldwide basis. There are many aspects revolving around this important decision, such as economic, cultural, and religious factors. 

Music is part of the Arts, therefore it is one of the most subjective areas. However, I wonder why it is that music has such a great impact and influence on society, even more so than its artistic brethren. I think it is saef to say that all of the areas within the Art AOK have equal or similar subjectivity, and even if there is no real way to measure this, it is quite obvious that all of them depend on an individual approach in order to be determined. For example, in all artistic areas, the matter of taste is 100% subjective, since a person can enjoy listening to certain music or viewing certain paintings another person may find completely repulsive. In my own, personal case, music is a very fervent passion. I live for music, i listen to it every second i can and am very picky with the music i listen to. Im not saying i stick to limited music genres, in fact, my taste varies a lot, yet my liking to a certain kind of group is determined by many factors and within this grading is where i become picky. As a brief example, I must mention my opinion regarding reggaeton. I consider it to be the lowest form of music there is (I barely think of it as music). My reason for this involves the basic rythms and beats as well as corny lyrics and lack of instrumental congruity (what i mean is how the instruments come together). However, some people might argue that reggaeton music is very danceable and popular, therefore it is good music. Even though I strongly disagree with this way of grading music, I can’t say it is wrong because mine is just as right. After all, it all comes down to personal opinion and taste.

Moving on, I do find however, that when compared to other art forms, music seems to be more capable of moving people. Music has moved society in a much grander scale than any other art form i can currently think of. It is true that during the renaissance, visual arts played a huge role in inspiring society. However, they were not directed to as big an audience as music was in say, the 60s, with such a big rate of success. Music in the 60s created a new culture, a new society if you will, in which many of todays living standards and cultural norms are based. Rebellious teenagers, music as a bad influence, the superiority of younger generations, the populatrity of music itself, etc are all quialities that live on which were created by music. Music is not only a popular art form, it is one capable of moving the massess. Musicians are stars, celebrities, yet their artistic brothers and sisters don’t get as much attention. We don’t see nobel prize winners for literature throwing a huge party or top notch paintors in a club. However, the fact that these people appear classier, and, in a way, superior, puts into question wether the popularity of music is a good or bad characteristic. 

On second thought, I can think of another, very moving, artform. Architecture. Of course it has extreme influence in society, yet it has influenced in a different part of society. rchitecture influences the way we live. Music influences the way we are. One often sees people be qualified as goths, emos, scene, punks, metalheads, rockers, etc, and this way of classifying people is quite obviously related to the music they listen to. These people not only listen to these genres, they live them. Thus, music has become a way for people to shape their lives around, making it the art form with the utmost ability to shape the way people live. 

After discussing language for such a long time, Ihave noticed something I overlooked before in my everyday life involving thiss WOK. Almost every day I log into MSN Messenger and chat with people and it is until now that I discover that this is a rich medium to discover the ways in which people mark the difference between oral and other types of conversation. One specific aspect which caught my attention was the use of capital letters to express emotions. More specifically, extreme emotions. The only cases in which I have oberved people use capital letters are whn they are either extremely angry or extremly joyful (excluding the possibility, of course, that they did so mistakenly). To me, it is very interesting how something can be a sign for emotions that are not necessarily linked to the usage of capital letters. I mean, why capital letters?? My first thought was to link it to the emphasis capitals give to a phrase amongst so many lower case letters. It is true that capitals make words stand out but this definitely does not account for the specific emotions attached to them. I mean, if I write “HAHAHAHAHAHA” it is not the same as writing “hahahahaha”. True, they are perfect examples because they express joy, but when using the same technique with words that are associated emotion there is a different reaction. For example, when saying “SHE DIED” vs. “she died”, the emotion expressed by the capitals changes from the default emotion. The second phrase expresses sadness at the very least, however, once capitlas are added the emotion completely changes to one of shock or surprise. It could even be interpreted as an angry response depending on the context. It is very interesting to oberve how a simple visual change can alter the meaning of a group of symbols, even though their message is exactly the same.

I find myself wondering wether it is the actual capital letters which convey a message to us or wether we are the ones who give a messae to the capitals with no apparent reason? Is it both? I can’t answer these questions to perfection but it is my personal opinion that it is us the ones who give meaning to these alterations of writing. It is completely our responsibility and I have no reason to believe why it is rational to see capitals as attached to emotions. However, I myself have to admit that I inevitably do it as well. Why inevitably? Because that is the influence society has on me, it forcesme to accept some norms are default based on certain characterisitics of our everyday life.

I also wonder why we have attached such specific emotions to the use of capital letters. I have accepted the fact that emotions in general can be created by the way we capitalize, but why anger and joy specifically?? Again, my first thought is that these emotions are, in a way, ”stronger” emotions or ones whcih carry a greater sense of impact when displayed. Other emotions, such as sadness or embarassment, can be said to be more passive.   Why? Well the way we react to joy and anger is different from the way we act towards sadness and embarassment. Usually, fear or anger itself is the reaction to anger, and happiness or excitement is the reaction to joy. These are all emotions which have stronger reactions. We seem to associate the emphasis given by capital letters to our own reaction when being presented this emotion or to our own feeling when we have that emotion.

Capital letters used in instant messaging have been related to the expression of very specific emotions we experience almost on a daliy basis. Wether this is because capital letters have a direct effect on us or wether we give them the interpretation we choose to, it is important to note that the influence of society’s standards is very present in cases like this.

Wikipedia:

“In mathematics, the complex numbers are an extension of the real numbers obtained by adjoining an imaginary unit, denoted i, which satisfies: ”

As you can see, this is an issue.  First of all, complex numbers are outside the realm of the real numbers, or at least not inside it (even though that comment may seem irational it is actually very true considering the implications for these fields) . Complex numbers were immediately rejected when they were first shown off. One of the biggest problems was the usage of negative numbers to express the results of these equations. Even though negative numbers had been around for a long time, mathematicians were still skeptical towards them. Their reasoning was very practical, which doesn’t necessarily agree with the purely mathematical view one must have in order to accept the negatives existence. Basically, mathematicians thought that one could never have less than 0 in time, measurements, apples, cattle, etc. However, in India, negatives were soon found to be useful in the area of economics to represent debt.

However, the case of complex numbers is different. A huge problem is that it does not completely belong to the realm of real numbers, seeing as it is an algebraically closed field while all real number fields are open. This, in very basic terms, indicates that complex numbers are not what many mathematicians considered as a number, since it is not real and thus it doesnt exist.

To analyze a complex number in very practical terms (which will, obviously, create a conflict since complex numbers are thought to be used exclusively as purely mathematics) i will make use of a very simple equation (squ = squared; sqrt = square root):

1) squ(x) + 4 = 0 

• Before continuing I wish to comence the practicality: analyze the equation and you will quickly discover that you are looking for a number, represented by x, that when multiplied by itself and added to the number four, will equal zero. Now, analyse it. Analyse it. Analyse it some more. Conclusion: It can’t be done. This is actually what many mathematicians thought and what the average person will tell you today. However, according to the complex number field, it CAN be done. Let us continue to see what I (and the power of mathematics of course) mean. 

The final result was that the number x, which as you might recall needed to be multiplied by itself and then added to 4 to have a result of 0, is equal to 2i. One might see it this way: How can one square root what is not only not there, but is LESS than what is not there? Go ahead: grab 3 sets of 3 marbles per set. You now have 9 marbles. Now, square root that number and you will have 3 marbles, since the sqaure root function is the inverse of the exponential one and your 9 marbles are a result of an exponential function (f(x)) which equals squ(3). It works because all your numbers are real. Now do this: grab -1 marbles and perform an inverse exponential function equation conversion on it. Go ahead, try. That is right, it can’t be done. You can argue that the problem lies in actually getting -1 marbles, but we could say that you owe one marble to someone and your problem is more or less solved. Ok you have a debt, now square root it. To clarify, the process of square rooting is simply to find which number multiplied by itself will give you your initial number. Which number multiplied by itself yields a debt, a negative number? Simple: i. The imaginary number existing within a realm which we just might call “phantasmagoric”.

However, it is necessary to consider complex numbers in another perspective. As imaginary and ostentible as they may seem, complex numbers are, in a way, “real”. They ARE there, seeing as we have found several uses for them in the fields of control theory, signal analysis, improper integrals, quantum mechanics, relativity, applied mathematics, fluid dynamics, and electrical engineering. Not only this, but after looking at the scientific and mathematical history of humanity, we must not be so quick to rule out a theory that seems, at first glance, absurd. More research is needed to fully comprehend complex numbers (I’m not only talking about myself but humans in general), and until a higher level of comprehension can be obtained AND it can be reasonably to taught to an average population will these theory remain buried in the hypothetical “dimension” of mathematics. 

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_Number#Applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

Lately, there has been a lot of controversy revolving a very recent event. The birth of the octuplets has shocked the world and has created many ethical debates which are worthy of noting. Nadya Suleman is now a mother of fourteen, since she already had had 6 children prior to the octuplets. One of the facts that attracts my attention is the fact that all of her kids are in vitro babies, meaning all of them were conceived with in vitro fertilization. Of course, the sheer amount of children is one of, if not the most, important subjects within the wholeness of the discussion. One must wonder if Nadya’s doctors did the right thing when they implanted so many embryos. After all, there are guidelines stating that two is the maximum number of embryos that should be implanted in a woman below the age of 35 (Nadya is 33) and that the amount of kids born should ideally be one. No more. Nadya had eight. Of course, these are ethical guidelines and there is no actual law to forbid a doctor from implanting as many embryos as his/her patient wishes. However, these doctors should have some ethical principals that indicate that it is not appropiate to facilitate the birth of octuplets. First off, it must be noted that it is highly unnatural and against the current biological standards. A woman’s body is simply not designed for eight babies, and there is a high risk of injury or disability for both the mother and the babies. This is, obviously, a direct violation to the hipoccratic oath, which all doctors take before practicing. The oath states that a “doctor shall do no harm”. The very fact that a doctor is increasing the chance for harm in a baby is not a direct violation of what is stated in the oath, yet one can argue that it is not in compliance with what the oath is attempting to accomplish. So the question prevails: did Nadya’s doctors do the right thing? This question can’t be answered until we consider wether or not in vitro fertilization should be more tightly regulated. Apparently, this is a very controversial question. True, it is dangerous and unethical for a woman to have as many children as Nadya did, but, isn’t it unethical at the same time to prevent a woman from becoming a mother? Even if it is for the fourteenth time? I mean, who is there to say the amount of children you are allowed to have? Even though it is not written in any law, society has established a perspective for the acceptable number of children a woman may have. Fourteen is way above. However, society’s perspective is not the only factor one must take into account when deciding wether or not it is acceptable to have as many children. Economics play an important role as well because, naturally, the following question arises from this scenario: is Nadya able to support herself and her children? Of course, she can go to wellfare and recieve all the help she needs, but that is not by any means a perfect solution. First off, tax payers everywhere will wonder why they have to support another person’s children when they should be seeing improvement in other areas for which they also pay taxes. Basically, most people would rather see their commute streets fixed rather than having to pay for a stranger’s offspring. Second, it is important to determine in what kind of conditions will these children live in. Even though Nadya can ask for wellfare, there is just so much she can do with such a limited amount of money and living in a small house with 14 children and her own mom is not something that we can considered as appropiate living conditions.

This is a huge topic and when arguing against or for Nadya’s decision it is important to consider a human’s right to life and a woman’s right to be a mother, but also the living conditions these children will have as well as any medical conditions they could suffer. 

The three blog posts on ethics we had to do for thursday are on dani viquez’s blog. 

The New York Times posted a very interesting article today (December the 4th, 2008). Follow the link if you want to read it (it is 2 pages long so I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t want to, but it is interesting and you would be missing out on something good): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/health/05happy-web.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp.

After reading it, I must say that I feel the study did not provide sufficient evidence for me to at least, partially believe it. One of the main problems I had with it is the measurement of the happiness of an individual. They mention how happiness can bump up in percentages, yet I wonder if there really is an accurate way to measure this emotion, seeing that it is very primal and expressed in so many different ways. After doing some research I learned that happiness has been tried to be measured by other sources. An article on BBC (i didn’t read the whole thing just the fun parts) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4783836.stm, states that happiness could be measured simply by asking a person how happy they are. I have a big problem with this because answers would tend to be very subjective. Another way was to ask people how much money would they have to give them if they were to loose all their friends. The average trend stated that people would sell their friends for 50, 000 pounds. Again, I don’t believe this way to provide enough basis for a scientific experiment. The experiment posted in the first article described how happiness can be contagious, yet they did not come up with a way to measure happiness objectively.Personally, I would need to see a mathematical equation to proove happiness (You will probably own me for that comment but there you go. Enjoy!).

Another aspect with which I don’t agree is the hypothesis itself. The research was expected to proove that the happiness of people around you could affect your own happiness. However, as other scientists correctly mentioned, more often than not we face a happy friend with jealous thoughts. A very competitive person might even be frustrated at his/her own life for not being able to match their friends’ achievements. I bet we have all experienced that, even if some have deeper frustrations than others.

To me, the research also presents a conflict of emotions, since it is said that your neighbors’ mood can affect you more than your spouse’s. I believe this is stating that happiness can be stronger than love, and the intensity of primal emotions is yet another unmeasurable. Another interpretation for this discovery is that foreign happiness can affect you more than the happiness than that of someone you are used to. Even though this could make more sense, I still believe that the happiness of your partner should affect you more, because, in the end this could have a direct impact on your life overall while your neighbor’s happiness will probably not affect you in any other way.

For me (I’m not sure on that prep. correct me if im wrong plz), the research conducted contains many flaws that completely alter the results presented to the audience. Moreover, there are many research “holes” which don’t allow the correct interpretation of data.

By the way, if I don’t specify sources on a post, it’s because the source is Wikipedia.com. Alway assume my source is wikipedia. lolz.

Society is a word that is usually used as if it were a being. Whenever the word society is mentioned, it is immediately followed by a characteristic that this entity has acquired from itself. Yes, society has given society these connotations. I, for one, constantly hear things such as “society tends to discriminate y”, “society has imposed these rules on x “, “it was society the one who forced them to z”. One of the most recurrent sayings is that society judges basing itself on shallow characteristics. In journal #1, I talked about tattoos and their effects and how society perceives them, however, society can judge from much simpler things.

A very common case is clothing. Many people judge others because of the clothes they commonly use. This of course, is a very broad statement, as it can refer to economic wealth, danger a person portrays, preferences, etc. Obviously, a person’s economic wealth is often measured by other people because of what he/she wears. Some years ago, baggy, torn clothes were considered common among poor people. That is still somewhat true today, even though there has been a revolution in terms of what people wear. Many rich people, especially teenagers, wear torn jeans and it generally does not indicate that they are poor. In fact, many wealthy youngsters wear this kind of clothing because of fashion trends and not because of public opinion. However, tuxedos and sport jackets have always kept a certain respect. This is due to the fact that they are some of the wealthier clothes a person can wear, even though it is not always true that a person with a tux is a person with money.

Another common perception people get from clothing is how dangerous a person is. We see it everyday, every time we see the picture of a criminal on TV or of a dangerous rapper convicted for possession of drugs, everyone has formed a mental image of the clothes these people wear. If you were to travel on a public bus, you will often see some people who look more dangerous to you than others, some who are more probable to rob you than others. This is mainly affected by the clothing they wear, even though facial characteristics play a role as well. I actually happen to have a personal example in which I was considered a threat. It was a Saturday and I was wearing some of my worst clothes ever and my dad decided to take me to the Automercado. There, I started browsing through the products (the foreign cheese mini section to be specific, near the vegetable area and before the shampoo part) when I found a camera on the roof. I stared at the camera for a while, partly because I was impressed and partly because of my curious nature. Shortly after, about 4 security guards approached me to question me on my intentions (luckily my dad had wandered off to look for some incense BS) and what I was doing. I must have seemed extremely surprised and they explained to me that the way I looked at the camera and the way I was dressing led them to believe I was a “laja” (no they did not say it like that but that was basically it). This goes to show how someone can be easily mistaken for something they are not, and I was left wandering thereafter about what people who dress even worse or have other accessories have to deal with. It is just the way society behaves and it comes from a long history of assumptions. True, many criminals do wear piercings and tattoos and similar clothing styles and it is better to be wary, but it still demonstrates how prejudicial society can be.