The Heinrich Conversation

What is language? Why can the meaning of something be dramatically changed when a symbol or phonetic character is replaced or omitted? This is what started the conversation about the deconstruction of language with my Father. It came about while I was going through a funny website called Engrish.com. This website features photos of signs in asian countries that have been translated into enlish underneath the Chinese/Japanese/Korean writing. I then proceded to show all of the funny signs that said "take the child...fall carefully into water" or "beware of caution" or a trash can marked "poisonous and evil rubbish". I began to talk with him about how these signs sound rediculous in enlish...but why do they sound redicilous? Do words have a concrete signified attached to them or are they simply generalizations of an accepted signified? He thought I was being rediculous really, like Heinrich's Father was, yet he was astounded that I could carry such an intelligent conversation. Because he had never been taught the meaning of signifiers and signifieds and all the Postmodern lingo, he was confused and resorted to the typical modern response which, although I expected, I did not hope for. He kinda backed off and acted like I was being rediculous because deconstructing the meanings of words is so foriegn to him. (No pun intended) When we use synonyms for words that sound rediculous, is it only because we relate better to the common word for garbage and not "evil rubbish". Although garbage is bad, it is really not evil, as the sign says. But in other languages they see it as evil. Different cultures can have a totally different take on words and how they apply to the objects around us. Phrases that are direct and demanding may sound normal in Chinese while they sound extremely rude in English, but is this not normal? Shouldn't all people use efficient language and say what they mean? Signs that read "Don't Fun" really sound direct and very much like a communist dictator. But other countries see fun as a waste of time. What is fun anyway, can the absence of fun be fun for other people as well? To sum it up, I had a conversation where I talked, he responded with something like "well, they just translate bad" and it went back and forth like that for at least 15 minutes. Eventually I he stopped listening and I got tired of trying to converse so I went to my room to play Call of Duty 4.

Should there be a difference between the character portrayed and the actor's true personality?

It depends, if the acting that they are doing affects their personal lives and thier walk with Christ, then they should not play the role of the character who is doing these unChrist-like things. If the character is genuinely in a true relationship with God, they should be completely seperate in terms of personality between their character and thier true self. If they do not endorse the things that they do in the movie, and do not let it affect them, then they will be fine. An example to prove this is in a school play. If a character is portraying actions that are not congruent with their faith, and they do not mean the lines that they say, it is simply acting. Acting is portraying a part to most reflect the character, not ourselves. This is why the people who act in a movie generally refer to themselves in third person as "the character" because they are not trying to be themselves. The goal of acting is to give someone who has skill in understanding the personality of the implied character, and being able to mimic their actions and attitudes on screen for an audience. It brings art and aesthetic value to the media presented. It does something that most people cannot do. I say that if a Christian swears in a movie, and doesn't promote it, it is actually worthwile in presenting a part.

What is the significance of the girl's interaction with darkness in the poem "Adolescence II"

There are many different interactions with darkness included within the poem "Adolescence II". The first interaction is in the first line where the narrarator states "Although it is night, I sit in the bathroom, waiting". This is significant because the girl hints that she usually doesn't like to be around darkness and that this is a change for her.

Secondly, it states that the "Venetian blinds slice up the moon; the tiles quiver in pale strips". This is also significant because it attaches the word quiver, which implies fear to the tiles which have both darknesss and light resting on them. The seal men are also typically characterized as a dark color because seals are black. They interact with the girl by posing questions that she doesn't know how to answer. They are portrayed as evil, sinister, and menacing creatures. They tend to threaten her as she is in this dissolusioned state.

Thirdly, the although the pools of ink glitter, ink is still representative of darkness. It is almost impossible to get ink out of anything, implying that the darkness she interacts with is always with her in some form or another. She also mentions the ragged holes that the figures leave behind at the edge of darkness. This is interesting because darkness is visualized as her insanity; when she is shrouded in darkness, she hallucinates or at least is not sober. Once the darkness leaves, she starts to become normal again. However, she does not feel normal quite yet, as it states that night (darkness) rests like a ball of fur on her tongue. This is even more substantial and worse than a bitter aftertaste. In the text it provides, we see it as something lingering with her that is almost vomit-inducing. The significance is in the rejection of darkness by the girl. The problem is that she stuggles to escape from it; this is what haunts her and leaves her in such a terrible state of consciousness.

Postmodernism in "Adolescence II"

"Adolescence II" is by far one of the most postmodern literary works I have ever assesed. The only "structure" in the entire poem is that it is broken up into parts of three. The lines could end anywhere that the author wants. There is also no rhyme scheme, although this does not mean that it is not poetry. Some would conclude that rhyming actually limits poetry from creating an image that is understandable to the reader. Speaking of understandability in this poem, it is extremely fragmented. It uses metaphors that I cannot quite understand, like "baby breasts are alert" and it is never mentioned why the person is sitting, waiting in the bathroom at night. The only concrete evidence provided is that the moon shines through the blinds and the tiles apparently shimmer in the moonlight when described as "quivering". Discontinuity is celebrated in this poem. Who are the seal men with round eyes and sharp eyelashes? Why do they bring the scent of licorice? Truly, this is a postmodern piece because it provides no solutions, as if to say "bring on disorder" or "tear down common sense and logic". They say "Can you feel it yet?" and "Well, maybe next time." Still, this is really difficult to understand what they mean. Then, they vanish, leaving ragged holes at the edge of darkness, while darkness rests like a ball of fur on the narrarator's tongue. It may be possible that the person is seeing strange shapes in the dark and it leaves them in fear of darkness. It is as if darkness is personified, interrogating the narrarator and making them feel uncomfortable. It celebrates the absense of light, the only concrete thing that exists is the light. Everything else may be true to them in darkness, but it does not apply to all. This is postmodern because it is accepted and not nesesarrily said that it is true for everyone.

An inadequate understanding of reality?...I THINK NOT!!!

I may be very opinionated in the area of whether or not humans have an accurate understanding of reality, but I think I can prove my point with a detailed, 8th grade paragraph.
First off, I have come to the conclusion that language is not able to describe an object accurately because each word we use is automatically casting an object into a certain known realm, ie: categorizing it. In the poem "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood, she goes on to try and describe "toast" with words. Obviously this is inevitably pointless because she uses examples of how words are unable to capture the "essence" of toast. This is not the purpose of the text; it is to convey to the reader that toast is whatever they want it to be, which always comes back to that terrible meaningless word "thing". When eventually the Snowman says "Forget it"..."Let's try again", and goes on to describe it as a pointless invention from the dark ages and other random things, the author is just being a rebel. This is complete idiocy because if they are trying to prove that humans have an inadequate understanding of reality, this author failed miserably. They forget that the categories into which we place objects vary in specificity depending on the word used. What they did prove is that words eventually become "thing". They forgot that the human mind is virtually limitless. We don't need words. Pictures will do fine; if they are blind, create an object out of a malliable material that closely represents whatever idea you are trying to convey. This eliminates the meaninglessness of words like "thing", "object", "stuff", and "material". The list could go on and on, but humans do have the capacity to experience and understand reality, even if something is just a copy.

The victim of hyperreality?...me

As a child, the media forced its way into my mind; shows that seemed childlike and harmless were only "fake" realities portrayed to confuse and manipulate our generation. I remember watching the animated movie "We're Back" where a kid decides to run away from home and join the circus. The idea of joining the circus was propagated and even enforced in the film as a way to escape the boring world of family life and the struggles that go along with it. This is the opposite of what should have been protrayed to children. The scenario in which a young boy ventures out into the dangerous world and becomes a hero and rescues dinosaurs is completely fiction. Another instance in which I was negatively influenced by hyperreality is in the series "Pokemon". The show with the catchy lyrics saying "I want to be the very best, the best that ever was..." was the one that caused me to feel better than everyone else. I became boastful and prideful. I also played endless hours of the videogame, trying to train all of my Pokemon to level 100 and catch all 151 of them. It was my own little world that I lived in from third to fifth grade. Everything related back to Pokemon and it caused me to look down on other people who I thought less of. This was not a good depiction of reality either though, because kids can't catch dangerous creatures, much less Pokemon. Although it caused me to be a bragging little brat, I had the time of my life in my own little world of Pallet Town and every other city in Kanto.

How does hyperreality effect the American perception of love and relationships?

Hyper-reality is a new term coined by postmoderns to describe the method by which us humans distinguish between reality and fiction. According to Wikipedia, it is most relevant in technologically advanced, postmodern cultures. It is becoming more prevalent in society as things become more and more real. I actually felt like I was in a movie in real life after seeing the film "Cloverfield" and it seemed as though I was looking through a camera lens. The English Oxford dictionary defines "reality" as having objective existence or a place in the domain or reality. These definitions are somewhat vague and do little to let us know what true reality is, making it easy for us to think some things are real when they are not. The American perception of love and relationships is changed by the media. TV shows such as Two and a Half Men and so called "reality tv shows" change the American perception of love and relationships. Everything is disconnected. There is no traditional family values, there are no traditional family relationships and even families are torn apart. One thing that we have to look out for is how our minds are being exposed to this non real world of media. It seems so real, so viable and tangible, but leaves us with nothing but lies and amusement. Love is not real, love becomes what the media portrays it: "a one night stand". Relationships are fragmented and the families who absorb this reality start to have these ideas engraved into their minds. It will eventually infiltrate every crevice of society as the media's ability to create things that seem more and more "real" arises. We must look at it realistically and through a Christian perspective to determine what is correct and incorrect.

How do we as Christians deal with a postmodern world?

In a worldview that celebrates disorder and holds to relativism, it is a challenging hurdle for Christians to take on. As Christians, we must first take on the challenge of relativism by showing people how absurd the level of subjectivity in society is. We believe in objective, concrete truth that is true for all people at all times. We must enforce this with solid evidence and combat the subjectivity with logic and examples of issues that they would call "morally wrong," no matter how postmodern they are. We need to show them that there is a right way to do things and that it is to glorify God. The advantage that Christians have against postmodernism is that it is a relatively indifferent mindset, meaning that it can be altered without too much provocation. If we make sense to them, they may be able to agree with our logic. Whatever they believe is true to them and vice-versa. If they are open to believing that whatever is true for others is ultimately thier reality, they still have the possibility of accepting it.

Why is Captain Jack Sparrow Postmodern?

In Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Jack Sparrow, the infamous and illusive scallywag does whatever he wants without caring about other peoples opinions. He believes that whatever works for him is what is right and "good" and if it doesn't work for others, then so be it. He is so postmodern in his mindset that it sometimes gets him into trouble, not taking others advice and applying it in a most intelligent manner. Although his methods are extremely strange, he almost always gets the job done and that is good enough for him. He doesn't care if anybody else doesn't uphold his ideals and viewpoints, but he would like to see them go along with it anyways. He believes in no universal truths and is willing to compromise the official pirate "code" of parle.
He sees things differently than other people as well; whatever is beneficial to his cause is obviously nothing to be overlooked lightly. Nonetheless, he manages to get himself out of the strangest of circumstances even when it seems that there is no hope. His "reality" is ultimately somewhat patchy due to the excessive alchohol that he drinks, therefore he is postmodern because his line between reality and illusion are undoubtably blurred. And so concludes my blog on the postmodern pirate.

Why include a game about questions in a movie about existence?

Existence is populated with questions, Isn't it?
It we are to truly ponder our existence, it will be impossible to do so without questioning it.
Why are we here? What is our purpose? These are just some of the questions that undoubtably come about when thinking about humanity. A game about questions correctly classifies the film Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead because it makes us think that there are questions that have to be answered. No one can continue forever asking questions, but must find purpose in obtaining the truth. Becasue Rosencrantz and Guildenstern only have a purpose that is assigned to them by authoritative figures, they have a temporary purpose. This purpose will be gone once thier task is complete and then they will realize that they truly have nothing to live for again. Purposelessness only asks questions, it can neither give or remember answers. Answers are for the enlightened, those full of purpose. It asks and does not seek, therefore it completely matches the charaters in which it portrays.

Said with approval?

Horatio tells Hamlet in line 56: "so Rosencrantz and Guildenstern go to it." In this line of text i gathered that he is neither saying it with approval or dissaproval. He is only stating it as a fact. There is no context that proves that his mood is either sorrow or recognition. He is stating it, neither defining whether it is a bad or good thing. It is as if he has lost all emotion within himself and disconnected from the dissolussioned world around him. It almost seems robot-like in the way he says it. It is mysteriously nonchalant. I think that he finally realized that everyone around him was all tied to Hamlet and that everything was inevitable, even the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There was absolutely nothing that he could do to make the situation any better. Therefore, I feel that it is a much needed statement which clearly defines the indifferent attitude of Horatio.