Beautiful ! ?

Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is in the mind. The eye seperated from the body is a useless jelly ball, a convenient dessert for any hungry animal living on this treacherous planet that's lucky enough to stumbles across the nutricious slippery ball sac of impotent goo. It is the working human brain that sees, not the eyes. And within this brain resides the conscious mind; the creator of thoughts with the ability to contemplate the idea of beauty. I know that animals can see, they have eyes some of which work better than mine, but I wonder if any can comprehend beauty. Not that it is that simple. Beauty is such a broad and general quality. It is defined as anything that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind. People, animals , plants, buildings, machines, rocks. . . all are generic things that can evoke such strong emotions. Beauty seems to come from an infinite amount of sources. But it is more complicated then that. Not every flower blooms velvet petals, not every car is a Ferrari, and not every women has a gap between her milk teeth. I found the new blog post on beauty the most interesting by far. It asks about the perception of beauty. Is it a socio-cultural construct? And what are other forms of beauty? But the only examples of beauty it provides is the beauty inherent in women. Ah, the exquisite human female. I know all to well the allure of the ravishing feminine form. The sudden shortness of breath, the encompassing spread of fluster throughout the body, the primal compulsion to wanna smack that ass. The image of an attractive girl is sometimes enough to make even the most repressed individual scream out, "Daaaamn!" But beauty is far more profound then just the fertile human female. What about art? What about the beauty in the stars that shine in the heavens? Sexuality isn't difficult to understand. Of course it's influenced by society and culture. After all, you're most likely to only reproduce with the people who live around you. But it's mostly influenced by biology. The squared-jaw in a man is evidence of a high level of testosterone which is capable of developing strong muscles which is crucial if protecting and providing for a family. Large breasts, big-eyes, small nose, a pointy chin and child bearing hips result from high estrogen levels which prepare the body for ovulation and produce visual cues that a women is capable of producing healthy offspring. Indeed it seems that what we think is beautiful in a person is actually preconditioned by the environment and driven by our instincts for reproduction. But attraction is completely fickle. Just ask the criminal that's been locked away from women for twenty years or the person who wakes up next to a coyote (a person so ugly you'd rather gnaw through your own arm you have around the person then to wake them up) in the morning after a drunken night of binge drinking. Beauty is influenced but not necessarily constructed completely by culture, society and genetics. Which brings me back to the statement, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." The meaning behind this statement is "beauty is subjective." I think this is true. What is beautiful to me will most likely escape or even disgust you. But isn't it interesting that we all share the capacity to understand beauty. It's like fingerprints or tiger stripes. Though every human has fingerprints and every tiger has stripes the way they are displayed is unique to the individual. So what is this beauty? Where does it come from? And what constructs it? I believe the answer is consciousness, or being aware. I feel like I've been writing for a long time now and I don't want to seem redundant or lose the interest of any readers so I'll conclude with this story about Claude Monet's paintings that I read from Joe Dispenza's book Evolve your Brain. For those unfamiliar with Monets's art seeing his work for the first time you might be unimpressed. You may think the impressionistic pastel landscapes are bland and unrealistic and have little to no beauty. Now if I told you that Monet was a man who worked diligently at seeing things different from the common man. He loved light and colors and spent countless hours thinking about how they are connected to our reality and how to portray them on canvas. As he got older he developed cataracts which diffused and blurred his vision. Since he only painted things he could see the impressionistic dots that typified his work were actually the way he percieved reality. Now, if you look again at his paintings with this new found knowledge, you'll probably be more inclined to see their beauty. His paintings didn't change, it was fresh awareness that altered your experience. Hence, consciousness is the constructer of beauty. And the more knowledge you gain, the more aware of your environment, the higher the level of your mind's consciousness, the more easily it will be for you to percieve beauty. Love it!

Exploitation

Well I'm just gonna come out and say it. Karen Blixen is a self-righteous five letter word. Feel free to pick your own favorite five letter word. I know some of you can feel me on that. For those of you who are asking themselves, "Who's Blixen?" Blixen is the one quoted at the beginning of the class handout A Voyeur's Paradise ... Images of Africa who compares African natives to ants that you poke with a stick. The nerve of someone refering another human being to that of an insect is just plain old rude. No offense ants. So what if you don't have wings like your cooler cousins, the wasps, your highly developed social structure based on chemical information and your go get attitude makes you a fascinating creature that deserves respect. But come on we're human. And humans deserve respect. Except for Blixen. She doesn't deserve respect. Not for her work on Out of Africa. I want to know who she is, where she came from, when she wrote that, and what the heck was she doing in Africa? I thought Vera's point, when highlighting the tendecy of the invader to "reduce the act of invasion to child play," to be extremely revealing. My biggest question. If Blixen was using Ants as a simile for Africans, then what the heck did 'poke a stick into their ant-hill' mean? With the all the terrible things you learn about when studying history I bet I don't even want to know. I can take a good guess. Sticks are synonymous with really big guns and ant-hills with villages . . . homes . . . and beds. Stories of human exploitation, depressing and enraging as they are, do serve a beneficial purpose. They're a reminder that humans are not perfect. We are a work in progress. We are an evolving species on a precarious journey that leads to higher and higher states of consciousness. And that the one supreme and true 'race' is all in it together. The Human Race!
Love it

African Documentary Films

What do we mean when we talk of African documentary films? There probably is a canon, an authority that defines the genre but like any other self-respecting individual I have never been one for authority. You see, we get in trouble when we try to attatch an ultimate definition to well, anything. The world, better yet the universe, does not work like that. Nothing is black and white, instead, we swim in a vast gray ocean which is our reality. In my experience, it is the people who see the world as black or white, right or wrong, my way or your'e going to hell and burned away that are (in the depths of their soul) truly unhappy with themselves and the world in which they live in. This is because they subconsciously struggle with the self created hypocrisys that inevitably cross their path as they experience occasions that contridict what they believe is the truth.

With that in mind let us contemplate the meaning of "African." What does that even mean, African? One would assume something or someone pertaining or originating from the great continent of Africa. That seems like a simple enough definition. Zebras? African. Florida? Not African. The Nile? African. Jackolope? Well, who knows what the hell that is? The point is isn't it easy to define what is African and not? And the truth is no, it is not. Because the truth is and will always be subjective. Meaning, that it is all up to or in the mind of who your'e asking the question. And this truth, this decision, (whether we know it or not) is influenced by one's culture, education, spirituality, family, etc. etc. And the truth varies widely from nation to nation, city to city, person to person. The reason is because "truth" isn't some objective material thing out there that can be measured and ultimately defined. The truth is an idea. Truth is whatever you want the truth to be.

Let me return back to the discussion on how "African" a documentary can be. Is a documentary about Africa made by a non-African truly African? Well according to my definition of pertaining or originating from Africa then the answer is, yes. However, it is likely (and just as credible) that someone's definition of an "African" documentary is a film that has to have been produced, directed, and starred by people who were born and raised in Africa. This means that a film made in Africa, about Africa, by non-Africans is not "African." Who is right?. Which definition is true? The answer is both, and neither at the same time. It is completely up to you. All we can do is try to make as rational of a decision as we can given the information and knowledge we our given to strive for a level of truth that can be universaly recognized as the most true by all. And just love it man!