The existential movement draw upon some interesting concepts of the self, however these outlooks seem very alien as far as I am concerned. Sure, living for the now and just by current, sensory impulses seems like an unashamed way to live a life (somewhat embracing Freud’s theory of the id), but to me this ethos seems like a reckless way to experience a life; a life which encounters constant contradictions, never accomplishing any sort of decent existence.
Claiming to be an existentialist comes across as very selfish and unfulfilling, and though they believe to be independent, I believe living, as an existentialist is lonely; or am I just influenced too heavily by my ego?
Existentialists believe you are what you make yourself through your own experiences, but in doing this one rebukes moral responsibility. In their pursuit for certainty via experience, an existentialist does not care about personal responsibility, which really gives them no place in society e.g. when Camus’s protagonist (in “The Outsider) Meursault kills without remorse.
To be a traditional existentialist one must rely on no one and remain in solitude. The existentialist’s search for truth is very lonely, and without sharing experiences, the individual’s search for truth is surely slowed down. More modern existentisalists (who have noted the fact that social interaction is necessary) take a different stance but still an equally bleak outlook, which can be seen for example in Jean-Paul Sartre’s perceptions that relationships are solely established by people's attraction not towards one another but rather how that person makes them feel about themselves by how they look at them. Existentialism is essentially selfish and despite an existentialist’s belief that they are more honest as an individual, they are far more deluded than the worst of philosophers.
Wednesday 27 January 2010
What's the time Mr Wolfe?
Time to begin semester 2!
First on the old reading list is Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House.
The main theme which occurs in this book is that of Architectures are being stubborn in believing that they know what is best for the human condition, which is hidden in a specific style but often leaves a real sense of alienation; he believes people are being badly subjected to the work of very few.
Wolfe enjoys the intricacy of unique buildings and rebukes the "international style" of modern architecture founded by those such as Walter Gropius, who spawned modern architecture, and was the founder of the Bauhaus school. He believed that the people often associated with the buildings they worked in or went to were never appreciated. Furthermore, Wolfe was highly critical of conformism. He believes that architecture has become so international that origin and identity is often lost ("edge of sensory deprivation").
To me, his comments seem ill-informed and lack depth. Though his ideas appear strong and striking in emphasis, the lack of detail on the structures of which he speaks proves very unconvincing and personally comes across as failed propaganda. He comes across as narrow-minded as the movement he hates.
I can agree with him to some extent about how structure's beauty are compromised in favour of function but he doesn't put his point across well at all, and furthermore, for him to try and bundle half a century's worth of architecture into a flimsy, meagre book, and have nothing positive to say does not lie favourably with me.
Tuesday 26 January 2010
The New God Is Dead (Chris Horrie quote)
Don't blame me I'm wired wrong! Agree with this concept or not, Tom Wolfe's essay "Hooking Up" presents a lot of food for thought. He presents the idea of how the id and ego creates a new God.
Wolfe discusses how educated people no longer need a God (as Nietzsche said) and how Nietzsche somewhat prophesied the history of the next two hundred years.
He predicted that the twentieth century would be a century of devastation and astronomical war, as people would no longer have a god to turn to, to rid them of their guilt. However they would still remain very guilty, as guilt is natural, and begin to hate themselves. With the absence of God in their lives, humans would inevitably form barbaric brotherhoods to give a sense of direction and purpose. Clearly there are very blatant parallels between groups, which appeared across Europe during the early 20th Century; most obviously Nazism, which was somewhat of a national barbaric brotherhood.
There is an agreement with neuro-scientists of the 20th Century, both believing that guilt is predetermined at birth, and that those who don't feel guilt are wired genetically incorrectly and cause crime. This is an interesting concept but I strongly disagree as although some humans may very well be born with different perceptions of both right and wrong, inevitably it is an individual's surroundings and outside influence which is the most prominent factor when determining whether a person feels guilt or not.
The essay states that mankind will come out of the end of the 20th Century barely upholding religious moral ethos, but the 21st Century would experience revaluation of moral beliefs and consequently fail due the fact that morals need a God to uphold them. Again there are parallels with Nazi Germany, as although Hitler was at the forefront of barbaric brotherhood. He was trying to establish himself as god-like, and many German’s reveled in this. Were the Germans looking for a new God? Is this a continual circle? Brain imaging?
NEWSPEAK (Assessment): Bittersweet Aspartame
The concept of newspeak i.e. the manipulation of words and beliefs to establish power and profit, can be seen everywhere in the modern world today, from the complex nature of government and infrastructure to the simplicity of everyday normality, the fact remains that it cant be avoided.
Everyday words are modified to keep us clueless and somewhat sedated from the necessary realities. Obvious manipulation of language includes the replacement of the word “war” which is changed to “defense”, or “downsizing” instead of “firing people”. This doctoring of language has become commonplace in our society today, and is widely and unknowingly accepted.
Although this kind of propaganda is not entirely indoctrinating as any vaguely knowing person can scratch beneath the surface to reveal the true meanings of these so-called socially acceptable words. However what happens when the powers that be try to erase any knowledge of something ever happening, thoroughly embracing the world of George Orwell’s 1984?
The problems really arise when the people in power want you to believe something regardless of whether it is harmful or not towards the planet or us.
Today's food industry has seen numerous additives and preservatives removed from our supermarket shelves, with links to a range of illnesses brought on by the need to preserve or greedily cheapen food prices. But what happens when these additives and preservatives are so widely used that to remove them from the products would cause astronomical loses in money? Is it better to go on living with constant health risks not knowing, or does more need to be done to rid such problems? With such uncertainty surrounding the use of aspartame as a sweetener, why has its usage not been suspended until definite outcomes have been revealed?
My inspiration for writing this article comes from a close member of my family who is absolutely adamant that until aspartame was removed from her diet that she was almost constantly experiencing headaches. Consuming two cans of a diet coke a day, she became increasingly worried and came to the conclusion that when she removed the carbonated drinks from her, that her headaches stopped.
With aspartame being drastically cheaper than sugar and its credentials lying in the fact that it is indeed "Sugar Free" gives positive weight, but is aspartame’s positive approach in removing sugar from people’s diet causing real harm?
Aspartame releases aspartate during digestion. Aspartate is a neurotransmitter used by the neurons in the brain. It is a type of excitatory amino acid. Excitatory amino acids are normal and necessary brain chemicals, and as such, they are allowed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Aspartate, the principal chemical component of aspartame, is a neurotransmitter and a type of excitatory amino acid. It is a natural and necessary body chemical. Neurotransmitters cross the blood-brain barrier.
The blood-brain barrier is designed to protect the brain from the invasion of harmful chemicals. When normal neurotransmitters such as aspartate and glutamate cross this barrier in excess, they will cause poisoning and lead to the death of the nerve cells within the brain and spinal cord.[1]
Let us be frank, it is all about profit over knowledge, with aspartame being the most profitable synthetic sweetener in the world and being present in thousands of supermarket products, it is far too convenient that to date there has been an abundance of uncertain trials on this sweetener after it has been widely linked to many illnesses including brain tumors, which never prevail to anything. The NutraSweet Company (world’s biggest supplier of aspartame) states that its product is used in more than 5,000 products and consumed by some 250 million people worldwide.
With the money, which aspartame companies create, there are certainly sufficient funds for extensive aspartame trials to put all the speculation to rest, but why would a multi-billion soft drink sweetener company want to embark in such testing with the possibility of negative outcomes? What is particularly worrying is that all the trials that have been sponsored by aspartame driven industries have all had positive outcomes in that aspartame is entirely safe for consumption, however all independent research have discovered a variety of problems in human consumption; I mean, come on, how can any testing of aspartame draw any positives when it’s ingredients include methanol and formaldehyde?
When researching I stumbled upon this striking article:
Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems With Aspartame
An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money.
Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.
Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems.
The 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies are those which one inveriably sees cited in PR/news reports and reported by organizations funded by Monsanto/Benevia/NutraSweet (e.g., IFIC, ADA). These studies have severe design deficiencies which help to guarantee the "desired" outcomes.
G.H. Searle, the company essentially responsibly for the beginning of the production of aspartame, would have had you believe it as safe when it was first introduced, but there was no extensive research into whether it does or does not cause brain tumors or other illnesses. The company simply employed their political claret through Donald Rumsfeld’ links with President Ronald Reagan to ensure the continuation of its production and thus consumption, all at the potential expense of the population’s health.
For this somewhat encrypted and puzzle-like subject I decided to contact a variety of people responsible for campaigning against aspartame use. Among those were Facebook’s biggest anti-aspartame group leader, Ceri Williams, and the founder of Aspartame Consumer Safety Network (ACSN), Mary Stoddard. Mary in particular proved very helpful and insightful due to her year’s of campaigning and personal experience with aspartame. Mary was responsible for taking the anti-aspartame campaign international in 1987, following the brain tumor death in 1985 of her forty two year old husband. Stoddard went on to expose the massive hidden epidemic of aspartame related disease and government cover-up, using her skills as a former broadcast journalist and member of the Texas Radio Hall of Fame. Thousands of serious adverse reactions fill her organizations database files.[2] For full bio see http://www.aspartamesafety.com/mary_nash_stoddard.htm.
After contacting Mary she gave me the following information:
"Hello Jon,
We do not need further research to show the harmful effects of aspartame. That research is already in place. Peer reviewed medical and science journals have published the studies. I am referring to the harmful breakdown products: methanol, formaldehyde, phenylalanine, aspartic acid, formic acid and diketopiperazine. Most of the indicting research pre-dates the early eighties when aspartame was approved in the U.S. My co-founder, James Turner and most of our independent researchers feel as I do."
Many scientists believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that aspartame consumption can lead to brain tumors. However as the negative symptoms possibly associated with aspartame consumption vary so greatly; ranging from headaches to seizures, willing funding is not always available as the medical world will not fund research into illness which fits no definite mold.
Are we willing to carry on using aspartame products at the possible expense to our health or are we happy living without real knowledge? After all, ignorance is bliss.
With a lot of internet hullabaloo, it is easy to get swamped and sucked into a somewhat indoctrinating ethos of being anti-aspartame, as bogus information, backed up not through any scientific evidence is rife, but what is backed up is truly harrowing.
The lack of any clear conclusive evidence that aspartame DOES NOT cause ill side-effects within humans is enough to warrant mass investigation to be pursued before the world's population potentially eat or drink themselves to death through ignorance and multinational monopolization. After the subject has been quiet for a few years, I firmly believe that the issue of aspartame consumption is close to breaking point. Hopefully aspartame safety is not an Orwellian fabrication, but when no certainty surrounds its safety the only thing that is certain is a strong sense of worry.
[1] 1999-2008, NaturoDoc LLC, http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/aspartame.htm, Date accessed 25/1/2010
[2] Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, http://www.aspartamesafety.com/mary_nash_stoddard.htm, Date accessed 20/1/2010
Everyday words are modified to keep us clueless and somewhat sedated from the necessary realities. Obvious manipulation of language includes the replacement of the word “war” which is changed to “defense”, or “downsizing” instead of “firing people”. This doctoring of language has become commonplace in our society today, and is widely and unknowingly accepted.
Although this kind of propaganda is not entirely indoctrinating as any vaguely knowing person can scratch beneath the surface to reveal the true meanings of these so-called socially acceptable words. However what happens when the powers that be try to erase any knowledge of something ever happening, thoroughly embracing the world of George Orwell’s 1984?
The problems really arise when the people in power want you to believe something regardless of whether it is harmful or not towards the planet or us.
Today's food industry has seen numerous additives and preservatives removed from our supermarket shelves, with links to a range of illnesses brought on by the need to preserve or greedily cheapen food prices. But what happens when these additives and preservatives are so widely used that to remove them from the products would cause astronomical loses in money? Is it better to go on living with constant health risks not knowing, or does more need to be done to rid such problems? With such uncertainty surrounding the use of aspartame as a sweetener, why has its usage not been suspended until definite outcomes have been revealed?
My inspiration for writing this article comes from a close member of my family who is absolutely adamant that until aspartame was removed from her diet that she was almost constantly experiencing headaches. Consuming two cans of a diet coke a day, she became increasingly worried and came to the conclusion that when she removed the carbonated drinks from her, that her headaches stopped.
With aspartame being drastically cheaper than sugar and its credentials lying in the fact that it is indeed "Sugar Free" gives positive weight, but is aspartame’s positive approach in removing sugar from people’s diet causing real harm?
Aspartame releases aspartate during digestion. Aspartate is a neurotransmitter used by the neurons in the brain. It is a type of excitatory amino acid. Excitatory amino acids are normal and necessary brain chemicals, and as such, they are allowed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Aspartate, the principal chemical component of aspartame, is a neurotransmitter and a type of excitatory amino acid. It is a natural and necessary body chemical. Neurotransmitters cross the blood-brain barrier.
The blood-brain barrier is designed to protect the brain from the invasion of harmful chemicals. When normal neurotransmitters such as aspartate and glutamate cross this barrier in excess, they will cause poisoning and lead to the death of the nerve cells within the brain and spinal cord.[1]
Let us be frank, it is all about profit over knowledge, with aspartame being the most profitable synthetic sweetener in the world and being present in thousands of supermarket products, it is far too convenient that to date there has been an abundance of uncertain trials on this sweetener after it has been widely linked to many illnesses including brain tumors, which never prevail to anything. The NutraSweet Company (world’s biggest supplier of aspartame) states that its product is used in more than 5,000 products and consumed by some 250 million people worldwide.
With the money, which aspartame companies create, there are certainly sufficient funds for extensive aspartame trials to put all the speculation to rest, but why would a multi-billion soft drink sweetener company want to embark in such testing with the possibility of negative outcomes? What is particularly worrying is that all the trials that have been sponsored by aspartame driven industries have all had positive outcomes in that aspartame is entirely safe for consumption, however all independent research have discovered a variety of problems in human consumption; I mean, come on, how can any testing of aspartame draw any positives when it’s ingredients include methanol and formaldehyde?
When researching I stumbled upon this striking article:
Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems With Aspartame
An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money.
Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.
Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems.
The 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies are those which one inveriably sees cited in PR/news reports and reported by organizations funded by Monsanto/Benevia/NutraSweet (e.g., IFIC, ADA). These studies have severe design deficiencies which help to guarantee the "desired" outcomes.
G.H. Searle, the company essentially responsibly for the beginning of the production of aspartame, would have had you believe it as safe when it was first introduced, but there was no extensive research into whether it does or does not cause brain tumors or other illnesses. The company simply employed their political claret through Donald Rumsfeld’ links with President Ronald Reagan to ensure the continuation of its production and thus consumption, all at the potential expense of the population’s health.
For this somewhat encrypted and puzzle-like subject I decided to contact a variety of people responsible for campaigning against aspartame use. Among those were Facebook’s biggest anti-aspartame group leader, Ceri Williams, and the founder of Aspartame Consumer Safety Network (ACSN), Mary Stoddard. Mary in particular proved very helpful and insightful due to her year’s of campaigning and personal experience with aspartame. Mary was responsible for taking the anti-aspartame campaign international in 1987, following the brain tumor death in 1985 of her forty two year old husband. Stoddard went on to expose the massive hidden epidemic of aspartame related disease and government cover-up, using her skills as a former broadcast journalist and member of the Texas Radio Hall of Fame. Thousands of serious adverse reactions fill her organizations database files.[2] For full bio see http://www.aspartamesafety.com/mary_nash_stoddard.htm.
After contacting Mary she gave me the following information:
"Hello Jon,
We do not need further research to show the harmful effects of aspartame. That research is already in place. Peer reviewed medical and science journals have published the studies. I am referring to the harmful breakdown products: methanol, formaldehyde, phenylalanine, aspartic acid, formic acid and diketopiperazine. Most of the indicting research pre-dates the early eighties when aspartame was approved in the U.S. My co-founder, James Turner and most of our independent researchers feel as I do."
Many scientists believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that aspartame consumption can lead to brain tumors. However as the negative symptoms possibly associated with aspartame consumption vary so greatly; ranging from headaches to seizures, willing funding is not always available as the medical world will not fund research into illness which fits no definite mold.
Are we willing to carry on using aspartame products at the possible expense to our health or are we happy living without real knowledge? After all, ignorance is bliss.
With a lot of internet hullabaloo, it is easy to get swamped and sucked into a somewhat indoctrinating ethos of being anti-aspartame, as bogus information, backed up not through any scientific evidence is rife, but what is backed up is truly harrowing.
The lack of any clear conclusive evidence that aspartame DOES NOT cause ill side-effects within humans is enough to warrant mass investigation to be pursued before the world's population potentially eat or drink themselves to death through ignorance and multinational monopolization. After the subject has been quiet for a few years, I firmly believe that the issue of aspartame consumption is close to breaking point. Hopefully aspartame safety is not an Orwellian fabrication, but when no certainty surrounds its safety the only thing that is certain is a strong sense of worry.
[1] 1999-2008, NaturoDoc LLC, http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/aspartame.htm, Date accessed 25/1/2010
[2] Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, http://www.aspartamesafety.com/mary_nash_stoddard.htm, Date accessed 20/1/2010
Saturday 16 January 2010
Germinal's Influence
Zola's masterpiece is set in the French society of the 1860's; the action happens during the early stages of the rise of the working class against the aristocratic middle class establishment (called the "bourgeoisie"). The title of the novel itself points to the idea of germination in plants. In Zola's analogy, social and political ideas behave much like wild seeds in the natural world: sowed in a fertile soil and given the right conditions and, ideas will grow and develop into something much bigger and stronger than their initial state might suggest. Ideas will also spread around them and contaminate their surrounding, and eventually take a life of their own.
Germinal, although by no means a new concept in theme, is very much a virgin stylistically. Throughout history working class revolutions have occurred e.g. French Revolution or Communism's rise of Tsarist Russia, but for a descriptive work of fiction Zola's Germinal is a the first and best of its kind.
Germinal's lengthily descriptions has seen numerous television and film adaptations adding a huge degree of poignancy to the novel's resume. On top of this he has influenced many of the arts including fellow authors and artists a like.
The artist Van Gogh was particularly influenced by Germinal with sociological criticism being implicit within much of his paintings (most notably The Potato eaters). Van Gogh produced painting which conveyed naturalism in some of its bleakest and most pessimistic forms. Furthermore, he influenced a legacy of naturalist authors, the likes of which include August Strindberg, Frank Norris, and Theodore Dreiser.
Monday 11 January 2010
1984 is Everywhere
It is undeniable that the fictitious world of George Orwell's 1984 can be seen in the modern world everywhere. Be it simple wordplay or extensive indoctrination, for better or for worse, manipulation of language and covering things up it a constant presence in our lives.
No matter how simplistic in content, a slight alteration of any given word can alter the opinion's of the masses.
Examples of the themes running throughout 1984 include manipulation of language, persuading people’s thoughts, and forcing people to forget events, which have happened.
Firstly, the manipulation of language is a constant aspect of today’s life. Be it through colloquialisms or common sayings, this word manipulation even reaches the highs of media and government control, which has constant effect on everyone.
When I say that Newspeak affects everyone, well, it really does as it infiltrates all aspects of everyday life, no matter how mundane. Examples include such words as “downsize”, which at a basic level means firing someone from their job, but by replacing the harsh word with a somewhat less abrasive one, the process sounds less daunting despite the fact that it is not.
Further, more extreme employment of newspeak is a lot more worrying due to the flippancy of its use. To me, it is very unnerving when words such as “regime change” is used to describe a government being overthrown, or even more disconcerting is terminology such as “neutralize” instead of “kill”! What is so crazy about newspeak is that people are so susceptible to using it that it becomes commonplace and the seriousness of what is happening around us is being dulled down as we become increasingly desensitized and ignorant.
In 1984 the citizens are made to believe certain things and also forget events that have happened in living memory. So many parallels can be found between the modern world and Orwell’s fiction world e.g. in 1984 Oceania are told that they have always been at war with Eurasia when they haven’t; for me there are parallels between this and the way Saddam Hussein has been perceived; For the past decade we have been told he has been behind much of the problems in the world, however when it was convenient for the developed world to cooperate with him in the past, the media did not convey him as an enemy. As with 1984, the modern world is awfully susceptible to media misinformation.
For part of our current module we have been asked to produce a production on some form of newspeak, which surrounds us everyday and I have decided to cover the topic of Aspartame use. For me, this is a topic which has been very much overlooked as regards to its safety, and it was and still is not being addressed due to financial and political reasons. This is very relevant as in 1984 things,which could hinder the power system are simply overlooked as is the case with the world’s most widely used sweetener.
Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)