Final Blog Post

http://tylerabbott21.blogspot.com/2011/09/yahweh-flood.html I like this post because I think I did a good job comparing, and contrasting multiple stories in a coherrent manner. I think I tie in both personal opinion, along with factual information, giving my reader room to make their own assumptions based on my ideas.

http://tylerabbott21.blogspot.com/2011/09/flood-story-revisited.html I like the Flood Story post because I believe I did an good job yet again, comparing, and contrasting multiple literary pieces we read in class. I like reading my older posts, and still get the same meaning, and opinions out of them. Some of my posts I can go back and analyze, and I find myself disagreeing with myself, HA, and wishing I could rewrite a few of them. This one however, does not fit that genre. I still agree with every word I wrote here.

http://tylerabbott21.blogspot.com/2011/11/comitatas.html I suppose I just liked this one so much, because I was a huge fan of Beowulf, and the idea of comitatas really intrigues my imagination. I enjoyed writing this post, and I think my writing style reflects my enjoyment of the subject matter. I find that when I enjoy what i am writing about, a whole different side of me comes out on paper, or in this case online.

Like I've stated above, I'm particularly fond of these posts for many reasons. I feel I do an excellent job answering questions I had about our reading assignments, while also exploring other ideas, and themes at he same time. I also think that when one is truly interested in a subject, it is painfully obvious the difference between what is good writing, and what is just speculation, and rambling. Often times I found myself coming up with a central idea or theme to write about, but after doing more research the theme in which I was writing about, sort of lost it's power. These posts I think were resilient enough to escape my opinionated hand, and address the idea at hand with utter clarity. Often times personal opinion can cloud my writer's vision, and over shadow the idea, or theme at hand. It some cases I am absolutly disgusted with some of my over opinionated bullshit, and in other cases I see no evidence of such over wordy bullshit. These posts in particular, stood out in my mind as personal highlights of mental clarity. I am proud of them, and stand behind what I said in them with pride, and dignity.

I would have to say that my ideas about literature have drastically changed this semester, and I'd like to say for the better. I came into your class as always, with an open mind, and an open heart. However, often times my past, and personal experiences can influence my thoughts so much so, that I end up screwing myself out of a good piece of writing. The most valuable lesson I think you have taught me about literature this semester Scott, is to leave my personal opinion aside, and just look at the text by itself, as a whole. You've taught me to simply analyze the piece of literature at hand, nothing more, and nothing less. It sounds unbelievably simple, but for me it was anything but simple to come to this conclusion myself. I had to separate what was fact, and what was personal opinion. I loved learning about the idea of Analyze vs. Interpret. It forced me to step out of my literary comfort zone, and explore the ideas of others, leaving my own personal baggage at the door. Often times we as students feel it makes us better writers, and readers to form as many opinions about the literature at hand, in order to have a better understanding of it. However, I've learned that the text itself holds all the answers to the questions that arise in one's head, and perhaps it's not up to me to try and figure out what the authors state of mind was when they composed said piece. Perhaps the text just is what it is, nothing more, and nothing less. I'm not saying my opinion doesn't matter at all, but sometimes I think it's best to shut up, and just continue reading. Often times the answers to questions we may have about a text, are hidden in the text somewhere, I just have to be a good enough student to identify them, and understand them.

So far as my performance is concerned academically speaking, I'll be the first to say that I am in no way a prime example of a model student. I am tardy, I do not have perfect attendance, and I'm absolutely guilty of missing assignments. However, this is not synonymous to your class, I have always been a scatter brained individual, and I am sure everyone of my professors, in every class I am taking would agree with that. However, I am not failing any of my classes, and I do the mass majority of my work on time. Trying to find a balance, or having to choose what class is more important then another, is about the most difficult thing for me as your student to do. When it's a debate over studying for a Geology exam, over finnishing a reading assingment you've given us, often times I've had to read the material in my car in the parking lot right before class, because I was studying all night for a Geology test I barely passed anyway. It sucks the way college works like that, but I am not complaining. I have done about 85% of the work assigned in your class with pride, and diligence. Whatever I lacked, I can not make an excuse for, so I will just take my loss of points as a reminder of my short comings. I am proud to have passed all my classes, and at this point in my life, I cant ask for much more of myself right now. Present circumstances often times throw my mind into a whole other world, and I have to fight to keep my feet on the ground, and from losing myself inside my head. However, in recent months I think I've done an extraordinary job of holding my academic life together, despite the evils, and temptations that surround me on a daily basis. I suppose no one is perfect, and by God I am no where even near perfect. Perhaps someday I'll be able to boast about and A+ in a literary class, but for now I have to just be satisfied in passing.

I think I have many strengths, and many weaknesses both as a writer, and as a reader. I think my biggest strength as a writer, and a reader is my attention to detail, and my acute ability to put myself in characters shoes, and see things from their point of view. As a reader, I feel I am far too opinionated, and am activily working to remedy this personal problem. As a thinker...I dont even know where the hell to begin. Most of the things I think, and see in my minds eye are in no way fit for anyone to hear about, or think about. So as a thinker, I dont know what to tell you. I analyze, interpret, and think about things all day, everyday, but those thoughts shall always remain locked, deep within the back of my mind. No one needs to hear them but me. So we will leave it at that for the thinking talk. Sometimes I wish I could turn of my ability to think, and just exist sometimes...but i suppose thats what they make beer for.

If I had to give myself a grade in your class, it'd be a C+. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont deserve anymore then that, because I didnt put out any more than 75-80%. It's that simple. I did what I had to do to pass, and meet the expected requirments. When I had the time, and the ability, I put out more effort then normal, but certainly not as often as I should have, could have, and would have if I had the chance.

Your a great teacher, and I aspire to be lie you someday. For now however, I got a long ass road ahead of me. It's been a great semester. You really have taught me more then you'll ever know.

Dante's Inferno Today?

I think after reading both of these pieces, the decision as to what book I was going to choose as more applicable to modern day society became painfully obvious. Beowulf despite demonstrating wonderful character traits of courage, bravery, friendship, loyalty; and heroism, is not something I feel applies to our everyday lives as much as the lessons in Dante's Inferno. I say this because although the inferno doesn't reference karma directly, it reflects the principal of karma almost perfectly. It is the belief that for every action, there will be an equal, and opposing reaction. However karma doesn't just stop there it takes the idea one step further, by adding the fact that for every bad deed we commit in this life, we will pay for it in the next life.

This idea of being accountable for our actions presently, so as not to suffer the repercussions in the after life is a very old Principal indeed. We see modern examples of karma in society, in a much more severe degree in countries that have adopted an eye for an eye justice system, such as Saudi Arabia, or Singapore. Such as if a man steals, whatever hand he stole said item with gets cut off as a form of justice. This is a stretch of an example, but not without merit.

Consequently, countries that have such harsh laws record a dramatically lower crime rate, than other thriving economies worldwide. Why do these countries boast lower crime rates you ask? Well it's quite simple, and goes right back to this age old idea of karma, being held responsible for your actions whether they be noble endeavors, or evil acts of violence. Despite the overwhelming examples of the same principals in Dante's Inferno being reflected worldwide, I believe there is more to this story then simple parallels between crime, and punishment.

I believe justice systems around the world try and come up with some form of crime vs. punishment system, where the punishment fits the crime/crime fits the punisment..In my final essay I want to examine the circles of hell, which sort of people are each section of hell, and why theyre there. I then would like to compare, and analyze modern days figures such as Saddam Huessein, Adolf Hitler, Lee harvey Oswald, Richard Nixon, Frank Lucas, and compare them to characters in Dantes Inferno. I think would like to classify them to a specific circle of hell represented in Dantes Inferno. This is a simple version of my idea, but I think it would be a very intresting one to explore, and expand upon in my final essay.

Death and Karma

The idea of karma and death has always perplexed me. How in this life our actions, and thoughts can follow us into the next. The Hindu texts we've been assigned reflect this idea the most I believe, and directly explains what happens to those who live an immoral life. You can be punished for years, decades, even centuries, stuck in the wheels of karma. I believe the idea of karma was probably some type of scare tactic, encouraging the common man to do good or else...

Now this idea of being punished in the after life isn't an original one, we see it in many of the texts we've been assingned. But karma to me, is something we hear spoken about more today, then hell itself. To me, being able to apply such an age old idea to our modern lives speaks volumes about its popularity, and how applicable it still is today.

Karma can either make an individual absolutely fear death, or it can have quite the opposite effect on a person. If you know in your heart you've lived a just, and moral life, than you can rest assured that when you die, karma will do right by your soul. The same idea is reflected in Christian texts aswell, Dante's inferno, upAnishads, and many more. Also the idea of purgatory comes to mind, the idea of being stuck in between heaven, and hell. How does one go about fixing their wrong doings, if their already stuck in a limbo game of heaven, and hell? What do you Gus think?

Response to Clinton's blog

I couldn't agree with Clinton more on the idea of those before Christ going to hell, simply because they weren't Saved. If god is so just, merciful, and all knowing, why should these people be condemned for shear ignorance? Clinton's absolutely right, where is the justice, mercy, and reason behind that? Dante's inferno talks about how these individuals were neither good, nor evil throughout their lives, they were pretty much neutral parties. They didn't pick a side if you will. Now if these people aren't infringing upon others natural born rights, what crime did they really commit, other then just not picking a side?

Why should these individuals be condemned to hell, even if it is just the first stages? I understand that supposedly it's bad in gods eyes not to be saved, but they technically didn't sin other wise. This is an interesting idea to say the least, and one I feel, which I assume Clinton does as well, is completely overlooked by most readers.

Often times questions arise that one must either analyze, or interpret, however in this instance with this simple yet profound idea, I can do neither. I'm left to guess just like everyone else, and I don't like assuming things I know very little about. I'm very curious what others think about this...

Small group discussion

I suppose I prepared for this group discussion very differently then for normal class discussions. I knew Beowulf inside, and out or so I thought. At first I just analyzed the questions that were to be discussed in class, and try to answer them to the best of my abilities without having to open my book. I then identified rather easily where my weaknesses were, and how best to address them. I went through the questions where I had the most difficulties, and I addressed them directly. I went throughout Beowulf, found the areas I lacked knowledge, or informed opinions, and I studied them vigorously. It was my goal to be able to give an almost perfect response to any question on our assignment sheet, without having to open my book even once, which I believe I was very successful at doing.

Note taking was key, I had over 4 pages front and back of notes, just for that one class period, and they were vital to my over all participation. I believe that the notes provided a base of discussion ideas for me, so when I was proposed with a question, I could answer it with ease, based on my own prior research on the particular subject. Having legible, coherent thoughts on paper allows me to freely express my own opinions, and ideas, with a factual reference at my side, whenever needed.

The three most dominant things I did differently to prepare for our group discussion was annotations throughout Beowulf, research on specific characters in Beowulf, and comprehensive research to find scholarly opinions on the subject matter of our book. I didn't feel my word was simply enough, so I read through hundreds of pages of other students pinions on Beowulf online, to help mold, and shape my own opinions into something all could understand, and appreciate. This discussion was far more useful than to my learning than my regular classes, because this style of discussion forces the students to become Experts on whatever subject is at hand. I loved this assignment.

Comitatas

When pondering the idea of Comitatas I find myself asking, " what would I have done, I presented with the same curcumstances, and decision?". At first I was utterly perplexed as to what the right decision may or may not have been, but upon further review of the exact definition of what exactly Comitatas is, and was in that time period, I feel beowulfs men had an epic failure.

Now I say this boldy because I believe that Beowulf could not have made it to his final climactic battle without his men's aid, and help throughout the story. If they started this epic journey, and battle together, they should Finnish it together as one single unit of courage and nobility. The simple fact and point I'm trying to make here is that no matter what your bold, and perhaps big headed leader may tell you, it is your job as a soldier, and a friend to help your leader out when he is facing almost certain death. Screw what he tells you, his decision making skills are probably flawed, and skewed already because of the horrors he is about to face. You are his loyal soldiers, and under Comitatas you owe your leader your loyalty, and life for that matter.

If it was me, I would have come to my homies aid immediately, without question. So what if he's big, tough, and slays monsters in his spare time, he's obviously still mortal despite what he's previous deeds may suggest about immortality. The point is, their leader Beowulf was in danger, they knew it, he knew it, and they chose to dip out on him. That's messed up. Even wiglaf agrees with me on that one, there was a clear breach of Comitatas, or the warrior leader contract if you will.

Screw politics, screw emotions, and screw curcumstances, Comitatas is till death do us part, and their leader died because of there lack of respect for the law of Comitatas. Beowulf could have ended on a way better note, but I also think Christian influence had a hell of a lot to do with the ending but ats a whole other subject, and blog post in itself.


Peace out see y'all in class

Beowulf: pre-blog

I neglected to Finnish reading Beowulf entirely until just now, I will Finnish a proper blog on the subject when I return home from class. However, after reading pages 1184 to 1233 I find myself asking many questions. The biggest topic weighing on my mind, is the symbolism in this story. We know by reading the information in the first part of the story that this was a tale, to inspire, and motivate good deeds, and nobility in men of that time period. I am very intrigued by what Army, people, or invaders the monster Grendal truly represented. It was obviously a thing that terrorized, and tormented the danish people for years, and I wonder what exactly this could have been. I am also curious about the giants, sea monsters, and dragons that are referenced as beowulfs prior noble deeds, and quests. Will post more after class discussion.

Proposal

I've been debating on whether or not I should attack the themes of Antigone & The Odyssey, or I should delve into the language aspect of these two Greek tragedies. I've come to the conclusion that perhaps I'd have more subject matter, and more room to compare & contrast if I just chose to give a comprehensive analogy of the style of writing in each of these tales. I feel a solid comparison of the two styles of writing, the language in each story, and the reasons why the authors in that period chose this particular style of writing would help illuminate certain thoughts to my readers that they probably didn't think of. It is my understand that we are to look at the text itself more in this class, rather than the story itself. What I have learned so far in Scott's class this semester is how to analyze the writing itself has a whole, and then try and establish meaning, and value out of it. Interpretation is simply that, a mere interpretation. However, I feel that I can give my readers a rock solid understanding of each of these comprehensive, and vastly detailed stories. Focusing on the writing itself, the text, the literature, rather then trying to interpret it as a whole, will be my ultimate goal. I am completely open to suggestions, or guidance to focus my efforts even further. Thank you for your time, and consideration on the matter. See you all friday.

Analyze or Interpret?

As we vigorously debated this claim in class, "Homer can be analyzed...but not interpreted", I kept asking myself what the hell the difference is between these two things. I've come to a number of conclusions on this sticky subject, none of which I feel hold any more validity than the other, however I do believe there is a point to be made here.
When one reads further into both of these stories, with Auerback's claim in mind, it is rather hard not to at least give the man some credit for his claim. As I see it, Homer finds himself having to explain every single action, and detail in the story, so there really is no room for interpretation, it just is what it is, nothing more, and nothing less. However in the Bible, and particularly the story of Issac, and Abraham, we see an entirely different style of expression. With Homer's style, we are presented with evidence, to support any claim, or action that might be happening in the Odyssey, and sometimes when all seems lost, a God comes down from "heaven"(Olympus I assume), and Homer narrowly escapes his almost certain doom.
However in the Bible, the style in which God is portrayed, and the characters being manipulated, or commanded by God are shown in an entirely different light. We really are not presented with any reason why God is doing what he's doing to Abraham, Issac, nor do we have any inclination as to how he feels about the actions he is taking against them. What I believe this suggests is perhaps we the people(the audience) are left to interpret what the Bible is trying to tell us. In the Odyssey we see the exact opposite, and we know exactly why the Gods take certain actions, and we are given a detailed explanation as to why certain events take place. Oddly enough when there seems to be even a hint of discrepancy in the Odyssey, we have a sudden Divine Intervention, and the Gods come to save the day. We see no such thing in the bible.

Open Post

An idea that keeps coming to mind as we continue to explore these stories of creation, is why the Gods portrayed in these stories reflects human emotions. I feel this is a very important fact to mentally note for anyone wishing to truly understand who created these stories. As many religious people would like to believe the, Gods meta-divine powers influenced humans to create these stories, in order to explain how Earth, and humans came to be. What I am attempting to point out to my readers, is that the Gods in these stories show emotions such as anger, jealousy, benevolance, contempt, and if I may be so bold, pity. What I feel makes these emotions so significant is the fact that we are lead to believe that these emotions come from the Gods. In no way do I believe any divine figure would express such human emotions, for if they truly were divine, their wisdom would prevent them from feeling, or expressing such feeling of jealousy, and anger.

What I believe this demonstrates, is that these stories were written by humans, interpreted by humans, and written in such a fashion as to scare man kind. If the Gods can get angry, jealous, and pitiful, what makes them any different than man kind? The individuals who constructed, wrote, and manipulated these tales of creation, wrote them in their own words, and by all accounts could have wrote whatever the hell they so pleased. With that being said, I find it very foolish, and wrong for any man to take these stories at face value, and accept them as fact, simply because of a divine claim of allegiance by their authors. When one truly takes the time to analyze the text as a whole, and not so much what the story is attempting to teach you, the hipocracy of the authors is illuminated. Leaving all preconceived notions, and religous opinions aside, it is blaitantly obvious that these stories are the by product of human construction, and mistake. These stories of creation were not constructed by the Gods, they were written by MAN. Whether the MEN who wrote this were influenced by the divine is completly up for debate. Your guess is as good as mine. FAITH is what YOU God fearing, and God worshipping people use as your cop out for this claim. But what is FAITH? To me, faith is blindly accepting something at face value, without any proof, or reason as to why you believe such an absurd story.

Try applying the concept of faith to any aspect of life. If I want to win my next hockey game, and I say, "hey I have faith in myself, and my teammates, so I am surely correct in stating that I will WIN", and when that game is played, and I lose, then what? Oh NO NO NO, I had FAITH why didnt I win? It's because FAITH is BULLSHIT. There is no reason to have such a vague, absurd, and out dated reasoning, and thought pattern. Its a waste of time to claim faith in anything, and a waste of time to speak on faiths behalf. Show me faith, and I'll show you a billion dollars.



Peace out girlscouts

The Flood Story Revisited

When comparing, and contrasting the Great Flood stories, I find a plethora of similarities, and also a number of pivotal differences. The general plot line of each story is rather similar, a person, or god like figure is contacted by the divine, and instructed to prepare for the great flood. Now the three main differences so far as I can tell were why man was going to be destroyed by the flood, how the Enlightened few chosen to survive were to prepare for the flood, and whether or not God would flood the Earth again. There are other minor differences such as the duration of time it took to prepare for the flood, how many people were chosen to survive the flood, and the construction of the vessel in which the chosen would ride out the storm on.

What I'd first like to address is the reasons as to why man was to be wiped out. In the Bible it is vividly depicted as God being angry with man for our sinful nature, and so he intended to wipe man out with a flood, and start over with Noah's family being, "fruitful, and multiplying." However in the epic of Gilgamesh there is a rather metaphorical description as to why Man shall perish, however it seems to be the same general principal, mans sinful nature. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Epic of Creation it seems to be more of a fictional depiction of Gods getting angry that they are not loved, respected, and worshipped by man. Where as in the Bible it seems very black, and white, and it just goes as follows, "man screwed up, now man shall die. Gods little do-over, the end.". The great flood inevitably happens, Noah, his family, and his massive heard of animals rides out the storm, and they all survive, geee what a surprise right?

I also find it odd that Noah is personally contacted by God, as is Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, where as in The Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim just has a dream about The Flood, and wakes up knowing exactly what to do. To me it makes more sense that if something that chaotic was indeed going to happen, and man was doomed, wouldn't the Divine just contact Utnapishtim directly? I suppose that leads me the reader, and the judge of these texts to believe the Bibles depiction of the flood to be more truthful, and accurate simply due to the fact that it says that God straight up told Noah what's up. I put little faith in dreams, and despite Utnapishtim's dream inevitably coming true, I think it's absolutely more of a fictional depiction. I also find it more believable that one flood is enough, and that God promising not to flood the Earth again was an accurate portrayal of God. In the epic of Gilgamesh there is no such promise made to man, basically leaving the reader on a massive cliff hanger. The Bibles portrayal basically suggests that once is enough, and man has indeed paid for our sinful nature. Where as in the epic of Giligamesh we are lead to believe, or assume that if we screw up again, with our sinful ways, that another Great Flood is inevitable. I think today I'll take option A, and agree with the Bible's story of the great flood. I am in no way saying that everything that happend in the Flood story is entirly true, or accurate, I am simply suggesting it to be a more logical, factual description of what happend.


Until Next time...this is Tyler Abbott, signing off.


Good Afternoon

Open Post(late)

There is a question in my mind that keeps arising everytime I read one of the orignal stories of creation, and the stories of the flood. What I find myself wondering is whether or not God knew he was going to eventually have to start over with the "creation of man project" he had going on way back then. There are many accounts in all the different stories we've read to date where the God portrayed by the stories authors, is all knowing, and all powerful. Now one would assume that if this were indeed the case, that perhaps the first attempt at creating Man, was sort of a trial, and if I may be so bold, an error at first. God created all that is life in this world, including man, despite Man's ability to have original thought, and original sin.

In my opinion, it is completly logical to assume that perhaps God just wanted to see how long it would take man to abuse the privledge of life. If this claim I have made is indeed anywhere close to accurate then what does this say about the God portrayed in these stories of Creation, The Great Flood, and even the stories of Cain and Abel? If God knew all these events were eventaully going to take place, much like a domino effect, then why go through the trouble of creating Man in the first place, if we were purposfully set up for failure? We are assumed to be imperfect beings, and by all accounts we absolutly are.

However, with all assumptions set aside I think these stories absolutly display contradictiory opinions, ideas, and stories. As one may already assume, I believe that these contradictions are actually the imperfect, and human interpretation of the Divine. It is safe to assume that whoever originally wrote these stories, had only one intention in mind, and that being to use the idea of God as a scare tactic to keep us from sinning. It is almost as if they're saying, "dont sin or else you'll realize your naked, you'll be wiped out by a flood, or God will ask you to kill your favorite son...ect". It seems to me that this God is displaying human emotions such as jealousy, anger, benevolance...ect. Which in turn leads me to again assume that this error in the portrayal of God is indeed a human error, and not an error on the Divines part. I could go on for days about this idea, however I have more posts to attend to, so I'll leave my readers this food for thought.

Good Day to you all.

Yahweh & The Flood

Perhaps one of the most note able stories in Biblical history would be that of Noah, the Ark, and the flood. God, or "Yahweh" as I will refer to him as from now on, is tired of the evil, and wickedness that has come of Earth, and his people. We see an example of this disdain for man in Genesis when the story describes Yahweh's feelings towards man as being, "..God saw that the wickedness of men was great on Earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on Earth, and it grieved him at his heart"(Genisis93). It seems the text is portraying Yahweh as almost being ashamed of his creation, that man has indeed failed Him, their God, and that repercussions for mans wickedness will soon come. Yahweh seems almost angry, and ashamed of man at this point in the story.

However, as we continue to read more into the story of The Flood, we begin to see a very different side to Yahweh, then what one may have originally thought. It seems that Yahweh is also very saddened by the fact that his creation, Man, has indeed failed him as their God, and we see this at the end of my last quote where it says, "...and it grieved Him at his heart"(Genisis 93) This portrayal of sadness, and melancholy feelings towards man seems to foreshadow something inevitably happening to man, because of man's lack of respect for God.

As we read further into the Flood story, I find myself begging the question of whether or not Yahweh is truly all knowing, and all-wise. For if He was, is it not logical to assume that perhaps God knew his people would with out a doubt fail Him eventually? If this were the case, and Yahweh really did know the fate of his creation of man ultimately failing Him, why then would he have created man in the first place? This lack of evidence to support the idea that Yahweh is indeed all knowing is an obvious answer to my questions of God's "all knowing" abilities. What I believe the text portrays about Yahweh is that he is indeed All-powerful, but he is defintly NOT all knowing. I say this simply due to the fact that I would assume any form of the Divine, or meta-divine realm would not create something simply to destroy it.

I believe the texts suggests that Yahweh did not expect his people, his creation, Man, to fail him so miserably. In response to mans lack of Holiness, I believe Yahweh did the only logical thing, and basically erase his "mistake"(Evil men), and start over with a clean slate in front of him. I find contextual evidence of this claim to be very minimal, however this in no way discourages my thoughts, or opinions on the matter. What I did find to support this idea was the instructions from Yahweh to Noah about building the Ark, and basically saving life on Earth as we know it. When Yahweh says to Noah, "come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation"(Genisis 93), I believe this is reflecting a faint strand of hope in Yahwehs eyes, and the stories portrayal of God. Where at first we are lead to believe that God has lost all faith in humanity, we a greeted with a breath of fresh air when we realize Yahwehs faith in us is not gone forever. This renewal of hope, and faith in humanity couldn't have come soon enough in the story, because one is lead to believe that the annihilation of man is indeed inevitable.

All though the Flood story portrays Yahweh in many different fashions, I believe the most obvious descriptions of Yahweh, and his feelings towards man are felt when Yahweh is speaking directly to Noah. We see examples of Anger, sadness, faith, and hope through Yahwehs eyes, and life eventually does go on. Yahweh saves the few righteous followers of God, and after the annihilation of evil, and wickedness in the world, God instructs Noah, and his family to, "be fruitful & Multiply, and replenish the Earth".(95) I believe this statement alone, ultimately gives us the portrayal of Yahweh as being all powerful, and a loving God. For despite all the destruction of Man, and Earth Yahweh has left hope, and faith in humanity, back in the hands of Men...http://youtu.be/PnUvSn9pVaA

Open Post

To the Youth, and Young adults of our Nation, rather to whom it may concern:

When I was younger, the guidance counselors of my youth promised me if I tried hard in middleschool, and highschool I'd get into college, and do amazing things. However, with the current state of affairs in America, I am starting to doubt the promises Mrs. Grandy promised me. You said if I got my 4 year degree, I'd be happy, and well off for the rest of my life. Instead, in this day in age, a 4 year degree might aswell be a highschool diploma that you paid for. My best friend john just graduated from Boise State with a 4 year degree in American History. Now one may argue that this is not the most applicable degree right now, however it is still a 4 year degree from Boise State. Isnt that what were all here for? We get to walk the stage, humbly except our blue, and orange piece of shinny paper, and then what? I'll tell you what happend to my friend John, he's been looking for a real job for over a year now, and works at Radioshack for minimum wage. He has a college degree, and works with people who barely graduated highschool. Wait hold up. W T F right? That isnt supposed to happen, or at least according to our parents, and academic advisors it isnt. They promised us the moon, and instead we got radar detector, and cell phone salesmen.  So I suppose I will continue on my quest to summit the academic mountain, that in my opinion rivals Mount Everast. But what will become of me once I succeed? What will become of my peers? Is there any clear cut answer?

Found Lost Post hooray!

When comparing, and contrasting both of these pieces I find my self wondering who the authors intended their audience to be. They are obviously both stories of how the Earth came to be, however The Epic of Creation seems to reflect more of a story plot line, rather than a lyrical description of the birth of Earth, as we find in Metamorphoses. The most noteable similarity in my humble opinion would be the descriptions of Earth, or whatever this place was, before the Gods decided to have a divine intervention with the matter at hand. Both stories describe Earth prior to any divine act being a place of utter chaos. Now when I first read these stories, I assumed chaos was something like what I witnessed on 9/11 all those years ago. However Scott gave me some insight that helped me think better of this word. Chaos, as you described in class is simply a lack of order. I may be assuming, or guessing on this one, but perhaps the chaos is exactly as you described it to the class in both these authors minds. Maybe chaos is not synonymous with violence? With that being said I think in both of these stories the authors were trying to convey the idea that the Divine, or the Gods of this time, were the fathers, and mothers of order, and peace. Something I also felt was important enough not to leave out on this post was the description of the Gods from each of these stories. In Metamorphoses the author refers to the divine as, "Till God, or kindlier of nature"(Humphries 168). We also see on the following page that he refers to the Creator as, "Whatever God it was, who out of chaos brought order to the universe and gave it division".(Humphries 169). We see here that the author gives no name, or any real claim of allegiance by this god to any formal religious group. Where as in The Epic of Creation we see multiple example of Gods, they are specifically named, and they even procreated, giving way to the idea of offspring of the Gods...crazy right? My final thought will be on the introduction of each of these stories because they are amazingly similar. In metamorphoses the first few lines are as follows, "Before the ocean was, or earth, or heaven. Nature was all alike, shapeless. Chaos so called ruled the lumpy matter".(Humphries 168). We see the same idea, almost verbatim in The Epic of Creation when the author states. " When the skies above were not yet named, nor Earth below pronounced by name.."(Dally 146). These similarities are amazingly obvious that even a common fool could make the comparison. I believe that both of these stories follow a similar structure, and pattern. So far as motives are concerned I believe that it speculatory at best, and would imagine it was simply to convey a common message to the future world. Whatever that message may be, your guess is as good as mine.

LOST MY POST

Scott. I had a 700 hundred word respose to this post, when using blogger spell check it redirected me to the blogger dashboard. When i clicked back, I had lost everything. Is there an autosave, or drafts like when you send an email? I literally just finnished my response, and was spell checking before i posted, what did i do, or what should i do?

Myth Questions...

What is the significance of the struggle between father, and son? Thinking along the lines of castration, and gential removals symoblism.

Is there a central idea, or message illustrated in the text, when it comes to each texts version of creation, and the creation of human beings? Is there a theme? What would that theme be, and why do you suppose the authors of these ancient texts would chose to shed light on these themes in particular?


I dont know if these questions are exactly what you wanted, however these were the question I found myself asking as I read each text.


To be debated...

Annotated bibliography

Peking, University Library. Kid Cudi Songs. [S.l.]: General, 2010. Print.

 

This is a "dicography", just a paper back about kid cudis song, and where he finds inspiration. A good start.

 

"Kid Cudi Interview with EZ Street on : Present State of Hip Hop." Interview by EZ Street. Kid Cudi: Why He Dosnt like Hip Hop. KYSDC.com and Youtube. 93.9 FM, Washington, District of Colombia, 6 Aug. 2009. Radio.

 

This is a radio interview with Cudi, talking about what he dosnt like in modern Hip Hop, and What he's all about.

 

http://youtu.be/FBi6jv_mlBs

 

http://youtu.be/Hy39w97vOtM

 

So far these are all the sources that I'm for sure about. Heres some of his music below.

 

http://youtu.be/6dtMI96zc0s

 

http://youtu.be/_KmWZXNDx5s

 

http://youtu.be/3POknrwf2Bk

Ladies ladies ladies!

I hate to addmit it but I'm going to have to agree whole heartedly with John Leland on the subject of women vs. Hip. Women's role in the Hip culture has always been rather minimal to begin with, in turn leaving them little room to climb the Hip ladder into greatness. However, I am not totally excluding the idea of women, I'm just saying that in my own opinion they do not fit the Hip mold of people. Women tend to have a realists sense of time, identity, and social expectations, where as their male counter parts tend to be the total opposite. Men of great Hipness tend to reject the normalacy of life's schedules, and expectations by rejecting time, space, identity, and social norms as a whole. Men are very good at isolating what exactly makes them hip, where as women tend to fall into the realm of Hip, and fade away as time goes on, a bigger, better male Hipster takes there place. I believe Hip is a male dominated play ground, because the real OGs of Hip, were all men. I also think that the Hipsters of yesteryear would be inclined to agree with Leland, and I. I suppose in the sense of coming to terms with our lack of estrogen, and feminine appeal in the story, one might just accept it as is, and not dote upon it too much. Hip is not something women can just take a hold of like the right to be in the military, and be granted access to eventually. Hip is an elitest club, that without the consent of other male Hipsters, no one should expect to join, thus closing the door on female Hipsters all together.

Bamboozled

I believe that De la Quoa, or however you spell his fancy french name was the Trickster character in the movie or may reasons. For starters, he was a man full of deceit, and lies. He would make you think his intentions were good, and genuine, and then drop a bombshell by eventually revealing where his true intentions really lied. I never could quite figure out De La as I'll refer to him for the rest of my post, which I believe even further strengthens his position as the Trickster throughout Bamboozled. He at first seems to be offended by his menstral show that hes created, but eventually it seems to grow on him, and hes almost proud of what hes created, in a really sick, and weird way. I do not understand how an african american can watch his fellow man make such a mockery, and a fool out of himself for money, and or entertainment. In the end I believe De La realized what a pivitol mistake he had made, however this could also be simply due to the fact that he had multiple gun shot wounds, and was about to die. Most people in my opinion, tend to try and make peace, and sense of the world right before they die, which honestly is such a waste of time. Why not live your life trying to make peace, and sense of the world....Rather then screw it up your whole life, and then in your last moments seek redemption. This movie pissed me off. It was offensive, and wrong. I felt the moral of the story was portrayed perfectly, and yet I still find myself wanting to know more...I wish it didnt end so abruptly.

Annotated Bibliopgraphy

Annotated Bibliography

1. Pulp Fiction. Dir. Quentin Tarantino. By Quentin Tarantino. Prod. Lawrence Bender. Perf. Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman. Miramax, 1995.

I’m using multiple refrences to the Quentin Tarantino film, “Pulp Fiction”, to illustrate “Trickster Character Archetypes”, and identify with the “Hipness” that tends to be birthed in Los Angeles, and the Hollywood film scene.

2. Krakauer, Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor, 2007. Print.

            I chose the book, “Into the Wild”, because I believe the dynamic character illustrates a prime example of, “Hip” mentality, opinions, and expression. I feel qouting Chris McAndless throughout my essay helps my reader identify with my own personal definition of “Hip”, and what exactly that means.

3. Leland, John. Hip the History. XXX: HarperCollins, 2004. Print

I of course chose to use the book we were assinged in class, because I feel it’s an essential tool to adding to my papers over all credibility, because Leland tends to be the expert on what it is to be, “hip”.

4. Fight Club. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2000.

I chose to also use multiple citations from the movie fight club, because I believe the movie illustrates multiple examples of “hip” characters, and “hip” versions of Tricksters.

Tricksters

I suppose I've found it rather hard to fin, and identify tricksters in American society, and call them out for what they really are. I defiantly understand how Leland could call a character such as Mohamed Ali a trickster, because the man was like a God to American society. He truly was invincible, he was superman, in a society down trodden with racial turmoil. When he spoke his language was like lyrical poetry, and he seemed to have a carefully calculated rebuttal, and answer for everything. I found a wonderful quote about Tricksters, that applies so perfectly to the idea, and character of Mohamed Ali, its remarkable to me that it wasn't actually directly referencing the man himself. "Trickster is a creator, a joker, a truth teller, a story teller, a transformer linked to the spiritual frequency changes humanity is experiencing at this time.". Mohamed Ali was known all throughout America for his humor, and almost lyrical insults towards Joe Frasier, and many of his other opponents. When he stated things like, "

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.", or "I am the astronaut of boxing. Joe Louis and Dempsey were just jet pilots. I'm in a world of my own.", he was showing the world that he was not a part of this world. He lived both in our world, and out of our world at the same time. He truly was a Trickster to the greatest degree. So for me to really try, and find a trickster in todays society is incredibly hard for me to do, so you'll have to forgive my pathetic attempts at this. I suppose I'd have to say that my best definition of todays Trickster Archetypes are characters such as, Chris Rock, Lil Wayne, Weird Al Yankovic, Mitch Hedberg, Demetri Martin, and perhaps the actor Johnny Depp. All of these individuals fit the mold of a Trickster in their own very unique way. They exspress themselves differently then all the other people in their industry. They say what they mean, and feel inside, but in a way that is left up to interpretation, and perhaps subliminal meaning aswell. The Trickster is a very elusive member of society...hard to define, hard to duplicate, even harder to emulate.  

Ps Scott- I apologize for the tardiness on the blog, I moved into a new place this weekend, and completly spaced on the assignment last week. If i do not recieve credit for the blog, i totally understand. I just want to make sure you see my post, and thoughts on the subject.

Tyler

Free Post

I woke up today, and as always before my morning shower I opened my window to let the steam out, and to my surprise it was snowing. I abruptly shut my window, and filled my bathroom, and bedroom with a healthy layer of steam, and condensation. I then drank my workout supplements, and about 30 minutes later felt that wonderful rush of energy I always get before I head to the gym. I crank the Rage Against the Machine, and fall into my daily disciplinary routine. Lift, push, pull. Lift, Push, Pull. Heavy, Heavy, Heavy. Light, Light, Light. Pull up, push up, muscle up, pull down, press, and carry. I am the master of the weights. The weights do not control me, I control them with every fiber in my body. I roar like a lion, every ounce of rage, and anger in my veins is wiped away, like the drops of sweat on my forehead. I am all powerful, the master of my domain, the master of all that I survey. The rips in the skin on my hands, are my battle wounds, that i wear with the pride, and honor of a Samurai. I am stronger than Arnold, I am more powerful than Leonidas from 300, I am Zeus, I am the God of the weights. Nothing is too heavy, nothing is too hard, or difficult. INVICTUS boldly tattooed across my abdomen, symbolizing my unconquerable soul! Fools. I am Superman. I can leap tall buildings in a single bound, more powerful than a locomotive. A perpetual powerful V10 engine, roaring with all the torque, and horsepower in the world! Alas, I take off my gloves, I wash off the sweat on my body, and I am yet again, nothing more then a man. Thank god for the Gym...

The Perfection of Imperfection

I really can't say I find it odd, or out of the ordinary for artist not to strive for perfection. As I previously stated in class, there are many artist throughout history that have found happiness, and or satisfaction in the imperfect exspression. The Nortre Dame cathedral is a prime example of this idea of imperfection in art, because the architechs who created the cathedral purposly made one tower four feet shorter then the other tower, as to not be to close to godliness by creating something that is "perfect". I believe making mistakes in the exspression of art work is imperative to the arts authenticity, and over all orginiality. If every artist in the world was striving for perfection, it would be very difficult for anyone to actually come up with a definition for what it is to be "perfect". I think the "asthetic of imperfection", and the "lisence of living in the present tense" influence each other on many differnt levels. For starters, only focusing on the present tense, and not looking back at history, or thinking about the future, allows one to focus on the here, and now, leaving the perfection, and or imperfection of any piece of art left up to interpretation. This blog topic in unbelievably hard to answer, and define, however my guess is that Scott our wonderful professor, knew this would be hard to define, hence why we as a class got it as a blog prompt. To answer the last part of the promt, for the bonus points offerd about any artist that exemplifies 'beat aesthtic", I'd have to say the only artists that come to mind are Neil Young, The Otis Taylor Band, C-Money and the Players Inc, The Expendables, and Damian Marley. The reason I believe these artist are a prime example of muscians that dont care, or dwell on the idea of creating something perfect, is because they thrive on the idea that no performance is like another. I've seen all these bands in concert, multiple times, and not once has any song ever sounded the same. Whether they play it in a differnt key, or have a different distortion setting on their banjos or guitars, it's always different. The process of creation is far more important to them as artist, then the verbatim, word for word, note for note, reproduction of the music on their albums. They do not care that the songs are differernt every time they play them, it's part of what makes them original, and most of all, human. Humans are imperfect beings, so striving for perfection is like a man trying to fly by jumping off his roof with an umbrella....it just aint happenin.

Listen my friends : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRTrJTaOntU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ORw5m7mRBI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRGON8EIgvI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vef03k5i8VI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze01K4y9C20

Californication of Pulp Fiction

I suppose I'd definatly agree that most of the "pulp" and "noire" in society these days is born, and spawns in Los Angeles. I my opnion there are many reasons why, I think population, and such ethinic diversity in that city in particular plays a huge role in this birth of this "Pulp". Why however, is the West Coast continually beating out the rest of the country in this quest for danger, violence, cynical characters, and bleak settings in film? Well I think the answer is obvious, apart from the fact there are so many damn people in the city, and so much diversity, and it's the simple fact that Hollywood is in LA. The movie making capital of the world is right in the heart of Los Angelse California, I mean hey go figure "pulp", and "noire" come from this place right? A city torrmented by crime, poverty, social, political, and racial problems, is a breeding ground for such principals as "pulp", and "noire". I suppose for once I am at an utter, and complete loss of words, and thoughts to continue on this subject. Normally I tend to feel overloaded with thoughts, and ideas, and I simply can not wait to spit them out onto paper...I'll finnish this on that note; "Pulp", and "noire" come from Los Angeles simply because of Hollywood, population, and ethnic diversity.

Hip:Urbanization vs. Rural America

I suppose I would have to strongly agree with Leland on this issue in particular. To me, the answer to whether or not urbanization plays a role in the creation, origin, and even the development of "Hip" is beyond self evident. I was born in Seattle, Washington, and for the first ten years of my life I lived on the far side of Bainbridge Island in a small town. Now I know many people in Boise would argue that Boise is a small town, but I mean my town was small, as in less than 7,000 people small. None of the kids in my elementary school dressed in name brand stuff, we all wore jeans, our favorite super hero shirts, stupidly big rain coats, and dorky ass rain boots. No one even knew what "hip" or "cool" was, we were blissfully ignorant to the outside world, and what was presently captivating the souls, and imagination of other youth our age in the Emerald City(Seattle) that was just a ferry boats ride away. When my Dad started taking me to work with him at Rare Coins on 3erd avenue in downtown Seattle, I began to notice the other kids, and boy did they ever notice me. The girls would laugh, and giggle at me, pointing at my giant yellow rain boots. The boys wore cloths with brand names such as Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, and Aeropastal. All of these department stores were found at their local mall, and it seemed every kid my age in downtown Seattle was wearing these cloths. Why? What was so cool about a company that sounded like "A bread Crumb and Fish" when you said it or read it fast? We didn't have a mall on the Island, just little stores, and outfitters, most of which had probably never even heard of these weird brands. But never the less, I wanted these cloths because it made these kids something I defiantly wasn't, "Hip". However I'd get my taste of Hip soon enough, believe you me :) HA! When I was ten years old I moved to Rockwall, Texas, a Suburb of the beautiful city of Dallas. There was a mall ten minutes from my house, and I damn well found that out the hard way the first day of 4th grade. I walked into my class room, and if you'd believe it, all the damn kids had Abercrombie and Fitch, and Hollister cloths on. There I am in my Xgames T-shirt, jeans, and converse, who the hell was I? I was the kid who'd just moved 2,000 miles from and island off the coast of Washington State to a suburb of Dallas, Texas that who! All these kids spoke differntly then I did, and they didnt hesitate a moment to let me know it. They asked me where I bought my cloths, if I'd ever been to a mall? I thought no, I'd never seen a mall, but jeez I was only 10 years old, malls are for adults. Apparently not however, parents not just in Texas but it seems, ANY, major metropolitan area take their children to a mall rather frequently, sort of a family outting if you will...Wow. I was behind the times right? Took me three years to figure out how to be Hip, and Cool enough to ward off the persecution and ridicule of being differnent. Ha...and to think most of those assholes who made fun of me back then are still stuck in that little town doing nothing with their lives! Whos laughin now ya'll!? MOVVVING on...

To make sense out of all that I just told you, we must first go back, and look at what I was supposed to take away from this piece; or rather what you my reader are supposed to take away from this. Hippness, cannot, and will not ever come from rural, or country parts of America. I got family back east in Kentucky, and Ohio area, and let me tell ya something, they wouldnt know what Hip was is you slapped em across the face with an Abercrombie shirt, sprayed em with Hollister perfume, put some True Religion Jeans with holes in em on em, and made em listen to Lady Gaga. They'd be dumb founded, scared, and discombobulated beyond repair. Hip is born, and lives in URBAN areas. Straight up fact ladies, and gentlement, is what it is as I always say. You city dwellin folk know how to look "cute", and dress "cool", but ya'll really don't impress me to tell the truth. To me what kinda cloths you wear, or wore back in the day really don't make ya special, your just stuck in that illusion and I hope to whatever gods maybe that you someday come out of your "hipness sickness". My father for example, oh god Dad you'll have to forgive me for dragging you into this, but I would argue that you sort of had it coming, and probably should have expected this. My Dad divorced my Mom when I was 16, and moved out to Los Angeles, California, and thats where my dads midlife crisis, and or 45 year old in denial phase began. My father is pushing 50 years old, but trying to dress like one of the guys off Jersey Shore. I love the man, despite his faults, and failures, he is my Dad, and he did bring me into the world. Anyways, My Dad, my flesh and Blood, parades me around Los Angeles and Malibu California where he resides, all the while he wears Diesel Jeans, True Religions, Affliction T-Shirts with the gay shiney lettering, and Ed Hardy Shirts. I'm dressed in Levis, Vans, and an old Led Zeppelin T-shirt, and an ozzy osbourne trucker hat. Can you imagine the awkward sight we are? Ah well, Dad, you just gave into the urban monster that runs your city of Los Angeles, and the infectious beasts name is Hip. You are no doubt trendy, but in all aspect of life you are foolish, and arrogant to focus so much on the label on your shirt, shoes, ties, and jeans. Hip lives at the core of urban areas, fueling people like my father to waste unspeakable amounts of time, and money on aqquiring a certain look, that in all reality changes every damn year, seriously, who has time for that kind of dedication to image? I much prefer my small town, very uncool, very NOT hip people, because despite the power behind Hip, it has yet to find the power to reach the small rural pockets left in America. I do fear, that someday however, urbanization, and Hip will unite together, and take over America....shit. A bunch of Situations, Pauly Ds. and my Dad running around together. FML

P.S.-Beverly Hills, California has too many mirrors. Ya'll arnt that pretty.


time for class...

This is what you shall do...

For what it's worth, I do not in anyway condone or expect anyone to actually do what I suggest in this post. I am 21 years old, fueled by late nights spent with my dear friends Johnny Walker, my "homie" Jack Daniels, my main man Mr. John Jameson, and my dearest, and oldest companion Sir Jimmy of Beam. On rare occasions I visit Knob Creek when my wallet permits it. I work out obsessively, I consume mass amounts of caffeine, and I'm hopelessly in love with a lady named Mary Jane. Often times my reality is very different from the life as You, and by You I mean the poor sap sitting down, and reading my ramblings, and rants. So with those simple facts being so boldly laid down upon the tables of time before you, I give you my two cents...enjoy

"This is what you shall do.."- You must stop and enjoy the simple beauties whatever gods maybe have put before you, for someday you will wake up, and realize your and old man. You must give up the toxins this world puts around, and inside of us, mainly Cigarettes, for they will surely kill you. You must attack each obstacle life sets before you with your hardest hit, and greatest effort, because a life of regret is no life at all. You must learn to love and forgive those who have wronged, and tormented you. If one can find it in their heart to forgive, then one can find some type of peace in this world. I love you Dad, and I'm sorry. One must also take a personal responsibility to clean up the world we live in...Lord knows I don't want my kids growing up in the current state we exist in. Don't sweat the small stuff, because you'll leave little time for reflection, and reconciliations of the larger issues in life. Hold those close to tight, and tell your friends you love them everyday. I miss you Alexis Rae. Treat your Mom like a queen till the day she dies, for she brought you into this world, and gave you the gift of life. Respect your father the way he wants to be respected, even if he comes off as an arrogant asshole most of the time. It'll make your relationship with him better later in life. Take a shot of Jack Daniels every chance you get to celebrate your existance, and make sure you set your watches alarm everyday for 4:20pm, and stop and enjoy life for a minute. Live like you knew you wernt going to wake up the following morning. Smile at random people daily. :)

Freedom of Post...

If you give me an inch of freedom when it comes to my own writing, I can almost certainly assure you I'll take a mile, or maybe more. For what should be a simple 300 words, I'd add, subtract, multiply and divide, and somehow come out with thousands of words in the end. However, it has proven to be a hard task in itself, to decipher what it is I am truly trying to convey beneath all the extraneous bullshit. So at this point in time I have come to a cross roads in my life, and my writing style. For years I've felt it absolutely imperative that I convey every single detail, and point I want the world to hear, with an utter disregard for how it may take away from what I am trying to say. In recent times, I have found it to be more challenging for me to attempt to just say and write about, what is, rather then what isn't. Call me crazy, but I feel I often have a negative connotation to my writing, whether I'm conscience of it or not, whether it be intentional or not, it is very real detrimental aspect of my writing style...I feel it now best to allow my readers to create and form their own opinions on my pieces, rather then sway their thoughts, and feeling with my subliminal literary brain washing. I used to very much enjoy injecting my own thoughts, and opinions upon my readers mind, leaving little room for interpretation, and independent thought on my readers end. Perhaps this was a pathetic stab at me having some type of power over my own domain, and or literary works. Maybe it's my testerone fueled twenty one year old mind, flooding my pen, and key board with raw emotions, and thoughts. Whatever it maybe, I feel I must let my future readers, and audiance know, that despite being strong willed, and at times borderline arrogant, I am going to attempt to remain indifferent on all subjects, and simply say what needs to be said, nothing more, nothing less. As we continue into our spring semester, I hope you enjoy watching my struggles, and much as I despise making changes.

That is all. Class starts in a few minutes.

What is a Hipster?

When attempting to answer the seemingly simple question of, "what is a Hipster?", I find myself at a loss for words. To be honest, I believe the definition of what exactly a "hipster" is, changes from generation to generation, so slapping a simple label, and or definition on said being is an extremly difficult task indeed. I suppose in this day in age, a hipster can take on many forms, and shapes. One might consider the frequenters of the local North End Boise Co-Op to be "hipsters", however then again, I am also an outsider to their culture. So where as one maybe a Hipster to others, they may not appear, and or consider themselves to be a Hipster in their own demographic of people, thus taking the power away from the label entirly. In my opinion what makes a Hipster, a Hipster is the simple, and yet seemingly impossible task of being different the the rest of the crowd, or being a non-conformist. So what makes "emo" kids emo, is the fact that they wear skinny jeans, where spikey belts, have borderline feminen haircuts, and wear "emo" band shirts. But if you were to ask one of these "emo" kids if they considerd themselves to be Hipsters, I'm sure they would deny such an existance, and bombard you with a multitude of reasons why they are "emo", as a pose to simply accepting the fact that they have indeed created their own demographic of people. Like wise, a "skater", or "snowboarder" much like myself, may also be considerd a Hipster by others, simple because we do not fit the model of social norms, and or expectations. We are a breed apart, living on the fringes of society, left to soak up what little love, and acceptance we can by locals like ourselves in the community.  However, by recognizing, and labeling this group of people, and counting myself among them, I've given a meaning to the word "hipster" without any intention of doing so. I suppose "hipster" means to not conform to the socially accepted norms of whatever group you so choose to be a part of, whether it be enviormentalist, emos, punks, goths, skaters, potheads, preps, hippies or whatever other groups of non conformist you so choose to count yourselves among. We all have a little "hipster" in us i suppose, however it's really up to the Hipster to choose how far they truly buy into their own identity. Do they give up everything to create an entirly new identity, or do they buy some Vans, and throw on a Volcom shirt and call themselves a skater? No...no...I believe to be a Hipster is much more complex then the simple apparel we choose to throw on our feet, and backs, there has got to be more to it then that. To be a "hipster" one must also establish their own Slang Language. To be hip, it is essential to have words, and sayings that others outside the group simply do not understand, nor do they intend to try and grasp. In my group of "hipsters" we say words such as "hella" meaning "very" or "really". I'll use it in a sentence to bring more light to the word, because in reality Websters does not have that word in the dictionary, let alone a simple definition. "That backside feeble grind was Hella sick broski". To Literally translate what was just said in "skater lingo", I stated, " That grind you did on that handrail was very well executed my good friend". But if we were to state the obvious in such simple, and staight foward terms we would detract from our own identity, so we speak the way we know to speak. Another fine example out of the skating community would be words such as "tight" meaning very cool, or awesome. Words such as "steezy" or "weak" mean the exact opposite, with definitions some where along the lines of "lame" or "less then satisfactory".  To go back to my original idea, and not lead you too far into my own sense of what is "hipster" status, let me finally address the fact that Hipsters do not belong to a certain region, or point in time, rather they belong to those that identify themselves apart from the crowd, and thus create their own crowd of like minded individuals.