Not anymore... Well, maybe it's just a college thing.
My beef with weekends:
The next week looms: many of my friends actually use the weekends as time to work all day long. Sometimes straight from Friday night into Saturday and on til Sunday night. That way they can do other stuff (like human/living stuff) during the week. Not that they do necessarily.
They inspire laziness: all I want to do all weekend is sit around in my pj's and watch movies on my computer.
Guilt: the logical conclusion from the two preceding bullets is that I end up doing a whole lotta nothin' on my weekends (I do work, just somehow not as much as some of my friends (I swear, she's gotta make stuff up to do)) while other people spend their waking hours nose-deep in a textbook. I'm the kind of person who feels incredibly (inCREDibly) guilty in a situation like this, even if someone is literally making shit up to study. So I spend the whole weekend feeling like worthless crap. Woohoo.
Mondays: enough said.
So that's my little weekend rant. This weekend? Well I have two essays due next week, so you know what I'll be doing. Right now, though, I'm thinking of going to sleep. Buonanotte...
Today A said to me (paraphrased), "I'm creating beauty." Something to that effect. And I (being me) thought, what is beauty? Because I can never let these things go... sorry, A...
I immediately thought of some possibilties (which have the added bonus of framing my question): Is beauty sort of like energy, something that is imbued upon an object? Keeping in mind "the eye of the beholder," is it something that only exists in the beholder's mind[/perception/reality]? Is beauty intrinsic in the object (ie a quality belonging to the object)? And in all of these situations, is finite or infinite or something else (eg spanning space and time and able to exist in multiplicity)?
When I voiced these questions, A (quite understandably) was a bit confused. I have to admit that I didn't present these questions quite so eloquently then, not that they necessarily make sense now. But here goes...
I think beauty intrinsic in the object. But that sort of absolute makes me squirm, so I will quickly clarify that I think beauty is not a quality or a characteristic set in stone (measurable) but a potential. Of course I'm tempted to go with "beauty is an adjective only, belonging to the viewer," because at first glance that seems to fit best with the whole perception-is-reality-and-truth-does-not-exist theory, but I'm feeling slightly rebellious today. What's the point of thinking if we don't sometimes challenge our own ideas?
Really, beauty as a potential and inherent in the object makes the most sense, after all. This is a pared-down version of my idea of beauty: think of beauty as a scale. Several scales, actually. Every object, every thing has its own scale; that scale measures its beauty as percieved and assigned by a viewer (a percieved-beauty scale, PBS). Also, every object with the ability to assign beauty (namely humans) has another scale that ranks all percieved objects by beauty (a ranking scale, RS). Okay, so I'm back to the perception-reality model; so sue me. Let's think of three objects: a flower, a tree, and a stone. Each has a PBS from 1 to 100; however, their 100's may not be the same on an individual's RS (ie the flower has more ability to be beautiful, and therefore a higher max than the stone). A human (called Bob) percieves the three objects. Bob has a RS in his head. Let's say that Bob thinks the flower is really pretty, and he gives it a 74 [on the flower's PBS]. He thinks the tree is pretty, too, so he gives it an 80 [on the tree's PBS]. The stone is ugly to Bob (it's green and slimy with pond muck) so he gives it 26 [on the stone's PBS]. Now for Bob's RS; the flower's PBS is lower than the tree's, but on Bob's RS the flower is higher than the tree, say 63 vs 48. This means that he thinks the flower is fairly pretty for a flower and the tree is pretty for a tree, but as far as beautiful goes they're not as beautiful as other things (for instance he ranks his wife as a 92). Does that make sense? A PBS is comparing one object to other like objects, and an individual RS is comparing one object percieved by a person to all the other objects the person has ever percieved.
I'm using "object" fairly loosely, because by "object" I mean "pretty much anything" including humans, other animals, plants, inanimate objects, ideas, paintings, relationships, love, situations, anything you might ever refer to as beautiful.
Ask me questions! I know I've probably confused a lot of you (truthfully I haven't chewed out all the details yet), but if you are willing to read to this very sentence at the end of the post, you probably would like to understand (I hope). So ask away! Ciao!
Have you ever heard that "the truth is stranger than fiction?" Okay; close your eyes right now and think of (I know it's painful, but bear with me) Sarah Palin. I wish that on April Fools' Day, at least for 24 hours, these things could be a joke. You know, like for 24 hours they weren't real, and the world made a little more sense and stuff. But no, crazy people have to come out with this. I'm afraid this is real. Yes, I'm very, very afraid.
If you are interested in more interesting links (ie where I got this one) go to The House of Vines (btw when he says he's a year-round joker, it's because he worships Dionysus). Have a joyful April Fools' and don't let anyone try to convince you that the Earth is flat or that life was created by some supreme being, because that's just silly! Ciao!