I am another one to go hiking and take in the opportunity to experience the nature and environment around me. I think that non-human nature is so neglected and abusive behavior politically excused (clear-cutting, mass produced meat, etc.) that many children grow up forgetting nature. It's interesting how most children seem to have a connection with nature that is usually lost with adulthood.
Kyle's Question: "If you're in the woods and you do something do your actions become part of "nature's song"?
That is a really interesting question. I have not thought about it too in depth because I only read it minutes ago. But this is my opinion so far--
I think that the woods have a certain awareness, by that I mean the creatures within the woods, that what makes up the woods. I think there is more of an awareness between creatures in the woods than in human societies. This is a whole thing in itself to explain, which I will if necessary, but assuming this...
I think that if the sounds you are making are made with awareness to your surroundings than you are adding to nature's song. IF by 'nature' you mean what makes up the woods, which would technically at that time include you.
Because of the carelessness in the use of "natural" by advertisements, I like to think of two natures-- a non-human nature, and nature (including humans). If by 'nature' you meant the former, than of course a human's voice/actions would not be part of "nature's song."
One could argue that if it's in human nature to be disruptive (sound wise), that they are at least capable, then it's within nature's song.
My Question: Do you think that children are born with a closer relationship to non-human nature? Do many because of society, grow to neglect, and ignorantly abuse non-human nature?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Response to Emily Burke
Emily responded to my earlier blog which was a response to Amy's originally question addressing murder and abortion.
I agree with you Emily that every child should get a chance to make it in the world. And that no human has the power to decide this.
I threw a bunch of circumstances out there. What might run through the mind of some-- abortions do happen. I think some happen because of the circumstances I listed... rape, incest, knowledge the biological mother will not be able to raise the child, children having children... etc. I could sit back and look at these circumstances, none affecting my life, and say that abortion should not happen, no matter what circumstance... One point I was trying to make was--- is it that easy to say and the conclusion of no abortion easily made if the child having the incest baby was your daughter, or if you were the one raped. All I am saying is it is easy to make a conclusion about an ethical issue when you're not the one having to face it personally.
Emily says "So, abortion is morally wrong no matter what the circumstance is- unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother."
Saving the life of the mother is a circumstance, no matter how you look at it. It is an acceptable circumstance to Emily for abortion to take place. (Which I agree with)
With that one circumstance in place, you seem to later argue that no circumstance should allow abortion.
"For me personally, abortion is not an issue of circumstance. You can't allow for some abortions but not others based on how bad you feel for the mother's situation. That is subjective; you can't base a decision as serious as this on it. If you consider a fetus a person, than abortion is always murder, and always morally wrong. "
If the mother may lose her life, and that allows abortion, that is a case of 'feeling for the mother's situation'
By allowing that one circumstance, saving the mother's life, you are really saying logically "some circumstances are acceptable for abortion to take place" because that means "at least one" (some = at least one),
This is why I stated earlier, that circumstance seems to really play a role in people's opinions of whether abortion is okay or not.
I think it's like any situation where there's a gray area, it's just that, a gray area, there's no definite line in place to separate the black from the white.
I agree with you Emily that every child should get a chance to make it in the world. And that no human has the power to decide this.
I threw a bunch of circumstances out there. What might run through the mind of some-- abortions do happen. I think some happen because of the circumstances I listed... rape, incest, knowledge the biological mother will not be able to raise the child, children having children... etc. I could sit back and look at these circumstances, none affecting my life, and say that abortion should not happen, no matter what circumstance... One point I was trying to make was--- is it that easy to say and the conclusion of no abortion easily made if the child having the incest baby was your daughter, or if you were the one raped. All I am saying is it is easy to make a conclusion about an ethical issue when you're not the one having to face it personally.
Emily says "So, abortion is morally wrong no matter what the circumstance is- unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother."
Saving the life of the mother is a circumstance, no matter how you look at it. It is an acceptable circumstance to Emily for abortion to take place. (Which I agree with)
With that one circumstance in place, you seem to later argue that no circumstance should allow abortion.
"For me personally, abortion is not an issue of circumstance. You can't allow for some abortions but not others based on how bad you feel for the mother's situation. That is subjective; you can't base a decision as serious as this on it. If you consider a fetus a person, than abortion is always murder, and always morally wrong. "
If the mother may lose her life, and that allows abortion, that is a case of 'feeling for the mother's situation'
By allowing that one circumstance, saving the mother's life, you are really saying logically "some circumstances are acceptable for abortion to take place" because that means "at least one" (some = at least one),
This is why I stated earlier, that circumstance seems to really play a role in people's opinions of whether abortion is okay or not.
I think it's like any situation where there's a gray area, it's just that, a gray area, there's no definite line in place to separate the black from the white.
Response to Amy Rosvalley
Amy's question: "Is abortion really murder if it is performed before brain function is existent in the fetus"
First to answer this question, I did a little research on fetus brain activity. Some against abortion, claim brain activity as early as six weeks in the embryo which brings them to conclude the fetus then is sentient. Gregg Easterbrook claims from medical evidence that the so-called brain activity is no more than 'random neuron firings as nerves connect – basically tiny spasms.'
"From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically “impossible” before these connections form." (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)
I dont see much controversy over whether a fetus weeks from birth is sentient or not, I think the controversial question is when during pregnancy does the fetus create thoughts and feel?
Two things-- I don't think it's murder if there's no brain function (and the circumstances would have to fit just right for me to consider abortion murder, personally).
and also, I think abortion is completely circumstantial... I think it is an ethical issue especially looking at all angles of the situation. For example, A family member raping a female within the family-- is abortion okay then?, Rape in general-- then you have to consider the health of the mother and the health of the baby. A teen-age pregnancy, where the mother's not ready... Teen-age girls who are afraid of criticism about abortion and these 'murderous claims', so they give birth and the baby so unfortunately ends up in a dumpster. Is it ethical to bring a child into the world just so they have to suffer the orphan life, which with research anyone would find that suicide rates are higher for orphans than children who grew up with steady parents. Then think of all the children already on the earth that are being neglected and whom are starving.
MY QUESTION: Is abortion okay circumstantially? (if one does not believe in abortion what so ever, do you think they have reviewed what I've listed above, and all the other circumstances... would they feel the same if the girl raped was their daughter, etc...)
First to answer this question, I did a little research on fetus brain activity. Some against abortion, claim brain activity as early as six weeks in the embryo which brings them to conclude the fetus then is sentient. Gregg Easterbrook claims from medical evidence that the so-called brain activity is no more than 'random neuron firings as nerves connect – basically tiny spasms.'
"From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically “impossible” before these connections form." (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)
I dont see much controversy over whether a fetus weeks from birth is sentient or not, I think the controversial question is when during pregnancy does the fetus create thoughts and feel?
Two things-- I don't think it's murder if there's no brain function (and the circumstances would have to fit just right for me to consider abortion murder, personally).
and also, I think abortion is completely circumstantial... I think it is an ethical issue especially looking at all angles of the situation. For example, A family member raping a female within the family-- is abortion okay then?, Rape in general-- then you have to consider the health of the mother and the health of the baby. A teen-age pregnancy, where the mother's not ready... Teen-age girls who are afraid of criticism about abortion and these 'murderous claims', so they give birth and the baby so unfortunately ends up in a dumpster. Is it ethical to bring a child into the world just so they have to suffer the orphan life, which with research anyone would find that suicide rates are higher for orphans than children who grew up with steady parents. Then think of all the children already on the earth that are being neglected and whom are starving.
MY QUESTION: Is abortion okay circumstantially? (if one does not believe in abortion what so ever, do you think they have reviewed what I've listed above, and all the other circumstances... would they feel the same if the girl raped was their daughter, etc...)
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
intro to seven
The introduction of 7, falls into the dilemmas of contradicting perceptions. Artists utilizing the instruments differently, for them, can be an artistic expression, while disrespecting for others. Those artists are expressing themselves through their performance - using the Javanese musical instruments differently. Hence the title - A Little Water Music for Gamelan, they used water literally in the instruments. Aside from non-Javanese cultures & individual people who find the difference disrespectful, the Javanese people may perceive the difference more personally disrespectful because the instruments represent their culture more spicifically, which is why Davies expresses as he sat watching the performance, "I was glad that comparativley few Javanese were present."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
