Art and Knowing

Prescribed Title # 3: "Knowing is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts."

Art is a form of entertainment that has taken center stage on the tabula rasa, blank slate. What is constructed as art is dependent on the era it was constructed in or the individual who framed it.
Victorian art emphasized decorative arts in household settings and Realism art forms depicted images in more natural settings. With this in mind, an image that was created in the Victorian era and transported to the Realism era would not be as highly appraised than if it was in its original time period.

In art, perception is reality.

For instance, iconic images such as the Mona Lisa are probably famous because the society in that era placed a value that continues to persist in this day. I am certain that Leonardo Da Vinci was not the first person to paint an image with semblance to the Mona Lisa. So why is it that his painting, The Mona Lisa, deemed as famous? It is because society dictates what is great and what will be great. If The Mona Lisa was created in our century would it be as famous? Probably not. Why? Because as society changes, so does the perception of art. What is deemed as "artful" in one era might not be so in another.

In the art world, knowledge pertaining to aesthetic beauty is more than the systematic origination of facts, for the conceptualization of art stems from human perception, which is entirely subjective. The only aspect that is continuously systematic and objective are the organization of primary colors. Beyond that, how these primary colors emerge to paint "art" is depended on the artist himself. This is the subjective nature of art.

Knowledge and the Justice System

Prescribed Title: "Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts"

The justice system is a fundamental aspect of American society; its job is to bring justice to criminals and vindicate the wrongly accused. As one uncovers the structure of how justice is formed, the question of how this knowledge is acquired comes to light.

Information of a case is derived from any scientific and pertinent evidence. Knowledge about the events that happened is then formulated in terms of not only how these facts are organized, but also from how these facts are interpreted by the prosecution and defense team.
The prosecution is assessing evidence with the goal of proving the said perpetrator guilty. With this in mind, when the prosecution frames its argument, using the same information as the defense, their interpretation will be different then its opposing side (defense team). Similarly, the defense team is using the same set of information as the prosecution, but is forming a different argument in hopes of deeming an individual as not guilty.

The formation of justice is a process that is convoluted and not as straight-forward as one sees it. If it was, then the objective pieces of the information would exclusively determine the outcome of a case. However, along with objective information, subjective information is also injected into interpreting objective evidence. In a nutshell, the job of a lawyer is to construct a believable sequence of events to frame his/her client as innocent.  To an extent, this can explain why innocent individuals are convicted as guilty, and vice-versa. Objective evidence can be misconstrued through subjective interpretation of concrete facts.

In the Justice System, who is innocent and who is guilty is, to an extent, clouded by one's interpretation of what is "correct".

Religion: More than systematic organization

Religion, according to the Merriam-Webster definition, is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules that serve to worship god(s).

In the world alone, there are billions of individuals who identify themselves as part of a religious group, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, or Hinduism, among others. Most religions, notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have a similar belief structure, including: presence of an afterlife, a single God, a set of commandments, and the act of repentance, as a means to become sanctified.

One then can ask himself/herself, if religion is centered on a set belief system, why is it some religious individuals who follow these rules are more blessed than other religious people? Why is it that not all religious people's fates end up the same? Why is it that more miracles happen to some religious people and not others?

The answer all lies in faith.

Faith is an abstract concept that goes beyond the traditional systematic following of rules in a religion. And most importantly, it, unlike a system, cannot be measured.

When one has faith, his/her degree of faith can be the difference between his blessings and another individual's. Faith is believing the impossible is possible. Faith is putting trust in a supernatural being and relying on this alone. This is what faith is.

Although religion is based on the systematic organization of doctrines, traditions, and rules, which construct knowledge, faith is an aspect that is not systematic. One cannot calculate faith. Rather, one has to deliberately put his/her trust in a God, with no blatant indication of what the end result with be.

With this in mind, religion is more than the systematic organization of facts.

Human /Social Sciences and the usage of systems

Prescribed Title: "Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts"

In the social sciences, particularity anthropology, the practices of cultures from around the world are evaluated and assessed based on historic relics or practices that tell a story about their origins. From an objective standpoint, it can be said that the social sciences are based on the systematic organization of facts that point to a certain culture. If x is found in a part of y's culture, then this means z.

But it doesn't work like that; this formula does not entail the complete story and depiction of a culture.

When social scientists evaluate and try to make sense of foreign cultures, an understanding of the culture's way of life must be taken into account. With this in mind, a social scientist's interpretation of the practices of a social group must be taken into consideration. If the social sciences were solely based on the systematic organization of facts, there would be no social science, as this domain relies heavily on how humans interact among social groups.

Take this into consideration, let's say that in a certain culture, when an economic difficulty is being faced in the community, all the eldest single daughters are sold to increase household revenue, therefore increasing the society's wealth.

In the U.S, this would be a no-no, but in other parts of the globe, this is an acceptable practice. If everyone in the world had a universal understanding of human life, then in the aforementioned situation, everyone would respond by either selling or not selling a family member. However, as we know, this is not the case.
Humans are social beings and, depending on the environment one is raised in, respond based on what he or she has been taught in his or her society. Hence, in the field of social sciences, it is important to understand that although understanding the systematic organization of facts (such as cultural rules, ordinances, customs, and sanctions) helps understand the skeleton of a society, the meat of knowledge lies in the comprehension of why these practices exist. Since reasoning is subjective, this process is not as clear cut and, consequently, not systematically organized.

Math: The usage of systems

Prescribed Title: "Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts."

Knowledge is primarily attained by empirical evidence; facts are culminated into distinct patterns, which are then integrated into an overall comprehension of the world. In the field of mathematics, numbers are units that provide human beings a system of quantifying and placing a numerical value on objects, or in some cases, intangible concepts.

For example, the value of a diamond is showed by its rarity. To do so, one must place a price tag on a diamond to show the extent of its scarcity ; The Steinmetz Pink Diamond is worth 25 million USD and is valued at such because of its rare pink color and size. Additionally, fashion products are rated "couture", once they become limited to an elite group of individuals and is not readily attainable by the average person. Humans value the quality of products, not by certain stylistic features, but by the logo an item of clothing has. From Vera Wang to Prada to Louboutin, all "high-end" products have one thing in common: A hefty price tag. Only those who can afford these brands are deemed as fashionable and, consequently, have bought the concept of "being cool". 


In the case of rarity and what it means to be "in fashion" and couture, the numbers game is used to place value on these concepts. With this in mind, it takes more than the systematic organization of facts to constitute knowledge in the domains of "rarity" and "high fashion". If nobody thought diamonds were spectacles to be awed at or certain designer brands were the highlight of the fashion industry, then there would be no difference between choosing between a fake or a real diamond or shopping at Target or Burberry. Everything would be a level playing field. However, this is not the case. 

The systematic organization of facts, in the case of mathematics and determining "value", is not so objective and systematized as one might think. Since perception is reality, that which we value will have a bias in the system created to evaluate it. As in the case of diamonds and designer brands, the more valued a product is seen, the greatest numerical value it is given. 

First the idea gave birth to the perception which gave birth to the price tag. What a systematic process. 

The creation of "Beings"

Prescribed title: "That which is considered knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow."

Spontaneous Generation experiment 

Spontaneous generation.

The abrupt and haphazard creation of maggots/flies from meat.

This belief prevailed the 17th century; it was "common notion" that when meat was left out, flies and or maggots would be "birthed".

Francesco Redi was an Italian naturalist, physician, and poet who debunked the theory of spontaneous generation.




To do so, he created an experiment that resembled the image below.

Three jars that each had meat had a paper cover, no cover, and gauze cover, respectively. Redi hypothesized that only the meat that had physical contact with the flies would "produce" maggots.

The hypothesis was correct.

Although each meat decayed, only containers (b) and (c) attracted flies; the open contact with air allowed the rotting smell to be transmitted and, therefore, be detected by the flies. Then, the flies would lay their eggs on the open meat/open gauze. In conclusion, the meat did not "birth" maggots (baby flies), the flies did.

The preexisting knowledge that accepted the spontaneous generation theory was no longer valid.

In the scientific world, it is only until another piece of knowledge replaces the prior that knowledge is accepted as "true".Science is always a changing and evolving field. New information will, more often than not, either build on or invalidate previous "truths". It is only until an individual challenges what is accepted as "true" that existing "truths" can be put to the test. Until then, however, what is accepted as knowledge will prevail.

Changing Views on Body Image

Prescribed Title: "That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow."


Image: "Born in the Wrong Century"

From Mona Lisa to the Assumption of the Virgin to Ruben's Adoration of the Magi, ancient historical paintings have lauded the voluptuous human form. There were no paintings of stick thin women who, on the verge of starvation, aimed to represent beauty.

No.

It was during these times that a women who had a more full figure was named beautiful.

Nowadays, It's the opposite.

The knowledge of a women being 'preferable' and of bride material in positive correlation with her body weight/shape has diminished. Instead, those who are near a size zero or emerging from a Vogue magazine have replaced this ideology. As seen in the left-handed image "Born in the Wrong Century", women who have the voluptuous and full-figured body type in contemporary society are shunned; however, this body image would have been advantageous in ancient times. It is ironic that although ancient paintings with women who represent the full-figured body type are still seen as exceptional art, women who represent this body type in contemporary society are not valued as highly, if at all.

Evidently, the knowledge of what it meant to be a "good figured" woman, as portrayed in art, during the earlier centuries is discarded in today's society.

Thin wasn't always meant to be.

Dear Carlotta Ferlito: We will paint ourselves white

Freedom of speech. According to the First Amendment of the United States, individuals are granted this liberty. Other countries and institutions have also incorporated this ideology as a paramount freedom that extends to all individuals. However, in some cases, this right can be utilized to harm individuals, rather than serve as a conducive tool for individuals to communicate thoughts. In the case of Carlotta Ferlito, an Italian gymnast, she issued this statement upon the announcement of Simone Biles' placement as a World Champion Gymnast, the first black woman to do so:

'Maybe next time we'll paint our skin black so we can win'


The knowledge issue that is posed here is the extent to which one's 'freedom of speech' should be protected.

Some individuals who became aware of Ferlito's comment said that she should not be penalized because it was a 'slip of a tongue' and 'she has a right to express her disappointment of not winning the World Champion Gymnast title'.

Although I agree that individuals have a right to complain and express disappointment, I do not agree with using any racial, homophobic, islamophobic, or any other form of discriminatory and prejudiced remark to express this emotion. It simply has no place. In the context of Carlotta Ferlito's remark, she implies that in order to succeed, one must paint himself/herself black to gain some sort of privilege that 'blackness' (somehow) entails. In response, I have issued the following statements:

Dear Carlotta Ferlito,

Thank you very much for exposing your ignorance to the world. I will take some time out of my day to educate you on a few things. Firstly, I suggest instead of you paining yourself black to gain recognition as the gold medalist in the World Championship, Simone Biles should paint herself white. I think its imperative that in order to be taken seriously, one must resemble those of European ancestry. Ms. Ferlito, don't paint yourself black, it will simply cause a plethora of troubles ahead. You will be subject to racial insults and taunts. Your value will be reduced to stereotypes and any accomplishment you received will be deemed credible only because 'she was black, they gave her the position because she's black.' As you can see, painting yourself black won't do you any good. Last time I checked, you are white. There are no negative stereotypes associated with being white. So take heart dear, your skin color is perfect to society. Stay white. Simone Biles, on the other hand, is black. With this in mind, it would be beneficial for her to paint herself white. That way, she will be taken seriously on her accomplishments because apparently, if one is black, then his or her achievements will be reduced to being 'wanted' on the basis of 'being black'. Black people aren't good enough to be seen for the skills they (apparently) have. If Simone Biles paints herself white, then maybe, just maybe, people will think her winning was authentic and credible.

Sincerely,

T

America: Melting Pot or Melting Not?

America, named the 'cultural melting pot' nation. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, ethnic groups, religions, and races migrate here. Consequently, one can find rich and diverse cultures.
Although I acknowledge this aspect, I disagree with the term 'melting pot'.

Why?

Because, by definition, a substance that melts to form a cohesive unit with other components loses some of its chemical properties in the process. Take bronze for example, although it is primarily composed of tin and copper, the components that make it up are not apparent in the final product (bronze). We don't see the tin and we don't see the copper. We just see the bronze.
In the same way, by saying that America is a 'melting pot' of cultures, one is saying that several cultures merge together to form one uniform substance. This is not true.

The multitude of cultures in the United States are distinct. One can easily separate Asian, from African, from African-American, from Hispanic, from European, from American cultures, etc.

There is not a significant overlap within the cultures in the United States.

A bowl of fruit salad, rather than a smoothie, is symbolic to the multitude of cultures that exist in America. One can readily 'pick out' one culture from another in the same bowl. The cultures that exist are not 'blended' to the same consistency.

To be or not to be: Makeup

The seemingly imperative accessory that is worn by most women, makeup.

A touch of gloss to create an illusion of voluptuous lips, a thick black trace of eye-liner that accentuates the form of the eye, a dash of powder to add vibrancy to cheeks, and a seal of eye shadow to deepen the depth and dimension of her eyes. Makeup.

Although I understand that beauty is in the 'eye of the beholder', a knowledge issue that I often encounter is the extent to which the use of makeup serves a deterrent to recognizing 'true beauty'?

The media contains a plethora of misconstrued ideals of beauty; light skin; extreme thinness; painfully white teeth; and protruding and large breasts. The average female does not have all these features, yet the media is not representative of this fact. Consequently, you have a large population of females who are attempting to attain the fictitious ideal of beauty, with an emphasis on makeup. Additionally, you then produce a society that defines a female's attractiveness in this respect.

Now, with that in mind, I find it really hard to accept the fact that people say beauty is subjective if a consistent (and distorted) image of beauty is presented. If you ask a panel of people to rate a female's beauty (ranging from no make-up to increased make-up), there will be a positive correlation as the amount of makeup increases. 

Although there is a predominant understanding that excessive/heavy make-up is unattractive, there is a prevailing belief that make-up usage makes a female appear more attractive. This begs the question, is there an inherent universal 'understanding' of what beauty is? Or is this universal perception a result of the presentation of beauty in the media? 

Yes beauty is subjective, but to what extent?

Westgate Shooting: Kenya - Somali Border

The Westgate shooting was an incident that immediately resulted in shaken relations between the Kenyan government and Somali refugees in Kenya. Officials are considering removing the refugee camps; their reasoning is that  "some of these facilities are being used as a training ground" (Kenyan `MPs 'to demand Somali refugee camps closures'). Al-Shabaab is a terrorist group based in Somalia that has links with Al-Qaeda. The shooters in the Westgate shooting are said to have connections with the aforementioned militant organizations.

As paralleled with the stereotype that ensued after 9/11 of Muslims being militant extremists, the WestGate shooting deemed all Somalis as rouge thugs. Consequently, more measures have been proposed in Kenya's government to heighten boarder patrol.

The knowledge issue at hand is the extent to which preconceived notions about a specific ethnic group contribute to boarder control?

Although it is true that the amount of crime that follows certain group is a contributing factor to how stringent a border is, this creates room for generalizing. For example, in the United States, once the issue of legal documentation in the Hispanic community arose, so did the issue of crime This was one contributing factor, among others, that perpetuated the stereotype of Hispanics are crime inducing illegals.
Similarly, in Kenya, and at the national level, Somalians are being viewed as terrorists who could be arriving in the form of refugees.

Each nation has the right of securing safety, but it is vital to ask if the increased need for safety is fueld out of genuine concern or preconceived notions about a certain group of people.

Harriet Tubman Rape Parody

VIDEO: http://www.adviseshow.com/russell-simmons-harriet-tubman-sex-tape/
ARTICLE: http://www.racialicious.com/2013/08/20/the-rape-of-harriet-tubman/


Rape.

During slavery, for a female slave, it was not a matter of whether or not this would happen, it was a matter of at how old and how many times. History books do not emphasize the amount of pain that female slaves underwent; rather, the emphasis is directed towards verbal and physical abuse, which is mostly portrayed as abuses suffered by the male slaves. All the aforementioned cruelties are evil; none is worse than the other. However there is a unspoken silence that hides the culture of rape that Black female slaves endured.

This leads me to Russel Simmon's outlandish video spoof titled: "Harriet Tubman Sex Tape". This 'entertainment clip' displays Harriet Tubman luring her slave master in a sexual encounter in hopes of framing him and using another fellow slave to record the encounter as a means of blackmail so that he could fund the Underground Railroad.

Disgusting.

This video makes a mockery of the history of abuses female slaves went through.
Dramatizing the sexual relations between the slave and the slave master is absolute nonsense. Slavemasters were not lured or seduced by their "property". No. They dictated when they wanted to have sex and either used physical force or mental torture. Some people reading this may be saying. "But surely some females slaves agreed to having sex with their owners. Yup; sure they did. After being told that her husband and children won't be separated if she agrees to sleep with him she agreed. After being told that her daughter won't be raped for awhile if she slept with her master she agreed. After being told that one of her children will receive a chance at freedom she agreed. Oh yeah. She definitely agreed.

It is crucial to understand that, historically, it was legal for a slave master to rape female slaves. So this whole portrayal of Harriet Tubman somehow suggestively influencing her master to sleep with her just does not make sense. A slave did not initiate sexual activity; rather, he or she was subject to it. They did not run the "show", the master did.

The knowledge issue that is present is the extent to which serious issues are allowed to be "made fun of".
In the case of Harriet Tubman's Sex Tape Parody, I do not find any room for comedic commentary. The effects of rape culture are still felt in today's society. Women of color who are raped or sexually assaulted by white males will not readily receive justice; black women are at the bottom of the social hierarchy, white males are at the top.

Russel Simmon's Rape Parody is an absolute shame filled mockery of black female subjugation that has gone on and continues to persist in society.

Rape is not a joke.

Twerking and Race

Twerking.

This word alone sends an irrevocable wave of reprehension. Repetitive and jerking body movements that are concentrated on one's posterior. When Hannah Montana Miley Cyrus demonstrated her twerking skills in her music video "We Can't Stop" and during the VMA performances, the world was in upheaval.

How could such a seemingly innocent girl Hannah Montana  engage in such uncouth and vulgar behavior.
Absolute wretchedness they said.

As I researched and analyzed the public's reaction to Miley Cyrus' "coming of age", I asked myself, would such a reaction among the public would have emerged if Miley Cyrus was black.
No.

This is where the knowledge issue emerges: To what extent is the inappropriateness of twerking affected by race? The answer is, completely.

At this point, some readers will be thinking to themselves, 'Race has nothing to do with how bad twerking is. We are just ruffled by the transformation of Hannah Montana to the out of control Miley Cyrus who, evidently, "Can't stop"'. To this, I agree 100 percent. However, I would like to implore my audience to ask themselves who Miley Cyrus started off as and who she became. Race is written all over this my friends.

You see, Hannah Montana was the epitome of white girlhood: famous pop star living in the suburbs with sandy beaches; an alter ego highlighted by the transition from brunette to blonde pop star hair; and a seemingly complicated love life, males beckoning to be noticed by her. Ah, Hannah Montana. This is what America loves.

Boom.
Now we are introduced to Miley Cyrus, the hyped and sexualized icon that breaks away from the white girl image and is assimilated to what is socially viewed as "black culture". Historically, dancing involving hip/ posterior movements has been associated with black females. No wonder then you see black females attempting to prove their 'blackness' by engaging in a dance, in this case twerking, that they are expected to be good at. They have this mindset and so does everyone else. That is why when someone sees a twerking video with a black girl, s/he automatically assumes this individual will be good at twerking. Bring a white girl to the mix and now people will assume the video will turn out to be funny because they are expecting the white girl to unsuccessfully attempt twerking.

Back to Miley.

To an extent, it can be said that the prime factor, in addition to the adjustment to divorcing Hannah Montana from Miley Cyrus, that heighted the public's response to Miley's twerking escapade is her race. White females are expected to be decent, conservative, and measured. Black females are expected to be sexual  and untamed objects beings. To this end, I believe that if Miley Cyrus was black, although the public would frown on twerking, a conversation like this would take place in their minds:

"Miley Cyrus is out of control, this twerking madness must come to an end"

"But at the same time she's black, its in their nature culture and such. You get what I mean? Nothing new there."

Now, my readers might be thinking "I never thought about race when I was upset about Miley Cyrus' "immersion" into wildness. I was just vehemently opposed to her actions."
To this I point out, one does not need to have RACE written across his/her forehead to think about race. Its ingrained in the media and society as a whole. From presentation to bias, race is sitting patiently there. What is important, however, is to recognize the extent to which we are aware of this intrinsic tendency to validate what behavior is acceptable according to one's race. In this case, it would be twerking. On blacks, twerking is seen as a recreational activity that is "okay" for them to do. On whites, twerking is a foreign element that does not need to be mastered, as it is a deviation from what "acting white" entails. Being decent.

Oh Miley Cyrus, she just placed herself at the heart of the twerking and race debate. She came in like a wrecking ball.

What does it mean to be Black?

Ah, identification. The single most important means of grouping ourselves with others who fit the same description. We are grouped according to age, socio-economic status, religion, gender, ethnicity, and race.
In terms of race, some individuals are quick to lump individuals who are of the same 'assumed' ancestry. For example, one might assume that all people who have African ancestry identify themselves Black.
However, some argue this is not the foremost criteria of who is Black.

According to the one drop rule, which was created during slavery, anyone who had an individual of African ancestry in their blood was considered black. However, this definition of black has come to become a messy and incomplete definition of what it means to be Black. For example, some individuals who had a mixture of black and white ancestry could pass as white, and desire to define themselves as such.

 This is where the knowledge issue begins

Consider this, a black couple produces two children. Here is the catch, one turns out indisputably white and the other, indisputably black. Despite the similar African ancestry, would they both be considered Black?
From a technical perspective, one would say 'Yes'; being Black is defined in terms of one's ancestry originating from Africa. From the opposing side, one would bring in less abstract and concrete definitions of "Blackness"; in order to be black, one must have certain Black experiences (profiling, discrimination, etc) and in order to have such experiences, one must appear Black, in terms of having dark(er) skin.In this context, the child who appears indisputably white would be considered 'less' Black; consequently, they would have a hard time being fully accepted as a Black individual by the black community.

All in all, what it means to be "Black" has a plethora of meanings, beliefs, and perspectives surrounding this question. To some, deviating from socially induced "Black" behaviors is enough to define someone as acting/being "White", while for others, it's a matter of the extent that an individual has Black (physical) features and can relate to the Black community.

Evidently, there is no universal meaning as to what it means to be Black. This question will continue to persist.

The Ugly Duckling - The rewrite

Ah. The childhood tale of the Ugly Duckling. A coming to age story that tells the tale of a little duckling who is  verbally scorned and rejected by his familial community based on his 'awkward' appearance. In the end, the ugly duckling, with its weird and obscure physical features, transforms into the most beautiful creature of all, a swan. What a happy ending.


I deplore it.

The problem with this story, unlike what most people like to believe, is that it does not promote accepting one's 'inner self. Rather, it tells the tale of a misfortune being who had to transform in order to gain approval and self - confidence. I do not see the ugly duckling as a story as a means to tell children to love themselves for who they are; in the end, if you are seen as an 'outcast', in order to fit in, you must change.

Consider this, let's say the ugly duckling did not change into a swan, what would become of his fate? Would he still learn to love himself?

The classical tale of the Ugly Duckling sends an indirect message to the youth. Once you have changed from a conventional and widely accepted state of hideousness to a societal norm of beauty, everything will be fine.

We are living in a world of misconstrued beauty.

Youths, particularly adolescent females, are seeking extremes to achieve the coming of age 'transformation' that will make them feel accepted. Excessive use of makeup, inappropriately revealing clothing, and food purging are endlessly sought after. This is the Western world's definition of beauty and self-acceptance.

If I were to rewrite the Ugly Duckling's fate, he would not change into a swan. Instead, he would learn to accept himself, the same 'ugly duckling' self that was mocked, ridiculed and ostracized. This little duckling's fate would not rest on the need to change and conform to societal definitions of beauty.

No.

This little duckling would learn to define his perception of beauty, rather than waiting for an escape route. This is the definition of beauty.

Issue - Freedom to Spend

Money. The lucrative substance that divides men, yet makes the world go 'round. Although money is a personal incentive, usually self-acquired, is one 'free' to spend it as he/she wills it?
Consider this, a man spends 9,668 USD on an expensive Henry Jayer Vosne - Romanne, Cote de Nuits wine, very much aware that this same amount of money could positively influence an underprivileged group of 1,000 people. Is this individual's actions appropriate?

From an ethical standpoint, one would argue 'No'; spending over 9K on a mere beverage that will be consumed in less than a span of a week is not doing anything to contribute to society. A consequentialist  would further assert that when judging the appropriateness of an act, one must evaluate the potential positive an negative outcomes. If 9,668 USD are spent on merely self - indulgence, there is no significance. However, if this money were spent on helping humanistic causes, one could say that he/she is providing opportunities for the less privileged to enhance their quality of life.

On the flip side, one might claim that is not one's responsibility to engage in the welfare of others. If the man in question worked to acquire his money, why should he have to sacrifice his ability to indulge based on other's misfortunes? Donating one's money should be an option, not a requirement. Additionally, just because money is donating to a humanistic cause doesn't mean the individuals receiving aid will appropriately use this resource. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their money.

The knowledge issue at hand pertains to the extent to which one should be allowed to 'freely' spend their money.  Yes it is true that not everyone has the freedom to spend extra money on themselves or on the less privileged, but for those who do,it is an important topic to discuss. When we indulge ourselves in worldly things, how far do we go? Is it necessary to have the smartphone instead of a fully operational 'basic' phone? Do females need to go the extra mile to buy a designer purse simply for the prestige of the brand name?

In a nutshell, our decisions are all tied to perception. What one may perceive as necessary will dictate his/her actions. Therefore, if one perceives money as a tool that is necessary to advance one's status, he or she will focus monetary decisions on: prestige and self - interest. Conversely, if an individual perceives money as a tool to help others, he or she will spend money in a manner that meets basic needs and is able to be donated to the less privileged.  At the end of the day, the choice is ours.

Nevertheless, 'Money is valueless, except as it will satisfy [...]"
 - Edwin T. Freedley

What is your satisfaction?

Issue: Gender portrayal in the Media – Yahoo CEO poses for Vogue Magazine

Link : http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/tech/web/marissa-mayer-vogue

Vogue’s September 2013 issue has arisen a critical discussion concerning female portrayal in the media. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer stirred controversy when she decided to pose in a ‘racy’ manner on her cover page, which later discusses her personal challenges while treading a male-dominated executive domain. Some argue that Mayer’s portrayal of herself in a ‘upside down’ manner contradicts with the rest of her article which emphasizes her rise to power.  Others assert that as an individual, Mayer has the right to decide how to present herself; by not being allowed to do so, based on fear of criticism and how others will perceive her, Mayer is being placed in a ‘box’ that controls the degree to which she can express her femininity.  

The knowledge issue at hand revolves around the extent to which females, especially those who represent a minority in male dominated ‘world’, are allowed to appropriately present themselves. It is not often that males are faced with this issue. With this in mind, one can raise this knowledge issue as a prime example as to how certain issues are divided along gender lines. Must it be that if a woman represents power that she has to reduce her feminine portrayal of herself and increase masculine aspects that would further exemplify her power? Conversely, must a woman minimize feminine depictions of herself to prove resilience and toughness?

As a whole, perception is the factor that will affect the extent to which certain actions presented by certain genders will be deemed as ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’. To some, how Mayer chose to present herself isn’t the issue; rather, it’s the individuals who decided to make this an issue. Instead of focusing on Mayer’s physical presentation, readers should shift their attention towards what the focus point in the article, Mayer’s successes as Yahoo’s youngest female CEO.  To others, Mayer’s pose is symbolic of how females’ physical attributes must be a focal point when attempting to depict more serious (intellectual) issues.

All in all, one can only ask, ‘What is the real meaning behind Marissa Mayer’s pose?’ 

First TOK Assignment - Origins of Writing

Writing has always been my one of my passions, as it provides a means for expression. Ever since I was three years old I reveled in the mystery of words and language. In my spare time, I would compile a variety of short stories and poems. As I grew older and read more books, my passion to write inspired my resolution to publish a book before my seventeenth birthday. I accomplished this goal on December 7th 2012; my work is entitled Close to Home; The African Savannah (ISBN: 978-1-4691-9510-0). In this story, I apply the use of imagery and onomatopoeia to create a scenic and aesthetic picture of Kenya's Animal Kingdom. I wanted my readers to see what I saw and feel what I felt during my visit to the Masaai Mara Game reserve through my writing. 

In the future, I hope to publish more books; as an African female teenage author, I represent the minority group(s) in the literary community. With this in mind, I recognize that my accomplishment as a published author is not only satisfactory for myself, but for readers who are among the minority that will recognize me as an author with whom they can relate. 

This year, I plan to garner the writing experiences I will acquire in TOK II in hopes of improving my writing; my passion for writing has never diminished, and I hope to be a: concise; effective; and confident writer come the end of the school year.