Jay Tsu

As the title says. Let's say it's a past episode of something not severe like . . . clinical depression, and the patient admitted himself/herself to a clinic.

I am looking for two kinds of answers, and you can give either one. The first would be an answer to the possibility that this can happen from your own experience, or someone else's experience. The second can be your opinion of whether or not you would entrust your care (or someone else's care) to such a social worker. (Let's say that this depression is in remission, by psychiatric terminology. I would say cured, but that is not a term available in psychiatry.)

I'm taking a sociology course right now and am seeing that the norm of being a doctor or anything related to "doctoring" is supposed to connote perfection. Any deviation from this norm may be a red flag. But with mental and behavioral health issues, this may get even more complicated when we get into the complex definition of stigma. Some may argue that a good social worker is not just a textbook bred expert, but someone who can understand and communicate his/her understanding towards the patient(s). What are your thoughts and/or answers?

Thanks. Sorry if I'm asking for you to think too much.

I find it disruptive to see a girl who regularly wears a lot of makeup (esp. eye makeup) suddenly one day appear without makeup, thus revealing her naked face. It's not because she suddenly turned from the black-and-white categories of "stunning" to "ugly." It's more like the disharmony that arises and the questions I then have. The contrast is just too much for me. So girls . . . Does it become a habit to maintain your daily look, if you've adopted a heavily made-up appearance? (Do you sometimes look in the mirror and for a second recognize the drastic difference?)

I'm not asking for relationship advice, so don't mention anything about love (e.g., "looks shouldn't matter if you really love her"). I'm just talking from the point-of-view of an artist, and there is no girl in question. This is just my attempt at taking things in from a different perspective.

P.S.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone. If it does, just message me and I'll take it down.

So . . . how different would you be if there were no such things as advertisements where ever you looked?

**Obviously this question would imply that you ARE influenced by advertisements (images, representations, photography and media art) and I think that this a given for anyone who is not a recluse living in a monastery or in Nature.

Is this a hopeless question? Just some thoughts would be nice.

Story: I found out that for the past week I have been asking too many questions about personal relationships (whether it is with an abstract deity or a living human being) and hoping another person can answer me by giving me the best advice or argument. I ask about the existence of God and ask for argumentative proof. But I already have in my mind an atheistic mindset and am waiting for someone--perhaps, one who can construct the most pedantic and lofty prose--to revalidate it so that I no longer have to be bothered by it. Am I acting in Sartrean bad faith?

I was just reading over a question asked on Yahoo answers about a hypothetical color-blind chameleon, and learned that chameleons change their colors depending on mood and temperature. A very hot chameleon was said to turn yellow, which means yellow is a "hot" color (regarding temperature) to a chameleon. A very cool chameleon was said to turn dark green, which means that green is a "cool" color to a chameleon. If a chameleon's choice of mood/temperature overlaps with (many of?) ours, could it be that there may be objective and universal colors in regards to mood/temperature? But then again, maybe all chameleons are color-blind or are completely unaware of their color "selections."

Okay, so now I'm thinking about colors in terms of both mood and temperature. I'm thinking of mood as in when a painter chooses the reds, yellows, and oranges to depict welcoming warmth, and the blues and greens to show solitude and dejection; I'm thinking of temperature as in the more macro things, like say . . . stars. Contrary to the colors used in art to express mood, the color "blue" (which would be a cold color) is actually an indication of an extremely hot star. A contradiction. And so, I am wondering where exactly this inversion is coming from. I don't want to get philosophical, so don't feel obliged to provide an overblown "answer" going from point A to B and then C and back.

-----

Don't agree with me! Tell me what colors do you personally find warm, cool, and cold. I know it's too simplistic to think that there is objectivity in color--a major medium in art. Individual artists will use different colors. But is this not interesting?

(For those who want to leave a more thought out answer, please feel free. I want to hear what others have to say.)

THANKS! "Best" answer gets 10 as an unspoken ultimatum.

Uh . . . where do I put this?

Let us say that I am reclining on a chair--a typical school chair engineered and molded into a perfection befitting only the most platonic of forms, that of a right angle. Which part of my back is suppose to touch the backrest of the chair first (upper, lower)? And which parts aren't suppose to touch the backrest at all? I despise the fact that seats that are in classrooms settings (elementary to university) are so rigid and uncomfortable, and have contributed to my own personal debilitating posture. So for you guys who have mastered the art of sitting in such and such steel prisons--and perhaps maybe even without leaning--please enlighten me on how one should go about sitting without feeling "trapped," "crushed," and "enfeebled."

Please give me information on how I can tell if I am sitting with a good posture (back alignment, hips, legs, and etc.). Unfortunately for me, comfort no longer guides me; it entails that I am sitting in my regular slumped and habitual position. But this too I want to change. I no longer want my body to resist equilibrium; I want it to learn to naturally accept my facticity as a bipedal failure thrown into modern day society and overcome it without bearing the dreadful insignia of a hunchback.

I try sitting without leaning, but notice that I struggle to make myself look "natural." I am informed about the spine's natural curves, but because I have clothes on, and a coat of flesh--although I am skinny, if I can say so myself--I cannot tell if my spine is curved "properly." And what about those annoying things that sag on your sides, those things they call shoulders? They seem to contradict my very posture with active defiance.

I really need to fix my personal posture crisis. And I do hope that others can learn from this. Hopefully. . . .

Thank you.

I used to see this at the carnival when I was a kid, but never knew what it was called:

A person (clown? jokester?) sits on a collapsible seat above a pool of water, taunting his audience and begging for mercy. Using the balls you purchased from the vendor, you try to hit the target and make the person splash into the water. Maybe there is a prize, maybe not; I'm not sure. The prize, itself, may have been to knock the guy down and get a good sadistic laugh, although I may be wrong, and if so, please correct me.

I tried to do some searches on Google but to no avail--it almost seems like I dreamt this up, which I know is impossible. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

I remember in my high school philosophy class, my teacher once said that someone was condemned to death by seashells. Ring a bell, anyone?

So I have gotten some background information on Albert Camus' essay entitled "The Myth of Sisyphus," where he states that hope cannot be found (as a result of the Absurd), that is, it would be contradictory, if one is to truly accept the Absurd--that is as a whole and not just some portions of it here and there, on a whim. In other words the acceptance of the situation has properties connotative of hope but cannot be truly termed as "hope"--there is the disillusionment factor and that alone may be better than living in false hope. In other words, I believe this is what he is trying to say: there is only acceptance of the situation, but never hope for a better situation (because although human life may or may not be meaningless, the world he dwells in does not hold his sought for meaning, and that alone makes finding a meaning "humanly" impossible). However, I found this quote by Camus and I'm seeing an inconsistency:

". . . how hard it must be to live only with what one knows and what one remembers, cut off from what one hopes for! . . . There can be no peace without hope."  - Albert Camus, 1948, The Plague

Is this quote reflective of the philosopher's idea? And if so, can someone help me clarify his "Myth of Sisyphus" because I have clearly misunderstood it. (The abstract: Is Camus trying to TRANSCEND peace/hope with content acceptance, or is peace and hope the ultimate goal/imperative?)

Thank you in advance.

I just finished the movie "A Beautiful Mind" and although this movie triggered my question, it has very little relevance to do with the movie other than the topic of schizophrenia.

The thoughts I am about to lay out are solely speculation. I must warn you that they are rather lengthy, so if you are discouraged at anytime feel free to brave the boredom no more. (I would have put this under Psychology/Philosophy if I had that choice.)

Here I go. . . .

A person suffering from schizophrenia (let's stick to visual schizophrenia here) is still capable of some form of cognitive reasoning, agreed? That is, a schizophrenic's fabrications are fictional but hold form and structure embedded with "truth." Truths about fictions in other words. For example: a schizophrenic is still capable of "seeing" (in Hume's terminology) "impressions" or things that are a priori and are not solely dominated by "complex ideas." A schizophrenic is able to hold logically--or intrinsically or after having been conditioned prior to his illness--that a skirt is worn by a woman on a certain region of her body, or a pen is used for writing. All this, people would not consider extraordinary or even worthy of noting. (Heidegger made a good point on the ready-at-hand and the present-at-hand and in a sense I am borrowing his ideology to present this question.) Let us now say that a schizophrenic's mind can keep or retain (I believe the correct usage would not be "keep" or "retain" but rather "flow" or "unknowingly mobilize") these "ready-at-hand" skills that need no intentionality or speculation: Would he or she then not already have showed some control over his or her condition?

Scenario one: A schizophrenic observes a human being that only exists in his mind. He is able to make out his face, his arms, his hands, his legs--that is everything that a typical human would have. What keeps the schizophrenic's mind from being able to stay grounded to these selections? Why not just hop off the whole logical spectrum and compose a "complex idea" of--let's say--a man with a shoe for a mouth and carrots for ears?

Scenario two: A schizophrenic observes a pen on a table which he can only see. He looks at it; he may even be able to "pick" it up and examine it's details. He can maybe even "disassemble" it and watch the parts manifest themselves because--let's say--he has disassembled a material pen in the past prior to his illness. What keeps the mind from being able to not only archive these blueprints and "impressions" but extract them as well?

Also, a related thought pertaining to both scenarios. Let us assume that this schizophrenic is beyond the stage of denial (that is he has accepted his condition and is learning to cope with it): What kind of tests could he perform to garner credibility, validity, and reality? Cartesian tests are out of the question. No, let me postulate the same method one uses to acquire lucidity in dreams. The light levels in a dream are inconsistent, the complex patterns on a rug cannot be recalled twice, the same brick wall will never look the same if examined more than once. So in the question of the schizophrenic, Can he not look away from that pen and look at it again and try to see its undefined and inconsistent change in patterns, size, shape, lighting, and etc. as tests for reality?

I am aware that these tests and cognitive processes may be too complex for one who is actually suffering from schizophrenia. I am also aware that I may have assumed too much to the point where I can be said to have effaced the gravity of the illness in my speculations. For that I am sorry. But again I am only speculating and I want to learn from you.

I do agree that this question is rather lengthy, so for those of you who have grown bored of this question or realize that getting two free points here may actually seem questionable, please feel free to click the back key. But for those of you have remained here and have been trying to follow my thought(s)--I know I didn't do such a great job explaining everything--I really appreciate it. To your disappointment, I do have one last question, one that concerns even more philosophy.

Let us assume that our schizophrenic is no average schizophrenic (the hell does that even mean?) but that in the past he was learned in existential philosophy, and especially that of the notion of the "absurd." (I'm going to assume that some--if not all--of this knowledge remains when he is ill). Let us assume that our schizophrenic in question was an introspective person who was keen on his surroundings in the past--one who could study phenomenon in the background and be "present" and initiated with the project. Now let us propose a scenario in which he encounters a recurring character of his mind wherever he happens to be: the shower, the toilet, the garage, the basement. Given that he is introspective and not simply falling-in-with his surroundings and its resources, can he not see the absurdi

It's a problem that has been bugging me fore a while. I have yet to receive orders for items that I have received shipping confirmations for; it's been over 14 days since. Other books I bought from Amazon (same date, same shipping method) have made it to my house some time ago. I just don't understand what the requirements are for sending a buyer a shipping confirmation. Is it a one-click thing, or does Amazon actually carry out the process of making sure the seller has shipped the item(s)? Or might it be that Amazon, itself, is responsible for shipping and sending the confirmations? The confirmations are sent by Amazon, after all.

The email goes like this:

Amazon to me:

Dear XXXXX,

Today XXXXX shipped item(s) in your order, placed on XX X, 2009.

==================================================

SHIPPING DETAILS

==================================================

The following items were sold by and shipped from XXXXX in package X of this shipment:

X of XXXXX

Shipping Carrier: XXXXX

Ship Date: XXXXX

Shipping Speed: XXXXX

Your shipping address:

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

Some go out of the way to show their hatred for a particular race. What I want to know is, If they got it their way, what would be the outcome of it all? Let's say one group wants another group to be effaced from the world (theoretically speaking). And let's say they get what they want. Do they not realize that their want--which had also become some of their source and drive of existence--had spawned only because of the group they detested? In such a way, aren't their goals dependent of that group they detest? Or what exactly is their goal towards being racist? Because I can't really see an independent, ultimate, or unified goal in the mind of a racist.

(I'm sorry if I assumed that all racists had the same goal. So yeah, sorry for the racist folks out there. My apologizes. I did see the problem in asking this question because of it, but I do not, however, want to polish and refine this question to make it "presentable." So I'll leave it as it is.)

This question is a bit odd. I know. Because everyone is a consumer however you look at it. (It's all stages and a matter of semantics.) Yet it got me thinking. And everyone is racist--or rather, can observe differences--although some make a conscious decision and try not to be. In such a way, racism appears in stages and it's also a matter of semantics.

What I term here as "racist" is the more unembellished definition.

For example, do racist people go through a deliberate and conscious rationale when they choose what to consume? Let's say it was about food. Would someone who is racist against Asians immediately cast off any option for consuming Asian oriented foods? Or sex appeal or even sex in general (although nothing about sex is general). Let's say someone is racist against the Chinese. Would they, out of their own mindsets, cast off all Chinese (women and men) as unattractive even though their sexual urges disagree with them?

This question is a bit absurd, I agree. But it really makes me think about the origin of elitism of all sorts.

Please do give your opinion to the two scenarios. Thank you!

In our age of immediacy, everything and everyone has been maximized into a form of efficiency. Technology has found (invented rather) superfluous ways to expedite and make portable anything and everything. Things that need not be "enhanced" or "fixed" are thrown onto the platter with the rest, and categorized as suboptimal, unacceptable, and even inept.

A mainstream breakout causes the mass to encompass a popular belief without individual examination.

Must it be that literature has died, that it must be resuscitated in order to reach newer and more ignorant minds? Must it be that we ourselves are dead to the point of needing new things to please ourselves with, that that which was competent can no longer be perceived in its competent and potential light? All is potential and potential is all!

Is it because literature has died to some, or is it because it has never existed for them at all? An inauthentic breed breaks free and flourishes; no one dares to comment each others lack of genuine resolve. Masses and herds, shepherds and puppet masters.

The youth reads from the hands of a more questionable creator. Thrown into oblivion is his brother, who the youth saw nothing in but promises of ennui. Oh literature, oh literature, where have you gone? For I grow weary of the pretentious shadows emanating your fall.

This is the description I found and it sounds like the story I'm looking for:

In one of Mark Twain's short stories, two starving artists manufacture a great deal of art... and then manufacture a story about how the artist who painted these things is fatally ill. Naturally, the artist in question eventually "dies", and his paintings become valuable overnight. Note that said dead artist is Francois Millet. Thus this is Older Than Radio.

(Taken from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadArt...

People say that by making a fictional character in one's story hold a particular stance on a controversial topic--or anything for that matter--it is considered preaching and the readers will often feel offended. Of course the character is only alive when the writer wills him or her to be. How else would fictional characters retain existences on their own? It's implicit that the character is an extension to the writer--or the writer to the character--and that the character can't exist independently or without the writer.

What I want to know is when is it not considered using characters as mouthpieces? What if I add variety to the topics being discussed by having one character take this stance and another take another stance? They won't argue or debate, but just state their own thoughts to matters in a subjective and opinionated way. Would I still be "preaching" and using my characters as "mouthpieces"?

In the end, I'm not trying to force a particular stance into a reader's head. I'm not telling him or her that this is the solid and objective truth nor do I ever say that any disagreement is but a fool's ignorance. I'm just trying to get my characters to build themselves through dialogue and the way they think--as well as I think, which should already be implicit and agreed on non-verbally. So when is it considered not "preaching"? Why do I feel like any dialogue I form and attach to a fictional character will be considered "preaching"?

Writers are often advised to resort to the tell instead of show method when dealing with controversial topics.

"Otherwise," Rachel Simon, a published author, says, "if you use dialogue to state your positions about life, your characters become preachers and rhetorical puppets, and the reader is likely to feel patronized."

I picked up something I found very interesting about the captain in the movie "Pan's Labyrinth."

Spoilers below:

I noticed that everytime when Captain Vidal was in the storage room and about to head towards the table of torture tools he would unbutton his shirt not once, not three times, but twice. What is the meaning of this? Is there a reason why he unbuttons his shirt at all and if there is, what is the reason behind why he unbottons two buttons? He does this two times, once when dealing with the stutterer (no disrespect, I don't know if he had a name and if he did, I forgot it) and Mercedes. Mercedes, however, manages to escape, but not after giving the captain a few good old stabs. Even when the captain walks out of the storage room to gun down Dr. Ferreiro, he has two of his shirt's buttons unbottoned.

Let's say I want to slide in a few pronouns into my writing from time to time. I know there is a legal issue with using a musician's song lyrics in writing without their grant of permission, but I'm talking stuff like "McDonald's" or "WalMart"--simple pronouns that are well known enough for the majority of people to know off the top of their heads. Am I liable to be held accountable for any copyright issues? Now what if I go a little further and maybe insert a famous person's name like a philosopher's or an artist's or maybe even a title of a major work(s). Am I voiding any legal policy?

It would be very helpful if someone could be so kind as to put up a link listing any or all legal issues concerning publication. Thank you.

If I write a novel using a certain philosopher's ideas and a certain theme of philosophy, would I be plagiarizing if I don't mention the philosophy or philosopher, but have the reader analyze it and try to make understanding of it himself or herself?

Let's say I decide to write a novel about free will and I have the character(s) act in a certain way which Sartre would have mentioned in his philosophy, would it be considered plagiarizing if I don't mention Sartre?

Example: If I were to incorporate the existential claim of existence precedes essence in my novel by showing the excessive freedom my character(s) have, would I be plagiarizing if I don't even mention the philosophy of "existentialism" nor its advocates at all?

What's the word for the increased value of an artwork due to an artist's death? I remember I use to know the word, but my mind has lost grasp of it.

I remember reading a short story some six or seven years ago dealing with a group of artists desparately trying to make a living by selling their unappreciated artworks. I believe somewhere towards the end, one of the artists has a plan to fake his death so that he could dramatically increase the value of his works. Unfortunately, that's all I can remember, but if someone could give me the name of the story, that alone would be most helpful. Thank you and ten points for the first correct answer(s).