Friday, January 27, 2012

My brain and stuff

Okay I am going to split this post up into two subjects, the first being my sewing stuff and the second some philosophy stuff.

   Alright then, well as some of you saw I constructed my first non-assisted sewing project, yeah! My mom had picked me up some fabric to just play around with and I ended up looking up easy sewing projects on Youtube and Bing Bang Boom, new little bag. It was fairly simple to make, but of course I had some screw ups. For starters I apparently cut fabric like a two year old cuts paper, "I want to go straight *cut cut cut* ....well at least I know I meant to go straight...." this is also how it goes when I try to keep my fabric aligned within the same inches.... My other big mistakes ended up being with one of the straps, I sewed it to the inside of the bag instead of the outside because in the video I couldn't tell which way she wanted it. It works though and besides the frayed funky straps is pretty cute. I am also working on a tiered skirt, but I am doing that with Greg's Grandmother who I would be significantly lost without. Speaking of lost Sonoma is the most difficult place to get out of, I gave myself an hour to get from Sonoma to Rohnert Park to make it to my Astronomy class, and ended up severely lost. It took me an hour to simply find my way out of Sonoma!!!
    Anyway on to some of my thoughts in some philosophy stuff.

   The first one I thought I would address was a question that my teacher brought up in class. Why can a classy magazine like National Geographic take nude photos of women in Africa doing chores or whatever, but it would be unheard of to take pictures of a American women naked.
   At first the class argued that it was a different in the settling, if these African women wore clothes then we would take pictures of them in clothes. But he argued that it was a way of creating an uncivilized view of Africans, because clothing is associated with civilization, and that photos of these women could be taken in positions where at least there breast/lower parts were hidden from view, but because we put these people on a lower class we think it's okay to display pictures of them full frontal.

   Off topic my brain started to wonder later about the effect of place in tastefulness. Such as if we took a picture of a European women topless on a beach we wouldn't think much of it, because topless beaches are allowed in Europe. But, if you photochopped this women into the bedroom the women would suddenly be erotic. It kind of like that weird thing about underwear not being okay to be seen, but swimwear is totally fine. So it's really not the thing/act itself that is distasteful it is the attitude society puts on these things, thus why they can have a "time and a place". I know this is all very duh, but I this is the thought I was chewing on later as I was driving around town..

   Okay and even though I haven't yet had class on my nature vs. nurture yet, I thought I might share my thoughts with you and we will see if they change after the class is done.
     Alrighty so my thoughts like most of you is that both nature and nurture come into play in creating our personalities. My thoughts though are on how much of us is nature. My personal theory is that we all start out with a base line personality or better defined as "perception and reaction to events within our lives" and that this grows and changes as we do. My idea behind all of this has a lot to do with twins because they provide a constant. I have often heard it said that babies are different, some babies seem to always be fussy, others happy, clingy, ect. But this could be due to a various amount of environmental factors. Yet when you have a set of identical twins who have different reactions to life it makes you wonder why. Why is one of the twins always needing to be held why the other just wants to sit back and blow bubbles. I figure this must be the nature part of us. Like Jung states that we all have different personality and what this really means is that some of us will react differently to events. Mom puts you down, one baby is confused by absence and cries, the other just relaxes. This is then there base personality, which helps to structure how they perceive the world, though I'm sure with enough focus even this baseline could be pushed out of you by your environmental factors. I just like to look at the nature side of think this is the harder one to look at and find prove for of the two. Anyway this is just my thoughts and I can't really back them up, it's just what I think from what I see/hear.

Well I will leave you with a question. Greg's birthday is coming up on the 7th and I was thinking of two things for gifts I can either crochet him a scarf or I could maybe sew him a little Psyduck plushy.....or scrap both ideas all together. What do you guys think?
(nonedited, I'm tired.)



    Also, I agree with your "base line personality" idea for babies. I wonder if we see that base line personality and we see it, and then raise our child based on that.

  2. I am going to try and make you a bulbasaur, he is a little harder then psyduck, but I will try once I get fabric. That's why I asked you.

    Also your thoughts about if parents see things in kids and then raise them that way is very perspective, in my edu book it talks about adult projection onto children and how this influence them and what babies mean to a society.