Extra Credit 2: The Death of Ivan Ilych

a. How does Ivan's quest for status, advancement, prestige, and generally the approval of others endanger his chance to live a more meaningful life?

In “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, Ivan’s quest for status, advancement, prestige and getting approval of others had endanger his chance to live a more meaningful life because he is following the society’s way of living rather than his own and that he didn’t create a more enjoyable/fun life for himself. The first sentence in the second chapter of the book, it started with “Ivan Ilych’s life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible”. I guess he is a very, very normal guy, but being normal, in this case in the story, it had led him to his death. Even though his brothers are unusual, Ivan is the only one who is exceptionally in balance, where he is leading his life to be “capable, cheerful, good-natured and sociable man”. However, he thinks of these as his “duty” that is “considered by those in authority”. It seems he is making his life the way society wants him to be, and even though he seem okay with what he is doing, I think he is living pitifully since he isn’t regarding what’s correctly right for he, himself truly on what he thinks is meaningful to live on.

With his marriage to Praskovya Fedorovna, half of the reason was because “his social circle approved of the match” and which he was “swayed” by both reasons (the other half that he fell in love) since “it was considered the right thin by the most highly placed of his associates”. I think this makes his love life half meaningful if half of his reason is that his associates approved of the match rather than him really loving Praskovya. When his wife is pregnant, he “tries to ignore his wife’s disagreeable moods” rather than helping her go through it. Both of them are responsible to go through this trial of nine months so they can be closer and to be able to be more caring when the child comes out. But instead that period had seemed to distant Ivan and his wife because Ivan finds his wife and the pregnancy to be “unpleasantness”. Ivan doesn’t like depressing things and disturbance of his peaceful life, which I think makes his life not motivating or meaningful. Because he won’t be able to learn from the mistakes but a lot of us go through obstacles, and learn something from it.

The job that he has, being a council and later on with the examining magistrate position was the right job for a person to have in the society. Ivan follows the path of the society’s right path of life and when he knew that he was going to get a higher position, he starts to become greedy. And with getting a wife, it makes it hard for him to get the money he needs so Ivan started to crave for more attention and to seek for money and power. “Ivan Ilych felt that everyone without exception, even the most important and self-satisfied, was in his power” but he didn’t “abuse his power”. I think even though he says that, I think he is very happy that he has that kind of power because power is a need to stand out in the society. But Ivan’s need for power became an obsession, which has start to corrupt his health.

As the disease/dull depression that Ivan started to create, he quarrels with his wife over a little thing that Ivan finds irritable and made the whole family uncomfortable. He goes to in search to find medicine that would heal him and knowing that he’s going to die, he lies to himself that he is “simply ill”. He started to hate the others around him (maybe except Gerasim), but he “wished to be pitied” by them. I think he wanted value, good memories before he died but in his heart, he can’t find meaning in loving them no more. I’m not sure why but he know that the things he have done is “himself to blame” and so no one would look at him. Rather than getting upset, irritable and building hatred, for example, to his wife, he could have reconciled and make better memories with the family. The life that Ivan had build up, what is “proper” for the society to see, has only led him to emptiness and loneliness. His intent to make everything pleasant has caused him more pain, making him curled up in the “black sack” of his heart.

At the end of the story, I think Ivan realize that to stop the disease and the pain, he have to free himself and his family members sufferings. I guess he was blinded at first, not understanding why the pain has started and pushing all the blames to the family and colleagues. His quest for the value and fame from the society has helped him lose the value and love from his family. Only at the end that to “release [the family members] and free himself from these sufferings”, he should end his life. Before the disease, I think his life is meaningless but at the end, he found meaning in his life, meaning for the family and for himself. If Ivan had created a more meaningful life, I don’t think he would have suffered as much as the illness has bought. He bought the illness to himself, the lack of happiness and value caused him to create a bigger hole, emptiness. Everybody needs emptiness in their lives, but to be able to find happiness through emptiness, then the emptiness would seem far in our minds. I think because of the life that Ivan had, the emptiness grew too much that it exploded, suffering his heart and soul and then died in the end as he grasp what’s need to be done.

Extra Credit 1: "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

b. Schwartz is the "cool" character in the first part of the story. Please analyze him.

In “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, the character Schwartz is shown as the cool character. I think Schwartz is a nonchalant, smiling type person because he doesn’t seem to care much about Ivan Ilych’s death but rather, his status. The way Peter Ivanovich had describe Schwartz when entering in the hall (for Ivan Ilych’s death), that he had “wink” at him as to say “Ivan Ilych has made a mess of things -- not like you and me” shows how Schwartz is careful, and smart with what he is doing. Schwartz seems to be calm about everything on the outside appearance as the characters describe him. Even though it’s the death of his colleague, he didn’t show sadness as much as he would have but always have the elegance of everything. I think he’s a character that shows the strength of blocking off sadness/depressing events and tries to be on the surface of happiness. But I’m not too sure how he thinks in the inside which makes his character cool because he has the element of mysteriousness.

I think Schwartz is a character that is almost like Ivan Ilych. Both he and Ilych are trying to become wealthy by getting to the top of the status. But unlike Ilych, Schwartz plays it more carefully, like on a check board, where the player has to safely lead the king to victory. I think the nonchalant comes from the confident of his, that if he can play it smoothly, there’s no need to think about the sad stuff. During the funeral service of Ilych, Schwartz was display as: “The mere sight of that playful, well-groomed, and elegant figure refreshed Peter Ivanovich. He felt that Schwartz was above all these happenings and would not surrender to any depressing influences”. I think in our society, a person has to look cool with their well grooming or a sense of style and always has a sense of playfulness to get people to be near them; for people to like them.

From Peter Ivanovich perspective, he said Schwartz “would not surrender to any depressing influences” shows the similarity between Ilych and Schwartz. Both of them tries to block away the negativity by smiling and by getting their goals, they would be happy. But there is a difference between Schwartz and Ilych and that is Ilych died first. And with Schwartz calm attitude and giving smiling faces for others, it shows the attention that Schwartz is trying to get. If he can get lots of attention, then the position of Ilych or higher status can be his. I think Schwartz's cool character is a general similarity to the ones in our society because we want fame, money and value in our lives. I'm not sure but it seems like Schwartz is pretending to be a jovial person, almost like Ilych because Ilych is following what the society wants him to do. Though I think Schwartz has a more internal problems than the one Ilych is characterize on. This I think makes Schwartz cooler than Ilych is because Schwartz, at least has a motivation (from my feelings towards the story) and Ilych, who is going by his life using society rules.

Schwartz's mind of thinking is also a characteristic of cool because people cannot really tell what he is thinking, which makes the people want to find out. For example, when Praskovya Fedorovna comes to tell Schwartz and Peter that the funeral service is about to begin, Schwartz made an “indefinite bow, stood still, evidently neither accepting nor declining this invitation”. Even though he bowed, Schwartz didn't move. It's as if he's waiting for something or maybe he's waiting for everyone to go in first, which is politeness. When reading this, I thought of many possibilities as to what he was doing, not going into the room for the funeral services. Is he thinking up of some plans regarding Ilych's status or is he being serious/polite towards the wife? The way he acted suggests the want of knowing what's going on in his head, which allows people to come towards him. People get curious when they don't know about others' mind and with a “slim figure” and a jolly guy like Schwartz, it makes his cool status more popular.

Additionally, when the narrator starts to talk about Ilynch's past, the narrator said Ilych finds Schwartz “jocularity, vivacity, and *savior-faire* irritating because Schwartz “reminded” Ilych of “himself”. That leads me to think would Schwartz's cool character disappear similar to how Ilych has destroyed himself? Is Schwartz's character like that, to be a cool person, to show the society of what he can do, to make other recognize him, because he wants money or he wanted a sense of value? If I put Ilych's case with Schwartz, it seems that's how people would lead to their deaths because they are not facing their negative obstacles and instead replaced with a fake face?

HW #31 Aggrandizing the Self

First, I had trouble with this. It was hard deciding what questions to ask and what person. And because I am asking the questions through aim, there were not many people on. Therefore, I asked a friend of mine, who I think she does not use a lot of the strategies that we have talked about it in class. The method that I use was to ask her to give an example of a person that does the strategies and what she think about it. Then I ask her in a way that's not defensive (but almost make sure she doesn't feel defensive if I accidentally did ask one) about if she does the strategies or not.

I started out by yelling out her name to get her attention on aim and she responded with "what happened?" However, I was still in the plan stage of what to ask her so I said "do you think you're cool?" She gave a "lol" and "me?" and her answer was "a little, not really". She elaborate herself when I asked why "not really"?, she answered, "like I wouldn't say that I am pretty, I guess". Which I thought it was an honest answer because a person who use the mask and adorning technique wouldn't say that. Then I got her to give an example, a girl from her school that "wants to be cool". She told me how the girl "is acting like one, like cursing, walking like is doing a catwalk, pretending to be cute like a little girl to get attention". When I read the answer, I thought how that person is acting the bad girl cool (the b-curse kind) and she said, "in my opinion, totally". However, she told me that the girl doesn't adorn like accessories and makeup on herself. "Do you think that's her real self?" I asked. "Nope, she is adding other's personalities to hers" she answered.

Then I got into questions about her, such as asking her about the brand names she wears, which was quite a lot. "I wear all sorts of brands," she said. Reading the brand name she wear, I saw that it is not the typical cool person would concentrate on. Like how the people that is cool or want to be cool would get the designer brands and wears what people would think is cool. She said, "sort of or I like the style of the clothing" when I asked if the clothing looks cool. Then the next question that I asked her was the typical answer that many people would have given. "I don't want people to think I am cool because of my clothing. I wear it because I like it. lol". Then I flipped back to the girl from her school and what she answer on her thoughts on the girls clothing. She said, "the opposite", that the girl is wearing for others to see.

I asked her a straightforward question, "Do you like adorning yourself with make up and accessories?" I kept wondering if that question is defensive or not. It doesn't seem so in her case. She answered, "Not really because I think that I am using those make up and accessories to please someone else than being myself; I would put make up and accessories but only for special occasions". As for the special occasions, she said, "you want to be pretty on special occasions like going to a wedding...maybe I do think that some people put on make up is like giving themselves a new identity". Then I asked her a set of funny questions, "what if you are the host, would you adorn yourself or to have no makeup? Since other people would dress up and put make up on, wouldn't the effect of you being there would more make up or no make up, the sense/amount of attention be the same?" She gave me a "maybe" because "the host is like a special character in the book". But I asked her about the girl again, and if she be a host everyday, what do you think? "That's sad then," she replied. What about for general people? "If for particular day or something, it's okay but constantly, something is weird". -The end-

It seems that once we tried too hard to become something, like cool, we are not use too, or that people notice the change too quickly, the effect of coolness on us would disappear. Acting like a ill mannered girl, and showing off too much is not good either. I think that everybody thinks about when getting something is do they like it or not. But there are also a tiny part of the whether they like it or not, is if people would see them like it or not. Like wearing make up and accessories, if a girl likes the color or the design, it doesn't mean that it will look good on her. And then she would have a feeling that if her do wear it, people would stare (or do something) to make her become self-conscious. Like the funny set of question I asked her; if you would choose the no make up (with a pretty dress or no) or the make up with wearing a pretty dress, I think a lot of people would choose the second one. Being the host, they would need to stand out than the others and to not be embarrassed.

I think the method that many people use to make themselves become cool is to walk like the celebrities and talk trash (if necessary) though I think that's making themselves look dumb in front of others. However, it seems there are the bad looking/personality cool people vs the good looking/personality cool people. Sometimes wearing nice clothes is a must or need for that person; therefore, it's not wrong. But, for those who wear too much, revealing the bad personality, gives away the masking, costuming and adorning techniques.

People buy things that they like, is it to fill the emptiness they need or is that a need for basic needs? Why not get the same size/color/design shirt as you grow up? Is that a no-no in our society or not the way to do the business? We consume many things that we might use and might not use, and which the might not use items become wasted. Wasting money is a bad thing but it is also a desire that we want to do. Since we have money, we would want to waste them for things we wanted/need. Is that trying to fill the hole in our heart (or somewhere) to have happiness? Is it tragic that we use the strategies and to be consume by the emptiness by consuming other things to avoid the emptiness? Can we avoid it? I don't think so since it's always going to be there...until we died...or even after we died too...ooohhh.....

Part B:
I adorn myself by wearing rings, necklaces and earrings. But for some reason, I'm not comfortable with bracelets or watches, it somehow itches my wrist if I put it too long (I wondered why too). I think the part of the reason I put on the earrings are like what other people say, it's because I like it and I want to try it out. But other reasons, such as the rings I'm wearing, is to tell people what things I know such as some of the rings I have is from the anime I watched. I like watching anime and reading manga and I feel good when I can recommend an anime/manga to people. Maybe it's because I want to get attention on what I know and to show the knowledge I have on an interest I have. Also, I want people to get interested in what I am interested so I have a sense that I am not alone in this (since there is not many people who does have an interest in anime/manga in the grade).

Another aspect is my so called talent for drawing. People compliment me for the drawings I drew but I feel that it's not as good as they think. I like drawing characters and just randomly scribble/draw on the paper. Then somehow people would come and look at it, telling me it looks good. They would start asking me to draw something for them and I would start feeling undecided. I would want to draw for them but I'm not sure if I am able to draw it well. In a way, I'm judging my own drawing and thinking how people would think of my drawing. I would sometimes make the drawing as good as possible but it's not the way I would want because I would want to draw out what I feel that it's good. People say art is from your heart, that one must draw what's one feeling. However, it's hard when people are around and it's different when I am alone, concentrating on what to draw. I'm trying to manipulate myself to draw what others' want when other people are around. I'm trying to aggrandizing myself when people are around. I think it's because I become self conscious when people are staring at what I am doing. Then I have to think about whether they like it and whether I like it. I try to make the drawing grand, which makes myself grand. I think by showing anything that it is "good" or "great" to people, people would take notice of it, which is the aggrandizing yourself.

I feel that having a talent such as drawing or playing a music instrument is nice but it returns with a weight of pressure when people start acknowledging your presence with your talent. They would rely on you when your talent is needed and if your talent is not good enough, you would somehow get abandoned. This I think would start the realization of the emptiness inside yourself. Or that if you don't have a talent that you think you don't have, the realization of the emptiness would start creeping into your mind (even if you are unconscious about it). We would try to make ourselves become better, which builds up the using of the methods. Trying to manipulate (I think the word is kind of evil) others to do the things we need to fill in the emptiness. We try to avoid emptiness by filling it in but we are actually facing it too because we are constantly aware of it if the situations are bad in our lives. Even if it is not bad, there is the sense of emptiness in the back of our minds. But is emptiness a good feeling - a hole - in our lives? Is it there to bring us to face what we don't want to face once we fill the hole too much?

HW #30 Psychological and Philosophical Theorizing of Cool

How does this emptiness feel?

Emptiness feels like falling down a bottomless dark hole is how I see a lot of people describing it. We might feel there is a bottom but it is only a part of the emptiness that all of us have. Emptiness is evolved from the experiences such as from memories that we don’t like. Or like psychologist Clive Hazell said, “problematic family backgrounds with abusive relationships and mistreatment” and then to avoid the emptiness, we go into drugs or “obsessive activity” or violence (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Emptiness). Other cases, we would decide to create a hole within the emptiness of "what's missing?", or "wanted desires" that we want and go search for it. A lot of the times, people would say emptiness is a negative feeling, causing us loneliness, which turns to depression. So, to block that emptiness, we fill it with things that can block it and not facing it. Once we find the things, we may have a key for it, or we may find the right road (through the maze we have been walking in) but we may end up with more shape to be locked. I think that is because we tend to have more than what we wish for so we feel the emptiness expands even though it’s never different. Emptiness is always going to be there; it only needs to be found.

However, in Buddhism, emptiness is different. Rather than the dark hole of the emptiness, or trying to fill up the hole, Buddhism’s emptiness refers to the emptiness of inherent existence and is the most fundamental concept of Buddhism. Nothing exist in this world, which equals emptiness but as things do exist through our eyes, or how our mind tells us that it does, we put meaning into it. We have the urge to avoid emptiness because it's blank and that it's convenient for us to talk about the things we see. I think the "inherent existence", even though it means it never changes, unable to change in our mind, the world is changing. But what if we stop our mind, saying that the world is not changing. Then we wheel ourselves back to where "inherent existence" comes from, breaking down all the fundamentals of things and we would arrive to emptiness. Emptiness is the "inherent existence" because it never changes no matter how you think about it. So what do we do? (I think) We make up our own creation of Emptiness, which is the form of Emptiness. (*I will attach a paragraph that a buddhist practitioner talked about at the end that connects to this~ Thanks to Bao Lin~*).

It is to find the truth deep in yourself as you see the experiences in a fair view and to go to the “enlightenment”. Unlike the emptiness that western cultures have and where cool comes from, where one feels emptiness because of the lack of "value", the importance of his/her being in the society, said Matt Fried, the psychologist who have talked in our class. Which makes him or her want to become cool, to fill in the emptiness with the value that are gained from being cool. We want to have "value" from people to fill the emptiness. But I do wonder, if the lack of value have caused the emptiness or emptiness is the one that made us realize the lack of value, thus causing emptiness to surface in our mind.

Coming back to Buddhism, I think before arriving to the enlightenment, we have to become the observer, to not make unbalanced judgment of the situation we are dealing with. It is because if we can face the situation without pointing fingers, we are able to understand it more. Feelings are a way to put our answers and judgment forward without seeking the real fairness in it. In a way, feelings are distractions from the “justice” answer. On the other hand, if we look at the situations as calmly and fairly as possible, we see that it might not have been a big deal, that there was no need to have started it anyway.

Enlightenment plays an essential role in Buddhism. It is a process where we try to not feel anything, to achieve a pure mind. Once we do not feel anything, and that all energy and thinking are withdrawn, the sense of “pure emptiness” will come. Because if we do not think about anything, just breathing and relaxing through our body and our inner state of mind, it’s not a dark hole we are experiencing, it’s the sense of lightness, which equals light or what the Buddhists called, “Clear Light”. In Buddhism: “emptiness is form. Form is emptiness” (translated from the sutra). In my opinion, the form of emptiness is something we make of it but it is the same as everybody because it’s the same light and light can take many forms or none. It can be anything but more importantly, it needs to have light to connect to Buddha as it does for all the other Holy Gods. By having enlightenment, people would began to understand the nature of, I guess, mostly everything. It’s like taking away everything and then sees everything differently because of what’s been taken away.

Thanks to my friend, Michelle:

“有即是无，无即是有” means “having is nothing, nothing is having”. This is similar to “Emptiness is form. Form is emptiness”. Even if you have something, it is nothing; the concept of emptiness. In Buddhism, to not ask for anything that normal human wants but asks for the good prosperity and peace. To be able to sacrifice yourself for everybody without asking for any payback gives you the emptiness that Buddha or Siddhārtha Gautama is asking for. This is hard for humans to do. It is also hard for us to empty ourselves into the form that is emptiness because we have all these emotions and desires that Buddha does not want. It is because we are human that we would not be able to “Awaken” like Buddha has been called “Awakened One” or free of ourselves (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM).

Siddhārtha Gautama, the originator of Buddhism, or the Buddha himself explained his “Four Noble Truths”, which is the foundation of all Buddhist belief:

1.) All human life is suffering (dhukka ).
2.) All suffering is caused by human desire, particularly the desire that impermanent things be permanent.
3.) Human suffering can be ended by ending human desire.

4.) Desire can be ended by following the "Eightfold Noble Path": right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

When reading this, I thought if human suffering is ended, there would only be nothing. However, in that website, it is explained that the Eightfold Noble Path is “the elimination of one’s desires and one’s attachment to one’s self”. If we are able to do that, we can understand the nature of the universe, which this starts to follow the Eighfold, the right understanding. After all that eight steps are finished, we are left with no longer existing because we are going to be one with the others. Or maybe, that it is saying the human self would not exist, but end up as a celestial being that follows under Buddha/ Siddhārtha Gautama. In the article, it said its not clarified what Siddhārtha Gautama teachings have bought to people because Buddhism has been split into sects. I think it is because the humans have not sought enough emptiness in themselves that started the sects. We keep thinking this and that as to whether how Buddha wanted us to achieve the emptiness but it is simple, just glide yourself to emptiness.

I think I can see that emptiness is not a negative feeling or positive but both from reading the emptiness that our culture have and Buddhism have. Emptiness is always connected to the middle, the neutral side so it's one reason why we can never explain emptiness well enough that now the idea of emptiness has been split into many explanations. Humans always want an answer and I think being in the middle, there are no answers because it contains both. So when describing the form of emptiness, we tend to say it is a dark hole or it is light (enlightenment) because we want to stick it into one single answer (hmm, I think there's another word for it but I'm not sure). However, another idea that made people describe emptiness is the color because color can have a lot of meanings but common ones we use to describe emptiness is black is dark, gloomy and white is good and positive. Therefore, the color that is reflected in our inner mind allows us to form emptiness.

Here are the articles. I didn't place the link above for some because I combined the reading I have to answer the question. Sorry for the inconvenience.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Emptiness
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Emptiness
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

*

As what you ask saying what is “inherent existence”, his example was a pen that I am holding. You can imagine, this is a pen, P-E-N, pen. Then think more detail of a pen, here is this part, there is this part, in there is the ink…etc., then you notice you write with it. Then you put down your pen, and then you ask, is this a pen? You know this pen is not going to be a pen forever, but the moment you put it down, does that moment that you are holding the pen, the pen a pen? Because that moment passed already, so you think and ask yourself, does that once exist? You can think of it is all about our own perception of the world, (okay, this is complicated; I hoped I can explain it right). We named it a pen for our own convenient, so in our world, we think the pen exists. But going back, obviously, this is not a pen. We have the temptation to give things a meaning, to avoid emptiness. But ultimately, in our lives, nothing really does exist. “Inherent existence” means something that will not changed, unable to change. It is already the way it is, like nature, most natural things; they might be considering inherent existence things.

In Buddhism, emptiness is the most fundamental concept. Like you asked, people can’t really empty their minds or emotions…absolute detached. They are still there; these things are still in your mind. BUT, if you can imagine a cup as your brain, and they are muddy, what we are doing, is stirring them every day, so we barely can see the water. It is all mixed, just like the way we function ourselves every day in lives. But by doing meditation, practice Buddhism, they learned how to calm themselves down, let everything be, just like stop stirring the cup of water, then the mud will sink to the bottom, a clear cup of water. So emptying something doesn’t mean they are not there. It is still there, my own thinking of this, was that, perhaps, “emptiness” itself, it an inherent existence, because it is there, although it keeps changing, but the concept or experience that we have towards emptiness, is still there. So I guess, the feeling of emptiness, is part of us, and it is consider, inherent existence in our lives.

HW #29 The Merchants of Cool Response

I don't think ads should be banned completely towards young people because there are also the important ads that needs to be viewed such as don't smoke ads. There are also ads that tell everybody about abortion and what needs to be changed (for the greater good) in the world. But the ads that I am focusing on is the ads that teens look for, which is what's cool now. I think ads are put out there besides the markets getting profit is that it needs to be show to give the young people that "we care". Like how Matt, the psychologist said that we are born, to be value and nurture that if we do not see or feel it often, we would start feeling isolation and creating the need to get attention, which is to be cool. In a way, ads are out to make us feel better but also makes us crave for what we need to do to fulfill that need of value and attention.

However, I do feel that ads containing sexual or inappropriate should be banned in front of little children. Though I am not sure what age because as children reaches to teens, there are puberty and sexual desire so even if adults tell the teens/children not to do sex and drugs, it's rather hard since there is a need to fill the desire/need to be love and value/attention. Additionally, teens have to take (a) health class(es) that explains why we shouldn't do sex and drugs because we are young, still irresponsible from the "adult world", and it would ruin out lives. Because they tell us not to do it, we tend to go for it is what I hear a lot of people say when people do not wish others to do something. Of course, some teens/children are responsible but with the huge amount of advertising, other teens and children get affected, thinking it is cool. I wonder what would happen if when ads are ban, would the young people still do drugs? Would the younger people still succumb to the sexual desire and/or doing drugs that would make them overall cool?

I think even without ads, the young people would still want the need to be cool. They would seek it out even without ads because the marketing people know that the young people would do that. People showing people what they need to be like them are already an advertisements. Its just that the marketing advertisements are the digital type and the markets have those advertisements there because they did things like "cool hunting" to find out from the teens themselves what's going on. The markets need profit is fair because they need to live but we are also losing our money. It's a balance since we choose to buy from them and we blame the ads rather than ourselves for the result; and the world is at it is now. In the movie, "Merchants of Cool", they said the act of consuming, or buying things or (I'm sorry, not too sure how to explain it), not sold to us, but came from us because we made the teen market make what we desire out for us to really use it, not hallucinate it.

The need to be value, the need for attention from both family and friends are what changes the teens lives and their personalities. I see when people has been treated horribly, 1) would change themselves on the outside outside to prove to people they are not weak and either get snobby or make themselves be the opposite of which is 2) weak and in return, get bullied or sympathy from others. The people who go for number 1 tends to consume more than number 2 because they are changing themselves, and the best way to do that, is to buy what is "in". So that's why advertisements are there, to post what is cool to the teens but also replenish them the value feelings that the teens are seeking for. The teens market built the merchandises to make us feel powerful like what in the movie, "Merchant's of Cool" said how the MTV hooks teens gives teens power since they are the one that gives the money to the show to get them to work. The teens are the ones with the money and if they wish to spend it, its in their power to spend it.

In the movie, "Merchant's of Cool", it said that $150 billion was profited through teens because they are the largest consumers. Now that the teens have grow up "in a world of marketing", every time the teens walk out, there are ads everywhere, and we end up going into a store to buy something. However, to become cool, we end up going into a store many many times because cool flies away once its found. In the movie, it said, "when you find cool, the cool is gone" because "by discovering cool, it forces cool to move to another" thing. Which connects to how the teens minds work because we get tired of whats the current cool. There has to be something different and more interesting that can be the new cool. This is what I think: ads are there to show us what we want, what's in our mind though we cannot tell it out. We want something fascinating and exciting and the teens market are there for us. They built it for us to fulfill the value and attention we want to show it out to the world, to tell people that we are "cool" (and giving profit to the teens market).

HW #28 - Informal Research

"Cool (aesthetic)." Wikipedia. 12/04/2009. Web. 5 Dec 2009.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(aesthetic) .

This article explain how "cool" is defined; how there are many concepts of cool but it always changes over time, and can be different among cultures and generations. The article also talks how it is viewed differently if it is by appearance or by "behavioral characteristic" or etc. It gives examples from different cultures, showing what is cool in that region of the world such as in the Europe, Art and aristocratic are consider cool. However, it does not tell how the people are cool, but what kind of poses from the different cultures give are cool. At the end, there's a category of "theories of cool" where it explain how cool is used in social, "elusive essence" and "marketing device" plus written books that speak about cool.

It's interesting how different cultures and generations see different things that are cool but what are the comparisons, why do they differ/why change to something different? People like changes but I think it is always improved from the old "cool" ones or non cool that became cool after a few fix up. Like what the article said, there are many types/concepts of coolness that everybody has but it seem they are always in the center of attention. It doesn't have to be people that are cool but the things people do are the ones that gets the attention. Once the "thing" gets attention, wouldn't the people who have started it would not get as much attention since other people are going to do that?

Kroker, Arthur and Marilouise. "What is Cool? Notes on Intellectualism, Popular Culture, and Writing."ctheory.net. 10/05/2002. Web. 5 Dec 2009. http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=338.

This article has three sections that talks about the definitions of cool, which are that cool does not have many "cool" to spread around; it is only for a few people or morphed into objects but many other people want it. It also talk about what kind of thing/people are cool in our culture (but he also adds his own opinions). As for the cool for writing and intellectualism, it is different than the popular culture because cool has become a language and what's cool? can spread around the world easier with the technology's access.

Words, and images are used to distribute what's cool and what's not. Many people use the language of cool to live by their lives and in the article, it said we can find cool in every corner, depending on the price but it is addictive. Similar to our own language, we use it because it is the only way to communicate verbally to others. Not that its addicting or not, but once we start getting use to speaking a word, we tend to fall with it as over time, it changes, we change. Cool never stays the same, like how fashion coolness changes and so we have to adapt to the new "cool" to still become the cool people. It's whether if our intellectual follow can follow "cool" or not.

DJD, . "How to Look Cool on the Internet." Writing.Com. 16/06/2009. Web. 6 Dec 2009. http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1554284-How-To-Look-Cool-On-The-Internet.

DJD, the person who write this gives a guide on how to become cool on the internet. He gives ten steps in what to do to show yourself off in the internet. Since internet has been largely use in our lives, it is one of the best way to become cool using the net. And like the life of cool, internet evolves too, giving more things and methods for us to get the "coolness". On the internet, a sophisticated look is better to become cool.

As I was reading it, the steps keep saying to join things such as communities and groups to get connections and to show sophistication. I think the guide to become someone new contradicts what my class was saying, to become true to ourselves. This guide shows the mix of popularity and cool by using the internet but to use the internet, we have to stay at home, which I think it is only secluding ourselves to become popular with people we won't meet physically. We can make ourselves into whatever we want but if we do that, it is only withdrawing ourselves from what we really are. It is important to show who we are but it is also important to conform like the cool people to become cool/popular. It seems either easy or hard to become a cool person if we have to sacrifice/leave something behind but also, whether we would regret it or not.


Other sources that I see cool are in t.v. shows. Having money, a car and a good job can lead people to get what they want but somehow, something is always lacking when these kind of characters appear in the show. Other cool characters such as in manga are cool looking, have friends and popularity but those cool characters try to find something else that is different from what they see in their everyday lives. They find something totally different from their lives because they think the "cool" life they are living is getting boring.
Like in the street interview, the second stranger said people want to become cool because something is missing in their heart, and by fulfilling the whole, their lives can be completed. But how do we know being "cool" is what can fill the whole? How do we figure that out?

In books, the characters are told to become who they really are or they tell the others to become who they really are. It gives a different feeling and plot than the normal coolness we seen. To be who you think you are is what's important, which adds to the coolness that people view you in. There are other concepts of coolness that everybody abides in and not everybody has to like it. People follow others to be like others but do they really want to be a duplicate of that person or are they just admiring them in a sense they still have something true to themselves?