Brave New World

"Although art involves creativity, creativity does not perhaps involve art" (Hughes, 177). Doesn't that just bring everything around full circle?

I remember this discussion from the beginning of the semester, of this class. I wanted to touch on it again now that things are winding down. After everything we have discussed, everything we have analyzed, I could not agree with that statement more. Art most definately involves creativity; it requires creativity in my opinion. But there is no way to say that creativity requires art. I can see the creativity in everything I do. What I say in class or murmur under my breath takes creativity. I pull all kinds of resources together in everyday activity to create something new. Writing this blog is creative but may not be described as art. Driving to school can be creative. Eating dinner can be creative. EVERY DAY is creative, but no one would catalog my life as living art.

I want to reflect on the semester in general, seeing as this is our last blog. I came into this class expecting something completely different. I don't know how to describe what that preconception was, but this was not it. I know we still have a few weeks, but the bulk of our discussion is over, and that is what affected me. My mind had been completely closed to some of the ideas presented. As I said in the beginning, I didn't buy some of these outlandish ideas. As the semester progressed and peices of my own life clashed with ideas and theories from this class, my speculation began to melt. I was scared of judgement, but now I realize that those judgements would be biased, misled, and ignorant.

I've had a lot of fun in this class.

Creativity NOW!

About this chapter:
I have mixed feelings about how the inter-net has shaped our cultural. On one hand I admit the potential that the inter-net has to truly democratize creative outlets, taking the means of widespread distribution out of the hands of large companies and placing it in within the reach of every person who can obtain access to a computer. I once read an interview with Francis Coppola in which he commented on how cheap home video recorders would revolutionize film and create a scenario in which the masterpieces of the future would be created outside of Hollywood. They would be composed on farms, in people’s bedrooms, and on city streets; wherever people lived art would be born.

My conflict with the inter-net is found in its compartmentalization of information. I feel that the inter-net’s ability to tailor information to meet a specific request has damaged the creative pursuit of knowledge. The quest for information is no longer a creative process in itself; it is simply a means to an end. When I was a child I ran away from home and hid in the public library. I lived there for 4 years, taking change out of the fountain and feeding myself from the vending machines. I washed in the men’s room and at night, after the doors had been locked and the lights shut off, I crawled beneath the reference desk to sleep. The night guard was a drunk who slept through his shift so my presence went wholly undetected. I feared exposure during the day and never left the building. This was in the olden days before the inter-net and I was forced to bide my time among the shelves, reading from what ever book was colorful enough to attract my attention. I don’t know why my parents never came looking for me, but anyway you could never get away with that shit today because computers and the inter-net has made security at libraries so much tighter.

Fractals!!!

This is not the first time I've come in contact with fractals. A math teacher of mine, in high school, was gracious enough to open my eyes to this fascinating art/math and I have been quite fond of them since. Fractals are fascinating because they are endless; they have no beginning, and no end. The fact that they are born from mathematical equations is another interesting quality of these psychedelic works. Due to their mathematical birth, it is easy to see why they are so perfect. Math is an exact science, and so to are these fractals. Yet they are not what one would expect to see in even the most radical math class. I often compare things I see everyday to fractals; I have a baseball card where the player is holding the same card in his hand. This is extremely "fractal-like." The card has no end... if I was to dive through the cards, each would be the same as the one preceding it, thus and infinite level of magnitude can be applied with the same result, just as with fractals.
I think we have all seen things of this nature at least some time in our lives. The book states that nature itself has these fractals in it which means that these magnificent works are all around us, everywhere we go, which is just another level of their intersting qualities.

AND IN THE END…

This is another one of those chapters that tries to tie together loose ends and really covers a lot of ground.
Replication and deconstruction left me thinking after the following passage:
“Originality is one half of the creative equation—the other half being social validation. But in or mass-media age the very notion of originality comes under threat.”
I definitely agree that it would be easy to infer something like this happening. I also envision certain places possibly becoming “originality” vacuums. But I don’t agree that it will overshadow true originality that takes place everyday to every person.
I think the problem with this statement, is it over looks the power of original and creative products that we cast aside as truly great works, because they lack social validation. But not all art needs universal social validation; in fact many times it might just need the validation of one other person.
I piece of pottery made by a potter friend of mine displayed prominently in my house. On my refrigerator I have a drawing made by a friends three-year old daughter. In my parent’s house there are numerous painting hanging in which the artist are friends of the family and some have existed for generations.
I also have letters and poetry written to me by friends and family I treasure as much as old photographs.
In many ways I feel like these pieces of art resonate more with me then Picasso, Warhol or even Michelangelo. Expanding on this theme though, why would any person desire to go to any museum to see a work of art, if the replication is just as appealing?
I think it has more to do with the exposure to the original that conveys energy to the subject. I know in my own experiences seeing the original of anything has been infinitely more impactful then a replacement.
I know all this still revolves around originality, and how our culture might be devoid of it, but I’m not buying it. I think the notion that originality becoming extinct is a notion of a society that tries to give value to everything.
Those painting hanging on my mothers wall probably wouldn’t get 50 cents at a garage sale but our priceless to us. The letter and papers I collect are only good for recycling to another person, but are some of the most powerful written words that I’ve come in contact with.

A mirror reflecting itself

Andy Warhol called post modernism art a mirror reflecting itself. The commodification and commercialization of art and creativity has reached its end I think. I believe we are indeed on the brink of a new social age, as some other post modernists suggest. Repetition has run its course, the mirrors are no longer receiving light. Perhaps this is why Melissa was so confused in her blog. The current state of the country's communications/ reproduction abilities is taking away creative impulses of our own. I think this last chapter was a great way to conclude the book; it's a sad ending but true nonetheless. I don't believe that since it is 'easier' to purchase a more precise replica of the Mona Lisa that artists are losing their focus. It's you and I, and all the other creatives not named Van Gogh, Warhol, Da Vinci or Renoir that are being repressed, maybe, by the constant stream of monotonous images we now see as "art." Just a thought, and I may be completely off base here, but when this book stirs the notion of computer creativity, doesn't that raise some eyebrows? It did mine.

I think our latest battle of opposing ideologies in the world, specifically regarding the Middle East, will lead to one of two outcomes (on a social level) A: a complete loss of faith in religion, and ultimately a loss of an altered state and creativity; or B: an endless war which will prolong the current state of social progression being held in suspension indefinitely.

Maybe I'm being too dramatic, but either way, our roads to creativity are being tweaked daily through the course of time, through economic, political and social current shifts, and from our own reflections in the mirrors of our minds.

The End

In this class we started with Once Upon a Time, and now it's time for the ending. Is it a happy one? Well... it would have been, but the last chapter was kind of depressing. All this talk of virtual worlds, and no more new thoughts and computers taking over. I liked the last chapter, not nearly as much as I liked a majority of the book though. Here's something I didn't quite understand: "Benjamin predicted that the new age of mass reproduction and technological communications would threaten the traditional practices of imaginative creation, and our 'ability to exchange experiences" (178). Why would it change any of those? Doesn't mass reproduction give you the ability to exchange your experiences with a wider audience? Isn't it a writers and poets dream to be published? Which in itself is an endorsement of mass reproduction. Maybe I am not understanding this section at all. I understand if someone was plagiarizing your work, but reproduction of (lets say art) allows me (someone who doesn't half millions of dollars to drop on a Pollock painting) to purchase a print of it that may not convey as much meaning as the original, but it still conveys a meaning to me (the purchaser of the print). And although I think Andy Warhol was a little to full of himself when he said he can create 4,000 works in 24 hours, if he could do that and sell it at a decent (normal people can buy) price, wouldn't you want to own one? I think I would. Or is it only worth while if he did the painting once? Again, maybe I have misinterpreted the meaning behind that section, but that's why I'm confused.

Creativity

can’t believe that we are at the end of book! I really enjoyed reading this book and have learned very interesting information.
I think that all of us are being creative in everything we do. Yes, some have more creativity than others, but overall we all are creative. As the book states, “creativity is seen as a skill to be cultivated, a source of that fuels innovation and success in endeavor: business, personal, artistic, communal, and entrepreneurial.” (pg 177) Mary Jane, you’re not the only one that had to think about the statement, “art involves creativity, creativity does not perhaps involve art.”(178) Art does involve creativity, but creativity involves a lot more then just art. Right?
I agree with the statement made about the computer not being creative (184). I think that computers have made us lazy and made life too easy for us. For example, we don’t even have to use dictionaries anymore because we have spell check on Microsoft word and it even lets us know when we have fragment sentences. How easy is that! I do believe that the web allows you to do some very creative work. Computers do play a dominant part in our world. Although, I believe that computers have made life too easy for us, I couldn’t imagine life without a computer.

"Creativity Now" made me laugh out loud at some parts, and others made me want to cry. My mother always said that I was born thirty years too late, mostly because of my obsession with Heart, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bruce Springsteen (and let's not forget the E Street Band), Styx, and Supertramp when I was barely nine years old. That's always made me feel like somewhat of an old soul... being on the bus with The Moody Blues in my Walkman and my big-ass flared jeans. I feel like things were simplier then (even though I know better now). When I started taking art history courses, then I began to think that maybe I was born many many centuries too late, because I could've been happy living in Egypt under Akhenaten, or on the island of Crete (the supposed location of Atlantis). I just feel like things in antiquity were much simpler. This chapter reaffirmed all of this.

"In fact the concept of imagination itself is under attack in the postmodern Western world, where the creative humanist imagination has been replaced by a depersonalized computer system of pseudoimages."

Geez.... bleh. Way too true, Mr. Hughes. Real, original pieces of art have little resonance in our mass-media age because they can be reproduced so easily. It was depressing when he quoted Andy Warhol and his 4,000 pieces of art that he can do in 24 hours. They'll all be the same work, he said, and all of them masterpieces. That makes me feel like no matter what I do in my life to make it special, someone has already done it, said it, thought it, painted it, whispered it, sung it, shouted it, lived it. It made me feel kinda insignificant because of the shadow that technology pours over this day-and-age.

Even the music that I love oh so much from back in the day can't be praised as originality when artists today are reproducing songs that have already been sung. Movies do the same thing... how many remakes can you make of Ocean's 11, Hairspray, and The Italian Job? This ability to so easily pirate/mock-originality made me think of all of the wonderful little diva singer-girls that have been caught lip-syncing. You know Britney Spears (pre-cosmic-breakdown Britney) was banned from performing anywhere in Hershey Entertainment and Resorts after her first concert? This was back in like 2003 or 2004. Why? Oh she lip-synced the whoooole concert. And Ashlee Simpson on whatever late night show that was? It's kinda gotten sad. It makes a girl wonder what she can do in her life to mold it into what she really wants it to be.

Final thoughts on Hughes

I must start this final blog by saying that I truly enjoyed reading this book. There were so many things that I found absolutely fascinating, and at times some things I had a hard time wrapping my brain around.

I found when Hughes stated “the idea of a unique imagination producing a unique object degenerates into a play of infinite repetition”, a little sad, but true. It’s sad mainly because as Walter Benjamin stated you have someone who created a “symbol”, a person who poured every ounce of themselves into creating something truly beautiful, such as Monet’s “Water lilies”. Only then, especially in this day and age to have it turned into an “allegory”. Today replicas of that painting among many other paintings can be found on mouse pads, posters, coffee cups and t-shirts. Something that was once original, rare and beautiful is now readily available to any person. The sad part is that most people probably have no clue who originally created the picture on the coffee mug they are drinking out of.

Creativity is Art.

This chapter brought aspects of today and creativity together in a way that I found to be very interesting. As an individual who has always had a passion for writing, and was always interested in a career in writing, but never had any inspiration, this whole course has given me much input and knowledge on how to achieve the creativity I desire.

I think creativity is something that is always changing; it is always something one must work on, practice makes perfect. Maybe not so much in this aspect, however, the more experience one has will perhaps create better results in the future. I would also have to agree with Mary Jane... the quote that was in the beginning of this chapter, "...Art involves creativity, creativity does not perhaps involve art." When I think of creativity, I think of it as an art because you are developing something, perhaps original, but maybe with small idea from other people. It is a way in which one can express oneself, and I think that in itself is definitely an art. Creativity is always helping one to explore his or her self. One can learn about themselves through creativity; about their strengths and weaknesses, wants and needs, fears and desires, etc.

Creativity is an art. I believe that it is a way in which we all express our emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I think that it is an important part of our lives because without it we would not have music, movies, art, architecture, etc. Creativity is all around us in several different ways, we just have acknowledge it.

Creativity

I had to think a little bit about the comment in the Hughes textbook, “art involves creativity, creativity does not perhaps involve art.” I have created some art projects and it takes creativity to come up with the final art project. There are so many decisions to make in the creation of the project, such as what to draw, what type of art supplies to use, the colors and texture, etc. On the other hand, I do agree that creativity does not involve art all the time. Each time we create a new paper for one of our classes, it is being creative, but it is not really art. But then again, maybe it is art. Wouldn’t it be expressed as the art of creating a paper? The Hughes textbook also mentioned “ The future belongs to those who create it.” As college students we are all creating our own futures, so the future belongs to us!

The Modern Jungle

Technology's influence on people, culture, and artistic endeavors can be traced far back; the closest use of modern technology I can think of in literiture is Shelly's Frankenstein. It seems like every part of our lives is, in some way or another, influenced by technology. Be it by the internet, our cell phones, or kitchen utensils.

Technology has allowed us to have almost infinite amounts of informaton at our fingerprints. (I've often argued that it is possible to learn far more by reading and researching on the internet or in books on one's own than from school, why take information from one person on a topic, when you can take information from millions of people's minds?) In fact, I'd argue that the internet is the new "spiritual" playground. People can enter "other worlds" on the internet. There are online games that put you into the role of a character, you can use your own personality or Create a different one. Millions can discuss together and exchange ideas. Creations can be posted and inspire others to further creativity. The Internet both promotes and shoots down business and advertising. It allows for businesses to leave their trace everywhere, but also for an endless amount of freedom to the every day user.

Technology allows for more ways to be create, to make your imagination a "reality."

Creativity Today

There are many inducers such as drugs, isolation, and religion that can put a person in an altered state. Today, the most common inducer seems to be due to the fact that we live in an information age with access to many types of technology. The main one of course is the internet, the information highway. Through it we have access to things such as learning about cultures and their customs all over the world and we don't have to physically travel to anywhere but the nearest computer with access to the world wide web. The internet in a way could be refered as a drug addiction, since you can go almost anywhere and do many things through it. You can listen and download music, shop for clothes and groceries, and even go to work or school. So you may not be at a store, concert, or classroom, but can imagine you are.
If it wasn't for people that were inspired through different altered states that helped inpire them to use their creative abilities we would not have such an easy access to an overload of information. The big problem though is that some people spend hours on end in the information highway, so what would they do without access? With the advancement of technology comes more repitition of different things. We become easily influenced to buy this or that due to things such as adversements that use pop art. The constant exposure to different colors, sounds, and patterns can put some viewers in a sort of trance. We still have imagination and creativity, but in more and more advanced forms. Creativity has gone a long way from the simple cave drawings to digital animation and much more. Through the use of internet, and other technologies, we have a wider range of options that can be done in shorter periods of time. One example mentioned in the chapter is Andy Warhol who claimed to be able to produce 4,000 works in 24 hours compared to Picasso who produced that amount in his lifetime.

Creativity Now?

We live in a world of things seen, a world that is visual, and we use much of our physical and emotional energy on the act of seeing. Like fish, we swim in a sea of images, and these images help shape our perceptions of the world and ourselves. However, I don't see much creativity in big business. To me, creativity seems to lurk in the corners being seen only by only those who can understand and relate it to their own life.

I especially liked the Quote "The future belongs to those who create it." It reminds me of the question about the seashell; what is a seashell to you? Is it dead,sterile and empty or is it natural, elegant and beautiful? Like creativity its not what you see, but what you are looking for.

Blog 10 or Art is Always Commerce

Maybe not cave paintings but hasn't art always existed to make the artist some money? There are exceptions of course as there is to everything, but i can't imagine an artist not wanting to make enough money to survive or at least eat something. I knew an artist who would get so busy, so involved in her work that she would forget to eat. Only later when she was ready to collapse from exhaustion and hunger would she stop and think, "oh yeah i haven't had anything to eat all day." But she still wanted to make money for her work. Bills to pay, etc. We have less, I imagine, of the patron artist in today's world. There are grants available but eventually the money goes away and you have to fins a way to pay the bills.

There also seems to be a difference in the medium. It appears that writers don't have a problem taking the money or so the press would show. Though there is probably one million starving authors for every one Stephen King and a million painters for every Thomas Kinkade (give me the million, thank you), etc. We hear about popular authors, musicians much more than we hear about popular "artists" probably because those mediums are much more accessible to the masses. But holy cow there are a lot of art galleries in NYC and for that matter in Harrisburg and they all seem to want to make some money.

I don't see any problem with that.

Heaven and Hell

Oh my stars, i had to re-read the Hughes chapters over again to get understanding, but i enjoyed Huxley didn't bounce around so much like Hughes and i think that he talked about things that other writers were afraid or just didn't want to write about and he asked questions that people probably wanted to know for a very long time such as dreams and drugs . Just as Sarah's blog when she talked about religious statues are a little bit too high when religion is supposed to way for a person to change their lives and not a cult because i attend a a baptist church , there are so many rules and regulations just as the catholic churches such as women can't wear pants to church on Sunday or any other day if there is church services. My bishop has the right to approve whether he wants someone to be one the church choir or not even if they want to join, it's not their choice. Religion is always being questioned in today's society because there 's so many rules and all religion is here for is to change people's lives to become better people.

Heaven & Hell

This was definitely an interesting read, and I found myself re-reading pages like so many of you! I'm not sure if it was the switch from being used to Hughes and his style, jumping around so much, but I think Huxley required much more focus. Might have also been the topics of choice, and the fact that religion always catches my eye. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school...have the kind of family that said I couldn't take my baby out of the house until she was baptized... which was all a bit too crazy for me, and has always been too much for my husband. Organized religion on the whole I think works, sometimes must be transformed or changed a bit, but it works. It's worked for thousands of years, through all kinds of events, wars, coloniziations, etc. It's perservered through history's blunders and good times. The main thing we need to do is put aside the differences and realize religion is a way for all of us to get through life, to put emphasis on our beliefs about right and wrong, and ultimately to keep people in order and doing the right thing. I do believe in God, and in many teachings of the Catholic Church, but I definitely ask too many questions and got a few raised eyebrows through highschool. Anyway, Huxley was refreshing because I enjoy reading about people who aren't afraid to ask questions.

Heaven and Hell

Huxley's Heaven and Hell is an amazing read. I found myself often lost in his descriptions and arguments. I really liked how analytical this work was. He made some very convincing claims with evidence from around the world to support them. It’s almost as though he’s written a paper on our entire class; in the sense that Heaven and Hell is encompassing as it looks to altered states of consciousness from all the angles. I also like how Huxley makes it known in the begging of the essay that we have quite a ways to go in the exploration of the mind. He makes no attempt to cover up of the vast unknown that we call our brains. This really sets the tone for the rest of the paper; that for those searching for the key to the mysteries of the mind, a great understanding of the rituals of the past is needed, as well as a current understanding of the scientific research that is available to you. Huxley did a fantastic job of combining the old and the new for what makes a truly thought provoking essay on the abyss inside our skulls

Don't hate me :)

I've really been into some underground, anti-establishment media lately; particularly Alex Jones, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Jones is most notorious for his 9-11 conspiracy theories, while Dawkins and Jones believe that religious reign has become to prominent in government, not only in our country but throughout the world. I find this particularly interesting considering the state of our times, post 9-11. Has the country become even more religious since Sept. 11? I think so, but thats OK; what's not OK is the separation between church and state is shrinking with each year. President Bush has not made it a secret that he believes it is his God's will to win in Iraq.

What's factual is the world in general is becoming less interested with religious beliefs, and more interested in FACT. In a poll taken in 2004, less than 6% of Europeans considered themselves religious-- 6%!!! People want to know why things are the way they are; an ancient book, whose author is still debatable, doesn't cut it for most anymore.

Some people would label the literature or media of Dawkins, Harris, Jones and Micheal Moore just political propaganda which demoralizes patriotism around the country. But as this class has focused on the themes of perception, take one moment to step out of the mindset that everything we know is true, because:

A. Our parents said so
B. The Bible (or Koran or Torah)
C. The government said so

Is it possible that none of these sources are reliable at all? I am not meaning to offend anyone who reads this, I'm only trying to create a spark in your mind for a split second that perhaps has never fired before.

Organized Religion In General...

I have always been opposed to organized religion. It doesn't really make sense to me. Why do we need rules and regulations set in place for us by men who commit the same crimes they preach against? How can one earthly man have a closer connection to God than I do? I suppose those are extreme questions, but they are all strengthened by the opening subjects in Heaven and Hell. The aspects of hypnosis are there in the traditional catholic mass. Huxley shows them to us in a way that makes it impossible to dispute. It is common knowledge that many of the catholic traditions are adapted traditions of other religions/cultures. Huxley shows us that the altered state of consciousness is no different. The question is: are they conscious of the other consciousness? Do they set the church up in this way purposefully to lull us into an altered state of consciousness? Is it simply another borrowed tradition, or is it brainwashing?



Brainwashing... that sounds so vindictive, but I can't help but think it sometimes. Am I the only one that sees this extreme? The catholic church has become an enterprise, a corporation.



I went to a catholic school until 7th grade, Sacred Heart to be exact. My last year at the school, they shut down the church for remodeling. The church was beautiful to begin with, but they began bringing in imported marble, gold statues, and gold altar furniture.

In the actual school (directly across the street from the church), the tiles would literally pop off the floor if you stepped on them the wrong way. My gym teacher was my art, music, and library teacher. They shut down the school for good not long after the reopening of the church.



What does that show? They cared more about the appearance of their church than the education of their children. They would rather adorn the church walls with gold and marble than continue educating their children with catholic values.

Heaven and Hell

I thought that this was an interesting read, however I have to agree with a few people when they said they had to re-read some pages. It was a switch from Hughes, so when I started reading I was still in that mind set and had to change a little. I found it very interesting that the majority of dreams aren't in color. Maybe it appeared odder to me because I can't ever remember a dream I have had that wasn't in color. Since they really didn't offer any explanation besides not really understanding yet, it was intriguing. I also think that if (through mescaline or hypnosis) I saw all the colors and visions that were described, and then I had to see things normally again, it would be more depressing then never have seen them in the first place.

Heaven and Hell

I did not realize that there was a natural acid that the body can produce to nullify the effects of mesaclin, acid, or LSD. By fasting you lower your blood sugar you can enter states of consciousness that do not involve any survival instincts at all. I think that fasting would be a good way to enter an altered state. I have tried water and sleep deprivation. Fasting I would like to try and I have a good friend that is muslim. I think that the fasting for 1 month could do world's of good for a person. Whether its cleansing the mind and spirit or cleaning the body and soul fasting would be something that everyone could do.

“Other worlds” out of this world

No media product, whether it was article, textbook, or book has better summed up the central themes of this class better than the documentary, “Other worlds.”
Among the many interesting and well thought our topics presented during the film the idea that science, religion and philosophy are all really related resonated the most with me. Not only are they related, but also the gateway to confirm this idea comes through altered states of consciousness.
This film also confirms that techniques and knowledge for entering, traveling and returning from these altered states is not as easy as ingesting a plant and waiting for the fuzzy stuff to begin. The shamans in this film are described to use almost every technique discussed by our class to enter other realms of consciousness. They experience deprivation, chant, use psychotropic plants, inflict pain—it was all mentioned and described in the film. Not only did they use these techniques they perfected and acted as a guide for others to the point that experts on the film called what they did a “science.”
Getting back to the my main point, the double helix discussion during this film has to be convincing evidence we consider the relationship between what people experience during an altered state and DNA. The noble prize guy was very compelling, but the fact that the double helix has appeared in native artwork on five separate continents has to show a relationship between the two.
Science is brought into the fold through the DNA portion, but religion is tied in with assertion made early in the film, that every major religion started with an individual that could have possibly been in an altered state of consciousness at the time of contact with higher beings. Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha all have these similar experiences.
Finally philosophy is easily related to all this because the central theme of altered states revolves around how we perceive reality. The question of how we perceive reality begins in Modern Greek philosophy with Socrates and Plato, follows through every other philosophical unit, right up to Emmanuel Kant and beyond.
This blog is only the tip of the iceberg in relationship to all the interesting topics brought up by “Other worlds.”
One more this I though was interesting and is just an observation I had about the film. At two point in the film the eye movements of the shaman and the French filmmaker looked like eyes in the state of REM. (At 28:54 for the Shaman and 56:00 for the filmmaker) The film also discussed the Chacruna plants ability to increase serotonin level in the brain. As we discussed before serotonin levels also increase when we dream. Could the altered states seen in the film be related to dreaming?

Heaven + Hell

I thought that Heaven and Hell was a very interesting read. When first venturing into this part of the book, I came to the conclusion that it was going to be about the religious Heaven and Hell, however, once I read further, I realized that Huxley seemed to be speaking about Good and Evil. It was about the visionary experience - the beauty in the world - and then for Hell he used a schizophrenic as an example.

On page 134, it says: "Everything that, for healthy visionaries, is a source of bliss brings to Renee only fear and a nightmarish sense of unreality. The summer sunshine is malignant; the gleam of polished surfaces is suggestive not of gems, but of machinery and enameled tin; the intensity of existence which animates every object, when seen at close range and out of its utilitarian context, is felt as a menace."

The pictures that he paints with his use of descriptive text allows the reader to envision exactly what he is seeing. On page 103, it says: "There exists, he tells us, an ideal world above and beyond the world of matter. 'In this other earth the colors are much purer and much more brilliant than they are down here.... The very mountains, the very stones have a richer gloss, a lovelier transparency and intensity of hue. The precious stones of this lower world, our highly prized cornelians, jaspers, emeralds and all the rest, are but the tiny fragments of these stones above. In the other earth there is no stone but is precious and exceeds in beauty every gem of ours.'" It was interesting the way he described Heaven to be of this pure beauty, something that no one has ever experienced before, and something that no one could imagine. The beauty of Heaven surely exceeds the beauty and pureness of our planet earth and what we perceive Heaven to be.

Posted For Erik

I liked Heaven and Hell. I thought the points given were quite compelling and very intuitive. Many of the things in which Huxley attempts to convey make much sense and hit me aside the head in a way that made me read MANY pages more than once. The whole idea of reaching the altered state through so many paths, the brining out into the open the things in which Huxley throws at you, put me in an altered state just reading his book.