Creative Spirituality

How do you define “spirituality”?
I define spirituality to be an understanding, connection, or relationship with something of higher power or being. Spirituality is a connection with the divine essence of life. I believe that spirituality consists of something incorporeal and intangible. You have faith in that divine essence to really be there. You can feel it and be inspired from it you just can’t physically touch it.

Does spirituality differ from religion?
Spirituality does differ from religion. Although spirituality and religion are not synonyms they are very closely related. Spirituality is a connection or relationship with something divine whereas religion is a set of beliefs to be practiced. I do believe these two do go hand in hand. For me I believe that religion can give you the foundation to reach spirituality. Although, I do believe that you can be spiritual without being “religious” but I don’t believe that you can be religious without being spiritual. The definition is the faith in an upper being such as God.

How do you define “creativity”?
I believe creativity to be the ability to make something that expresses some sort of idea, story, emotion, or imaginative work. It is taking an original thought and expressing something unique. Creativity can really be anything. Every person has there own kind of creativity. Creativity is expressing ones self in a manner that is ones own.

What is the source of creativity?
I think that the source of creativity is really indefinable. It can be anything, although creativity does come from within the individual. Through different experiences (which are endless) and the way that individual deals with the particular experience there can be inspiration for a creative outlet. The source for creativity is the person and their reactions to the situations they find themselves in and their reactions to the world we live in and the knowledge of what was and will be.

Research: Enjoying the paradox of horror

Article #1
Pittman Linder, Constance. “The Horror Paradox: Why Being Scared Can Feel Good”. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.swedish .org/17032.cmf

In Constance Pittman Minder’s article, “The Horror Paradox: Why Being Scared Can Feel Good,” she raises some very interesting points regarding why people are repeatedly drawn to the genre of horror. The article starts off by talking about how people who generally go to the movies to see something scary are usually “sensation seekers” and these “sensation seekers” tend to be younger males and sometimes females; although, there is an increasing change in the profile of movie goers. The average person is in line to see movies like The Ring and The Grudge , which lack the blood and guts but have more of a subtle building of tension. “’It may be more intellectual sensation seekers that are drawn to these films,’ Zuckerman guesses. Either way sensation seekers draw on their ability to empathize—to put themselves in the characters’ shoes while taking in the chilling story”. A little later in the article, Constance Pittman Minder discusses that some people may have an addiction to fear and the physical, biological reaction that is experienced. Other researchers theorize that people who suffer from pos-traumatic stress disorder may also enjoy the films due to the sensation it provokes. These theories are highly debated though. She ended the article nicely stating: “Perhaps we’re all just looking for the same thing—a periodic jolt to the nervous system and a roundabout peek at our innermost fears, all within the comfort of a secure environment”.

I found her closing statement very relevant to the readings that were assigned this week. In “The Paradox of Horror” by Berys Gaut, he discusses this same theory; the theory that fear can be enjoyable as long as the situation is secure. On page 299 of the reading he states “Morreall holds that one can enjoy negative emotions when one is ‘in control’ of the situation which produces the emotions, where control is understood in terms of an ability to direct one’s thoughts and actions”. I think that this theory is very logical. When I watch a scary movie there is an element of entertainment to it because I know what I am watching is fiction (or safe, nothing can really get me). But if I were to be in that same exact situation in real life, I would not find it entertaining but rather a very scary situation. I am able to control my emotions in the first situation, I can stop the movie or I can change the genre of movie I am watching. Where as in the second situation I can not control how I may eventually feel because it is real and I have no control of the situation. I can not make it stop when ever I want.

Article #2
Shaw, Daniel.,(1997). ‘A Humean Definition of Horror’, film-philosophy, vol.1 no. 4. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.film-philosophy .com/vol1-1997/n4shaw

In Daniel Shaw’s essay A Humean Definition of Horror, Shaw discusses Noel Carroll’s essay The Philosophy of Horror. Ultimately the essay of Shaw’s agrees with the over all points of Carroll’s essay. But for the majority of Shaw’s essay, the flaws of Carroll’s essay are pointed out and Shaw disputes much of the reasoning behind Carroll’s article. One point that Shaw repeatedly makes throughout his essay is “he[Carroll] provides an ingenious solution to the paradox, but fails to come to grips with the essence of horror in the process”(Shaw). Another point that Shaw makes throughout his essay is that he believes that the psychoanalytic approach to monster movies the way to go. Shaw believes that it is human nature to want to experience the negative emotions as long as the emotions are in a controlled setting. Shaw states “I differ with Carroll on what the emotional and intellectual effects of horror are on the audience, and about he significance and meaning of those effects”(Shaw). But he does conclude his essay with the fact that there are many ways to explain the paradox of horror.

I found Daniel Shaw’s essay, A Humean Definition of Horror, to be interesting and relevant to the classes’ readings and discussions about the paradox of horror. Shaw raised a lot of counterpoints to many issues in Noel Carroll’s essay. Both authors agree that one main element to the enjoyment of horror is the curiosity that many people have towards the unknown creatures in the narratives. I think that this is a correct assumption on both the authors’ part. I have never studied or done research on the human psyche when it comes to horror, but from personal experience with horror films I am curious to know more about the fictional character/creature. Both authors also bring up the idea of how the plot behind the horror narrative is actually what makes the genre interesting. Here they do differ a little in opinions. I find this point to be very interesting. Overall Shaw’s essay was extremely relevant to the other readings in the class. I enjoyed reading a counter argument to Carroll’s essay.

Personal Adornment Reflection

My choice of dress on a daily basis is very casual. I like to wear jeans, a colorful t-shirt of sorts, maybe a sweatshirt or jacket, and some tennis shoes. Some days I am in the mood to wear my athletic clothes. This is usually on a day when I don’t want to get too dressed for school and I am going for more comfort than fashion. I never dress very flashy and I would say that I dress fairly conservatively. I think that my clothes do reflect that I am an easy-going person. I also think that my clothes reflect that I value to look nice but don’t feel the need to be following the latest fashions of New York and high European fashions. I choose to dress with my casual attire because I feel it is safe. I don’t have to worry if I am wearing something correctly or if I am making a huge fashion mistake. Also to be quit frank, I am not a morning person and I would prefer to sleep an extra 20 minutes than to contemplate what to wear. You can’t go wrong with a cute t-shirt and a pair of jeans. My style has changed a lot over the last few years though. I have always had a casual take on latest fashion but in high school I would say 4 days out of the 5 days I was wearing a cute outfit that I picked out the night before(due to the lack of motivation in the mornings) with a pair of boots or more designer looking shoe. I also did my hair and make-up everyday. I think that I did this in high school so much because of my maturity level. I was very concerned with how my peers viewed me and I never wanted to be talked about in a negative way. Now as I have grown and matured I realize that there is no right or wrong fashion, it is what ever makes you comfortable.

I was raised in a Catholic household and I attended a Catholic school from kindergarten until 8^th grade. All nine years I wore a uniform. I feel as if the uniform reflected our values in a very apparent way. My mother would pick me up from school and we would go to the store for dinner supplies, and there I was walking around in my little plaid skirt, polo shirt with the logo of the school. But growing up in my house my parents always allowed for me to express myself as individual but due to the influences of my schooling I naturally dressed more conservatively and still do to this day. I never found anything odd or lacking in my fashion choices then and I still don’t to this day.

I feel that my peer community here in Eugene is very large and diverse. You see all walks of life here, and I love that. It really depends on the person in how they express their beliefs through their dress. My little group of friends is a good group that illustrates this. One of my friends is all about the high fashion, she wants to move to New York, where she can wear the fashion comfortably on the street. Then there is one girl who doesn’t really have a specific kind of fashion. Everyday it is a little different. Some days she is really dressed up, then the next just casual, and then she might wear athletic gear. We are all really similar in values and beliefs but at the same time we are very different. I think that the way we dress exemplifies this.