alright so this entry is a response to Chelsea's question "
My question to you all is this: Do you believe that tattoos should be considered art, and would you ever get one?"

I do think that tatoos are a work of art. Tattoos are a permenant work of art, and physically express something that the wearer holds to be important, or a reminder of some time in their life. I believe that they would have to be considered a work of art, or at least aesthetically pleasing, because no one that i know would want to permenantly adorn themselves with something which was ugly and meaningless. A tattoo should be something which holds meaning for the individual. And if it something that has meaning, it should be a work of art. Because we are choosing to, in a sense, suffer by subjecting ourselves to pain, just like an artist, in some cases, suffer for their art. And there are some tattoos that are, indeed, gorgeous, which can be thought of attributing the individual to becoming their own work of art.

Would i consider getting one? Yes, I believe i would. There are so many different beautiful designs which someone could choose to imprint on their bodies. And if i were to find one that suited me, i would consider it. I hate bringing matters of religion into discussion because i risk offending people, but in the bible, i believe, types of body art are considered to be a form of violating ones body, like smoking or drinking, which is a temple which has been given to us by God. So by such determining, it is immoral and wrong. But there will always be things that are considered to be wrong which people do anyway. Authority ruling does not always make something right or wrong.

question from class

Alright. So in class today we discussed correspondent truths and coherent truths. And that something is correspondantly true if it is true based on the world as it is. And coherence is true if it is true to the world as we know it to be. And something cannot be and not be at the same time. Like i can only be sitting on this chair at this second. I cannot be not sitting on it at the same time. It cannot be a chair and not a chair at the same time. But i was wondering if it were possible for a thing to be a thing and not a thing at the same time dependent on whether or not we assign it new meaning. Like say for instance, I have a book. It looks like a book, it has pages and a spine and words and reads like a book. But say i want to put my feet up and i assign the book new meaning as a foot stool. Is it still a book? It still looks like a book, but now it serves a new purpose, so is it a foot stool? Can it be both of those? Or once it serves a new purpose, dies it lose its old meaning? Just like when chelsea brought up the question today of Micheal Jackson being both black and white. He is still ethnically african american, however he appeared to be caucasian at the same time because of various alterations. So does that made him black or white? i suppose on the basis of color alone he is not both black and white. However bringing intoi account other truths he is both.

Is it possible for meaning to change the identity of an object?