Critics and readers alike will take in their own views and apply it, along with who the author is, to an authors work. In actuality, dissecting a writers work as a parallel to their own life has only recently been on the rise. T. S. Eliot would all at once violently refuse and enforce that he is in no way involved in his work if he could see the comparison made today. Yet, evidences of his disconnect with his own wife in The Wasteland are being conjured. Can see Joyce’s views on the church, society and often on gender throughout Ulysses. Rebecca West, an acclaimed feminist and journalist, dots her work with role reversal, yet involved Evadne with a male, her husband, in Indissoluble Matrimony as she herself had a fiery, long lasting affair with H. G. Wells around the time of it’s publication. At least Virginia Wolff had the gall to admit to her presence in her writing.
This scorning is a bit ironic in that a writer is a writer, an idea is an idea. In the end, neither have anything to do with sex.
It is amusing at best though, the way in which critics have plucked apart Written on the Body to be a lesbian novel. That the central focus of the narrators passion happens to be a woman is irrelevant to the feelings themselves. As are any of the obvious neglects of gender for the narrator. If there are hints to gender, they are ambiguous at best or shifting to frequently one couldn’t possibly grab a-hold of any one thread and claim it to be evidence of a man or a woman.
These roles in fact -clues if you will- are only one’s conjured up by the readers themselves. All “references” or “implications” to gender not only do not exist, but are completely fabricated by whomever is choosing to see them. Any claims to the narrator being bashed with images or literal wording of “penetration,” or the instance in which a past lovers snake startles the narrator because of its blatant crotch-length-in-height stature. Likely, the idea of a male, for some obscure reason, also gets doubted throughout the reading of the novel.
Regardless of whether or not the narrator is male or female, one also gets the sense of Louise being the submissive woman, as both figures [her husband and the narrator] make large decisions in her life. Jenifer asked us at one point during our discussions if Louise had been Luis, would it have changed the believability. The resounding “yes” only proved that as readers all markers of “gender” have all come from that exactly. The reader is the one to pre-suppose gender.
This is something Winterson seemed to be focusing a critical lens upon. Readers would not get the sensation of Luis being as reasonable because obviously Louise is exhibiting obvious “female” traits, is she not? What, with allowing the “dominant” figures in her life “rule” her. Quick to jump the gun, are we not? Quick to assume that no man could ever exhibit such levels of submissiveness, especially when it comes to the control of their relationships and bodies. Quick to forget that is was Louise who took on the male role of “perusing” to allow herself to become close to the narrator, was the one to ask if they were to have an affair, the one to call. The one to lead.
Self examination of how “open” one really is to the uselessness of gender and love should be conducted before and after reading Written on the Body. It will change how one sees gender and it’s irrelevance to blistering passion.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Ergo
The brain is infinitely complex, to say the least:
I felt that necessary for my point. There is constant motion and workings within the brain. Psychology also having many branches, one being Cognitive psychology, a “branch of psychology that investigates internal mental processes such as: problem solving, memory, and language.”
We are capable of thinking about thinking; thinking while we think. We have a vast storage of information we have accumulated and processed over the years. Our short term memory [that which is capable of recalling long term memory] varies from person-to-person, however, has a capacity. We can only recall/think of so much information at any given moment, but we have the ability to store so much more.
So, to say that the possibility of seeing the rich, boundless depth of a person’s life over the span of 24 hours is not only possible, but it can be shown and written. The way in which we think, scattered as some notions or perceptions may feel at times, still has a strict system which can be described with words, as difficult as it may be.
Perhaps we won’t be able to see every element of someone’s past in vivid detail. No encyclopedia exists equipped with grueling detail and vibrant pictures to describe any one person’s thoughts every day of their life. Biographies are available, but they can only describe so many thoughts and what major events took place.
Yet, when one delves into the consciousness of a human, so much more can be seen. How every day moments change them, if only for a single moment. We constantly recall past experiences, if not directly, thinking of some distant event that happened long ago, then there are others. Such as the memory of life’s complications and their effects. We carry them: ideas, intentions, presuppositions; how we filter as well. We see things by how we have changed. We speak according to what we have seen and done. We speak how we already know to. We take in information about the world around us mad work them into memories and knowledge we had prior to their intake. Even if we are learning for the first time, experience or by idea, we could have already had knowledge of some sort that was affiliated to it prior.
It is beyond possible to see the complexity of a human’s life in one day. We do it every single waking moment on our own. Perhaps we will not live out the excitement of our very best moments in a single day, or many days, but we have memory. Because of our constant cognition we thrive and can be condensed into any waking moment in which we continue to be aware that we exist.
Cogito ergo sum.
~I think, therefore I am.
A neuron (also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an excitable cell in the nervous system that processes and transmits information by electrochemical signalling. Neurons are the core components of the brain, the vertebrate spinal cord, the invertebrate ventral nerve cord, and the peripheral nerves. A number of specialized types of neurons exist: sensory neurons respond to touch, sound, light and numerous other stimuli affecting cells of the sensory organs that then send signals to the spinal cord and brain. Motor neurons receive signals from the brain and spinal cord and cause muscle contractions and affect glands. Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord. Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action. Neurons do not go through mitosis, and usually cannot be replaced after being destroyed,[dubious – discuss] although astrocytes have been observed to turn into neurons as they are sometimes pluripotent.
I felt that necessary for my point. There is constant motion and workings within the brain. Psychology also having many branches, one being Cognitive psychology, a “branch of psychology that investigates internal mental processes such as: problem solving, memory, and language.”
We are capable of thinking about thinking; thinking while we think. We have a vast storage of information we have accumulated and processed over the years. Our short term memory [that which is capable of recalling long term memory] varies from person-to-person, however, has a capacity. We can only recall/think of so much information at any given moment, but we have the ability to store so much more.
So, to say that the possibility of seeing the rich, boundless depth of a person’s life over the span of 24 hours is not only possible, but it can be shown and written. The way in which we think, scattered as some notions or perceptions may feel at times, still has a strict system which can be described with words, as difficult as it may be.
Perhaps we won’t be able to see every element of someone’s past in vivid detail. No encyclopedia exists equipped with grueling detail and vibrant pictures to describe any one person’s thoughts every day of their life. Biographies are available, but they can only describe so many thoughts and what major events took place.
Yet, when one delves into the consciousness of a human, so much more can be seen. How every day moments change them, if only for a single moment. We constantly recall past experiences, if not directly, thinking of some distant event that happened long ago, then there are others. Such as the memory of life’s complications and their effects. We carry them: ideas, intentions, presuppositions; how we filter as well. We see things by how we have changed. We speak according to what we have seen and done. We speak how we already know to. We take in information about the world around us mad work them into memories and knowledge we had prior to their intake. Even if we are learning for the first time, experience or by idea, we could have already had knowledge of some sort that was affiliated to it prior.
It is beyond possible to see the complexity of a human’s life in one day. We do it every single waking moment on our own. Perhaps we will not live out the excitement of our very best moments in a single day, or many days, but we have memory. Because of our constant cognition we thrive and can be condensed into any waking moment in which we continue to be aware that we exist.
Cogito ergo sum.
~I think, therefore I am.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Let the record state that: homosexuality =/= the evilest of sexual sin.
On the case of homosexuality, if people find themselves offended, pride will swell within my breasts in such bounty I just might burst.
Exploding bosom aside, I’d like to tackle two topics. Let’s start out with homosexual hatred from religious puffery.
This is the most heinous misuses of Biblical literature to “fight” homosexuality. The notion that it was because the fight to rape the angels, that they were “homosexual,” was the main -if not usually used as the only- reason God sent said angels to destroy the city. As if to say homosexuality will rain down fire and brimstone as the form of the wrath of God, forever and ever, amen, if one is to partake in it. However, later on in the Bible, there is a grievous distinction between that conclusion and what is said.
Oh, how quick we are to exclude refutation.
The sin of Sodom? They had forgotten the poor. Gluttons that neglected their fellow mankind. Throughout the bible, more-so than some faulty, biased grounds for homosexual hatred, is the repulsion of God at those who do not love their fellow man. Frequently God speaks on kindness and love, on the good treatment of men, and Jesus himself shows immeasurable condescension and affection by not only coming to earth, but through his miracles and crucifixion.
In a quest of a Christians life to become more Christ-like, what clicks on in their mind to have anti-homosexual protest? Which in itself seems like a blatant denial of Christ-like virtue. Figures. They’re not hating the supposed “sin” of loving someone of the same sex. They outright hate the people and treat them like they’re subhuman. Hating sexuality is one thing, hating a human because of it is another.
Which leads me to homosexuality in the media. The rationale of offense by homosexuality in wide-spread media is laughable, at best. I cannot even begin to support the idea of it being acceptable without laughing heartily because the Christian logic is often so faulty.
I’ll leave that idea with this: Why not be offended by alls sexuality? No, no. Not just turned your head away when a couple kisses too long in a movie. Or avoiding it in magazines and films, television and games. Why are you not OFFENDED by it? Not just set on avoiding it because your genitals and hormones cannot help you strive towards holiness when you see heterosexual love?
----
This was probably not my best work, so if you have questions that you feel I need to elaborate on, fire away.
Exploding bosom aside, I’d like to tackle two topics. Let’s start out with homosexual hatred from religious puffery.
Genesis 18:16-19:29ish:
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."
But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.
But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
This is the most heinous misuses of Biblical literature to “fight” homosexuality. The notion that it was because the fight to rape the angels, that they were “homosexual,” was the main -if not usually used as the only- reason God sent said angels to destroy the city. As if to say homosexuality will rain down fire and brimstone as the form of the wrath of God, forever and ever, amen, if one is to partake in it. However, later on in the Bible, there is a grievous distinction between that conclusion and what is said.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 states:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Oh, how quick we are to exclude refutation.
The sin of Sodom? They had forgotten the poor. Gluttons that neglected their fellow mankind. Throughout the bible, more-so than some faulty, biased grounds for homosexual hatred, is the repulsion of God at those who do not love their fellow man. Frequently God speaks on kindness and love, on the good treatment of men, and Jesus himself shows immeasurable condescension and affection by not only coming to earth, but through his miracles and crucifixion.
In a quest of a Christians life to become more Christ-like, what clicks on in their mind to have anti-homosexual protest? Which in itself seems like a blatant denial of Christ-like virtue. Figures. They’re not hating the supposed “sin” of loving someone of the same sex. They outright hate the people and treat them like they’re subhuman. Hating sexuality is one thing, hating a human because of it is another.
Which leads me to homosexuality in the media. The rationale of offense by homosexuality in wide-spread media is laughable, at best. I cannot even begin to support the idea of it being acceptable without laughing heartily because the Christian logic is often so faulty.
I’ll leave that idea with this: Why not be offended by alls sexuality? No, no. Not just turned your head away when a couple kisses too long in a movie. Or avoiding it in magazines and films, television and games. Why are you not OFFENDED by it? Not just set on avoiding it because your genitals and hormones cannot help you strive towards holiness when you see heterosexual love?
----
This was probably not my best work, so if you have questions that you feel I need to elaborate on, fire away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)