After Oedipus, it seemed natural to me to continue either with something Greek, or with something dramatic. I couldn't keep myself from Shakespeare.
Even though I found the comedy hilarious and the characters well-drawn, it's been difficult for me to decipher what Shakespeare's meaning was in The Taming of the Shrew. Even Harold Bloom had nothing to say about it, devoting only three pages of his disquisition on the bard to Kate and Petruchio. He calls them the happiest married couple in all of the plays and insists that the secret of it is in Kate's final speech. The meanings of strength and weakness have been switched, says Bloom, and Kate has preserved her voracious will in a way far more refined than that of her sister and the widow.
Muir mentioned the play last term, and ascribed Bianca's mildness to her study of the classics. By extension I assumed he meant that Kate's taming in the same way was prevented by the smashing of the lute and refusal of the tutor. She refuses the activity of a heightened mind, so must be treated like an animal undergoing domestication.
Bloom and Muir differ greatly in their estimation of Kate's mental capacity, and I'm not sure who to believe. Her acid tongue and quick wit make me lean towards Bloom. I do wonder what education has to do with the meaning, since all of the suitors have obviously studied the classics (Petruchio gives an example in his speech about wealthy but venomous women, mentioning Florentine, Sibyl, and Xanthippe).
And why has no one mentioned Bianca and Lucentio? Bianca plays opposite to Katherine, acting perfectly mild but ending the play disobedient. Bloom reflects on this, calling it social commentary. Women can only be 16th century ideals (silent, obedient, pretty) or shrews.
Lucentio abandons his studies to court Bianca, turning Tranio into himself. If the transformation from servant to Lord is a metaphor, education can certainly be counted as a major theme in TOS. Tranio is allowed to don Lucentio's lordly garb after he promises to attend the University in his place. Or, that's just a joke, and Shakespeare's meaning is that the only difference between servants and their masters are clothes.
The play as a whole is equal parts amusing and puzzling. There are so many threads I can hardly count them all. They do weave together nicely into a happy caricature of young people.
Monday, 27 May 2013
Monday, 20 May 2013
Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus
Keeping with the Greek theme, I finished two plays by Sophocles last night. What a perfect theme for how I was feeling. I had no idea the plays would affect me so much. A couple of tears were shed shortly after finishing. Oedipus' lamenting guilt was so powerful in Oedipus Rex, I couldn't help but feel moved. He feels most passionately for those related to him, even more than he feels for himself. His immediate empathy was so powerful. I felt inspired to be more like him in his feelings towards those close to him.
Concerning his culpability, which feels like the central theme of both the plays, Oedipus is morally innocent. He avoids Corinth, even though he longs to see Polybius and Merope, because of the prediction of the Oracle (he will kill his father, etc.). It's the irony and the strange fate that make the play the interesting thing that it is. His intentions are always good -- though sometimes falsely suspicious, such as his accusations towards Creon. He leaves willingly when convicted, ending the city's famine and condemning himself to a life of wandering.
Oedipus at Corinth begins near the end of his life as a wanderer. Sophocles writes this sequel in a similar stage of life, he was ninety years old. Blind, and led in his wandering by his poor daughter Antigone, Oedipus stumbles into a garden at Colonus. His stumbling into a kind and beautiful place, after years of misery, is something of a symbol for the whole play: the Oracle places a value on his final resting place, and consequently Oedipus enjoys a momentary restoration of some small amount of respect. I have to disagree with Sophocles' choice of last words for this play. He places too much emphasis on divinity of fate, instead of the randomness of fate that characterises Oedipus Rex.
Oedipus the King: Oedipus at Colonus:
O you who are mortal, look upon life's end, Now cease,
and on your own. and lift no more your wailing cry,
Count no man happy until without disaster for the events
he pass the last boundary of his life. which now have been fulfilled
there lives divine authority.
It's useful to compare the final lines, however, because I think it gives us the most clear example of what it was Sophocles needed to add to the Oedipus character to make him complete. The king is exonerated of his guilt and allowed to forget his life of shame, if momentarily, while the fates shine on him. It's this circularity which defines Oedipus' character. He curses his sons for their heartlessness towards him, which reminded me once again of his empathetic reaction to conviction in Thebes. Oedipus' only comfort in his time of death is that his body is more useful to the world than his life. He goes off to die with no witness except the king of Athens. He is swallowed up by the Earth, leaving no mourner but his daughters.
Concerning his culpability, which feels like the central theme of both the plays, Oedipus is morally innocent. He avoids Corinth, even though he longs to see Polybius and Merope, because of the prediction of the Oracle (he will kill his father, etc.). It's the irony and the strange fate that make the play the interesting thing that it is. His intentions are always good -- though sometimes falsely suspicious, such as his accusations towards Creon. He leaves willingly when convicted, ending the city's famine and condemning himself to a life of wandering.
Oedipus at Corinth begins near the end of his life as a wanderer. Sophocles writes this sequel in a similar stage of life, he was ninety years old. Blind, and led in his wandering by his poor daughter Antigone, Oedipus stumbles into a garden at Colonus. His stumbling into a kind and beautiful place, after years of misery, is something of a symbol for the whole play: the Oracle places a value on his final resting place, and consequently Oedipus enjoys a momentary restoration of some small amount of respect. I have to disagree with Sophocles' choice of last words for this play. He places too much emphasis on divinity of fate, instead of the randomness of fate that characterises Oedipus Rex.
Oedipus the King: Oedipus at Colonus:
O you who are mortal, look upon life's end, Now cease,
and on your own. and lift no more your wailing cry,
Count no man happy until without disaster for the events
he pass the last boundary of his life. which now have been fulfilled
there lives divine authority.
It's useful to compare the final lines, however, because I think it gives us the most clear example of what it was Sophocles needed to add to the Oedipus character to make him complete. The king is exonerated of his guilt and allowed to forget his life of shame, if momentarily, while the fates shine on him. It's this circularity which defines Oedipus' character. He curses his sons for their heartlessness towards him, which reminded me once again of his empathetic reaction to conviction in Thebes. Oedipus' only comfort in his time of death is that his body is more useful to the world than his life. He goes off to die with no witness except the king of Athens. He is swallowed up by the Earth, leaving no mourner but his daughters.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Herodotus, and the First Week of Free Time
It's been a week since spring session began, and I've been enjoying my time outside of school. The decision not to attend classes has proved to be a great one -- thanks Colin. I've gotten lots of reading done in the past week. Today I tore through a tiny volume of Herodotus titled Snakes with Wings & Gold Digging Ants, and found it hugely entertaining. The book is comprised of short selections from his Histories. The 'Father of History' certainly takes some creative liberties. It was worth it for the captivating, if somewhat fictional, account of many civilizations around Egypt, Libya and Persia circa. 400 BCE.
I'm also most of the way through an Oxford very short introduction to Wittgenstein (required reading before I finish Dave's portrait of W.) and Marcus Aurelius. The Meditations rattle me every time I pick them up. Consequently it's hard to put them down. I'll write a short paragraph for both of them once I finally finish. Also on the desk waiting to be read are Aristotle and Wagner. The bookcase keeps such fantastic company. Slightly less strenuous but equally enjoyable books on the table are Hauser (Psychology) and Woodman (inner work).
As far as summer jobs are concerned, though I'm still looking for work with kids for July-August I've found an interesting employer for the time being. I'm modeling for the WPG Artists, my first shift is on Tuesday. I'll write about how it goes.
I'm also most of the way through an Oxford very short introduction to Wittgenstein (required reading before I finish Dave's portrait of W.) and Marcus Aurelius. The Meditations rattle me every time I pick them up. Consequently it's hard to put them down. I'll write a short paragraph for both of them once I finally finish. Also on the desk waiting to be read are Aristotle and Wagner. The bookcase keeps such fantastic company. Slightly less strenuous but equally enjoyable books on the table are Hauser (Psychology) and Woodman (inner work).
As far as summer jobs are concerned, though I'm still looking for work with kids for July-August I've found an interesting employer for the time being. I'm modeling for the WPG Artists, my first shift is on Tuesday. I'll write about how it goes.
Monday, 22 April 2013
The Midway Point
Today I wrote the last exam of my second year in university. Phew.
This year went quite a lot faster than the last. I spent much more time in the library. My grades are considerably better. The U of W has become a place I really feel comfortable in and am happy to return to every morning.
I'd have to say that 'On Becoming a Person' was the most satisfying book I read this (academic) year. The idea of unconditional positive regard as a requirement for growth forced me to think quite a lot about self-love, trust and genuineness. All four of Rogers' conditions for growth (Unconditional positive regard, empathy, understanding, care) have stuck with me and return often to my thoughts. Sometimes I imagine myself in a session with a Rogerian therapist. I tend to be too deferential when doing inner work and I feel like it helps to have an imaginary friend listen to me blabber. It doesn't need to be a therapist-patient relationship in order for these qualities to be beneficial: all relationships would be better for it. Rogers calls these 'real' relationships, and says that they tend to be more dynamic than other interactions. I'd like to keep those qualities in mind in all my relationships. The world can always use more empathy.
One of the most important lessons I learned this year was academics related; it feels fantastic to sit and study as hard as you can for as long as you can. It's like any other exercise: the more you do it, the more you want to do it. It's the learning that matters, not the grades, but this lesson has boosted them both. Thanks to Trapnell for the kick in the butt, and to Colin for telling me this last year. It took a while to get through my thick head but I feel much better for it.
I'm registered in a mathematics class for the spring term but that still leaves me with three full weeks until my first day of classes. Talk about luxury. I plan on spending some time at the Cave, and the rest of the time working on my resolutions for the year. One of which was improving my sketching, which I've been neglecting for the past month. To the left is today's exercise, another study of Michelangelo. I sometimes draw things that aren't nude male figures -- really.
This year went quite a lot faster than the last. I spent much more time in the library. My grades are considerably better. The U of W has become a place I really feel comfortable in and am happy to return to every morning.
I'd have to say that 'On Becoming a Person' was the most satisfying book I read this (academic) year. The idea of unconditional positive regard as a requirement for growth forced me to think quite a lot about self-love, trust and genuineness. All four of Rogers' conditions for growth (Unconditional positive regard, empathy, understanding, care) have stuck with me and return often to my thoughts. Sometimes I imagine myself in a session with a Rogerian therapist. I tend to be too deferential when doing inner work and I feel like it helps to have an imaginary friend listen to me blabber. It doesn't need to be a therapist-patient relationship in order for these qualities to be beneficial: all relationships would be better for it. Rogers calls these 'real' relationships, and says that they tend to be more dynamic than other interactions. I'd like to keep those qualities in mind in all my relationships. The world can always use more empathy.
One of the most important lessons I learned this year was academics related; it feels fantastic to sit and study as hard as you can for as long as you can. It's like any other exercise: the more you do it, the more you want to do it. It's the learning that matters, not the grades, but this lesson has boosted them both. Thanks to Trapnell for the kick in the butt, and to Colin for telling me this last year. It took a while to get through my thick head but I feel much better for it.
I'm registered in a mathematics class for the spring term but that still leaves me with three full weeks until my first day of classes. Talk about luxury. I plan on spending some time at the Cave, and the rest of the time working on my resolutions for the year. One of which was improving my sketching, which I've been neglecting for the past month. To the left is today's exercise, another study of Michelangelo. I sometimes draw things that aren't nude male figures -- really. 
Friday, 8 March 2013
The Righteous Mind
I've just finished my first book by Jonathan Haidt, recommended to me by Dr. P.
At first I felt wary of it, the full title (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion) contains both words that I try to avoid in my readings: religion and politics. That sounds horrifying short sighted. I guess I'm trying to avoid developing partisan views before I understand the debates surrounding each topic.
Haidt makes three major points in Righteous Mind: We are rational 'riders' on intuitive 'elephants', his Moral Foundations Theory and its six faceted view of morality, and our evolutionary disposition (90% chimp and 10% bee).
Conservatives, according to Haidt, use all six of their foundations when making moral judgements. Liberals only use three. These foundations (Care, Justice, Liberty, Sanctity, Loyalty, Authority) evolved to suit us in the stone-age environments. Haidt may be guilty of the naturalistic falacy here if he means to suggest that all of the domains continue to serve us today. What is good may not be associated with all of the domains equally (what if laws were based on sanctity instead of justice?).
However, I'm not sure Haidt is giving a lesson on ethics. What is intuitively right may not be ethically right. If Haidt's intuitive elephant and rider is the reality of our psyche then we have to train the rider to have more decision power. The unconscious associations test referenced has scary associations for a world run by elephants.
Seeing as how the MFT concerns moral intuitions and not sound arguments, what value can we place on them at all? Our first intuitions, often unjustifiable or incorrect, differ based on political preference. It simply doesn't follow that one intuition is preferable to another. The answer is to move past 'tasting' with any number of moral foundations. We have to avoid the elephant altogether.
At first I felt wary of it, the full title (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion) contains both words that I try to avoid in my readings: religion and politics. That sounds horrifying short sighted. I guess I'm trying to avoid developing partisan views before I understand the debates surrounding each topic.
Haidt makes three major points in Righteous Mind: We are rational 'riders' on intuitive 'elephants', his Moral Foundations Theory and its six faceted view of morality, and our evolutionary disposition (90% chimp and 10% bee).
Conservatives, according to Haidt, use all six of their foundations when making moral judgements. Liberals only use three. These foundations (Care, Justice, Liberty, Sanctity, Loyalty, Authority) evolved to suit us in the stone-age environments. Haidt may be guilty of the naturalistic falacy here if he means to suggest that all of the domains continue to serve us today. What is good may not be associated with all of the domains equally (what if laws were based on sanctity instead of justice?).
However, I'm not sure Haidt is giving a lesson on ethics. What is intuitively right may not be ethically right. If Haidt's intuitive elephant and rider is the reality of our psyche then we have to train the rider to have more decision power. The unconscious associations test referenced has scary associations for a world run by elephants.
Seeing as how the MFT concerns moral intuitions and not sound arguments, what value can we place on them at all? Our first intuitions, often unjustifiable or incorrect, differ based on political preference. It simply doesn't follow that one intuition is preferable to another. The answer is to move past 'tasting' with any number of moral foundations. We have to avoid the elephant altogether.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Lately
 |
| A Study of Michelangelo |
It's been an artful month for me. I've picked up visual art (sketching) and learned a couple of new songs on the guitar. Not that I haven't been reading.
Colin and I are both enjoying Ulysses (though the amount of enjoyment depends on the chapter). I've also picked up The Elements of Style and The Elements of Expression. I've finished most of the books listed in the previous post. I'm not sure if I'll write reviews of each of them.
Currently it's Reading Week and I hardly have any idea of what to do with myself. Today I volunteered with Let's Talk Science. That entailed some bizarre activities, not limited to: eyeball dissection, examination of freeze-dried lungs, and gawking at a human skeleton. The children visiting the University were about thirteen, all of them grade seven students from Stanley Knowles school. I was thoroughly impressed by some homeschoolers who tagged along.
These children were a few years younger, but much better behaved and more interested in the topic at hand. I also found that their attention span was longer and they asked better questions. One of those questions which haunts me was asked by one of the younger boys just before we entered the lab. "What's a nuclear melt-down?" he asked, very innocently. My heart broke a little.
My winter term classes began in January. It's been difficult to get used to them. The most difficult of the classes is chemistry. I feel frustrated that I didn't pay attention to the sciences in high school. If I had, life would be much easier now. Another new class this term is Personality Psychology with Dr. Trapnell. The course material so far has focused on the research methods and popular areas of scientific investigation. Dr. Trapnell and I have had a couple of excellent discussions in his office. I appreciate his willingness to answer my sometimes outlandish questions.
Memorable quotes from earlier today:
"Why do you think these dried lungs are so light?" "Because they're dried."
"Why does Joe have only one boob?" "Jo can be a girl's name too."
"Can I lick those eyeballs? I already licked the hearts."
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Book's I'm Currently Reading/Read
Flatland. A Way of Being. Joan of Arc. Client-Centered Therapy. The Feminine Mystique. On Becoming a Person. Toward A Psychology of Being. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Brideshead Revisited. Sphereland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)