…

I have never been so bored.

my lovely workmate ….. ?

Office is quiet and dull, with me stuck sending letters that no one needs. oh happy days…. it probably wouldn’t bother me if this is what i were supposed to do, but knowing there is much more work out there that is less of a brain killer, i get a tiny bit annoyed. Half of the people here are gone to meetings, which can be a good thing, since it is less people to talk to. But i am starting to miss the fuss and the crazy girl across the office who shouts in the phone and gets well excited about everything and anything.

She amuses me; the type of person that you only see in cheesy movies, who sees everything pink and sparkly. She started work about 3 months ago and we spent some time together since she took over some of my work and I had to give her some training. Amazingly, she didn’t remember one word of what i kept telling her for a whole week (ended up with a sore throat then as well, and apparently for nothing) and even now, after three months, she asks novice questions that do not make me proud. When i first met her and had her shouting in my ears THAT’S WONDERFUL!! PERFECT!!!! LOVELY!!! in a slovenian accent, i thought she was just nervous, being her first week and all. But now i see that it’s just her way of being. The other day she was yelling at this customer of hers (i wish i understood what she said, but in my very bad Slovenian, i gathered she was just asking about the guy’s day and telling him how warm and lovely England is *oh the lies*) and literally all the office was staring at her, trying not to laugh. It might sound sinister, but she gives the impression of the perfect killer, for some reason; it is probably because of her loud, mad-woman laughter, that sounds fake every single time.

I should get to know her more; makes life a little bit less dull.

high hopes

the best song i ever heard

work

i have reached a state of complete and apparently unalterable boredom. i have never been this bored and i sure hope i never will be again …. work got completely useless and it’s not that i don’t like what i do, but i literally don’t have anything to do but stare into space for a few hours a day and pretend to be busy. the good thing is that no one notices me reading literature and doing other useless stuff at my desk.
i have decided. this time will be used in a creative way and i will try and write more crap, since i haven’t done so in quite a while. at least it won’t feel like i am completely wasting my life for money, for a change.

idle…

Seems that I’ve been idle for quite a while… I have started working full time in June, and since then I don’t seem to have time for anything. How can anyone keep their brains functioning after staying in front of the computer for an average of 8 hours a day… ? I have reached to the conclusion that computers feed themselves with our poor neurons. No wonder we use such a small capacity of our brains….
All my grand ideas and thoughts are just stored somewhere (since I am too lazy and tired to ever write them down) … and then probably lost in that thick fog that took the place of my thinking system.
I’m scared not to end up being one of the others … the ‘worldly’ people, as I call them, who are only pleased by temporary pleasures (like shopping, food, sex or football) and don’t have the ability, or will, to think outside the box. I’m scared I might end up like most of my workmates…. unless I quit in time.

Coldplay – Beautiful World

Have you ever managed to simply close your eyes and pretend (even for a couple of seconds) that everything around you is perfect? I do that sometimes, and it takes a considerable weight off my mind.

This song takes me back in the mountains i fell in love with. Where everything really does seem to be perfect.

Nice little song…

paradigms

In ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ Thomas Kuhn analyses the development of science and its impact on the world’s changes, over time. One of the main ideas in his work was based on the nature of perception and scientific revolution, as in what a scientist observes may change in time. Moreover, what two scientists observe in the same time might lead to totally different conclusions and not necessarily wrong ones.

Kuhn’s concept of theory dependence on observation rejects the idea of comparison between two theories in order to find a neutral arbiter among them. Through verification between theories, a scientist picks the most logical and practical among the alternatives given to him. But he cannot state that the choice he made is the best one, if there are still other alternatives that could have been taken into consideration, other theories that would have probably been found if the data was of another sort. Comparing a research worker with a chess player, he only tries various moves on the board that is already given to him. He would try out different approaches, rejecting the failures, but he wouldn’t even think of testing the paradigm itself (that being the board) when he does so. He takes the paradigm for granted and the thought of changing the main rules may only apply after repeated failures give way to crisis. On the other side, Kuhn’s concept states that even in the case of a theory or sets of ideas already existing and generally accepted, incommensurability could still arise and scientists could come with a different view over the matter, changing the original theory radically.

A different view from that of Kuhn’s on the problem of theories was Popper’s. Karl R. Popper ‘denied the existence of any verification procedures at all’ his philosophy requiring that a single reproducible, anomalous phenomenon should be enough to result in the rejection of a theory. In Kuhn’s view, however, experiences that evoke crisis bring out a strong reason to search for a new, improved theory, and by no means rejecting it. Just because a paradigm does not resolve some of the problems it confronts with does not mean that one should reject the whole idea. By accepting it now, it will later lead scientists to observe the need for an improved theory, which will probably better the one before it, and so on. As he agrees himself: ‘If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times’.

On the basis of the theory dependence on observation, Kuhn acknowledges that different scientists might see the same matter in totally different ways. Their view on the matter depends mostly on their background, and the time they live in. That does not mean that what one observes has changed or is in any way different from what the other has seen. Different people simply make different connections and do not see things in a universal way. ‘In a sense I am unable to explicate further, the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds. One contains constrained bodies that fall slowly, the other pendulums that repeat their motions again and again. In one, solutions are compounds, in the other mixtures. One is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction’. Therefore, sometimes, a theory that might make sense to one person in an obvious way could be totally out of place for other scientists.

An example in this case would be the Rorschach inkblot test, used in psychology. Every person is shown the same cards that have a certain pattern drown on them, and asked to say what they see. Even if they are looking at the same thing, different people see totally different things. Whatever each of them sees is in correspondence with their personality and background. But the psychologist cannot say that any of them is wrong; it is just their way of viewing things around them.

An simple and obvious example in this case would be Copernicus. By proclaiming that the earth moved, he was believed to be mad and totally absurd. In that period of time, the earth was believed to have a fixed position. Accepting his theory would have meant not only acknowledging the fact that the earth moved, but also revising all the theories regarding physics and astronomy. Plus, Copernicus did not have the equipment necessary to study and prove his theory. Hence, since his paradigm was quite radical and with no exact proof, a statement like Copernicus’ seemed ridiculous and immediately denied. His theory was accepted only many years after his death, when all the concepts put to question were understood and the idea if the earth moving was unquestionable.

As seen, one innovative idea, no matter how good it is, will not change the minds and beliefs of all the others. Most of the times, a new paradigm is rarely accepted, making just a few converts. A scientist cannot expect anyone to accept his beliefs. As Darwin stated in his work, ‘Origin of Species’: ‘although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume… I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine’.

A new theory is often discovered and put into practice by young ones, or those who are rather new in the field, and the old ideas did not yet infiltrate their minds too deeply. For the older generation, it is much harder to accept new ideas and ways of viewing the world, since they did so in a totally different way from the beginning of their research and changing their minds now would probably mean starting all over again, which they cannot or will not. There are, of course, some who are reached in a way or another by the new, improved, idea and grow to accept it. But generally, a new theory does not survive by convincing the ones who oppose it, but with time, along with the new generations who grow to accept it and see its benefits and along with the disappearance of the older one.

But even so, how are new paradigms accepted? Firstly, one of the most important roles of a new paradigm is to better the old one, by solving the problems that lead the latter to a crisis. Otherwise it would – most probably – scarcely be taken into consideration. In this case, Copernicus’ theory was going to solve the problem of the calendar year. But his theory still was not taken into consideration until Kepler’s Rudolphine tables, which made a striking change in science and converted many to Copernicanism.

All in all, when a paradigm is first proposed, it is more likely to be a rather weak one, solving just a few of the problems that were faced before. Plus, most of the solutions are far from being perfect. Paradigms are simple ideas, always different from the ones before them, which develop in time, as knowledge about the world and science evolves. They appear, or better yet someone reveals them, when older concepts face problems that lead to crisis. Then, the need for a whole new concept is noticed and taken into consideration. New ideas are hardly accepted by some, especially by older generations, and that is the reason why it takes time to fully accept and put a theory into practice. This is what Kuhn meant by his idea of theory dependence on observation. The world always evolves around us; theory depends on our means of observation. Along with the increasing of knowledge, our view of the world evolves too.

Some Freud …

Reading Freud again, when I am actually supposed to be doing totally different things. Why do we never do the things we are supposed/told to? I am well aware that if I had to do an essay on Freud, I would try my best to find something else to do, even if I quite enjoy his work. I simply dislike doing what others expect me to; therefore, I thought I’d just make some brief points about Freud’s idea of early infancy sexuality. Just to state that I do not necessarily agree with all his theories on this subject, but it never hurts to know.

Why is it that most writings concerning the development of children lack the studies on sexual development? It could be because of the popular view that sexuality first starts developing during the years of puberty, being completely absent during childhood. Even in the case of authors who do happen to mention sexual tendencies in children, they tend to view them as exceptional cases or probably due to the lack of education or mental health. Sigmund Freud considered that the sexual manifestations in childhood were normal types of behaviour that can be understood and have a deep significance and influence in one’s later sexual life. But how applicable are his theories?

In his ‘Three Essays on Sexuality’ work, Freud agrees with Lipschutz when he said that puberty could be considered just a ‘second major phase’ in the sexual life. The maturation of the sexual organs starts from an early age, ‘as early as during intra-uterine life’, puberty being simply a phase of acceleration. Childhood until the beginning of puberty could be considered, as Lipschutz calls it, ‘the intermediate phase of puberty’.

Freud’s explanation to why the matter of infantile sexuality is neglected is because of the ‘infantile amnesia’, experienced by most, which is the process of not remembering one’s own childhood, up to 6 to 8 years of age. Most childhood memories that are remembered are in the state of simple fractions or flashes. Therefore, since children cannot understand the idea of sexuality or the purpose of their sexual acts, and the psychoanalysts themselves do not remember experiencing any, the idea of sexual development can easily be overlooked. On the other side, it is well known that in their childhood one experienced other feelings like happiness, love, disappointment and so on, things that we ourselves cannot remember but are reminded by others who witnessed those stages. And since those types of feelings have a great influence on our development, childhood sexuality can also play a very important part. The impressions are not abolished, but ‘stored’ deep into the unconscious trough the process of repression. As explained by his theory of the mind, the feelings and memories repressed into the unconscious still have a great influence on the conscious part of the mind. Things in one’s past that they probably find unimportant or even forgotten can actually be playing a significant role in the present. Similar would be the case of infantile sexuality.

Freud explains how the sexual development of children divides in three parts (oral, anal and phallic stage) which I will not give detail about at the moment. [If interested, most of his work on this matter is included in his ‘Infantile Sexuality’ essay. OR ask, and I will gladly explain myself].

He considers that sexual excitation of early infancy can often appear later on in life, during childhood, under the form of a tickling stimulus that seeks satisfaction in masturbation, or as nocturnal emissions, a type of satisfaction that does not require any sort of action from the subject. Quoting Freud from his ‘Three essays on sexuality’ work, ‘the reappearance of sexual activity is determined by internal causes and external contingencies, both of which can be guessed in cases of neurotic illness from the form taken by their symptoms and can be discovered with certainty by psycho-analytic investigation’. The external contingencies Freud refers to in this case are the effects of seduction.

His seduction theory refers to children who were treated as sexual objects from a premature age, either from an adult or a playmate, and have been taught how to obtain sexual pleasure from their genital organs: ‘a real sexual act forced on a young child who in no way desires or encourages it … which wounds the child in every aspect of her being’ (Masson). All these experiences are shrouded in the unconscious of the child, and when they try and repeat the sexual experience trough masturbation, a deep feeling of guilt, fear and disgust may arise, manifesting themselves trough different types of neurotic illnesses.

In the case of sexual repression, Carl Jung had a different opinion than Freud’s. Even though he did not totally disagree with the theory, he considered that neurotic illnesses could have other background factors, than simply sexuality. Yes, childhood sexuality could be the case in some instances, but Freud seemed not to ‘grant that factors other than sexuality could be the case. Anything that could not be directly interpreted as sexuality he referred to as psychosexuality’. Jung therefore reached to the conclusion that Freud was probably exaggerating with the sexual repressions. Plus, from very interesting conversations between them two (published by Jung), he got to the conclusion that Freud made sexuality repression a personal matter: ‘that no longer has anything to do with scientific judgement; only with a personal power drive … Sexuality evidently meant more to Freud than to other people. For him it was something to be religiously observed’.

In this instance, making a theory a personal matter can be considered a weakness. Freud admits himself that in his paper on ‘The Aetiology of Hysteria’ he exaggerated the importance of the influence of seduction in a person’s life, stating that he ‘did not know that persons who remain normal might have had the same experiences in their childhood’. However, even here, his idea that most of his patients experienced sexual seductions remains.

Of course, there were times when his theory applied. In his visits to the Paris Morgue, in 1885, he seemed to have seen numerous cases of abused children. In most instances, the fact that they were sexually abused was only revealed after their death, during the autopsy. A certain professor Brouardel and Ambroise Tardieu were often presenting cases of brutally murdered children, linking them to sexual assaults, usually from parents or close relatives. The professors ‘often called our attention to the fact of cruelty and brutal treatment, of which children in particular are victims of their parents, their teachers, in short, of those who exercise over them a more or less direct authority’ (Masson)

It is easier to understand, then, why Freud put such emphasis on child sexual abuse. After witnessing those murder cases, Freud probably started getting personally involved in the matter. It would be logical to think that a sexually abused child will not admit easily that he or she is being molested, because of shame and fear. Therefore, a great majority sadly ended up in the morgue. Plus, Freud experienced quite a few cases of sexual molested patients as well. After insisting with his sexual repressions in some of his cases, certain patients admitted that they were sexually molested in childhood, and therefore their neurotic illnesses became clear.

Freud strongly believes that children are not given enough credit for their understanding of the sexual processes. Most parents would usually refuse accept that their child could have any knowledge of it at all or could even experience different types of sexual pleasures from early years. That is one of the reasons why, for example, in order to satisfy a child’s curiosity about ‘where babies come from’, most parents would tell them different fables, as the one of the stork, that children would most likely receive it with a deep mistrust. The only two things that, in Freud’s view, remain undiscovered for children are the fertilizing role of semen and the female sexual organ. Karen Horney, on the other side, even though she agrees with most of Freud’s theories, has a different view on this aspect. She believes that children instinctively know, from a very young age, the use of the male and female sexual organs: ‘We, just like every animal, are subject to great law of heterosexual attraction’. I would have to totally disagree with her idea however, since I myself agree with the behaviourists’ nature over nurture theory (totally different story).

To sum up, Freud’s theories on the infantile sexuality have, like any other theory, their strengths and weaknesses. There will always be psychoanalysts that agree, or criticise Freud’s work. After all, Freud being a conceptual theorist himself, he makes the data that is, later on, meant to be discussed and criticised by others. Because if it would not be for the criticism, that would mean the data is not good enough to worth analysing.

There … I academically wasted quite a bit of my time.

Walk …

Been to Holmforth today for a nice, long walk. Amazing that place… All that nature and green landscape around made me dread facing the grumpy old city again.

It was a big group of us going; 24 to be more exact. Sometimes I don’t even know when I got to meet so many people, since I stopped acting like a social being quite some time ago. Of course, I stayed in the back most of the time; or way in front. I preferred admiring the view to chatting about food, clothes and boys while walking through mud. I don’t even know why some women like talking about men so much, like they’re some aliens who act and think in the same way. They tend to generalize them most of the times ‘oh well that’s how men are’ or ‘men always do that’; I just try to avoid those kind of discussions, or probably join in just for amusement. But in the end, just like G. Soh says … ‘Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Deal with it.’

Anyhow, the scenery was amazing. For a moment there I thought I knew how paradise felt like. So much open space, with so few people around (well, except us). I finally understood what my father always says when he has this feeling: ‘you can feel God in here, can’t you?’ even though he claims he doesn’t believe in God; for him, it is just a metaphorically way of speaking.

I can honestly say all that green and the fresh air around will keep me going for a good while now and I would recommend anyone who still sees walks as a ‘going out’ thing to visit Holmforth. The whole walk took around three hours or more, which was a bit unusual for me, the girl who stays indoors most of the time, reading and doing little nothings. And I used to be such an outgoing person … Shame on me.

Zipes on Folklore

I have just been reading a rather interesting book – Zipes, Breaking the Magic Spell– and I couldn’t help but make some comments on it.

The book’s main purpose is highlighting the major influence that the impact of technology and capitalism has on the historical development of the folklore and ways in which the mass media uses fairy tales in order to manipulate minds and consciousnesses. The way the media abuses the meaning of a fairy tale simply limits the people’s imaginations and sense of culture.

Like, for instance, the misuse and abuse of folklore in advertising. Nowadays, one can find fairy tale motifs everywhere they go. In this aspect, there is the classical example of the advert in which Cinderella uses ‘Mr Clean’:

One older sister: Cinderella, wash the floor.
Other older sister: Yeah, wash it, and then re-wax it.
[Sisters leave for the ball.]
Cinderella: Wash, wax, pfui.
[Fairy godmother appears.]
Fairy Godmother: Phew, ammonia. That strips wax. But use Mr Clean with no ammonia. Mr Clean gets the dirt but leaves the wax shining and you get a shine.
Cinderella: Wow.
Fairy Godmother: And now off to the ball?
Cinderella: Ball-schmall. Tonight’s my bowling league. Bye.’ (Zipes 1979, p.118)

At a first glance, this would seem as a rather amusing advert. But what does it imply? Indirectly, it ruins the originality and glamour of the original Cinderella story. It makes it seem common, Cinderella being seen as a normal girl (and not too sophisticated and girly, since she chooses bowling instead of the ball)

The media also considers that using the idea of magic in adverts gives the viewers, as the consumers, a different impression on the product used. Magic, as in the meaning of supernatural makes the promoted object seem ‘capable’ of much more than it normally is. Even if people do not believe in magic (if i may ASSUME that), they are persuaded to purchase it. The advertising industry considers fairy-tale motifs to be captivating for the masses, and therefore they use it in every way possible. But what influence does that have on our ways of thinking? The true meaning and charm of the classic fairy tales gradually disappears. People are no longer captivated by the magic and fantasy that tales bring. Their sense of culture and folklore is blunted and they can no longer appreciate it. Plus, the too often misuse of such a sacred thing as fairy tales in cheap worldly acts, makes the fairy-tale itself fade away. In other words, if one hears a good joke for example, which is then repeated to them over and over again, in an ‘unskilled’ way (turning it into a bad one), the whole captivation he or she had for the joke in the first place fades away. They do not find it amusing any more, and it would not be surprising if they do not want to hear it ever again.

Another example of misuse and abuse of folklore by the media is in films. Zipes made a study on a few different movies – all having the base of fairy tale plots and motifs – in order to observe the diverse ways of using folk and myths in mundane situations. But in what way do some innocent motion pictures instrumentalize fairy tales?

One of the examples was the classy ‘Snow White’. Even if the story of the film seems to be the same as the original fairy-tale, the little details make an enormous turnover. As observed by Zipes, the plot of the film is totally different. Here, the conflict is not between the two women – the queen and Snow White – as in Grimm’s tale. The attention is turned towards the seven dwarfs who seem to have quite a minor role in the original. The dwarfs represent the real world in our times. They are miners, who concentrate their whole lives on their work and seem to do it with great pleasure. Everything in the film represents order and maintaining it. Each of the seven dwarfs has their own duty which they perform at all times, they have their own place and the arrival of Snow White in their lives helps to maintain that order. She plays the role of the mother, as in every family needs a mother. Her duties are keeping the house clean and showing love and affection to her friends. She awaits for her prince charming, which is the image of the father in a family, who will make it even more complete and perfect.

Zipes compares Disney’s film with the situation of the world in the times when it was distributed: ‘America was still in the throes of depression in 1937. Work was difficult to find, and workers’ discontent led to violent strikes and the rise of a strong socialist movement … Snow White, as Miss America symbolizes the basic goodness of the American socio-economic system, and the dwarfs as workers order themselves nice and neat to defend this system’. The little changes made in the film by Disney had an impact on the masses. By ‘showing them what they wanted’, which is the ideal kind of life in a capitalist society, the film made the masses accept that society. It was not about what changes one can bring in the society in order to make it better; now it was about how to have an ideal life in the society given to you. Accepted by you.

This is the way that Disney, unwillingly, made major changes in the psychology of the masses. And I say unwillingly, because it was not Disney’s purpose to contribute to the mentality change of the people. As Zipes noticed, the film was simply modelled after the way that Disney perceived the world in those times. He tried combining both the social-economic condition of America and culture: ‘that this image served to curtail the individual imagination and the emancipation movement of oppressed groups is a reflection of how Disney himself had become victimized and deluded by the demands of the culture industry’. (Zipes 1979, p.128)

There are many other examples, Like the film that was released just last year, Enchanted. But I will try not to go on about it all, or I might actually bore someone to death.

To sum up, the interest in culture, folklore and myths has obviously decreased. It is a generally well-known fact that children do not find any more interest in stories, preferring the animated films which, without their noticing, shapes their minds in the way the system chooses. That is what Zipes means when he talks about the ‘instrumentalization of fantasy’. Films are often misunderstood, seen as another form of expressing the traditional culture and folklore, but the truth is that traditional folklore, when taken out of its usual context, significantly loses its meaning. The capitalist society limits people’s minds, making them lose their subjectivity and independent thought – point wonderfully raised by Josef Witmann in his poem, Sleeping Beauty:

I’m not a prince,
I have no sword
Nor have I time
To cut the hedge
To climb the wall
To give a kiss
Or marry you …

Tomorrow
I must start work early
(Or I’ll be fired)

My dreaming must wait
Till Sunday
My thinking till vacation
Time

Keep sleeping
And dream another hundred years
Until the right one
Appears.