I was at a Quaker retreat a year ago. They asked us to draw pictures. That seems to be a common activity at Quaker workshops. I don’t remember what the topic was. I do remember what I drew.
I drew a picture of me in church, fuming, because I had to listen to a preacher, whose preachings I found insipid, annoying, lacking profundity. This was one of my motivations for becoming a Quaker — to get onto the other side of the pulpit — to become one of the ministers — and all Friends are ministers.
Below the picture of me in church, I drew a picture of me, looking at my computer screen, fuming, because I had to watch material, much of which I found annoying for some of the same reasons — but also some other reasons. This was one of my motivations for getting into acting and performing. I wanted to get on the other side of the screen.
There were other reasons as well. I love performing. I feel it comes naturally to me.
Yet, as I try to get into the entertainment industry, I find myself continuing to dislike the very things that drew me to want to change it.
I have been studying improv comedy for two and a half years. I love improvising. I love getting on stage and making things up. So far, tho, they haven’t let me into conservatory level courses at the my school.
I was just at the theater run by my school last night, watching a show, by one of my preferred groups. The show was raunchy. That seems to be the norm.
I don’t like raunchy. I am not laughing. I respect the talent of the people on stage. They’re bouncy, energetic, working well together. They’re great singers. They are nice people off stage. I really want to be their friend. But I didn’t like the show.
I also don’t like the widespread use of profanity in improv. I don’t like profanity.
I’m taking an acting course at an acting studio. We’re working on a classic play called “All My Sons,” by Arthur Miller. It’s a great play. But my character has to use some profanity. I don’t like it.
I get e-mails offering me courses with casting directors who are casting for TV shows that I’ve never watched. I’m not a TV watcher. I went completely cold turkey off video in college, because it seemed like a dangerous, addictive drug to me. I was only recently drawn back into video, because of my computer — the lure of YouTube videos, videos that are shorter, geared to my interests by an artificial intelligence algorithm.
TV still doesn’t lure me, tho. I would rather be creating content than consuming it, so it’s hard for me to get motivated to go to casting directors who are casting for things that I know little about and probably wouldn’t enjoy.
I’m drawn to sci-fi fantasy villains. I like the idea of scaring people. Probably that’s because I’m a timid person. I don’t feel badly about being a villain, because usually the villain gets killed. It’s just a role.
I auditioned for a horror musical recently. The director saw on my resume that I’m religious, so he wondered if I would fit into horror. I’m drawn to scaring people, so I’m drawn to horror. I told him that I thought that horror is often very moralistic — often more so than other genres — and draws conclusions that are very basic ethically. There was no moral conclusion to the musical improv comedy show I saw last night at all.
Still, I was most drawn to Dark Shadows as a child, because Barnabas wanted to reform. That’s part of what I really liked about Star Wars, Darth Vader was redeemed at the end. Redemption is a theme that I like, much more so than killing the victim. Tho I don’t consider myself a traditional Christian, I was impressed with the Christian idea that we are trying to save people spiritually, to get them to repent and reform rather than just punishing them.
I also liked Star Trek, as a kid, partly because Captain Kirk always regretted having to kill sentient aliens. He did not take pleasure in it. He wanted to avoid it.
I like to watch movies based on comic books. There’s little or no profanity there. There are scary villains that I would like to play, but they don’t have to swear. Also, I like watching sexy men in tights, if it’s only slightly suggestive, and not raunchy.
One of the things that drew me to Quakers was the historical testimony of plainness. Historical Quakers felt that spending time decorating themselves was wasteful, that that time and energy should be spent helping the poor. For me, it’s a bit different. I don’t like the feeling that women have to spend huge amounts of time and energy decorating themselves, because they feel insecure about themselves, particularly with respect to men. Also, I feel that society generally compensates women less than men and women are expected to spend scarce resources on their appearances.
I got into a big debate on Facebook recently about Bruce Jenner’s transition, where I was disturbed that he felt comfortable with his natural appearance while being interviewed by Sawyer so long as that was identified as “male,” but identifying as “female” and becoming “she,” involved wearing makeup, hyper-sexualized clothing and styled hair — a male fantasy of what a woman is — not the natural appearance of a person in the process of transitioning from male to female, with mixed features and body attributes.
The person who got most upset about my post was a successful actress, who does buy into the whole makeup, clothing, hair thing. She felt threatened, apparently, by my opinion that Jenner’s way of defining female involved all this beauty enhancement stuff.
The first transgender people I met were Quakers. They, like me, were not so into the commercialization of female beauty and tended to be fairly plain. They made me curious. I tend to be drawn to gay and transgender men. I wanted to know more about them.
Jenner is different. Women in his life as a straight man included the Kardashians. Jenner buys into that view of women. I’m still curious about Jenner, as most everyone seems to be, but I don’t like the way Jenner defines female.
But this brings me back to my friend who is a successful actress, who is not into “plain” the way I am. In some sense, she represents my fears about what I would have to become to be successful as a performer.
I’m not going into this to become like everyone else. I don’t want to have to do roles that include profanity. I don’t want to have to buy into this definition of female that includes spending huge amounts of time and energy on commercial beauty products and fashion.
Still I find myself buying some pretty clothes — drawn to them. I used to like to wear grey and black a lot . I don’t like it so much any more.
Part of this is my realization that grey and black clothing is still dyed. Dyes are applied in toxic processes. The whole dying industry has been mostly moved outside the USA, because modern commercial dying cannot be accomplished in compliance with OSHA and EPA regulations. We’ve shipped the toxicity to the third world.
Jonathan Woolman, a historical Quaker, insisted on wearing undyed cloth, because even then toxicity was a huge issue for workers. I have a few pieces of clothing that are made of undyed cloth. They show stains very badly. They’re ecru in color. They don’t feel practical because of the way they show stains.
So I’m wearing dyed cloth and feeling schizo about it.
I feel like I’m on a slippery slope. I’m practicing a role where I have to use some profanity. I’m wearing some dyed clothing. I’m anxious not to alienate a successful professional actress who is happy with her makeup and hair styling.
I don’t want to become what I hate in order to succeed. I don’t like the influence some people have on me.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I feel like I have moral concerns that no one else shares, a Don Quixote of sorts.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Saturday, May 23, 2015
response to @wsj op ed piece on assisted suicide 5/23/15
I personally favor the option of an assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. As I understand it, this writer does not.
The writer points out that many states have not approved assisted suicide. One concern that comes up, and the writer expresses it in this piece, is that health care providers may be put under pressure to terminate expensive patients if physician assisted suicide is allowed.
The missing link here is the physician assisted piece.
The mission of physicians is to save lives. They take a Hippocratic Oath to this effect. This is the single most fundamental part of the ethos of physicians. Why should they be the ones to have responsibility for this delicate procedure?
Why not have a separate profession of people to do this job? These people would have cross-disciplinary training, e.g.:
I would like to see these assisted suicide ballot efforts changed slightly to include this different vehicle for carrying out wishes of terminal patients.
The writer points out that many states have not approved assisted suicide. One concern that comes up, and the writer expresses it in this piece, is that health care providers may be put under pressure to terminate expensive patients if physician assisted suicide is allowed.
The missing link here is the physician assisted piece.
The mission of physicians is to save lives. They take a Hippocratic Oath to this effect. This is the single most fundamental part of the ethos of physicians. Why should they be the ones to have responsibility for this delicate procedure?
Why not have a separate profession of people to do this job? These people would have cross-disciplinary training, e.g.:
- some medical so that they can evaluate the seriousness of the patient's condition and administer suicide drugs;
- some in psychology so that they can evaluate any need for counseling, both for the patient and for those close to the patient, and administer such counseling;
- some legal, so that they can help the patient procure necessary assistance in preparing a will and a living will; getting a health care proxy; arranging for a power of attorney for people to administer finances if the person elects not to commit suicide
- some general practical in terms of arranging for care of the patient and any responsibilities the patient has if the patient elects to continue living, but is not able to maintain those responsibilities. This might reassure many patients and help them feel more hopeful.
I would like to see these assisted suicide ballot efforts changed slightly to include this different vehicle for carrying out wishes of terminal patients.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
A neurological argument about why prayer and meditation help combat addiction
Why do I think a spiritual approach to addiction works?
I often speak with people who are skeptical that a spiritual approach works for addiction. In some cases, this is because these people do not believe in a higher power.
I see no reason why you should have to believe in a higher power in order to work a 12 step program. I believe it is necessary to pray, but that does not mean one has to believe in a higher power. I would like to offer a sketch of a neurological argument for why a spiritual approach should work. First, I will talk about some articles that I have read. Then I will talk about impressions that I have in my own head — what some things have felt like to me — and connections I see between my own impressions and the articles that I have read.
I’m struggling to make this coherent. I tend to get too complicated. I may edit it more later.
Very shortly after I joined program in the fall of 2004 there was a short article in Science News that strongly influenced my thinking (Science News, 11/13/2004, Vol. 166, No. 20, p. 310). This article dealt with the topic of synchronized gamma activity in the brain. The article compared two studies.
The first was a study of schizophrenics. This first study showed that schizophrenics have less synchronized gamma activity than normal people.
The second study compared normal people with Buddhist monks who had been meditating several hours per day for fifteen to thirty years. These monks had much more synchronized gamma activity than normal people, and especially spreading into more areas of the brain. The article said that it wasn't known what was cause or effect here, because possibly people with more synchronized gamma activity were choosing to be Buddhist monks, but they found that normal people who tried to meditate would increase the size of the areas of their brains that had synchronized gamma activity.
Moreover, I saw another article (Scientific American Mind, November/December 2009 pp 65-67) where Buddhists were interviewed and they explained what they were doing when meditating. One stated goal was to try to expand their mediation into more parts of their brains.
I have seen some articles proposing that the schizophrenic impression of hallucination relates to some lack of connectivity between brain centers generating the hallucination and brain centers perceiving the hallucination, (cf P. Boksa, “On the Neurobiology of Hallucinations,” J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 Jul; 34(4): 260–262)
This reminds me of my experience in natural childbirth. At the time I did that, I was doing a lot of yoga, so I was in a what I would now call “fit spiritual condition”. I got a sense of being in contact mentally with the labor process and even of having some control over it, despite labor allegedly being involuntary. That sensation of being in contact with the process had a spiritual feel to it, something like ESP.
Shortly after childbirth, I read the fiction book The Mists of Avalon, which is a retelling of the Arthurian legends from a female perspective. This book talked about women who had been in childbirth believing that they some kind of second sight, a sort of ESP. I really related to that, from my own prospective of having ESP-like feelings while in childbirth.
I also found a diagram on a government website related to addiction that posited that addiction is related to the central portion of the brain, including the amygdala. These central portions of the brain are at approximately on eye level.
Another article in Science News gave a diagram of the brain showing areas of the brain that have been linked to conscious thought. (Science News, 2/11/2012 p. 24) These areas were almost all on the outer surface of the brain, in contrast with the suspected areas relating to addiction, which were deep in the center.
Yet another article that I saw (Currents -- Science Journal: A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight --- Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain's Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming, Robert Lee Hotz. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.:Jun 19, 2009. p. A.11 ) said that neurological researchers have seen decisions being formed in the subconscious part of the brain eight seconds before we are aware of them. The conscious brain is a delusional egomaniac. It thinks it is in control, but it is not.
My impression as an active food addict was that there was a part of my brain that wanted to stop eating and a part that didn't want to stop, and, somehow, the part of the brain that didn't want to stop was winning. A lot of other addicts have told me the same thing, and chapter three of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous is dedicated to this phenomenon, the idea that the conscious brain wants to stop, and, yet, there constantly arises this insanely trivial excuse to go back and engage in the addictive behavior, and the conscious brain is powerless to stop it.
When I first got abstinent, I had a sensation of fluid flowing inside my brain. I have sometimes had a similar sensation after a limb falls asleep. As sensation returns, there is sometimes a feeling as if fluid were flowing into the previously numb area. I therefore got the definite impression, early in program, that somehow prayer and meditation were causing parts of my brain that were asleep or numb to wake up, or have circulation return.
In view of the different positions in the brain of the conscious brain and the centers for impulses and desires, it makes total sense to me that one would not have conscious control over addiction — that there would be a disconnect between those regions. In view of the ability of meditation to cause some form of neurological activity, namely the synchronized gamma activity, to move into more areas of the brain, it makes sense to me that meditation could help connect the conscious and unconscious brains. This also makes sense to me in view of my experience with natural childbirth.
When I started program, I devised a meditation of an ocean wave at eye level washing into the back of my brain. I spoke about this in another blog https://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2013/09/musings-on-making-my-higher-power-work.html. This was even before I saw the diagram of where the amygdala is, but, in fact, this meditation involved reaching with a wave image into precisely those areas that the government diagram specified as relevant to addiction.
The use of prayer seems analogous to me — a potential tool for getting one part of the brain to connect with another, precisely what seems to be missing in the addict who wants to quit and yet finds him or herself continually returning to the behavior that s/he wanted to stop.
I often speak with people who are skeptical that a spiritual approach works for addiction. In some cases, this is because these people do not believe in a higher power.
I see no reason why you should have to believe in a higher power in order to work a 12 step program. I believe it is necessary to pray, but that does not mean one has to believe in a higher power. I would like to offer a sketch of a neurological argument for why a spiritual approach should work. First, I will talk about some articles that I have read. Then I will talk about impressions that I have in my own head — what some things have felt like to me — and connections I see between my own impressions and the articles that I have read.
I’m struggling to make this coherent. I tend to get too complicated. I may edit it more later.
Very shortly after I joined program in the fall of 2004 there was a short article in Science News that strongly influenced my thinking (Science News, 11/13/2004, Vol. 166, No. 20, p. 310). This article dealt with the topic of synchronized gamma activity in the brain. The article compared two studies.
The first was a study of schizophrenics. This first study showed that schizophrenics have less synchronized gamma activity than normal people.
The second study compared normal people with Buddhist monks who had been meditating several hours per day for fifteen to thirty years. These monks had much more synchronized gamma activity than normal people, and especially spreading into more areas of the brain. The article said that it wasn't known what was cause or effect here, because possibly people with more synchronized gamma activity were choosing to be Buddhist monks, but they found that normal people who tried to meditate would increase the size of the areas of their brains that had synchronized gamma activity.
Moreover, I saw another article (Scientific American Mind, November/December 2009 pp 65-67) where Buddhists were interviewed and they explained what they were doing when meditating. One stated goal was to try to expand their mediation into more parts of their brains.
I have seen some articles proposing that the schizophrenic impression of hallucination relates to some lack of connectivity between brain centers generating the hallucination and brain centers perceiving the hallucination, (cf P. Boksa, “On the Neurobiology of Hallucinations,” J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 Jul; 34(4): 260–262)
This reminds me of my experience in natural childbirth. At the time I did that, I was doing a lot of yoga, so I was in a what I would now call “fit spiritual condition”. I got a sense of being in contact mentally with the labor process and even of having some control over it, despite labor allegedly being involuntary. That sensation of being in contact with the process had a spiritual feel to it, something like ESP.
Shortly after childbirth, I read the fiction book The Mists of Avalon, which is a retelling of the Arthurian legends from a female perspective. This book talked about women who had been in childbirth believing that they some kind of second sight, a sort of ESP. I really related to that, from my own prospective of having ESP-like feelings while in childbirth.
I also found a diagram on a government website related to addiction that posited that addiction is related to the central portion of the brain, including the amygdala. These central portions of the brain are at approximately on eye level.
Another article in Science News gave a diagram of the brain showing areas of the brain that have been linked to conscious thought. (Science News, 2/11/2012 p. 24) These areas were almost all on the outer surface of the brain, in contrast with the suspected areas relating to addiction, which were deep in the center.
Yet another article that I saw (Currents -- Science Journal: A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight --- Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain's Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming, Robert Lee Hotz. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.:Jun 19, 2009. p. A.11 ) said that neurological researchers have seen decisions being formed in the subconscious part of the brain eight seconds before we are aware of them. The conscious brain is a delusional egomaniac. It thinks it is in control, but it is not.
My impression as an active food addict was that there was a part of my brain that wanted to stop eating and a part that didn't want to stop, and, somehow, the part of the brain that didn't want to stop was winning. A lot of other addicts have told me the same thing, and chapter three of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous is dedicated to this phenomenon, the idea that the conscious brain wants to stop, and, yet, there constantly arises this insanely trivial excuse to go back and engage in the addictive behavior, and the conscious brain is powerless to stop it.
When I first got abstinent, I had a sensation of fluid flowing inside my brain. I have sometimes had a similar sensation after a limb falls asleep. As sensation returns, there is sometimes a feeling as if fluid were flowing into the previously numb area. I therefore got the definite impression, early in program, that somehow prayer and meditation were causing parts of my brain that were asleep or numb to wake up, or have circulation return.
In view of the different positions in the brain of the conscious brain and the centers for impulses and desires, it makes total sense to me that one would not have conscious control over addiction — that there would be a disconnect between those regions. In view of the ability of meditation to cause some form of neurological activity, namely the synchronized gamma activity, to move into more areas of the brain, it makes sense to me that meditation could help connect the conscious and unconscious brains. This also makes sense to me in view of my experience with natural childbirth.
When I started program, I devised a meditation of an ocean wave at eye level washing into the back of my brain. I spoke about this in another blog https://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2013/09/musings-on-making-my-higher-power-work.html. This was even before I saw the diagram of where the amygdala is, but, in fact, this meditation involved reaching with a wave image into precisely those areas that the government diagram specified as relevant to addiction.
The use of prayer seems analogous to me — a potential tool for getting one part of the brain to connect with another, precisely what seems to be missing in the addict who wants to quit and yet finds him or herself continually returning to the behavior that s/he wanted to stop.
******
Addendum 9/2/15
Also prayer releases endorphins http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Natural-Rush which is generally what addicts are seeking -- and prayer is much healthier than other things that addicts are doing to get endorphins.
******
Addendum 8/31/21
New research about spirituality and the brain
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Birdman
I saw Birdman.
This movie got an Oscar.
One of my teachers in one of my acting classes recommended it highly. She said she watched it three times or something like that, on her free SAG/AFTRA account.
I can summarize my reaction
ICK
I’ve been studying to be an actress.
Should I conclude that professional actors voted to give this movie an Oscar because it accurately reflects what actors and crew are like?
Backstage they are constantly yelling at one another and fighting, sometimes with fists? They trash their dressing rooms? They are hallucinating, gratuitously naked, sexually harassing their colleagues, using French kissing a bit like the game “musical chairs?” They loiter in high places contemplating suicide on a regular basis? Every moment of their professional life is marked by high drama interpersonal conflict?
Really?
Drag.
To me, this movie seems a lot like the video game “Halo,” which my kids like. It’s just one continuous sequence of conflict, from scene to scene, from room to room — like a video game.
But it gets an Oscar, as if it were high art. I would say instead that it’s self-deluded snobbery.
And, of course, the NY Times critic is depicted as a petty sociopath.
Really?
Give me a superhero/action film any day. At least those are intellectually honest. They do not have the plot of a violent video game and then masquerade as art.
This movie got an Oscar.
One of my teachers in one of my acting classes recommended it highly. She said she watched it three times or something like that, on her free SAG/AFTRA account.
I can summarize my reaction
ICK
I’ve been studying to be an actress.
Should I conclude that professional actors voted to give this movie an Oscar because it accurately reflects what actors and crew are like?
Backstage they are constantly yelling at one another and fighting, sometimes with fists? They trash their dressing rooms? They are hallucinating, gratuitously naked, sexually harassing their colleagues, using French kissing a bit like the game “musical chairs?” They loiter in high places contemplating suicide on a regular basis? Every moment of their professional life is marked by high drama interpersonal conflict?
Really?
Drag.
To me, this movie seems a lot like the video game “Halo,” which my kids like. It’s just one continuous sequence of conflict, from scene to scene, from room to room — like a video game.
But it gets an Oscar, as if it were high art. I would say instead that it’s self-deluded snobbery.
And, of course, the NY Times critic is depicted as a petty sociopath.
Really?
Give me a superhero/action film any day. At least those are intellectually honest. They do not have the plot of a violent video game and then masquerade as art.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
@Hozier, Fantine, and Occitocin
I'm listening to Hozier.
I was alerted to his existence by an acquaintance who told me about his song “Take Me to Church.” She said she hated the song. I decided to go listen to it.
I pull up the music video. Here’s the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSVMgRr6pw
I immediately hate it. The idea of promoting gay rights appeals to me, but the not idea of watching innocent people be burned alive. Still, the voice sticks in my head. I want to hear it again.
I am drawn to watch the video several times. I get a bit desensitized to the horrific incident depicted there. I decide to go listen to the album preview on amazon. I download the album.
I’m listening to it on replay for a while. The first song currently has 27 plays on my iTunes, while the later songs have 16 . As I listen, I keep bopping around, loving the rhythms, the voices, the harmonies.
But after a while, as I sing along, I start noticing what I’m singing. OK, this guy doesn’t like the church, but he worships women and sex. Hmmm. This isn’t exactly representing my my beliefs.
I look back at the video and listen to the words. Hozier is singing about a female lover. He’s not singing about a male lover. Presumably, he himself is not gay, unlike the couple in the video. The video doesn’t really go with the words.
I mean the passion and anger go with the video — and the anti-church message — but the songs on the album are clearly about a straight man.
I find an interview with Hozier on YouTube. He explains that treatment of LGBT people is one of the reasons he feels angry toward the church, yet I don’t see anywhere that he himself is gay.
Someone sends me a link to a video with a Russian ballet dancer done to “Take me to Church.” Here’s the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tW0CkvdDI
It is sort of a stereotype that ballet dancers *are* gay — so I imagine that perhaps this dancer, taken by the music and the video, wants to add his enthusiastic contribution. His video is a lot more appealing than the official video. It’s done in an idyllic wooded area. No one is burned alive. The dancer is talented.
But the actual words of the song, as opposed to the video — and the actual words of more than one of the songs — are on this somewhat unappealing topic: I worship women and sex, but I’m not interested in marriage/commitment.
This is a pretty typical view for an immature, selfish, young man. Perhaps his personal morality and maturity just aren’t as advanced as the music. That wouldn’t be too surprising.
My thoughts drift a bit to a couple of other amazing songs, performed in Les Miz. “On My Own” and “I Dreamed a Dream.” Here are some links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvzLZIiD5TU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzNVmZfNoa8
These are songs about women who have had their hearts broken by men.
The case of the character, Fantine, played by Ann Hathaway in the movie, is much like that of the gay couple in Hozier’s video. In both cases, we see pompous, self-righteous hypocrites violently brutalizing others in the name of religion, while ignoring those principles of religion that most of us hold most dear: love, forgiveness, tolerance, mercy, and compassion. In both cases, the brutality of the attackers persuades us that their viewpoint is defective. The primitive, savage brutality, which might be thought to be inspired by early scripture, is in fact not what God wants us to be doing here and now. Art helps us see a truth that naked text fails to reveal.
But there’s something here that doesn’t quite click.
In fact, Hozier’s attitude toward women seems not so very different from that of the guy who abandoned Fantine to the savagery of vigilantes and, inherently, Cosette to the exploitive greed of the family who takes money in exchange for neglecting her. He wants to have fun. He doesn’t want to make a commitment. He hates anyone who might be implying that there is something wrong morally with his behavior — or his idea of worshiping sex and women.
Now, we can rationalize. There are contraceptives and abortion so women don’t have to be left with children who they cannot care for. In much of the world — though certainly not all — the idea that women who have had premarital sex should be brutalized or killed or even shunned has been abandoned. The idea that out of wedlock children should be stigmatized for the malfeasance of their parents is also commonly rejected in places that we consider civilized.
Still, it is not at all uncommon for young women to have their hearts broken by exploitive, young men who are eager for sex and don’t care at all for the consequences. Hozier and/or his handlers are clever to divert us from that thought, by directing our attention to the case of the poor gay couple in Hozier’s music video, which now has over a hundred million views.
Listening to Hozier’s lyrics over and over, it’s hard for me to believe that the subject matter of the music video was more than a self-interested afterthought.
This leads me back to one of my pet theories, which I talked about in a blog that I see has only 5 views at this point
http://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2014/10/premarital-sex-and-free-love-revolution.html
I believe that our ability to bond to lovers is not infinite. I believe that we bond most strongly to the first person we have sex with ("the first cut is the deepest"); and that the more people we have sex with, the weaker our ability to bond becomes.
My own experience is that I could never enjoy anyone else as much as the first one. Everyone is shaped a bit differently, moves a bit differently, makes different sounds. No one was ever quite the same as the first one, the one I had bonded to, and therefore could not satisfy me the same way.
I believe this has to do with the action of the hormone occitocin on the body responsive to certain types of stimulation.
I learned about occitocin during childbirth education. I had an even stronger, but similar, experience after giving birth to my first child via natural childbirth and nursing him — resulting in even greater release of the hormone occitocin in a particular, life-changing event.
Based on my personal experience and my reading about the action of the hormone occitocin on the body, I believe that people who have casual sex with multiple partners are damaging themselves and their partners -- reducing their ability to bond and have satisfying relationships. This damage has nothing to do with the vicious actions taken against Fantine in Les Miz. It’s just the way our bodies are made and how they respond biologically to stimuli.
Despite the beauty of Hozier’s music and the cleverness of the diversion posed by his video, I have to conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong — even perhaps evil — about some of his lyrics.
-------------
Addendum 4/19/15
Well, I haven't stopped listening to Hozier. I still like the music, even tho I have this impression of him as being a self-centered user of women. One thing that I'm noticing now is the prevalence of the word "sin." It appears that he's troubled at some level by his own behavior and also by the moral teachings he received at a younger age. I find this a bit encouraging.
I was alerted to his existence by an acquaintance who told me about his song “Take Me to Church.” She said she hated the song. I decided to go listen to it.
I pull up the music video. Here’s the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSVMgRr6pw
I immediately hate it. The idea of promoting gay rights appeals to me, but the not idea of watching innocent people be burned alive. Still, the voice sticks in my head. I want to hear it again.
I am drawn to watch the video several times. I get a bit desensitized to the horrific incident depicted there. I decide to go listen to the album preview on amazon. I download the album.
I’m listening to it on replay for a while. The first song currently has 27 plays on my iTunes, while the later songs have 16 . As I listen, I keep bopping around, loving the rhythms, the voices, the harmonies.
But after a while, as I sing along, I start noticing what I’m singing. OK, this guy doesn’t like the church, but he worships women and sex. Hmmm. This isn’t exactly representing my my beliefs.
I look back at the video and listen to the words. Hozier is singing about a female lover. He’s not singing about a male lover. Presumably, he himself is not gay, unlike the couple in the video. The video doesn’t really go with the words.
I mean the passion and anger go with the video — and the anti-church message — but the songs on the album are clearly about a straight man.
I find an interview with Hozier on YouTube. He explains that treatment of LGBT people is one of the reasons he feels angry toward the church, yet I don’t see anywhere that he himself is gay.
Someone sends me a link to a video with a Russian ballet dancer done to “Take me to Church.” Here’s the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tW0CkvdDI
It is sort of a stereotype that ballet dancers *are* gay — so I imagine that perhaps this dancer, taken by the music and the video, wants to add his enthusiastic contribution. His video is a lot more appealing than the official video. It’s done in an idyllic wooded area. No one is burned alive. The dancer is talented.
But the actual words of the song, as opposed to the video — and the actual words of more than one of the songs — are on this somewhat unappealing topic: I worship women and sex, but I’m not interested in marriage/commitment.
This is a pretty typical view for an immature, selfish, young man. Perhaps his personal morality and maturity just aren’t as advanced as the music. That wouldn’t be too surprising.
My thoughts drift a bit to a couple of other amazing songs, performed in Les Miz. “On My Own” and “I Dreamed a Dream.” Here are some links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvzLZIiD5TU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzNVmZfNoa8
These are songs about women who have had their hearts broken by men.
The case of the character, Fantine, played by Ann Hathaway in the movie, is much like that of the gay couple in Hozier’s video. In both cases, we see pompous, self-righteous hypocrites violently brutalizing others in the name of religion, while ignoring those principles of religion that most of us hold most dear: love, forgiveness, tolerance, mercy, and compassion. In both cases, the brutality of the attackers persuades us that their viewpoint is defective. The primitive, savage brutality, which might be thought to be inspired by early scripture, is in fact not what God wants us to be doing here and now. Art helps us see a truth that naked text fails to reveal.
But there’s something here that doesn’t quite click.
In fact, Hozier’s attitude toward women seems not so very different from that of the guy who abandoned Fantine to the savagery of vigilantes and, inherently, Cosette to the exploitive greed of the family who takes money in exchange for neglecting her. He wants to have fun. He doesn’t want to make a commitment. He hates anyone who might be implying that there is something wrong morally with his behavior — or his idea of worshiping sex and women.
Now, we can rationalize. There are contraceptives and abortion so women don’t have to be left with children who they cannot care for. In much of the world — though certainly not all — the idea that women who have had premarital sex should be brutalized or killed or even shunned has been abandoned. The idea that out of wedlock children should be stigmatized for the malfeasance of their parents is also commonly rejected in places that we consider civilized.
Still, it is not at all uncommon for young women to have their hearts broken by exploitive, young men who are eager for sex and don’t care at all for the consequences. Hozier and/or his handlers are clever to divert us from that thought, by directing our attention to the case of the poor gay couple in Hozier’s music video, which now has over a hundred million views.
Listening to Hozier’s lyrics over and over, it’s hard for me to believe that the subject matter of the music video was more than a self-interested afterthought.
This leads me back to one of my pet theories, which I talked about in a blog that I see has only 5 views at this point
http://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2014/10/premarital-sex-and-free-love-revolution.html
I believe that our ability to bond to lovers is not infinite. I believe that we bond most strongly to the first person we have sex with ("the first cut is the deepest"); and that the more people we have sex with, the weaker our ability to bond becomes.
My own experience is that I could never enjoy anyone else as much as the first one. Everyone is shaped a bit differently, moves a bit differently, makes different sounds. No one was ever quite the same as the first one, the one I had bonded to, and therefore could not satisfy me the same way.
I believe this has to do with the action of the hormone occitocin on the body responsive to certain types of stimulation.
I learned about occitocin during childbirth education. I had an even stronger, but similar, experience after giving birth to my first child via natural childbirth and nursing him — resulting in even greater release of the hormone occitocin in a particular, life-changing event.
Based on my personal experience and my reading about the action of the hormone occitocin on the body, I believe that people who have casual sex with multiple partners are damaging themselves and their partners -- reducing their ability to bond and have satisfying relationships. This damage has nothing to do with the vicious actions taken against Fantine in Les Miz. It’s just the way our bodies are made and how they respond biologically to stimuli.
Despite the beauty of Hozier’s music and the cleverness of the diversion posed by his video, I have to conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong — even perhaps evil — about some of his lyrics.
-------------
Addendum 4/19/15
Well, I haven't stopped listening to Hozier. I still like the music, even tho I have this impression of him as being a self-centered user of women. One thing that I'm noticing now is the prevalence of the word "sin." It appears that he's troubled at some level by his own behavior and also by the moral teachings he received at a younger age. I find this a bit encouraging.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
freight train (poem)
It's next to me
Only a few feet away
My heartbeat speeds
A bit
It's blue
At least the cars I see
It's a freight train
I'm in a passenger train
Almost close enough to touch
If the windows would open
Trains pass so near
Confined by their rails
Startling sometimes
Freight trains fascinate
Their length
No windows
Impenetrable
Spooky
The mysterious, dark coal
That's often in their open cars
Their race along
Frozen wastes
To parts unknown
For purposes unknown
So often nocturnal here
Something vaguely horrific
As if, perhaps, a ghost story
Might attach to them.
But maybe this one
Is only a construction train
A more boring creature
More frequently seen in the day
Only a few feet away
My heartbeat speeds
A bit
It's blue
At least the cars I see
It's a freight train
I'm in a passenger train
Almost close enough to touch
If the windows would open
Trains pass so near
Confined by their rails
Startling sometimes
Freight trains fascinate
Their length
No windows
Impenetrable
Spooky
The mysterious, dark coal
That's often in their open cars
Their race along
Frozen wastes
To parts unknown
For purposes unknown
So often nocturnal here
Something vaguely horrific
As if, perhaps, a ghost story
Might attach to them.
But maybe this one
Is only a construction train
A more boring creature
More frequently seen in the day
Friday, February 13, 2015
In response to @TheEconomist allegations of meritocracy in the USA
The Economist has run an opinion piece about an alleged meritocracy in the USA.
I strongly disagree with this piece, and wish to memorialize my disagreement at length.
At first blush, one might have thought my ex and I were the sort to produce rather prodigious children, but it hasn’t worked out that way at all. My children are mentally ill, and, tho highly intelligent, are almost completely dysfunctional.
Let’s start with my ex and me. I have an undergraduate degree and graduate degree from Ivy League institutions, with good marks from both. My ex has an undergraduate degree from an ivy League college and a graduate degree from an almost equally prestigious university. We both grew up in upper middle class families. My parents both had graduate degrees and my father was highly respected in academia. My ex’s father was also a graduate of an Ivy League institution, who had a successful job, and my ex’s mom was a stay-at-home mom. Tho she did not complete college, she was highly intelligent and articulate. My brother also has undergraduate and graduate degrees from highly respected institutions. My ex has two siblings with graduate degrees — and the other two both have college degrees.
So why aren’t our kids doing as well as we did?
1. Research shows that older fathers are more likely to conceive children with ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Bipolar. Older grandfathers also have higher instances of such issues in their grandchildren. My ex was 36 and 39 when my kids were conceived. My father was 40 and 42 when my I and my brother were conceived. I suspect that couples who are academically and financially successful are more likely to have children later in life, which can enlarge the likelihood of such problems. My kids both have mild autism spectrum disorders. The younger one has ADHD and depression as well.
2. I believe that autism spectrum disorders are inheritable. I see them in myself, my parents, my kids, my ex, and much of my ex’s family. Both of my kids have them. I noticed neurological issues in my older son from birth — and he was born at home, so there were no vaccines for the first six weeks — yet he was showing neurological issues then (arching away from me when he cried, crying to be put down, preferring to be carried facing away from me, unable to mold his body to mine)
It seems to me that academically successful people are more likely to have autistic features. Autistic features make it easier to have the attention to detail and focus necessary for academic success. When academically successful people meet in college and have children together, they are more likely to concentrate inheritable autistic features in their children.
3. I still have a concern that my decision to work when my kids were young may have hurt them. My mom didn’t and my ex’s mom didn’t. I wonder how much kids would be different if i had stayed home. Granted I was not of the sort, emotionally, to be happy doing that and my older son infuriated me a great deal, so I might have abused him if I were stuck alone with him. Still I wonder.
4. Successful people live in larger houses. Larger houses reduce the amount of contact between parents and children. My ex noticed this when he moved out to a two bedroom apartment. In the smaller, space he was better able to supervise the kids than he had been in the house. When I was on the second floor, I had no clue at all what my kids were doing in the basement. Granted, I would not have left them alone before they were five, but afterwards they might have been out of my sight and still in the house. I suspect that less financially successful families have mentally healthier kids, because the kids are in closer proximity to the parents more of the time.
Indeed we see quite often that the children of the rich have serious psychological problems. I suspect that this large house business is a factor.
5. Having successful parents is intimidating. I found this with my father, who was such a successful academic. I never felt I would be able to measure up to him — so, even tho I had the smarts, I probably sabotaged myself, so that I didn’t. With my kids it was even worse. My younger son felt so intimidated by my ex’s and my academic successes that he continually sabotaged himself to the point where he could not function at all.
6. History shows it is not so.
Also, historically, it has never been the case that highly successful people had children who were as successful as they were.
When I studied Chinese history, I learned that they had a meritocracy under the emperors. I also learned that it was vanishingly rare for those with high success on the imperial exams to have children with similar levels of success.
Also, learning about corporate history in two companies I worked for, I discovered that successful corporations develop something called “Third Generation Problems.” The founder builds the company. In many cases, the first generation of offspring can continue to build the corporation; however, in general, the second generation of offspring are not competent to run a large corporation. This is a well-documented phenomenon.
In conclusion, then, I disagree strongly with this recent article alleging a growing meritocracy in the USA. I would use more pithy terminology to describe the meritocracy thesis, but I want to sound respectable.
I strongly disagree with this piece, and wish to memorialize my disagreement at length.
At first blush, one might have thought my ex and I were the sort to produce rather prodigious children, but it hasn’t worked out that way at all. My children are mentally ill, and, tho highly intelligent, are almost completely dysfunctional.
Let’s start with my ex and me. I have an undergraduate degree and graduate degree from Ivy League institutions, with good marks from both. My ex has an undergraduate degree from an ivy League college and a graduate degree from an almost equally prestigious university. We both grew up in upper middle class families. My parents both had graduate degrees and my father was highly respected in academia. My ex’s father was also a graduate of an Ivy League institution, who had a successful job, and my ex’s mom was a stay-at-home mom. Tho she did not complete college, she was highly intelligent and articulate. My brother also has undergraduate and graduate degrees from highly respected institutions. My ex has two siblings with graduate degrees — and the other two both have college degrees.
So why aren’t our kids doing as well as we did?
1. Research shows that older fathers are more likely to conceive children with ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Bipolar. Older grandfathers also have higher instances of such issues in their grandchildren. My ex was 36 and 39 when my kids were conceived. My father was 40 and 42 when my I and my brother were conceived. I suspect that couples who are academically and financially successful are more likely to have children later in life, which can enlarge the likelihood of such problems. My kids both have mild autism spectrum disorders. The younger one has ADHD and depression as well.
2. I believe that autism spectrum disorders are inheritable. I see them in myself, my parents, my kids, my ex, and much of my ex’s family. Both of my kids have them. I noticed neurological issues in my older son from birth — and he was born at home, so there were no vaccines for the first six weeks — yet he was showing neurological issues then (arching away from me when he cried, crying to be put down, preferring to be carried facing away from me, unable to mold his body to mine)
It seems to me that academically successful people are more likely to have autistic features. Autistic features make it easier to have the attention to detail and focus necessary for academic success. When academically successful people meet in college and have children together, they are more likely to concentrate inheritable autistic features in their children.
3. I still have a concern that my decision to work when my kids were young may have hurt them. My mom didn’t and my ex’s mom didn’t. I wonder how much kids would be different if i had stayed home. Granted I was not of the sort, emotionally, to be happy doing that and my older son infuriated me a great deal, so I might have abused him if I were stuck alone with him. Still I wonder.
4. Successful people live in larger houses. Larger houses reduce the amount of contact between parents and children. My ex noticed this when he moved out to a two bedroom apartment. In the smaller, space he was better able to supervise the kids than he had been in the house. When I was on the second floor, I had no clue at all what my kids were doing in the basement. Granted, I would not have left them alone before they were five, but afterwards they might have been out of my sight and still in the house. I suspect that less financially successful families have mentally healthier kids, because the kids are in closer proximity to the parents more of the time.
Indeed we see quite often that the children of the rich have serious psychological problems. I suspect that this large house business is a factor.
5. Having successful parents is intimidating. I found this with my father, who was such a successful academic. I never felt I would be able to measure up to him — so, even tho I had the smarts, I probably sabotaged myself, so that I didn’t. With my kids it was even worse. My younger son felt so intimidated by my ex’s and my academic successes that he continually sabotaged himself to the point where he could not function at all.
6. History shows it is not so.
Also, historically, it has never been the case that highly successful people had children who were as successful as they were.
When I studied Chinese history, I learned that they had a meritocracy under the emperors. I also learned that it was vanishingly rare for those with high success on the imperial exams to have children with similar levels of success.
Also, learning about corporate history in two companies I worked for, I discovered that successful corporations develop something called “Third Generation Problems.” The founder builds the company. In many cases, the first generation of offspring can continue to build the corporation; however, in general, the second generation of offspring are not competent to run a large corporation. This is a well-documented phenomenon.
In conclusion, then, I disagree strongly with this recent article alleging a growing meritocracy in the USA. I would use more pithy terminology to describe the meritocracy thesis, but I want to sound respectable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)