100 sats \ 0 replies \ @SilkyNinja OP 4h \ parent \ on: Some notes on Robert Irwin's introduction to The Arabian Nights BooksAndArticles
I would agree this is a huge motif in Western literature, likely in lockstep with Christian values, but I would wonder if this is not just a Christian value...Immediately I recall the story of Guanyin and Shancai, the bodhisattva who took a disabled boy as her apprentice, although this is a religious story.
Although I also remember that in medieval Japan it was such a pastime to watch people having mental breakdowns as a form of entertainment that it was written into dramas.
To paraphrase Irwin, outside of the city were the wastelands, where only huntsmen and bandits roamed. Although it is outside of the city where many of the more fantastical stories take place, being the place of the greater unknowns. Much more you have people coming in and out of the city trading goods - probably the basis of commerce being a major theme of the stories.
Since you mention it, imagine the untenability of "homesteading" outside the city was a huge influence as well!
If you think about it, teachers hold nearly too much power in the lives of young people (and so the worldâŚ) - teachers shape how kids view themselves and how they view the world. How can we ensure people become teachers for the right reasons?
It's inherent in womanhood, it has nothing to do with survival strategy.
So, as a man of I can be in the same situation, why a woman can't? No matter of joking, it's normal behaviour.
Is indecisiveness "inherent in womanhood" or "normal behavior" - which is to say species inherent behavior that has nothing to do with "womanhood"? You're not clear here.
What's the benefit of being indecisive if it doesn't have to do with survival or even resource acquisition? Are you suggesting that people behave in ways that have no purpose and could even be disadvantageous to their survival "just because"? You'd die if you couldn't figure out what to eat.
I do not understand in what way you have never felt? Do you mean to say that you have never felt indecisive?
I do not suggest in my argument that women get ignored. I present instead an idea to explain human behavior by virtue of a gendered example. Please see the below addendum.
I believe indecision, conformity, and groupthink are behaviors that may be exhibited by any member of the species as secondary social strategies/behaviors to ensure survival by deferring power to another party.My argument highlighted âwomenâ being indecisive about dinner because I felt that the argument may come to a reasonable conclusion rather quickly.Now, I realize itâs a relatively innocuous example of this phenomenon of indecision/agreeability (compared to the bystander effect, or how regular men became Nazis) and both stand by the example and wonder how to continue to write on the topic.
Elsewhere, I have written:
People use social strategies that amount to evading responsibility in order to ensure survival. In this example of a man and a woman negotiating about what to eat, the woman is more likely to resort to defer responsibility as a means to compensate for a lack of physical negotiating power.
As I've shared elsewhere, I do not believe this is a gendered issue. Please see the below addendum.
I believe indecision, conformity, and groupthink are behaviors that may be exhibited by any member of the species as secondary social strategies/behaviors to ensure survival by deferring power to another party.My argument highlighted âwomenâ being indecisive about dinner because I felt that the argument may come to a reasonable conclusion rather quickly.Now, I realize itâs a relatively innocuous example of this phenomenon of indecision/agreeability (compared to the bystander effect, or how regular men became Nazis) and both stand by the example and wonder how to continue to write on the topic.
I think that besides survival strategies, there may be differences at the brain level, or the biological level which impact indecision patterns we see in women. For example I often have been amazed at how much hormones can influence women behaviors in totally irrational ways.
Are you suggesting that women make inferior choices based on some suboptimal design compared to male brains that has nothing to do with ensuring individual survival of the organism? Are you suggesting that female brains act in a way that is disadvantageous to survival by virtue of how they are designed?
Hi! I've tried to articulate a few places in replies that I do not believe this is a gendered issue. In another comment I wrote the following:
I believe indecision, conformity, and groupthink are behaviors that may be exhibited by any member of the species as secondary social strategies/behaviors to ensure survival by deferring power to another party.My argument highlighted âwomenâ being indecisive about dinner because I felt that the argument may come to a reasonable conclusion rather quickly.Now, I realize itâs a relatively innocuous example of this phenomenon of indecision/agreeability (compared to the bystander effect, or how regular men became Nazis) and both stand by the example and wonder how to continue to write on the topic.
I appreciate your perspective on how this may be expressed more dramatically in other cultures! That wasn't something I'd considered initially!
Additionally, I also see a lot of things in the context of death. I think it was in this video where I saw every fear reduced to the fear of death.
I've heard generally, when we consider the intentions of our actions they can boil down to one of two things: being out of a fear of punishment or an expression of joy.
I haven't considered completely the arguments, but I want to agree that fear escalates to a fear of death and annihilation.
Edit: I want to clarify that I do not think this a gendered issue. In another comment, I wrote:
I believe indecision, conformity, and groupthink are behaviors that may be exhibited by any member of the species as secondary social strategies/behaviors to ensure survival by deferring power to another party.My argument highlighted âwomenâ being indecisive about dinner because I felt that the argument may come to a reasonable conclusion rather quickly.Now, I realize itâs a relatively innocuous example of this phenomenon of indecision/agreeability (compared to the bystander effect, or how regular men became Nazis) and both stand by the example and wonder how to continue to write on the topic.
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SilkyNinja OP 19 May \ parent \ on: Groupthink as a survival strategy culture
I'd rather not get my way and still have a pleasant time, than get my way and have to deal with someone being a petulant child about it.
This is an interesting perspective on why we evade responsibility rather than immediately getting to a fear of death.
In contrast, a man
In a separate comment I've attempted to explain that I do not think this is a gendered issue; I do stand that women are more likely to resort to social strategies to survive - and acquire - because of the difference in physical capability.
The man may knuckle his proposal in a group setting; the comparable woman may work exclusively in the shadows to influence the actions of others.
A woman's "plan of action" only goes as far as the wants, of the community; if the proposal is unpopular, it's scrapped, no matter if she'd have been right in the end.
I can't tell if this is your interpretation of my ideas or an idea you are proposing. If it is an interpretation of my work, it is inaccurate (however, that may as well be my responsibility to write better). My general proposal may be summed up as:
People use social strategies that amount to evading responsibility in order to ensure survival. In this example of a man and a woman negotiating about what to eat, the woman is more likely to resort to defer responsibility as a means to compensate for a lack of physical negotiating power.
This is a deeply subconscious process and may still have far more layers of reasoning than I can perceive; i.e., deferring authority while maintaining influence of the end result is a great way to wield power. The answer as to why the party is evading responsibility may reveal more information about ourselves. However, I argue that parties evade responsibility as a strategy to ensure survival.
To address your statement more directly, in my opinion, no, women do not end their plans or ideas at whether or not they are accepted by others. Women are capable of individual ambitions, plans, and ideas that do not agree with others. For all people, there is a certain "math" that goes into how much rejection they can face as individuals before they give in to the authority or ideas of others.
Itâs come to my attention that my example of âwomenâ did not make clear enough that I believe indecision, conformity, and groupthink are behaviors that may be exhibited by any member of the species as secondary social strategies/behaviors to ensure survival by deferring power to another party.
My argument highlighted âwomenâ being indecisive about dinner because at the time I felt that the argument may come to a reasonable conclusion rather quickly.
Now, I realize itâs a relatively innocuous example of this phenomenon of indecision/agreeability (compared to the bystander effect, or how regular men became Nazis) and both stand by the example and wonder how to continue to write (and think) more clearly about the topic. I now find myself asking, "Does agreeability allow evil to flourish?", so I'm pretty happy to have shared this at all.
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @SilkyNinja OP 18 May \ parent \ on: Groupthink as a survival strategy culture
She may find being responsible for choices that influence both of your futures more daunting than you being an immediate physical threat. Why we fear responsibility might loop back around to a belief that we are incapable of individual survival.
Is indecision indicative of a fear of responsibility (some consequence in the future) or immediate rejection? This could be part of the perspective on what indecision is that I was missing when I wrote this initially.
I am feeling better!!!!
Iâve been plodding through an abridged version The Arabian Nights for about 6-8 months and got to a point where I think the actual stories, the themes and plots compound in complexity as you read through all the nights (howâs that for Islamic aesthetics, jeez Louise).
I already miss the earlier nights, so I got part 1 of 3 of a âcompleteâ translation. Part 1 seems to be just as big as my âcompleteâ abridged version. If I can read all these AND all of Billy Shakespeare, man. Thatâll be a life well-read.
(I can already imagine all the more strange and obscure classics to read after. Ha ha haâŚ)
Learn how to show up and stick to a certain consistent quantity of writing every day (3 pages is a good place to start). IMO, dgaf about quality, subject matter, sense - and especially just allow yourself to just ride the wave of it (i.e. if it gets emotional, if it gets mundane, just stick with it until your allotted pages are up for the day). Also - get frustrated. make a mess, scream at your journal, throw it off a roof. Itâs a book and you are its owner. But also caress it, hold it gently, cry into it - in short, do what you want to do with it and use it as an opportunity to learn about yourself today and create who you want to be tomorrow.
I explain my morning writing process to people and they say it sounds like word vomit. If writing a âbig projectâ is like weaving a tapestry, learning how to excavate and extract your most base thoughts on anything and everything is like spinning cotton fibers.
IMO, when you donât let yourself actually write like this it becomes a trick pony performance project of leaving a carefully constructed record of who you think you are. I thought Iâd be writing creative fiction by now. I actually end up writing a lot of essays on morality. Would not have found that part of me if I had forced myself into writing only on certain things - or god forbid, only wrote when I felt like it.
Iâve been writing like this for about 3 years now. Anywhere from 3-20 pages a day. I still âwishâ I was doing more âcreative writingâ but itâs amazing to have a real opinion on anything. And to have an appreciation for the finer points of writing, prosody > âconcisionâ đ¤Ž
What do you think is the motivation both for Lady Macbeth and Macbeth to commit the murder? I think "greed" is thrown around as the answer, but I wonder if "faithlessness" may also be credited: It is prophesied that Macbeth would be king, what would motivate quickening that prophecy besides impatience, what motivates impatience? We have greed - greed, like faithlessness, indicates a lack or an insecurity in the character. But I just wonder if faithlessness, and the haughty arrogance that we put upon ourselves to avoid that fragility in the face of a known-unknown destiny could just as easily be the answer to why Lady Macbeth got all up in arms about murdering the king.
So, a lot of more modern interpretations focus on the aspect of greed. I think Macbeth is the most (or more) parodied of Shakespeare's plays by modern avant-garde dramatists and playwrights. You could see Eugene Ionesco's Macbett or Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi, both of which center on ambition, greed, cowardice, both written in context of changing economic and social values post-industrial revolution (Jarry's was pretty good if too politically aggressive, it was just so stupid - I didn't read Ionesco's yet, but I've read some of his work and I think he is just a touch too pompous). I have my own suspicions about how narrowly writers can view their own context - to criticize the change of society and social class without reconciling the ample opportunities presented through technological development, but that's a long tangent that is not fully developed.
As for Macduff, there are a lot of different answers we could consider. The first that comes to my mind is, maybe he considered it was more dangerous for his family to be with him. Most reasonable people would target the man and not the family in the event of these more archaic power struggles.
The fact of the witches is probably why I prefer to think about faith instead of greed when it comes to the baser themes of the play. Shakespeare does deal a good amount with metaphysical and divine themes although considerably less than his medieval predecessors - before Shakespeare's time, what was popular were mystery and miracle plays (some people theorize this is what he watched growing up) which were laden heavily with Christian themes, iconography, and characters. Shakespeare was part of the English Renaissance, so much of his work incorporated classical and "pagan" elements. I think the return to the classics always has something to do with a reaffirmation and realignment to what are the most "high" or "ideal" aspects of humanity, especially following an age of barring access to information, repression, forced conformity. To make the characters witches instead of more regular Christian demons or the devil could say to the audience, yes, we live in a world where this is believed as well, "This happened too." To affirm folk history is to affirm history...anyway...
I also read once that the reference to the witches has to do with the historical aspect of the play, it being commissioned by a king during the time of a witch hunt. But I read this once, somewhere, and I can't find the reference for it, so take it as that.
We're raising a generation of wards of the state, sustained not by productive work but by debt and handouts.
I wonder what this guy is doing to create productive work for young people. His tone really screams âYou kids get off my lawnâ and smacks of someone who has never even had a conversation with a âGen Zâ kid.
Those Iâve met who are not âsuccess posturingâ are relatively listless and have little understanding of whatâs important to them and what could be important. I suspect (young) people panic to fulfill independence when they are told that they cannot achieve it and make mistakes along the way. More and more I consider debt a (potential) Faustian bargain for the future and it boggles me that âBuy Now Pay Laterâ is legal.
I say potential because there are situations in which taking on debt COULD make sense - a lower/middle income family taking out a mortgage to own a home still makes sense to me! Where is the literature for young people what is good debt and what is bad debt? Whereâs the Sesame Street special on thatâŚ
Wouldn't the way the website is designed mean that you continue to see the content from people that you trust? Sorry if I don't understand this well enough
Whatever you go with, always read Shakespeare out loud. That is how you can feel the contribution to English through the prosody of his writing.
It's hard to really recommend what you should read first, since I don't know you. But when I was in high school we read Romeo and Juliet first. Hamlet is pretty great for very young people too, as Hamlet is like 17.
I found Richard III more interesting than Macbeth, personally. Macbeth has more spooky stuff and the theme of guilt whereas Richard III has a lot more to do with interpersonal drama. I'm just going to free-flow ramble about the different ways these particular plays could be connected (and so a sort-of suggestion of how to read them). Always read Shakespeare out loud. You could easily get bored or confused with the text otherwise, and like I said, you start reading out loud like an actor, you'll understand why he's still so celebrated today.
Othello - Hamlet - Macbeth - Richard III : a cycle on tragedy, villainy, choice, hate. Read these in any order; my order has to do with a weird hero vs villain virtue math that I'm still debating with myself over.
Romeo and Juliet - Antony and Cleopatra : there are enough parallels to enjoy these two together
Julius Caesar - Antony and Cleopatra : IMO Marc Antony may have been one of Shakespeare's favorite heroes from ancient times and you see a lot of him in these.
Much Ado About Nothing - A Midsummer Night's Dream : comedies more to do with frivolity, antics, and folly - as opposed to idiocy or lunacy (Shrew)
The Taming of the Shrew : I read this recently, this is a rather standalone play as its comedic literary conventions are (and were historically) rather rough if you forget the induction. I would read the Wikipedia page about this ("Analysis and Criticism" - "Themes") afterword to complement it.
I would pick up a copy of Twelfth Night or even Two Gentlemen of Verona before you read The Taming of the Shrew to get a better idea of Shakespeare's "typical" comedies...Shrew does not have a true "center of good" character IMO, which makes it one of the more challenging of Shakespeare's plays to reconcile with (especially as a comedy): everyone sucks and you are left wondering wtf sort of world is this. The framing technique Shakespeare uses at the start of the play is essential to understanding "the joke" but for a lot of people historically, it is not enough and the play can leave the audience a bit uncomfortable. The movie 10 Things I Hate About You is an adaptation that really brings together the story and modernizes it in a way that is hyper-palatable and lovable.
Most of the new Pixar/Disney are too âengineered sentimentalâ for my taste. I remember liking Wall-E and feeling lukewarm about Up, and after that I just havenât gotten into another one. It feels dishonest and played out
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @SilkyNinja 14 May \ parent \ on: Movies everyone loves, but you don't alter_native
I think you and I are in the audience of ten who actually watched Doghouse all the way. Itâs made for those actors who think that that time they did Equus was the most important work of their livesâŚ