![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatBored. Beyond bored at work. Then I came home to well a virtual waterfall outside my kitchen window - it was so bad, water leaked in my window and all the windows underneath it - apparently the water overflowed the gutters. What happened? The sky opened up and dumped buckets of water on us in the space of an hour - 4.5 inches to be exact. Never seen anything quite like it. Was drenched to the bone running, with an umbrella, under trees, the two blocks from my bodega to my house - a scant five minute walk. Yikes.
Ugh. Can't think of a dang thing to write about. You ever feel as if all your words have been pulled out of your skull? OR rather all the nice words, leaving only the angsty bitchy ones? What can I say, it's been one of those...weeks? days? The future feels grim. And I really wouldn't have minded all that much if the bus hurtling down the street in the drenching rain had hit me and knocked me out of me misery (and hopefully not to one of the 20 hells - according to a guy at work - the Chinese believe there are 20 different hells, hmmm maybe this is one of them? That would explain a lot come to think of it...or just one of the purgatories?) - but no such luck - best it did was throw a bunch of dirty water at me.
I'd do a meme but meme's rarely get responses they just breed new memes on others journals.
Not that this will get a response. People, I've discovered, respond to the oddest things. I can't predict it. I've given up. Okay not true. My analytical brain analyzes human behavior whether I want it to or not. It can't help itself. Even if it is wrong 80% of the time.
Anywho...I'll just ask questions....about stuff I've been pondering and would like to hear a voice outside of my own internal one contemplate for a while.
1. Nature or nuture? I love this debate - mostly because I think it's both not one or the other. You can make a valid argument both ways. ie. That human personality is based on DNA and biology. Or that human personality is developed by experience and environment.
This brings up another question, I've been pondering - why do people think it has to be one or the other? Why not both? Come to think of it, why do we, not all of us, but a lot of us, tend to well...drift to extremes? Or broad generalizations? Categorizing stuff constantly.
Is it a desire to understand? OR rather to make sense out of something?
2. Do you believe in souls? That humans have them? If so, why. If not, why. (Actually, I should ask how do you define souls - because not everyone defines it in the same way and that does make a huge difference. You can after all be an athesist and still believe in souls - you just may not define them in a religious context. Semantics give me headache sometimes.)
And more to the point - how do you handle literature, television shows, and films in which the writer clearly does believe in souls and it is a main ingredient of the story? Do you ignore it? Accept it as part of that universe? Question it? Or go find something else?
What if the writer's or artist's definition of a soul is different than yours?
This is a huge thing in fantasy stories that involve vampires and creatures who are separated from humans based on whether or not they have a soul. The book I'm currently reading (Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels) really uses souls as an ingredient. But it is not necessarily defined in a religious context. The soul is defined as the energy that holds the mind and body together, keeps the mind sane. Without it, the mind doesn't care and tries to convince the body to kill itself. In fact the mind doesn't care about much of anything - it just craves it's lost soul - and undead vampires who are soulless take a bit of someone else's aura/soul when they take blood in order to stay sane. To keep the intergrity of their mind. It's an illusion but it keeps them together. In this book, people give a portion of their soul to another person when they make love or share a part of themselve, whether in a kiss, a hug, an act of compassion, or exchange of blood. It's not a big deal. You get it back. It regrows. The only religious bit is that you can't find your way into the afterlife without your soul - the mind requires it to hold it together and show it the way. If your mind doesn't go with your soul, the soul dissolves and is gone.
In Whedon's fantasy series - soul was more or less another word for conscience. That voice inside that told people the difference between right and wrong - or more to the point made them care about the difference. It's a dicey question. People think a sociopathic personality is someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Not true.
They know the difference. They just don't care. The television series Dexter actually did a marvelous job of examining that. It's a story about a serial killer who kills serial killers to avoid killing nice people because he's been taught it was wrong. (Dexter really examines the degree in which nurture can effect human behavior. Can change it. In the series - it's indicated that Dexter's environment as a small child caused him to become a sociopathic personality (something happened to him), but his foster father was able to train him to harness those impulses and use them in another way.)
At any rate - in Buffy and Angel - a creature without a soul - knew the difference between right and wrong but did not care. It did not matter to them. Spike was an anamoly of sorts because he did show remorse for attempting to rape the heroine. Something a soulless creature shouldn't have felt. The reason he did - was well - the writers take on a psychological and philosophical debate - which the tv series Dexter is examining and the novel A ClockWork Orange examined - which is - can we teach a sociopathic personality who does not care about the difference between right and wrong to care? Can we change the sociopath? Is it possible? OR should we just kill them for the betterment of society because they are a lost cause? It is biologically impossible for them to change?
In A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess believed it is possible for someone to change, that while state behavioral conditioning was inherently wrong, the sociopathic tendencies of the street punk would change once he learned there was more to life - or that life itself had meaning. Stanely Kubrick disagreed and stated that the punk could not change and would revert back to form once the conditioning was removed.
Whedon takes the middle ground. Stating that the sociopathic personality can be taught to feel remorse, but, that will not mean that they won't do the act. Won't hurt someone.
But once they feel the emotional pain of doing the act - it may motivate them to seek change in themselves. Or not as the case may be. He explores two characters in this regard.
Spike and Angel. But does not really answer the question - leaving fans somewhat frustrated. But I'm not sure the question can be answered. I'm not sure we know. Psychologists have done studies, sure, but nothing that conclusive. People tend to be pretty complex and had to categorize.
But if you don't buy that souls exist - I wonder if the metaphor may have given you difficulty??
Which actually brings up a much broader issues or question, how do you handle a work of art in which you do not believe or support certain parts of the premise or world?
3. Memory loss - to what degree does memory loss or the loss of memory affect personality?
This fascinates me to no end and is a personal kink, I guess. I'm a sucker for a *good* amensia story. But it has to be one that shows how the character has changed and explores this question.
Does the person who lost their memory become someone else? Or are they just forgetful?
Does their entire life change?
If I for example forgot what happened between 2000 and 2007, how would that change me?
There's apparently a new drug out that can erase a victim's memories of an assualt or bad experiences - saw it talked about in the news and on Boston Legal of all places. So if a child is molested/sexually abused by a parent and takes this ruthie like drug - what does that mean - does it mean it never happened?
And can you erase just one memory without erasing all of them? There's an Alfred Bester novel called Demolished Man - where they erase certain aspects of criminals in order to rehabilitate them. Reminds me of lobotomies - which were quite the rage back when Bester wrote the novel. Along with shock therapy.
In the flick Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - bits of a guy's memories are removed - or rather just all traces of this girl he loved. After the flick, a friend and I had a lengthy discussion on whether this was possible. He stated it wasn't - you can't remove one memory without affecting all the others - it would be like pulling a thread out of a tapestry, the memories would unravel.
Emotions are based on memory. How we feel. How we love. How we relate. Our defenses. If I didn't remember people throwing spiders at me, would I still be afraid of spiders or would I be afraid and just not know why? Does the body retain memory as well as the mind? Can our body remember something, our nerves, that our mind forgets? Like walking. When I think about walking - I can't walk. It's the oddest thing. Like when I think about writing I can't write, have to focus on something else...And when I focus on a memory like the name of a song, a person, or a lyric - it often does not come.
What do you think?
Ugh. Can't think of a dang thing to write about. You ever feel as if all your words have been pulled out of your skull? OR rather all the nice words, leaving only the angsty bitchy ones? What can I say, it's been one of those...weeks? days? The future feels grim. And I really wouldn't have minded all that much if the bus hurtling down the street in the drenching rain had hit me and knocked me out of me misery (and hopefully not to one of the 20 hells - according to a guy at work - the Chinese believe there are 20 different hells, hmmm maybe this is one of them? That would explain a lot come to think of it...or just one of the purgatories?) - but no such luck - best it did was throw a bunch of dirty water at me.
I'd do a meme but meme's rarely get responses they just breed new memes on others journals.
Not that this will get a response. People, I've discovered, respond to the oddest things. I can't predict it. I've given up. Okay not true. My analytical brain analyzes human behavior whether I want it to or not. It can't help itself. Even if it is wrong 80% of the time.
Anywho...I'll just ask questions....about stuff I've been pondering and would like to hear a voice outside of my own internal one contemplate for a while.
1. Nature or nuture? I love this debate - mostly because I think it's both not one or the other. You can make a valid argument both ways. ie. That human personality is based on DNA and biology. Or that human personality is developed by experience and environment.
This brings up another question, I've been pondering - why do people think it has to be one or the other? Why not both? Come to think of it, why do we, not all of us, but a lot of us, tend to well...drift to extremes? Or broad generalizations? Categorizing stuff constantly.
Is it a desire to understand? OR rather to make sense out of something?
2. Do you believe in souls? That humans have them? If so, why. If not, why. (Actually, I should ask how do you define souls - because not everyone defines it in the same way and that does make a huge difference. You can after all be an athesist and still believe in souls - you just may not define them in a religious context. Semantics give me headache sometimes.)
And more to the point - how do you handle literature, television shows, and films in which the writer clearly does believe in souls and it is a main ingredient of the story? Do you ignore it? Accept it as part of that universe? Question it? Or go find something else?
What if the writer's or artist's definition of a soul is different than yours?
This is a huge thing in fantasy stories that involve vampires and creatures who are separated from humans based on whether or not they have a soul. The book I'm currently reading (Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels) really uses souls as an ingredient. But it is not necessarily defined in a religious context. The soul is defined as the energy that holds the mind and body together, keeps the mind sane. Without it, the mind doesn't care and tries to convince the body to kill itself. In fact the mind doesn't care about much of anything - it just craves it's lost soul - and undead vampires who are soulless take a bit of someone else's aura/soul when they take blood in order to stay sane. To keep the intergrity of their mind. It's an illusion but it keeps them together. In this book, people give a portion of their soul to another person when they make love or share a part of themselve, whether in a kiss, a hug, an act of compassion, or exchange of blood. It's not a big deal. You get it back. It regrows. The only religious bit is that you can't find your way into the afterlife without your soul - the mind requires it to hold it together and show it the way. If your mind doesn't go with your soul, the soul dissolves and is gone.
In Whedon's fantasy series - soul was more or less another word for conscience. That voice inside that told people the difference between right and wrong - or more to the point made them care about the difference. It's a dicey question. People think a sociopathic personality is someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Not true.
They know the difference. They just don't care. The television series Dexter actually did a marvelous job of examining that. It's a story about a serial killer who kills serial killers to avoid killing nice people because he's been taught it was wrong. (Dexter really examines the degree in which nurture can effect human behavior. Can change it. In the series - it's indicated that Dexter's environment as a small child caused him to become a sociopathic personality (something happened to him), but his foster father was able to train him to harness those impulses and use them in another way.)
At any rate - in Buffy and Angel - a creature without a soul - knew the difference between right and wrong but did not care. It did not matter to them. Spike was an anamoly of sorts because he did show remorse for attempting to rape the heroine. Something a soulless creature shouldn't have felt. The reason he did - was well - the writers take on a psychological and philosophical debate - which the tv series Dexter is examining and the novel A ClockWork Orange examined - which is - can we teach a sociopathic personality who does not care about the difference between right and wrong to care? Can we change the sociopath? Is it possible? OR should we just kill them for the betterment of society because they are a lost cause? It is biologically impossible for them to change?
In A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess believed it is possible for someone to change, that while state behavioral conditioning was inherently wrong, the sociopathic tendencies of the street punk would change once he learned there was more to life - or that life itself had meaning. Stanely Kubrick disagreed and stated that the punk could not change and would revert back to form once the conditioning was removed.
Whedon takes the middle ground. Stating that the sociopathic personality can be taught to feel remorse, but, that will not mean that they won't do the act. Won't hurt someone.
But once they feel the emotional pain of doing the act - it may motivate them to seek change in themselves. Or not as the case may be. He explores two characters in this regard.
Spike and Angel. But does not really answer the question - leaving fans somewhat frustrated. But I'm not sure the question can be answered. I'm not sure we know. Psychologists have done studies, sure, but nothing that conclusive. People tend to be pretty complex and had to categorize.
But if you don't buy that souls exist - I wonder if the metaphor may have given you difficulty??
Which actually brings up a much broader issues or question, how do you handle a work of art in which you do not believe or support certain parts of the premise or world?
3. Memory loss - to what degree does memory loss or the loss of memory affect personality?
This fascinates me to no end and is a personal kink, I guess. I'm a sucker for a *good* amensia story. But it has to be one that shows how the character has changed and explores this question.
Does the person who lost their memory become someone else? Or are they just forgetful?
Does their entire life change?
If I for example forgot what happened between 2000 and 2007, how would that change me?
There's apparently a new drug out that can erase a victim's memories of an assualt or bad experiences - saw it talked about in the news and on Boston Legal of all places. So if a child is molested/sexually abused by a parent and takes this ruthie like drug - what does that mean - does it mean it never happened?
And can you erase just one memory without erasing all of them? There's an Alfred Bester novel called Demolished Man - where they erase certain aspects of criminals in order to rehabilitate them. Reminds me of lobotomies - which were quite the rage back when Bester wrote the novel. Along with shock therapy.
In the flick Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - bits of a guy's memories are removed - or rather just all traces of this girl he loved. After the flick, a friend and I had a lengthy discussion on whether this was possible. He stated it wasn't - you can't remove one memory without affecting all the others - it would be like pulling a thread out of a tapestry, the memories would unravel.
Emotions are based on memory. How we feel. How we love. How we relate. Our defenses. If I didn't remember people throwing spiders at me, would I still be afraid of spiders or would I be afraid and just not know why? Does the body retain memory as well as the mind? Can our body remember something, our nerves, that our mind forgets? Like walking. When I think about walking - I can't walk. It's the oddest thing. Like when I think about writing I can't write, have to focus on something else...And when I focus on a memory like the name of a song, a person, or a lyric - it often does not come.
What do you think?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 10:46 am (UTC)2 - Nope, don't really believe in them. Don't have a problem with it in works of fiction, after all, I also don't believe in magic, and that doesn't keep me from enjoying books about it.
And I don't really agree with your definition of vampires in the Buffyverse. It's not that they didn't care about right or wrong, but that as demons, they liked to do wrong. And what you see as Spike showing remorse for trying to rape the heroine, I see as something else. In fact, the Buffyverse is a bad universe to draw this sort of comparisons from, because the writers never really defined what these things meant, and instead used them to mean whatever they wanted at the time.
As for changing a sociopath, that's really not something I have a clue about. And it's not something people without specific training will have any chance of having meaningful conversations about, because unless you really know what you're talking about, the conversation will only be about your own personal beliefs, reflecting what you think should happen, and not what really is (general you, of course).
3 - Depends on the memory, doesn't it. We are our memories to a large extent.
And the drug, if it's the same I saw, doesn't really erase memories, just erases the connections between the memory and your feelings at the time or something like that. So, you still remember, it's just that the memory doesn't trigger the same emotions and responses it used to. So a traumatic memory loses it's impact, and allows you to live with it. OTOH, if you're a criminal filled with remorse, the same drug would allow you to feel peachy (and who knows what impact that might have).
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 06:34 pm (UTC)Nope, don't really believe in them. Don't have a problem with it in works of fiction, after all, I also don't believe in magic, and that doesn't keep me from enjoying books about it.
I know people who believe in magic but not souls. And I've met people who don't necessarily believe in either but struggle more with the use of souls in the series and literature. Possibly because of it's religious connotation? I don't know. But I have two friends who had difficulty discussing Buffy and the novel I mentioned above because both used a soul as a plot point. It was a sticking point for them.
So my question still stands - how to handle a work of art that contains something that you don't believe in, understand, like, or consider beyond your ability to suspend disbelief?
I know for example people who do not like fantasy stories because - they don't believe in magic so they cannot watch or read a story about it. They don't buy the premise. Granted it is a metaphor, but not everything thinks metaphorically - a lot of people think literally.
And it's not something people without specific training will have any chance of having meaningful conversations about, because unless you really know what you're talking about, the conversation will only be about your own personal beliefs, reflecting what you think should happen, and not what really is (general you, of course).
Ouch.
Well, the same can be said about discussing anything - can't it? Are you saying only experts should discuss certain topics? How limiting. I mean I can see that if this were a discussion board with therapists or scholars, but it's a live journal for crying out loud. Sort of goes without saying that the discussion won't necessarily be accurate. It's all opinion.
Unless of course someone throws in scientific tests and studies to support themselves - but on lj, I take everything with a grain of salt even from the so-called experts.
Certainly it's true about discussing tv shows. So why do you bother discussing Buffy? It's meaningless right? Who cares? Why bother?
Because it is fun. To share opinions and points of view. At least that's why I do it. And it tells me something about the person I'm talking to.
I might even learn something. See a new angle or perspective. No discussion is meaningless. Except maybe about the weather...although I've had interesting discussions about that.
Agree on the bit about the drug. From what I've read it, which is admittedly very little - it acts like a ruthie.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-14 01:37 pm (UTC)For me, personally, I try to ignore what I dislike or what bothers me about the work, if I enjoy the rest enough.
If you're religious, or the question of the soul poses a problem, then, I think it's perfectly okay for you to dislike or avoid works that bother you. For me, it's not a sticking point, so writers can use souls, not use them, have them mean pretty much whatever they want.
But it's pretty common for people not to be able to enjoy something because of sticking points. Religious motifs, a writer shoving a different political opinion down your throat, technical innacuracies...
Ouch.
I didn't mean to hurt anyone. :(
Well, the same can be said about discussing anything - can't it?
No, not really. Look, it's like, I'm a sci-fi fan. Time travel stories? I love them. I've gotten in several discussions over time travel theories, some over time travel movies, others over scientific theories.
So, for instance, if I say that I don't believe that theory that for each and every decision someone makes an alternate universe is formed, since I really don't know what I'm talking about, all that means is that I don't like to think that individual choice is meaningless.
Which, is something, but since the discussion is about time travel, not very relevant. :)
See my point?
So, the discussion of "Can sociopaths be cured?" will only yeld results on how each person sees the world, on what you wish the world to be, not really on the subject of the discussion.
Now, "Should sociopaths be cured?" that's a discussion that's meaningful, IMO.
And while it's true that I do believe that some things should only be discussed by people who know what they're talking about, far from me to try and stop people from talking.
And if all you're looking for from the discussion is some fun, and to get to know the other person a little better, then, it's all good.
As for why I discuss Buffy? Truthfully? Mostly it's because I hate how from the same canon, from what we all saw on the screen, we all came away with very different interpretations, and it bothers me that if people can't agree on what they saw on a TV Show they how can we ever agree on the big things in life?
Hmm... that got longer than intended. Sorry. :)
And I don't really know you, apart from the fact that you're on Liz Marc's list. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-14 03:21 pm (UTC)(Emoticons really are necessary sometimes, aren't they.)
No, not really. Look, it's like, I'm a sci-fi fan. Time travel stories? I love them. I've gotten in several discussions over time travel theories, some over time travel movies, others over scientific theories.
Enjoy them as well, although I think Star Trek has soured me on it - I've begun to have issues with the fact that people go back in time but don't change the timeline, don't screw it up. One of the best Time Travel Stories I've seen has to be The Butterfly Effect - not a great movie, but it did address one of my issues with time travel stories. The other one that plays with that is the Ray Bradbury short story about the guy who goes back to the prehistoric age on a tour and accidentally kills a bug changing human history in the process.
So, for instance, if I say that I don't believe that theory that for each and every decision someone makes an alternate universe is formed, since I really don't know what I'm talking about, all that means is that I don't like to think that individual choice is meaningless.
Which, is something, but since the discussion is about time travel, not very relevant. :)
See my point?
So, the discussion of "Can sociopaths be cured?" will only yeld results on how each person sees the world, on what you wish the world to be, not really on the subject of the discussion.
Now, "Should sociopaths be cured?" that's a discussion that's meaningful, IMO.
Oh. Okay. That's makes sense. I'm not sure either question can answered in a meaningful way. But, like you are a fan of time travel stories, I'm a bit of a fan of psychological stories - or stories that deal with how people change. Or if they can change. And to what degree does our environment or external forces have an effect. It's a bullet-proof kink.
Like memory loss.
And if all you're looking for from the discussion is some fun, and to get to know the other person a little better, then, it's all good.
Yeah that's more or less all it is. I like to play with the ideas. Explore them. If they interest me a great deal? I go take a class or read a scientific journal on them. Recently took a class in social psyche because I'd become fascinated with how people interact with one another and why people like certain things and not others. I played with the idea first, then went after more meaningful information.
But mostly, I'm just playing with ideas. Figuring out what I think about them, and using them as a way to get to know others. Find it a lot more interesting than discussing what I did that day or what they did.
Re Buffy
Date: 2007-07-14 03:31 pm (UTC)I'm afraid you're going to have to just sit back and accept that as a fact of life or at the very least part of human nature.
And it can be frustrating at times. There are days, weeks, much like this one, that I really wish everyone agreed with me on my views. And I certainly wish they saw the Buffyverse the same way I did. Got bloody tired of having the same arguments over and over and over again.
People don't even agree on what the important things in life are. Some think it is a spiritual connection to God or religion. Others believe it is family. Other's believe making a difference in the world. Other's believe it is a concept - love or emotion. Some don't know.
Heck - most of the people who responded to my post couldn't agree on what the definition of a soul was. And have you seen the arguments regarding whether or not comic books based on a tv series can be considered canon?
One of the reasons I think Buffy was so successful was because people were able to perceive it so differently. The shows that people argue about less, and appear to agree on the canon or basic messages, don't seem to have as much universial appeal.
Think about it. Buffy had multiple points of view and each character's pov was incredibly different the other ones. If for example - your predisposition was to identify with someone like Xander? You had Xander as character to follow, you could be in his pov. Or say, it was someone like Angel or Spike? You had that character. Or Willow? Or Giles? Or Buffy? So, many of the arguments you see about the show are depending on which character you identified the most with. Someone who identified a great deal with Xander is unlikely to understand someone who identified with Spike. Both pov's are valid. Both are interesting. Same deal with someone who identified with Buffy and someone who identified with Willow.
That is hard to do. It is really hard to write a series that can be looked at from multiple pov's, much easier to write one from one central pov. But a series that has multiple pov's is more likely to succeed for a longer period of time. Why? Because more people can identify with it.
While people do agree on certain things - main universial concepts - such as murder is wrong (depending on the situation - and well, whether or not it was in self-defense), killing children is bad, rape is horrendous (depending on the situation - we don't all agree on what signifies rape and a lot of our agreement or disagreement has a great deal to do with personal experience, perspective, education, environment, etc), war makes us unhappy, and we all want to be successful experience love and be safe. What we disagree on is who should be successful and what success means. We are, like or not, competitive and self-centered creatures - it is I believe our nature. We can be incredibly self-less at times, but overall pretty self-centered.
I'd love it if you agreed with me on all of that or even some of it or a portion. But I know that that is highly unlikely. 50/50 odds either way.
Buffy? Far as I could tell, the only thing fans of the show agreed on was that it was great and they adored it. Which I guess is something. But to be honest, that's more or less true about most works of art - look at Harry Potter - fans of that series mainly just agree that it is a great series, they appear to disagree on just about everything else. Same with Star Trek. And don't get me started on BattleStar Galatica or Doctor Who.
I've seen flame wars on those series.
Hmm... that got longer than intended. Sorry. :)
Not at all. Thanks for it. And thank you for taking the time to respond.
It's not easy responding to unknown journals, so I do appreciate it.