shadowkat: (Default)
1. We had a Nor'Easter which resulted in heavy rain. I got soaked. From feet to hips and arms. Dang it. Going to and from church for the unconventional bible study group -- Unitarians are interesting. No one in the group is very religious, all are grappling with the religion thing, and while we all sort of believe in God, it's more in a general sense, not a personal sense.

The reading was Matthew 23-38 - "Love thy Enemy", so we spent a good portion of the session discussing what "turn the other cheek meant" and we compared it to the "eye for an eye" bit in Exodus.Read more... )

2. My Aunt is doing better, and according to my mother, my niece is looking forward to my visit. Hopefully it won't rain the whole time.

3. The Surprising Reason Zebras Have Stripes

excerpt )

4. How to Survive Encounters With Dangerous Animals

Most of this seems like common sense, really.

excerpt on how to handle Rattlesnakes )

5. Advice on How to Write Mysteries from Mystery Writers...yes, just what we all needed.

6. Here's an Example of the Crazy Lengths NASA goes to Land Safely on Mars

excerpt )

Okay. Saving for future information.

7. How Science Has Shifted Our Sense of Idenity


excerpt )
shadowkat: (Default)
1. The difficulty about talking about certain things...is that everyone feels the need to relate them back to their own experience, when the truth is that some things just aren't relatable. Not everyone for example experiences sex the same way or has the same urges or the same fantasies or the same desires etc. Some people are monogamist -- they can only do it with one person, it has to be someone they love deeply and trust deeply, and have a commitment to -- otherwise it will not work. Others are more polygamist -- and can do it with a lot of different people, and love isn't an issue. And the spectrum in between. For some -- sex is a deeply intimate and personal thing, for others it's not.

Another example? Pain. There's been medical studies on this one. (There may be ones on sex too, I don't know, I haven't looked.)

(Correction, I did just look it up but alas, not a lot of links on sex...Did like this quote though from Planned Parenthood:

Read more... )

* MRI Shows that People Feel Pain Differently
Read more... )

* Brain imaging confirms that people experience pain differently

* Not Everyone Hurts the Same Way - LA Times

Read more... )


I find it reassuring in a way to know this. And the gist? Yes we're different.

Moral: Don't compare yourself to other people. It's impossible and just makes you miserable.

2. 38 Wonderful Words With No English Equivalent

Hee.

Here's a sampling...of some of my favs. I particularly like Kummerspeck and Tartle.

Excerpt )

3. Why You Never See Your Friends Any More

I doubt this is the reason, but it's reassuring to know I'm not the only one.

4. Why Office Worker Can't Sleep and Why That's Bad

Hardly surprising. Too much blue light and not enough sunlight. I have very little during the day at work. And everyone around me struggles with sleep as well. Meanwhile the work place keeps sending out safety advisories on getting enough sleep. I'd like to send them this article -- if you made it possible for everyone to get sunlight, and work more from home with flexible hours -- then you wouldn't have a problem.

Sort of hard to do for a huge organization.

5. Founders removal from office is not the only purpose of impeachment
shadowkat: (Default)
1. There's two bits from LEGION that continue to haunt me, and you don't need to watch the entire series to understand and I found to be rather brilliant:


A. Plato's Cave



This may well be the best explanation of the modern narcissistic disorder that I've seen and how it comes about.


B. Delusion, Reality and Madness and how it occurs in LEGION



Which is highly philosophical and borrows heavily from various Zen and Greek philosophers.

If you are a frustrated philosophy/psychology major, you should check out LEGION and THE GOOD PLACE.

2. Suffering from increasingly painful IBS. I think I may be causing some of it with a tendency to over-eat the wrong things -- like tonight I had half a gluten free pizza, a smoothie, and a chocolate bar. My stomach hates me. Plus the anti-boitic from heck.

3. Soap fandom

Fan: Faison didn't make Peter put on a bullet proof vest, and manipulate Lulu and Nathan into revealing Nathan was Faison's son, so that Faison came out of the woodwork and killed Nathan in Peter's office, because Nathan followed Maxie there to save her from Faison who'd gone there to confront and kill Peter.
ME: eh. Peter wearing a bullet proof vest does not equal killing Nathan. Nor does manipulating Nathan and Lulu into revealing Nathan's parentage. Faison showed up to kill Peter, he had no idea Nathan would be there or Maxie. Neither did Peter. Peter had no way of foreseeing that. Granted his manipulations of Lulu and Nathan were horrid but they didn't clearly lead to Nathan's death. Peter put on the vest and worked to get his father to confront him, so he could use Jason to kill him. That's it.

Sigh.

This is why I'm opposed to jury trials now. People don't think logically or critically. They think with emotion. And emotion is seldom logical or even rational. In fact it usually is insane and makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course the word fan and logic hardly go hand in hand as it is. And before you say, oh, you are on a soap opera board, what do you expect? I was on the Buffy and Angel boards, also with Doctor Who and BSG fandoms -- they are crazy too. People, ignoring story-thread completely, had decided Angel was the nicer and better of all the vampires, the most redeemable, and obviously the most morally outstanding. Even though the story and all of it's themes ran directly counter to this view. (He's set up as the WORST VAMPIRE EVER, a pure Charles Manson of the Vampire Genre. The only reason the curse is so effective is how horrible he was. The series Angel was about whether a truly horrible person, the worst ever, could be redeemed, could change, and could become a better person and get past his flaws. IT wasn't about a so-so guy who had a bit of bad luck, wasn't so bad, trying to do good in the world. I watched intelligent fan after fan fail to get this simple point. I mean it's not like the writers didn't constantly comment on it, somewhat didatically, they did. But alas, the fans identified with the big doofus, and refused to see it. I found it hilarious. The story does not work, unless Angel is less redeemable than Spike, more horrible than Spike and Spike is basically the nicer guy. If it was the opposite the series would have been about Spike.) I've also been on comic fan boards and political boards and diet boards, etc...people don't think logically. Also I'm learning that what makes perfect sense in one's head doesn't always make perfect sense outside of it. See LEGION videos.
shadowkat: (Calm)
1. Weekend Television )
2. The whole bit about a Soul and Spike has come up on LJ again via [livejournal.com profile] rahirah, who has some interesting things to say about it, and I sort of agree with. (For example, it's pretty clear I think that any theory expressed by the Watcher's Council or Giles can be summarily discounted as hogwash, mainly because the writers go out of their way to either make fun of Giles/Watcher's Council, contradict them, or demonstrate how silly it is. [Consider how many times Giles was knocked unconscious prior to providing information, and how often his information backfired on him. Similarly, Wesely's information was often wrong or back-fired on him.] This is a standard theme in Whedon's writing - any rule provided by an authority figure is circumspect and should not be trusted. Whedon has serious issues with authority.) That said, I looked at it a little differently than a lot of folks appear to or examined it differently.

Below is the essay that I wrote examining the meaning of a soul and the writer's intent regarding it in Buffy The Vampire Slayer/Angel the Series.

Soul Metaphors in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel the Series )

3. Distinction between Sympathy and Empathy. [I'm wondering if the writer's intended unsouled vampires to express sympathy, and souled to express empathy?]

Go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
TRADING CLOTHES & RINGING PAVLOV’s BELL

I have never attempted a meta quite like this before. Oh sure, I’ve written metas about Spike and about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a cult television series that ended in 2003 but I still love with wild abandon, but not a meta that includes embedded videos and screen shots, which take up space. This is my first Web 2.0 meta or essay. Also, a confession – every time I write and post a meta – I am afraid. Afraid no one will read it. And if they do, they won’t like it enough to bother responding. I find myself counting the responses – to see how good the post was or how well it was received. Which is silly of course – a sort of behavioral conditioning if you think about it. If a post gets no responses, I will often decide to either delete it or never write anything like it again. It’s almost as if in my own journal, much against my better judgment, I am trading clothes and ringing pavolov’s bell. (Sigh, writing like painting, is a difficult love, chock-full of rejection, and the lucky few get past that. Also, much as the saying goes - does a tree fall if no one sees it, does a post or a piece of writing exist if no one but you reads it?)

The below is a meta on behavioral conditioning, the soul or conscience and its effects on the persona in relation to the character of Spike, a vampire on the fictional television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It was inspired in part by conversations with people on my flist, as well as fanfiction regarding the character, and the tv series itself. In a way it expresses why I prefer the television series version of Spike or Canon!Spike to the character most people have written about in their fanfiction. [Warning: Long and may be difficult to download on dial-up.]

What follows is an analysis of the character of Spike aka William the Bloody, aka William Pratt, in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, spoilers only include the television series, will also include bits on Angel/Angelous for purposes of comparison only. )
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
Why I Am Proud to be American today listening to My Country Tis of Thee- only thing about politics or the presidency in this post )

"> The Pervert's Guide to Cinema

List of Films dicussed go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pervert's_Guide_to_Cinema

YouTube Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sFqfbrsZbw

Synopsis from The P Guide. )

Wales and I went to see The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, described above, at The IFC Theater last night - which is housed in the old Waverly Art House in the Village on Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street, next to the subway.

The IFC theater is perhaps the most comfortable theater I've been in. Cushioned arm-chairs with acres of leg room. We found good seats in the middle of the row, next to two guys we'd been chatting with in the lobby. I'd found the film through one of the film goer's meetup groups I'd joined on Meetgroups.com.

The film clocks in at about 2 hours and 35 minutes. It felt like three hours. Long film. And somewhat intense. With a narrator who has a very thick eastern european accent and speaks passionately in a staccato voice.

That said? It did fulfill my weird craving for a psychoanalytical discussion of cinema and media - which I kept, rather unsuccessfully, trying to do with people online. Although, I think it was a bit much for Wales. After Part II, she asked what time it was and when she discovered there was another hour to go, she muttered - "I'm dying here, dying."

The film was too long. Repetitive in places. And reminded me why I did not get a graduate degree in film or media criticism, and did not become a philosopher or psychologist. It is also reminded me of why I despise Freud and much prefer Jung. The psychoanalysis is Fruedian, with a capital F. Unlike Freud, Jung was not an absolutist, and questioned things, was more curious and open. Frued tends to be more absolute and unquestioning in his analysis - often ignoring the flaws in his generalizations and assumptions.

But.

It was a fascinating film and Zizek had some interesting ideas regarding the language of cinema.

Last night I wrote down what I remembered from the film. Here they are. These are my impressions of what was said and what I got from it. They are not necessarily my views, nor do I agree with everything that was disclosed by Zizek - who focused solely on films and filmmakers who supported his theories, ignoring those that did not. His presentation was at times manipulative and persuasive, but once you realized that the focus was so narrow, you began to question his theories.

Part I - Desire : Cinema tells us what we desire and helps us define our reality, Freud's interest was not in the fact we are having sex or how, but rather, what we are thinking and imagining during it and why the libido needs to fantasize. Why are we fantasizing to enjoy it. )

Part II: Male Fantasy - dealing with the female engima by obliterating her monsterous and dirty presence, making her little more than a reflection of the male, a part of him, which if he removes - he is free. )

Part II, B- The Female Fantasy )

Part III: Distintergation/Reconstruction of Self and Fantasy as a way of discovering self )

Part III -Romantic Fantasy - Projection of Fantasy on to the other )

One additional point of interest - Hitchcock apparently loved to manipulate the emotions of his audience and found new ways to do it in each of his films through images and music.
His dream was that sometime in the future - the human brain would be hot-wired to a device and all a director had to do was push buttons to obtain the emotional response he desired.
[Hitchcock was one twisted individual - who had serious problems with women. So does Zizek in my opinion. Actually so did Freud.]

Interesting film. I recommend with one caveat - rent it, don't buy or go see in a theater. You may want to fast-forward.
Page generated Jan. 4th, 2026 04:35 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios