Hypnotized

In response to Chapter 11, I found the section titled "Waking Sleep" to be very interesting. "Hypnosis is described as a state of consciousness, dissimilar to either wakefulness or sleep, in which attention is withdrawn from the outside world and is concentrated on mental, sensory, and physiological experiences"(158).
Through hypnotism, a person can relive pain and allergies, control or relieve amnesia and deal with various other ailments. "Hypnosis can also produce a deeper contact with one's emotional life, resulting in some lifting of repressions and exposure of buried fears and conflicts"(158).
An individual can be greatly helped and healed through the use of hypnotism. But, as far as I understand, not everyone is able to be hypnotized. And what allows someone to be hypnotized? What is the difference between someone who can and someone who cannot?
I suggest, since hypnotism is considered an altered state, the "restricting valve" is tightened on those who cannot be hypnotized. Which relates to the opened valve of the creative personality, the shaman, and even the "classified" mentally ill. But there must be more than the "restricting valve" or limited degrees of restriction in determining one's ability to access the an altered state of consciousness. Because not everyone who is creative can be hypnotized. And, not everyone who is mentally ill is creative. Therefore, I would really like to learn more about the hypnotizing personality in relation to the altered states.

Androgyny

After reading the correct chapter this chapter makes me think of the likes of David Bowie, Ted Nugent, or Joe Namath. These guys though being extremely heterosexual men but they cross dressed on occasions. Ted Nugent though being a "man's man"into hunting and everything wore make up and even dresses and he is celebrated as one of America's greatest rock musicians. The same would be with David Bowie, even though he is the British version of Nugent. You can push that into the hair metal movement of the 1980's they wore make up and tried to sound like women. They even do that with some bands today like "The Darkness". WHich then makes it ok for more heterosexual men to act more feminine with more guys turning "metro". Metro just means men that look feminine and take really good care of themselves.

Emotions of Dance - Blog 7

I read chapter 11 and I thought to myself , Did Hughes attend the same dance event that I went to a few weeks ago? I attended an event in Philadelphia called, Udune' Day. Udune' is an event that celebrates African cultures such Liberian, Nigeria and many more. There was African dancers who performed a dance that symbolized birth and death, but the way their facial expressions and bodies movements were so amazing because you can see the joy and pain of the love and struggles of growing up in those countries just by looking them. The way the dancers performed made the audience feel their pain and joy especially with the thumping of the drums. I am a dancer and I agree with Hughes when he wrote " dancing tells a story" because it does. I believe that no matter good or bad of a dancer of a person is they have to something to say even if they're not opening their mouths.

untitled

When comparing sexual and creativity, the book says the new entity is further transformed at birth. Is birth beig paralleled to the outlet in which we express creativity? and if it is, doesn't that bring up the question of does creativity have to be expressed to be creativity? Or does it do the opposite by saying that because birth isn't the result of all sexual encounters there isn't a product everytime there is a creative thought?



I found it strange that women weren't thought of as creative (or they weren't really known for arts) because stereotypically, women are more emotional. Doesn't some if not most/all art have some sort of emotion that inspires or drives it? I know that is seriously stereotyping, but stereotypes had to be based on truth (or perceived truth) once otherwise the stereotype wouldn't work.



Also, I am a little uncertain about the explanation given by Nancy Chodorow about where male violence arises from. Shes says that it is because girls automatically identify with their mothers, but boys have to identify himself with his mother, then seperate himself from her in an attempt to find his own identity. First don't boys have fathers? I know not everyone has a present father (as a matter of fact I didn't), but come on, if girls automatically identify with their mother, wouldn't that logic go to say that boys identify themselves with their fathers. My youngest brother is eleven and I know that from a very early age he identified with my oldest brother (who is 14 years older than him) and my stepfather (his biologic father). Also, even without a male figure in the picture, why does forming your own identity cause male violence? I just don't understand it.

Girls Creative Roots?

Hughes claims that we (as a society) "like our female icons best when they are in distress" (p. 145). This is curious in that there is so much truth to it. Brittany Spears popularity is soaring now that she has been photographed overweight, flopped at the MTV award show, and had her kids taken away. I'm certainly not comparing Spears to the likes of Princess Di or Marilyn Monroe, but Hughes is on to something here. When compared with other contemporary pop stars, the press/ media does not seem to place so much emphasis on their failures, weaknesses, or periods of distress. Is the media still, in 2007, so male biased? Or does the stigma of sexuality carry more weight when we consider the downfalls of our female pop culture icons? Maybe man is contemptuous towards woman according to their perceived sexual persuasion over the years of humankind? Surely being in a state of distress and pressure from fighting for equal rights would foster a common bed of creativity among women (and other minority groups equally).

The Goal. Sexually, I mean.

I LOVED the quote from Susan Sontag about Sadomasochism. She is talking about sex being purely sexual and has nothing to do with relationships or love. Although I don't disagree with it, I don't completely agree with it either. The last sentence was my favorite. [talking about masters/slaves] "The color is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy, the fantasy is death."

Every single piece of this quote is incredibly accurate for the time period that we live in. How shallow of a world we've created, even though I understand that as times change, people change to make up for our inadequacies. I suppose since mainstream 70s hallucinogens and narcotics have been outlawed, people have found other forms of escapism. Sure, some of them are innocent, like watching movies, reading books, having a completely absorbing and intellectual conversation with a friend. Others... not so much.

Sex has become a sport to our culture. It's about domination and power, defeat and striking victory. There are places where women run BUSINESSES that men can go to, give a description of any sexual fantasy, and the women that work there will "provide" for him. Incredible. The color is black. The material is leather.

Those models that we see (way too flawless to be healthy or sane) all have a sex appeal that men and women alike crave for. When these women go missing, get raped, get murdered, it just reminds us that we're on the search for ownership of beauty. The seduction is beauty.

Then we want to be up-front about our purposes. We want to be honest and that makes us feel guilt-free, because airing our dirty laundry is acceptable in most places. The justification is honesty.

Pleasure is the driving force for establishments that sell sex, or people taking their clothes off, or videos or toys or what have you. All we want is to feel good. The aim is ecstasy.

Don't they say that an orgasm and sneezing are the moments in life when you're closest to death? Really... an orgasm? I wonder if that has ever made people think twice before doing it (probably not, because that's not how we are). Shows like CSI: illustrate this perfectly. Don't get me wrong... I love the show... I've seen every episode... a large majority of them more than once. But the show isn't completely fictional. There are people who get killed because of sexual appeal or someone else's sexual appetite. We hear it on the news, and we're astounded. But news flash: to be human is to be hungry, barbaric, flawed, and guiltless. The fantasy, after all, is death.

So If You Don't Rate, Just Overcompensate

To quote a quote, Karen Horney (Hughes, 137), a German-American psychiatrist, suggests that "the tremendous strength in men of the impulse to creative work [is] due to their feeling of playing a relatively small part in the creation of living beings, which constantly impels them to an overcompensation in achievement."
In her quote, she focuses mainly on creative work. Men are left feeling bland in the limelight of the woman creating life. They try to creative magnificent works of art to compensate for the fact that they cannot create life.
Wow...That's like a smack in the face, isn't it? Basically, she beleives that men are driven by a feeling of inadequacy; they play such a minute part of the process of reproduction that they feel compelled to compensate for that in other ways. That is a very interesting idea. Throughout history, woman has been praised for her ability to produce human life. Man, although necessary for the process, has been basically left out. In many early cultures, women and the "female power" were worshipped. In these early martiarchal societies, the energy of life is feminine. If these ancient worlds worshipped the feminine, how is it that we live in a patriarchal society today? The idea that Horney presents offers an interesting explanation. Men have felt so left out, sidelined by the power of the female, that they overcompensated (Maybe that's just me taking the idea to an extreme level, but it's interesting nonetheless).

The complexity of sexuality summed up in 10 pages.

This chapter jumped around more than my Labrador retriever when I arrive at home. It did, however bring up some great points.
First, it acknowledges the sheer complexity of this topic. Our sexuality really comes into play in every faucet of our life. This becomes readily apparent when different cultures are compared and interact.
A good example of a clash of “cultural sexuality,” takes place between the West and the Taliban.
Their belief in certain Islamic philosophies prohibits women from attending school. It also mandates women wear burqas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa) and restrict them to housework within the walls of a compound.
Since the fall of the Taliban following the September 11 bombing, much of the group has retreated into Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan. In the past year coalition forces in Afghanistan has seen a resurgence from the Taliban. Of the attacks the Taliban have launched a majority have been aimed at school that teach women.
So how did I start at sexuality and end at the Taliban? Well it is simple. Cultural views on sexuality are in essence some of the fuel that is feeding the fire of our conflict in the Middle East.
So if sexuality has an influence in Geo-political conflict, I think it is easy to infer it trickles down into everything.

Rantings from Erik

I found this chapter to be equally compelling as the rest. There is no doubt in my mind that sexual desire, sexual tensions and relationships, are the muse of virtually all creations made by humans. Whether you gather your creative energy from being passionately involved in sexual behavior or feed off of strict abstinence, it all centers on sex. I think that we are sexually driven creatures at the very core of ourselves. Without that innate presence we would not have the created the world we see today. Buildings, bridges, monuments, cities, books, paintings, machines, gadgets and doohickeys, they were all created in one way or another that revolves directly around a sexual energy. I am not totally convinced that evolution has given a creative edge so to speak, to men. I understand the reasons the book gives to support that fact, but I just don’t quite by it. Creativity serves a purpose for a hunter and gatherer, which was the main role of the human male for millions of years, but on the same token, didn’t the women need to be innovative back at the cave, hut, or whatever dwelling they occupied? I’m sure that there were many obstacles and problems that presented themselves and needed resolved by the women of the group, especially if the males were off gathering food. So, where is the drastic difference of evolutionary need to support why males have a more creative ability over females? Without a doubt, I think females brains are wired differently (not being sarcastic) and maybe it is this wiring that creates a path which leans towards a different kind of creativity than males?

Sex and Creativity

I found this chapter very intriguing. I know that men and women are different in a lot of ways, but that's what makes their artistic vision different from each other; nevertheless they are both able to create works of art. In the last few decades, historians have endeavored to rediscover the artistic accomplishments of women and to incorporate them into the narrative of art history that has neglected them. While this is true of males, and that it is presumed that there were fewer females who were artists, this amount of information is even more problematic. Women artists were often most active in artistic expressions that were not typically signed. This includes many forms of textile production, including weaving, embroidery, and lace-making as well as manuscript illumination. During the Early Medieval period, manuscript illumination was a pursuit of monks and nuns alike. While occasional artists of this period are named, the vast majority of these illuminators remain unknown. This leaves researchers with whole groups of artists for whom no information is available. Another problem is the convention whereby women take their husbands' last names. This obviously impedes research, especially for example, in some cases where a work of unknown origin may be signed only with a first initial and last name. Furthermore, most reference works on artists, even those online, allow searches by last name only, but not by first name only. Clarity of identity is central to the western notion of the artistic genius who creates masterpieces which may be clearly situated and studied in relation to the contributions of other artists.

ZPF

There is a great deal of patience required to wrap your head around the topics of this article, and even then it is still a bit over my head. To understand or follow a subject such as Zero Point Field takes an open mind and a completely different way of thinking about how we view everything we've ever known, and trying to look at the universe from a totally new perspective, which is difficult. It's like saying "Ok, take everything you've ever learned in your entire life, and throw it out the window, because it's wrong." In Haisch's article, he explains that every bit of light is a product of the negative space of the Zero Point Field, since it is a vacuum of all that we know to be matter. --

"The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state makes it unobservable. We see things by way of contrast. The eye works by letting light fall on the otherwise dark retina. But if the eye were filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford a contrast. The zero-point field is such a blinding light. Since it is everywhere, inside and outside of us, permeating every atom in our bodies, we are effectively blind to it. It blinds us to its presence. The world of light that we do see is all the rest of the light that is over and above the zero-point field."

I think this topic really pushes the boundaries of our class' focus, but at the same time presents us with yet another way to view our world from a different lens: the computer I type this on is in motion. Every bit of matter is in constant motion down to the smallest bit of molecular structure, and all of the matter in our known universe is tied together, but its only the residual effects which we see due to the ZPF theory. Naturally this ties in to our class focus of altered states because everything we know can instantly be flipped upside down, and opportunities to view any knowledge of ourselves and our universe is now up for question. I wonder when (if Haisch is still working towards proving) the ZPF could be explained in more practical terms, such as real world examples not drawn from the cosmos. Perhaps that would give us non-astrophysicists a better chance to wrap our heads around this overwhelming subject! :)

The different worlds of men and women

Feminine vs. masculine – The book stated that since mother and daughter are both the same gender, there is no need for separation to occur for the female child to find her identity due to same sex. This is different for a male child. A male child must first identify himself with his mother, than separate himself from her to find his identity. (140)

I found it not only interesting, but somewhat odd to read about sadomasochism. I have never heard of sadomasochism before. After reading about it I realized I have seen this type of sexual behavior in movie scenes/tv. It’s hard for me to imagine how pain can bring sexual pleasures, but I guess for some people this brings them to an altered state of mind. This is kind of weird for me to imagine.

What caught my attention the most was the differences between the brain in male and female. According to observations made by neurologists women have “less specialization” between their hemispheres than do men. (139) Damages to one side will affect a woman’s brain functions, less then it will of a male. I have always wondered why men and women are so different and this sums the question up for me. Their brains are completely different!! This gives me a great idea on what to do my first overview on. How interesting!

Blog 7 - Gender and creativity

I wrote a blog on this chapter last week (whoops), but even though it's rather short I got quite a bit out of it. It's interesting to compare gender with creativity. Don't we usually assume that women are more creative than men? Maybe because of specific roles we've been placed in - we're supposed to cook, help kids with homework, art projects, etc. We're always coming up with something to make for dinner, experimenting with new things, helping the kids build their first baking soda volcano. However, when we consider different art forms - for instance, writing - for so long women were stuck in the background, maybe even using pen names just to get their work out there, and being read like "genius" men. When I was re-reading this chapter these are the things I was thinking about - did Frida Kahlo paint mostly about her relationship with her husband because that is what plagued her most, or because she was a woman and a woman wasn't able to do much more than belong to a man? Was it natural gender socialization? As men and women we are trained from birth to do certain things, think certain ways, accept certain ideals. I think this is the beauty of creativity, in a way it's "gender-less", you may never know if a man or woman painted something, wrote something, sculpted something, if no one ever told you. Creativity is just allowed to be, to be beautiful and interesting, and to be whatever the creator makes of it.

Gender and Creativity

It is obvious, women view things differently than men. Throughout history women have been viewed by men as sex objects and their possesions. However views of gender roles have changed with the efforts of important female figures over time. We have proven through different creative views that we can achieve some jobs as well or sometimes better then men. One of the main things that causes us to have different views is that us women are made to go through nine months of pregnancy and then go through the delivery. Men may be tough and have strength in some things, but not the strength and compasion that women have from that.
Women have always been expected to stay at home, cook, clean, and raise the children, while the men worked to provide for the family. Then when they came home it was up to the women to keep working around the house while the men sat around. The only thing with that is that even today when many women have jobs in a work force, they still are expected to do most of the work around the house when they come home without much of a break in between. However, there are men now that take on the job as the housecleaner, cook, and are stay at home dads.
There are differences in our brains that have an impact also on how we view things. Women have fought for rights and have changed the way of how things were limited to us to give us more freedom such as with voting and being able to express our views more.

Sex & Creativity

I thought that this chapter was very interesting in how it explained the similarities between sex and creativity, and then went into noting that male and female individuals are very different. However, I'm not sure I quite understood where he was trying go with the sex and creativity analogy. It's obvious that men and women are quite different; women are more intuitive, right brain users, while men are quite the opposite, using logic and analytical thinking. However, I feel that they are both equally able to create compelling, wondrous creative works of art. I think it is the atmosphere, lifestyle, and personal situations that affect one's creativity, not so much one's gender. I do think that as human beings we have certain desires and passions that somehow are connected with sex. And sometimes those desires and passions can help give life to our creativity.

Zero Point Article

I've already sent out a message about this via e-mail, but in case you don't check it, or don't forward ANGEL e-mail, I wanted to let you know that I've posted a short article (3 pages) about the Zero Point Field on ANGEL. If you get a chance before class on Wenesday (10/17), please look it over. I'm interested to see what connections you find between this concept and what we've discussed so far in class. It gives a whole new angle on perception and reality.

Jackie O

I remember when John F. Kennedy died. I was just a little girl staying home from school ill, lying on the living room sofa watching television. All of a sudden a news bulletin came on the TV, “We interrupt this program for a special announcement. President Kennedy has just been shot.” It was a terrible ordeal, but through all the pain and suffering Jackie Kennedy held her head high. My, how she suffered; it was written all over her face. Even as a little girl, I could see the pain there. Yet she had this beauty and pose about her, even in her suffering. When she remarried and became Jackie Kennedy Onassis, she still had this beauty and pose about her.

The media added to her identity making her into an icon. She became an icon for classic beauty, if she wasn’t one already. She wore plain shifts as dresses. They became the vogue. They were a plain style, but also elegant. Everyone wanted the Jackie O shifts. They were quite the fashion fad at the time, but I was still a little girl. Then in 1994, the Jackie O shift had a comeback. It was really the style and I finally bought one. When I put it on, I felt wonderful and a feeling of class came over me too, but as far as icons go – Jackie O was a classic!

I like the way this chapter blurred the lines dividing vice and virtue. A great example of how fragile perception can be. Isn't it interesting how humans can create such conflict while trying to achieve meaning in this gelatinous soup called life.
If I had to make a brash statement about sex and creativity it would be that the frustration created by the conflict of sex fuels creativity. Now, the chapter offered numerous partnerships to support my statement but just in case how about: Rinbaud and Verlane, Clapton and Harrison, Dolce and Gabbana.

The sex goddess, the muse, the icon all virtuous in one way and vicious in another. I'm sure Samson's perception of Delilah was based on virtue. I'm sure Delilah's perception of power was the pleasure that she used to control Samson.
We are beings governed by basic passions and desires. But, it is the duality in us that complicate the events in our lives. The chapter mentions Picasso's relationship with women and how his work changed when ever the women in his life did. What state was Picasso in during his blue period? who was his muse? Was his reducing valve wide open when he painted Bullfight:Death of the woman Toreador?

I particularly like the concept of the muse, I'm convinced that the female form was the inspiration behind the first cave drawings.

Me Man, Me Make Fire!

Women have the same creative aptitude as men. It is experiences that dictate how reaching and vast creative work is. The Brontë sisters wrote about society as they knew it. Emily Dickinson’s poetry revolved around the little world she lived in; what she could see outside her window. Maybe Dickinson would have written Moby Dick as well if she had lived on the sea for as long as Melville did. More and more great female artists, writers, and creatives are emerging as more and more are capable of having the same experiences and education as their male counterparts.

Are men and women equal? It depends on where you look at it from. Physically, as Matt noted, no (though there are plenty of girls out there that can kick my ass). But, that has to do with adaptation. Men were almost always the protectors, hunters, and work horses. Women dealt with the children and home. Mentally, well, who really knows? History, culture, society, our experiences, and everything else have had some affect on how we view the sexes and our roles and as I said above our creativity level. Besides, there is no real definite answer on whether males and females have a physically different brain; but, based on our cultural roles, we do think differently.

Now, I’m an atheist myself (though I do follow my own “religion” or “way of life” as I like to call it), so the idea that some divine force made us different is not really my cup of tea. However, I would say nature and the universe (perhaps the closest thing to God/gods I have) is pretty good at making it so a species has the tools needed for survival. In quite a few species of insects, the female kills the male after he mates with her (ouch). He fulfilled his natural role and is no longer needed. Humans, on the other hand, need each other. Historically, the female needed the male to protect her while pregnant, to hunt, and be the hard 9 to 5 working men we are (Me man, me make fire!). It is the natural instinct of survival. So, for me anyway we are equal or should be if it wasn’t for Chauvinist culture. And, I’m not really sure if what I typed made any sense, because I sort of went off on a big rant. J Oh well…

Walt Whitman’s homosexuality may have allowed him to understand how amazing the human form was. When he viewed a slave auction he was disgusted at how the, what he called, “beautiful” bodies of African Americans were being abused. A great deal of his poetry is about the human form as well as spirit.

Blog 7 or Sex . . . uh, lost my train of thought

Men and women are different. I hate to break it to you kids but it's the truth. I assume we all know the physical differences and if you don't, well, out the door of our classroom, turn left and down the hall on the left hand side is the Health Dept. Anyway, we think, react, engage, analyze, listen, watch, play, love, etc., etc. differently. As for the equal thing, nonsense. Not even in God's eyes, if so we would both be able to have babies. But God (or insert personal deity here) knew the attention span of the male of the species and there was no way we could deal with nine months of anything. Football season, Sept-Feb=6 mos., baseball season, Apr-Oct=7 mos. Seven months tops. Women have the patience of Job. They put up with us and have the kids. Some would say that's why God is male. But I wouldn't, that would be rude.

As for the sex part. It can be such a primal and primitive force/feeling that there is no wonder it is associated with lust and love. It can be difficult sometimes to separate the notion of love and lust and that difficulty can lead to myriads of problems. Quite often it involves giving the wrong head the lead in decision making and then refusing to deal with the consequences or admitting to oneself that they got the four letter words mixed up. Lust seems to have a beginning and end, love appears to be more like the ocean. Really big, moves in waves, all kinds of scary things in it, can't see the other side, walk in and its soft, fall in and it hurts like hell.

Muses. Muses can be a pain. Like cats. To quote Rush Limbaugh (who may be quoting someone else), "Dogs have masters, cats have staff." Muses have staff. 'Nuff said.