March Blog: I hope you can follow this train of thought. I tried my best.

             On the internet, in church, on TV, in school, from our friends, and from countless other sources we are constantly told what humans are.  On any given day, one could hear that humans are either incredibly clever animals, or not animals at all; incredibly selfish and ridden with errors, or perfect products of evolution.  Mostly, we hear how wretched, filthy, and monstrous we are.  However, putting aside the argument of which characteristics best fit the members of the species, Homo sapiens, one intriguing detail must be taken into consideration. All of the generalizations, characterizations, and analyses of humans come from humans themselves.  In other words, our judgments are interior to ourselves, and we are therefore downright critical of ourselves.  Why are we so critical of ourselves?  And how does this criticism play  a role in the fate of our species?  Although the exact reason for our rampant criticism may never be pinpointed, the issue itself proves to be one of intrigue that demonstrates itself not just in out everyday lives, but in literature as well. 
            In The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson demonstrates how humans judge themselves, by revealing the attitudes and reactions of humans towards the many sides of an individual.  Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde’s character in the novel obviously affects many other people through the course of the story; Dr. Jekyll is kind and respectable and has a positive impact on others, while Mr. Hyde is savage and uncontrollable, and negatively impacts others.  Other human beings regard Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde independent of each other, as they are in oblivion to the actual circumstances.  They criticize Hyde's actions, while hypocritically praising Jekyll's.  Perhaps, if they were to regard the man/men in any other way they might not be able to wrap their heads around the matter, which could prove detrimental to their health and survivability.  We later find this to be exactly the case, when Mr. Lanyon becomes fully aware of the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde’s situation.  By witnessing the event which confirmed the peculiarity of Dr. Jekyll’s transformation into Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lanyon receives a shock that devastates his health, and ultimately kills him. 
            The hypocrisy of humans criticizing themselves, humans being varied in their criticisms of themselves, and humans criticizing individuals of their own species for possessing a characteristic that is perhaps applicable to all humans (having more than one “side”), may seem worthy of criticism.  Criticism implies negativity, but perhaps the basis for this criticism isn’t really negative all.  Perhaps criticism is just a defense mechanism, which protects us from the same fate as Mr. Lanyon.  By pointing out what is wrong with ourselves and other member humans, we are advocating for the change of that which we criticize (which stems from an unacceptance of that which is being criticized).  This is beneficial because we then do not have to accept that which we cannot wrap our heads around (and the things that we cannot wrap our heads around like hypocrisy, having more than one side, etc. are characteristics of humans which are unavoidable).  Criticism is therefore a complicated, yet essential method for survival as it allows us to decline to accept those inevitable aspects of life, which true comprehension of might kill us.    

February Blog: Wolfie's Got A Point, Just Not A Very Conclusive One

            The idea that genius and money are inseparably connected is one that might induce immediate contradictory reactions.  Just like many people, I am also made uncomfortable by the notion that people, if poor, cannot demonstrate genius.  It seems that our gut instinct in today’s society is to respond to this idea saying, “There is no correlation; anyone can be anything regardless of their wealth (or lack thereof)!”  But if we really take a close gander at things, we might find that more wealthy people tend to be more prominent artists, writers, and scholars.  We also might look at life and conclude that the “demonstration of genius” is more readily found in those who do not have to fight and give their all just for basic survival (and we all know what a crucial role wealth plays in basic survival).  But what does this prove, and what is genius, anyway?...

            In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf uses similar evidence to argue that money and genius are connected, or at least with regards to women and fiction.  Woolf discusses how historically, a lack of money and privacy have prevented women from writing with genius.  According to Woolf, for women to not be slavishly dependent on men, and therefore to have genius, several requirements must be met; one of them being possessing money.  In my opinion, Woolf is certainly in the right saying that without money, historically, women produce less publicly known literary works of “genius,” and that money can certainly be a helpful medium for genius to flourish. This is due to the fact that it is money which makes it much easier to secure the basic necessities of life and publish work and make it known.  However, this in no way means that money is required to have genius.  One can only infer from the influence of money on writing that it is a heavy determining factor in the development of the display and demonstration of genius, but certainly not the actual possession of genius.  After all, who says that you even have to prove your genius-ness to actually be one? 

            But what exactly does it mean to say that genius and money are connected?  Woolf has proved her point in the case of women and writing, but what about all other forms that genius can take?  And honestly, what qualifies as genius?  How is it measured?  Who decides how it is measured?  Can survival be a demonstration of genius in and of itself?  In a world where most of the wealth is concentrated in the small upper classes, does that mean that there are substantially less geniuses in the lower class?  What is genius?!?!?!

            These questions that arise from the idea that genius and money are inseparably connected stem from the fact that “genius” is a relative term.  Therefore, any manner of interpreting it must be relative as well.  This means openness to the interpretation of the idea that genius and money are inseparably connected.  It is my personal opinion that genius can blossom more and be more evident because of money, but genius can certainly prosper without any money at all (it just may go more unnoticed).  Any correlation between genius and money just proves that the two elements are as connected as every other element in our super-connected spider web of a world (just not inseparably).  All parts of life can affect any other part, so of course money may have some influence on genius, but not definitively.  Additionally, because we are all different, and more than one person can be a genius, it is safe to say that genius may come out, or be demonstrated in an unlimited amount of ways.  Therefore, genius cannot be limited to one type, making it influenced by, but not determined by money.  




Additional Note: Done by the original due date.  Yeah.

El Blog Mensual Para El Mes De Enero

For the exclusive content of this blog, the word possession will lose its negative connotation and the definition of the word “aspect” will be altered to mean that which can be inferred from the following paragraph:

There exist many aspects of life that beg for a part of our being.  These aspects can suck up our love, motivate our actions, reflect our passions, and basically characterize who we are because these aspects are distinct for each and every distinct individual.  Such “aspects,” as I will refer to them, can be one’s self, a loved one, being a mother, being successful, the covetous satisfaction of attaining power, or anything, really.  It is important to know that aspects may clash and compete for parts of ourselves. 

In The Awakening, there is an apparent rule for how certain aspects ought to possess the beings of certain individuals.  For example, it is clear to me that in Edna’s society, those human beings who are bechanced with the physical attributes that distinguish them from men (aka women) are expected to a point to be possessed principally by the aspect of being a mother.  It is for this reason that Chopin’s writing career was obliterated by the publication of her novel, The Awakening.  For in this novel, the societal norm of a woman being overwhelmingly influenced and defined by motherhood (which parallels the society Chopin lived in) is shattered by the protagonist.  Through the eyes of Edna’s society, her being succumbs to the competition within for dominance of aspects other than motherhood.  Edna would give up the “unessential” for the aspect of motherhood, but she would not give up the aspect of her spiritual freedom, or herself, for the aspect of motherhood (an aspect defined by selflessly benefiting one’s direct descendants).  Edna’s naturally overpowering aspect of self is therefore in competition with the aspect of motherhood, which applies to her as she is a female that has successfully reproduced (successful in this context meaning that the kids are not dead).  Given that Edna’s self requires possession of an overwhelmingly major part of her being, it seems that something has got to go..       

In the real world, as demonstrated in real locations such as Nottingham, PA, people like yours truly (aka moi) also experience this aspectual competition.  I am not completely defined by my love for bovines.  That which is me, or my being, is defined by various things in addition, like passion for adventure, the ability to drive other individuals insane, and innate egoistic desire.  This mixture and combination of aspects is my signature elixir, and is unique to me only.  However, in places 'round the world, there are standards for how certain beings should be possessed by their aspects.  This translates as an alteration in an otherwise natural blend of individualized “aspect dominance.”An expectation which repeats itself in the majority of societies for men would be being possessed principally by the aspect of physical dominance and assertion.  Any time there is a societal restriction or standard for “aspect dominance”, all aspects within are even more intricately wound in a web of competition.  This causes those aspects relating to societal inclusion and acceptance to influence the other aspects’ shared possession of a being.  A human’s uniqueness is compromised by any extra-personal influence, such as societal expectations.    

Basically, I mean to say this:

1.       I have yet to meet anyone whose life is completely defined by one sole aspect.  Our passions, likes, desires, etc. make up who we are.

2.       Edna could not be a part of a society with aspect restriction AND preserve her own individual blend of aspects.  So she let the sea consume her naked body and set her non-conforming spirit freee. 

3.      Societal restriction in today’s world can compromise a person’s individuality.

4.      Number 3 blows.