As a psych major, I practically read Freud on a monthly basis and I figured some of his theory should be blogged on. Though his theory is pretty strange, he does make some very good points. His ideas of id, ego, and super ego have particular relevance to the idea of religion. The id is the primal instincts of the individual and the super-ego is the moral basis. A person takes these two parts of their self and controls it using their ego. In comparision, the id is seen as the little devil on your shoulder while the super-ego is your angel. According to Freud, "The hysterical ego fends off a distressing perception with which the criticisms of its super-ego threaten it, in the same way in which it is in the habit of fending off an unedurable object-cathexis- by an act of repression. It is the ego, therefore, that is responsible for the sense of guilt remaining unconscious."
As a religious being, I have experienced this sense of guilt from not following my moral sense. Primarily, I do not follow the moral sense out of laziness than anything else. Because truth be told, it is tiresome to be good all the time. I recommend trying. You get exhausted mid day and you practically force yourself to do something wrong just to relax yourself. It is possible that this is only something that happens to me, and the trained religious being probably learns to calm the anxiety of constantly being moral. But it is also always true that when I put in the effort to be a moral being, I always feel great about myself.
One thing I found very interesting that contradicts Freud's theory was found in movies like Fight Club. These individuals actually found the religious within their primal instincts, and rebelled against the moral imperitive found in society. With this in mind, it makes one wonder which shoulder one is supposed to follow, the id or the ego.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Greg McCracken- Personal Reflection #4-Progression Straying from the Holy
Many times during this semester's film studies, I have got the distinct impression that human progression is straying away from the holy. This could be seen in both war movies we saw (A Thin Red Line, Apocolypse Now) as well as Fight Club. In A Thin Red Line, much of the war took place with the backdrop of nature. Nature was seen as calm, and maybe even perfect, while the war was hectic and filled with pain. This hectic environment was caused by the flying bullets and radio discussions which has improved the speed of war. It reminds me of people in offices who have learned to multitask. They become so busy talking on the phone, answering e-mails, and thinking of dinner at the same, that they have forgot to calm down and enjoy living. In Fight Club, an large group of people end up giving up their lifestyles to try to attain a primal existance. In this primal existance, they find a holy experience compared to the consumer lifestyle they used to live with. The void that was caused by trying to buy their lifestyle was filled when they gave their consumer goods up. With this in mind, I ask the question: Does societal progression cause our holy selves to move backwards?
I feel that this is an important question to reflect on, and I know many people who would like to give up their material selves to gain a holier lifestyle. Still, I don't know anybody who has actually accomplished this. It reminds me of addiction. You want to give something up to better yourself, but you are so attached to the addiction that the idea of getting past it becomes impossible.
I feel that this is an important question to reflect on, and I know many people who would like to give up their material selves to gain a holier lifestyle. Still, I don't know anybody who has actually accomplished this. It reminds me of addiction. You want to give something up to better yourself, but you are so attached to the addiction that the idea of getting past it becomes impossible.
Greg McCracken- Outside Reading 3- Drifting Back to Tradition
In my Family Interaction class, we read a book by two authors named Rhodes and Wilson called "Surviving Family Life." One thing that I thought was very interesting was that people tend to leave their families when they become independent, only to return to their families when they need them. I have seen many individuals who have done this with the religion they grew up with. They get to a point of independence, and decide that the religion they grew up on was not right for them. They end up becoming athiests or find a new religion for a period of time. It seems after they have experiences with these new religions, they end up going back to their old religion with a new amount of faith. Sometimes it seems like they end up being the most active members of their churches.
Though I find this to be a interesting trend, it does not surprise me. It is understandable for a person to test new waters once they realize that what they considered to be truth is more an option than anything else. Of course, this is after a long period where that religion was accepted whole heartedly as the truth. After searching for new forms of faith, a person probably ends up looking back at their faith of origin. Because they found sense within this religion before, it would make sense that they would feel a high connection to these ideas once again. In fact, I think their faith would be increased after this experience, and it may be beneficial for all people to have a questioning of faith before accepting a particular religion.
Though I find this to be a interesting trend, it does not surprise me. It is understandable for a person to test new waters once they realize that what they considered to be truth is more an option than anything else. Of course, this is after a long period where that religion was accepted whole heartedly as the truth. After searching for new forms of faith, a person probably ends up looking back at their faith of origin. Because they found sense within this religion before, it would make sense that they would feel a high connection to these ideas once again. In fact, I think their faith would be increased after this experience, and it may be beneficial for all people to have a questioning of faith before accepting a particular religion.
Greg McCracken- Personal Reflection #3- God and Death
With an increasing amount of people seeming to lose faith in a higher being, I am intrigued with the thought that many people find God for the first time after they have an experience with death. One thing that has become apparent to me is that belief in God is found within faith, and not reason. Yet, it is reasonable for a person with faith in nothing to come to God when they realize that they are mortal. The idea of not existing is too hard for these people, and religion allows a person to continue living life normally without the burden of future non-existance. Other people find religion after their life hits rock bottom, and I find this to be a reasonable human action as well. Most people who hit rock bottom do so because they have no guidelines in their lifestyle. Once a person finds religion, they have guidelines to help them get on a good track. Once they are on a good track, they can say that they were directly helped by God because of their faith.
I am not saying that these people's faith is impure, because that is not the case, but instead I am saying that most people find religion because it is a reasonable thing to believe in. It would be too hard to think that there is no life after death. So much of living would seem worthless. And maybe if a person is unable to fathom this idea, they may rationalize their way to a belief in a higher being. What I am saying is that many of us say we are searching for truth, when instead I feel that we are searching for what makes life the easiest to live. Hopefully, the easiest path is in all actuality, the truth.
I am not saying that these people's faith is impure, because that is not the case, but instead I am saying that most people find religion because it is a reasonable thing to believe in. It would be too hard to think that there is no life after death. So much of living would seem worthless. And maybe if a person is unable to fathom this idea, they may rationalize their way to a belief in a higher being. What I am saying is that many of us say we are searching for truth, when instead I feel that we are searching for what makes life the easiest to live. Hopefully, the easiest path is in all actuality, the truth.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Greg McCracken- Outside Reading 2- The Sick Soul
Another chapter in William James' classic book "The Varities of the Religious Experience" discusses the religious workings of the sick soul. In discussing the sick soul, James discussed how these people find religion in misery. But one particular part of the book interested me. In writing about religion, James quoted Tolstoy saying, "One can live only so long as one is intoxicated, drunk with life; but when one grows sober one cannot fail to see that it is all a stupid cheat." To me, this statement is a open expression of the athiest view point. The religious being drinks religion in order to exterminate the bad feelings that occur when one rationally thinks about the existance of God.
Of course, it can be said that God is found outside of the rational or reasonable. Instead, God and religion are reserved for the faithful. I find this to be the primary distinction between a religious being and an athiest. It would be hard for me to understand the rationale of a person who believes in God through reason alone. To me, it is not logical to believe in a higher being. However, I do have strong faith in God and a very weak faith in reason. And with that being said, I think Tolstoy is kind of right. Without religion, life could seem like nothing but a stupid cheat.
Of course, it can be said that God is found outside of the rational or reasonable. Instead, God and religion are reserved for the faithful. I find this to be the primary distinction between a religious being and an athiest. It would be hard for me to understand the rationale of a person who believes in God through reason alone. To me, it is not logical to believe in a higher being. However, I do have strong faith in God and a very weak faith in reason. And with that being said, I think Tolstoy is kind of right. Without religion, life could seem like nothing but a stupid cheat.
Greg McCracken- Personal Reflection #2- Perception v. Truth
Many scholarly individuals are on a search for truth. Coming into college, I was the same way, but after many religious, philosophical, and psychological classes, I am starting to get the impression that truth for the human being as a whole is not realistically attainable. Instead, we are learning from what we perceive to be truth and building upon those ideas our own individuals worlds. With that in mind, the truth we are searching for is not global, but personal.
One of the primary examples I could think of to examine this idea would be the usage of hallucinagenic drugs. When a person is on these substances, their brains dynamic's literally change which causes the person to perceive a new reality. There is no way to say that this reality is any less "real" than a person's reality without drugs.
The reason I bring this idea up for this class is that many religious experiences that have been discussed in class have been under a state where brain functioning is different than usual. Tribes who mutilate their bodies could be experiencing trancendence because of extreme exhaustion. Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammed all fasted during their lifetime and attained transcedence. Once they found truth in these experiences, they were able to relate to common people a truth which they discovered. It is certainly possilbe that these truths were only the truth for them, and the people who relate to these religious beings are using these holy people's realities to guide their own search for reality.
My conclusion from this is that human beings will never find the global idea of "truth." Instead, we will each relate to common experiences and live our lives based on our perceptions.
One of the primary examples I could think of to examine this idea would be the usage of hallucinagenic drugs. When a person is on these substances, their brains dynamic's literally change which causes the person to perceive a new reality. There is no way to say that this reality is any less "real" than a person's reality without drugs.
The reason I bring this idea up for this class is that many religious experiences that have been discussed in class have been under a state where brain functioning is different than usual. Tribes who mutilate their bodies could be experiencing trancendence because of extreme exhaustion. Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammed all fasted during their lifetime and attained transcedence. Once they found truth in these experiences, they were able to relate to common people a truth which they discovered. It is certainly possilbe that these truths were only the truth for them, and the people who relate to these religious beings are using these holy people's realities to guide their own search for reality.
My conclusion from this is that human beings will never find the global idea of "truth." Instead, we will each relate to common experiences and live our lives based on our perceptions.
Querube Barber - outside reading
A different kind of novel
Moderato Cantabile is a novel written by Marguerite Duras and compiled in a book called Four Novels. Marguerite Duras is a French playwright, novelist and filmmaker who is well recognized as a literary figure in France. In music, moderato cantabile means moderately and melodiously. In the story, these terms are a source of contention between a piano teacher and the son of the main character. This novel was first published in 1958. Before writing Moderato Cantabile, Duras used realism as her writing style. But with this new novel, she switched to existentialism.
The novel is narrated by a narrator who just presents the facts. It is up to the reader to interpret what is been narrated. At times, the reader does not know who is talking. Other times, the reader does not know where the action is taking place.
This novel is about a woman called Anne Desbaresdes, her son, mentioned throughout the novel as “the child”, and a man named Chauvin. Anne is a wealthy woman from the upper class who is not satisfied with her marriage and is bored with her empty life. She keeps herself busy by taking her son to piano lessons, walking by the seashore and along the Boulevard de la Mer and by going to a café where she drinks lots of wine with Chauvin, a middle-class worker.
Anne has a strange relationship with her son. While reading the novel, at times you think that Anne loves her son; but other times, you wonder if she has second thoughts about why she brought him into this world. For instance, in talking with Chauvin Anne says sometimes she thinks she has invented her son.
At the beginning of the novel, the child is taking piano lessons. It is apparent that he doesn’t want to take the lessons, and he tells his mother so. But his mother insists on him learning to play the piano. The child’s teacher, Mademoiselle Giraud, gets frustrated and impatient with the child because he is very stubborn and doesn’t want to learn the notes or the songs. Mademoiselle Giraud is very critical of the way Ann Desbaresdes raises her son. On one occasion, she tells Ann, that the way Ann brings up her son “is absolutely appalling.” Mademoiselle Giraud makes these comments in front of the child.
One day while the child is taking piano lessons, a murder takes place in a café near the apartment where the child takes the lessons. A woman was murdered by her lover. Anne spends many hours in the same café trying to find out why, how and by whom was the woman murdered. She attempts to make sense of the event. This is where she meets Chauvin. Anne Desbaresdes and Chauvin developed some kind of sexual relationship. The relationship is not a physical relationship, but rather through the exchange of words and thoughts or fantasies.
To me, the novel is a critique of the division of classes in the French society and the lack of affection of wealthy husbands towards their wives. This lack of involvement between husbands and wives leaves the women wondering and getting involved with extramarital affairs.
Moderato Cantabile is a novel written by Marguerite Duras and compiled in a book called Four Novels. Marguerite Duras is a French playwright, novelist and filmmaker who is well recognized as a literary figure in France. In music, moderato cantabile means moderately and melodiously. In the story, these terms are a source of contention between a piano teacher and the son of the main character. This novel was first published in 1958. Before writing Moderato Cantabile, Duras used realism as her writing style. But with this new novel, she switched to existentialism.
The novel is narrated by a narrator who just presents the facts. It is up to the reader to interpret what is been narrated. At times, the reader does not know who is talking. Other times, the reader does not know where the action is taking place.
This novel is about a woman called Anne Desbaresdes, her son, mentioned throughout the novel as “the child”, and a man named Chauvin. Anne is a wealthy woman from the upper class who is not satisfied with her marriage and is bored with her empty life. She keeps herself busy by taking her son to piano lessons, walking by the seashore and along the Boulevard de la Mer and by going to a café where she drinks lots of wine with Chauvin, a middle-class worker.
Anne has a strange relationship with her son. While reading the novel, at times you think that Anne loves her son; but other times, you wonder if she has second thoughts about why she brought him into this world. For instance, in talking with Chauvin Anne says sometimes she thinks she has invented her son.
At the beginning of the novel, the child is taking piano lessons. It is apparent that he doesn’t want to take the lessons, and he tells his mother so. But his mother insists on him learning to play the piano. The child’s teacher, Mademoiselle Giraud, gets frustrated and impatient with the child because he is very stubborn and doesn’t want to learn the notes or the songs. Mademoiselle Giraud is very critical of the way Ann Desbaresdes raises her son. On one occasion, she tells Ann, that the way Ann brings up her son “is absolutely appalling.” Mademoiselle Giraud makes these comments in front of the child.
One day while the child is taking piano lessons, a murder takes place in a café near the apartment where the child takes the lessons. A woman was murdered by her lover. Anne spends many hours in the same café trying to find out why, how and by whom was the woman murdered. She attempts to make sense of the event. This is where she meets Chauvin. Anne Desbaresdes and Chauvin developed some kind of sexual relationship. The relationship is not a physical relationship, but rather through the exchange of words and thoughts or fantasies.
To me, the novel is a critique of the division of classes in the French society and the lack of affection of wealthy husbands towards their wives. This lack of involvement between husbands and wives leaves the women wondering and getting involved with extramarital affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
