Nosce Te Ipsum

Picture
These beautiful words have always caught my attention. This phrase is from the Greek inscription carved into the walls of the Temple of Delphi. Ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates included, agreed that one must understand one's own soul in order to make their life meaningful and their existence concrete. During my exploration of identity in this semester's material I made certain to keep this phrase in my thoughts. I hope it will mean something to you as well. 

Images of Blindness: Millais’ “Blind Girl”

Picture

In this painting, one’s eyes are drawn to a beautiful blind girl clutching the hand of her little sister. John Everett Millais, an English painter best known for his piece “Ophelia”, created this exquisite oil painting in 1856. The background is exceptionally serene, displaying a picturesque countryside and diverse animals grazing in the fields. The tortoiseshell butterfly, resting on the blind girl’s shawl, illustrates the absolute stillness and peacefulness of the moment. There are many pieces of irony hidden in the images; for example, the closeness of the two siblings, one older and another younger. Ironically the older sibling who, presumably, would have a more dominant role, is blind, and her young sister is blessed with sight. This painting has also been thought of as an allegory of the senses because it shows the contrasting interpretations that the girls have of the world around them. I noticed that even the rainbows in the background show mirrored images, their colors being reversed in order. The vision of rainbows has also been connected to God’s covenant in Genesis 9:16. They also symbolize the beauties of nature the blind girl will never be able to experience, thereby illustrating the tragedy of her blindness.

It is interesting to note the seemingly discrete, but bold message saying “Pity the Blind” hanging around her neck. Many scenes in Saramago’s Blindness describe the misery and confusion associated with losing one’s sight. Saramago offers many images of colors in the first paragraph of his book, showing the importance of seeing our surroundings, and the comfort and security that can bring us. I also found a correlation between this painting and the quote Saramago uses from the Book of Exhorations which reads

“If you can see, look.

If you can look, observe”

The blind girl is unable to see, but still attempts to retain the beauty and serenity of her environment by observing through her other senses. Her right hand is outstretched to fondle the grass and her face is gazing upwards to feel the sun’s rays. The girl in her lap, is able to see, yet seems distracted by something off in the distance, and does not observe the butterfly or pure beauty of the moment.

See also: Millais, John Everett in the Oxford Art Online database.


Picture

Book Review Summary: Charles Yu’s “How to Live Safely…”


I selected a book review offered from The New York Times. Below I have provided a short summary of the article:

This review, written by Ander Monson, applauds the eccentric ideas presented in How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe by Charles Yu. This meta-science fiction novel involves a protagonist, also named Charles Yu, who has lived the last decade of his life trapped in a Time Travel Device.

While Monson praises Yu for his witty, and often untamed sense of humor, he believes the novel’s true strength is its “all-too-human” heart. However, Monson condemns the novel’s lack of complexity, suggesting that this simplicty makes certain events effortless to dismiss. Nevertheless, Monson believes that the “emotional and psychological action” presented outweighs any negative impressions. Monson also admires Yu’s application of effect pages, footnotes, and possible “chronoscientific fantasias.” Monson states that “the novel’s central, lonely story is wrapped in glittering layers of gorgeous and playful meta-science-fiction.” After reading this review, I will not hesitate to pick up a copy in order to witness Yu’s creative sci-fi inventions first hand.

For more information regarding the author and “How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe,” please visit the New York Times for an Author Spotlight and for Monson’s review. To order a copy of the novel, please visit Amazon.
Picture


Supplementary reading: “The Excremental Gaze”


This critical essay, written by Sandra Stanley, explains the collapse of what she calls “panoptic vision” and also interprets Saramago’s Blindness. Stanley’s intriguing remarks regarding the physical and metaphorical themes found in Blindness were particularly thought provoking. Stanley utilizes the scene in which the doctor’s wife tells her husband, “I don’t think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see” (Stanley 326). At first glance, this complicated quote may appear confusing. However, when broken apart, its true meaning is revealed. I believe Saramago is saying that, for the characters, there was never a point in time marking the transition to blindness. The doctors wife declares that they were always blind, able to see but not able to reason with their vision. Stanley discusses this “always being blind” concept and this realization leads her to trace the transition from humanity to animalization illustrated in Blindness. The notion of physical blindness seems to alienate people from their preconceived essence of humanity. The infected people are secluded from civilization at an abandoned asylum. It is ironic that people thought they could contain the epidemic by locking up the sufferers. In reality, Saramago is suggesting that everyone, including those who can see, is blind.

Later in the essay, Stanley labels Blindness as a “postapocalyptic tale of trauma” as well as a “cautionary tale” to our present civilization. This interesting connection means that Saramago’s intent was to warn people about their own actions and oblige them to remember the true meaning behind their humanity.

Ironically, Blindness describes Saramago’s “utopian vision in the language of an inverted plague narrative”. “–A disease of goodness based on interactive reasoning and mutual recognition–that sweeps across the world. Even as the pestilence of blindness reduces individuals to afflicted bodies, reminding them that they are but dust and excrement, Saramago’s utopian vision acts as an antidote, freeing physical and metaphysical bodies from “the unbearable filth of the soul” (Stanley 279).

In this quote we see why Stanley’s title includes the word “Excrement”. It gets the reader’s attention and, in the narrative, forces us to consider the idea that our souls are “filthy” because of the way we treat them or ignore them. If we are blind and do not see what is around us, we do not become engaged in life and we do not allow our souls to perform to their full potential. Instead, we are like pigs wallowing in the mud without any desire to improve ourselves or appreciate life around us. The characters in the book lose sight of their purpose, empathy and humanity. Then, using reverse logic, Stanley implies that we can rid our souls of the filth by becoming blind in a physical sense. In my opinion, the author is declaring that if we can’t see we don’t deserve to see.

For more information please read Stanley’s full essay here.



Picture

House

House is an American medical drama on the FOX network. The show features an overly sarcastic doctor, Gregory House, whose morality is often misplaced or completely absent. In this particular episode, called Small Sacrifices, the patient admitted to Princeton Plainsboro hospital is Ramon, whose strong religious identity conflicts with House’s egotistical view of the world. Ramon explains to House and his team of doctors that God miraculously cured his daughter Marisa’s cancer after he offered to nail himself to a cross every year she was cancer-free.

Both Ramon and his daughter believe that their purpose is to exist for God and that their identity is defined by their values and beliefs.  At this point in the episode, Ramon is determined to keep his faith strong and not allow House to undermine it. House is incredibly open about his atheist view of the world and would prefer to focus on diagnosing the illness presented to him. Dr. House also displays an intent fascination with disproving his patient’s beliefs, which would crush, inevitably , the identity Ramon has created for his life. Ramon is afraid of breaking his deal with God and refuses treatment because it is “against Gods will.” Dr. House and his team continue to have a lengthy debate on the patient’s possible conditions. House blatantly suggests that the patient’s religious extremism is caused by a neurological disorder. This is a prime example of illness being used as an aid to understand someone’s identity. Since House is unable to comprehend such mystical beliefs, his only explanation for Ramon's particular religious beliefs can be found in mental psychosis. Full of sarcasm, House says, “get an MRI and see if we can find God.”

The episode continues with House believing the oncologist who treated Marissa misdiagnosed her and he is desperate to see her medical file. The hospital president, Cuddy, debates the patient privacy laws for the benefit of the case but decides, finally, that without the father's permission, House should not view the file. This does not stop House, who forges Cuddy’s signature to access the file. To his dismay, Marissa is cured from the cancer that once invaded her body. Contrary to the results, House tells Ramon that his daughter’s cancer is back, and in full force, therefore letting Ramon feel like God broke the deal first. This exchange causes the patient to crumble. Ramon says “do whatever you want to me,” because he no longer cares what happens to his material body since his “soul” is broken. Ramon admits to a nurse “that’s what I believe but I am human." She replies, “so you know you may be wrong.”

            Ramon still holds on to the idea that “beliefs help guide us when we are blinded by fear.” Ramon’s entire identity is comprised of his religious values. He says:  “our beliefs define us, if we lose them who are we?” In the beginning of the episode, Marissa asks House “you don’t believe in God?” and House answers with a rude comment that suggests he had faith only when he was full of childlike innocence. House’s explanation for religion is that humans are “hard-wired to need answers, the problem is when we don’t find the logical answer, we settle for a stupid one.” He tells Ramon that “ritual is what happens when we run out of rational”, suggesting that we create identity when we no longer can bear the absence of concrete answers.
 

Picture

Law & Order SVU

While I was enjoying some quality time with my puppy on the couch, I noticed Law & Order SVU was on TV in the background. I was particularly interested in hearing the defense lawyer, Conrad, argue her case because I realized it was relevant to many of the topics we have been covering in class. After watching the program, I did some research and found that this episode was entitled “Infected” and first aired on January 3rd 2006. “Infected” is about a young boy named Nathan who grew up in a rough neighborhood with a high crime rate. He was traumatized as a youth because he witnessed his mother’s murder. The police caught his mother’s killer but could not prosecute him due to a lack of physical evidence. So, Nathan decided to take matters into his own hands and kill the man himself. During the main courtroom scene, the defense attorney, Conrad, references a Science article that includes a study about children 12-15 who witness violent gun crimes. The article states that these children are more than twice as likely to commit violent gun crimes. SVU’s “Infected” focuses on the idea of violence as an infectious social disease. There are many metaphors and allusions that represent violence as illness, and a possible epidemic among future generations. Conrad argues :

“This study equates gun violence with an infectious disease. Anyone exposed to it is infected. Now you may not agree or like this study. Gun manufacturers don’t like it either. It goes against their mantra: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” But this study points to something that is almost unspeakable in today’s gun culture, and that is that the blame for violence can be directly placed on the gun. Once you see someone squeeze the trigger, it’s easier to do it yourself. Nathan saw his mother shot to death in front him and at that moment  he contracted the disease. It wasn’t his choice any more than it is your choice to catch a cold after someone sneezed on you. Violence is the disease. Guns are the virus. And we have an epidemic on our hands.”

Later in the episode,  two lawyers, Novak and Benson, discuss the ethical issues arising in the case. Novak asks Benson if witnessing a murder could justify the act of committing murder. Benson states it doesn’t justify it, but it could explain the correlation. Throughout this semester we have covered a vast majority of metaphors in a variety of contexts period I would be interested in hearing what everyone else sees in these foregoing assertions. Is it possible that this episode portrays the common confusion between causation and correlation? What do you think?

To read the entire Science article please click here.