SOCIAL MEDIA

My name shows up on google+ and twitter, but I only monitor and will not add you. I do NOT do Facebook though someone with the same name does. Please use plain email. My phone landline is in the phone book. I have no cell phone.

Other Blogs by me

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE ART OF BOB SCRIVER, PLEASE GO TO: www.scriverart.blogspot.com.

Notes from Alvina Krause between 1957-1961 are posted at www.Krausenotes.blogspot.com


TWO REBLOGS:
Fiction about Indians at www.willowsticks.blogspot.com
Essays about Indians at www.siksikaskinitsiman.blogspot.com



Tuesday, April 22, 2014

ALVINA KRAUSE EXPLAINS MORE ABOUT ACTING


There’s nothing in this radio interview that would shock anyone or surprise anyone who has heard AK speak before.

https://vimeo.com/92083672  A Krause KUSD 1971 on Vimeo.

She takes her usual shot at the star system that distorts the craft of acting by so celebrating one person that it amounts to congratulating the piano for a gorgeous concerto.  I mean, there are a lot of elements involved in theatre and not all of them are garlands around the neck of the player.  But I also think that she falls into something like the same trap by speaking of people with “gifts.”  It’s certainly true that some people have capacities that others don’t have and that capacities are more easily developed in some people than others and even that some people have no capacity to learn acting in the hard, long-term, sometimes painful ways that are necessary for "high" standards.  But maybe it’s as much a matter of desire as of giftedness and AK has always had a firm grip on that.  Is desire a gift?  It can drive you crazy.


Following her thought, I’ve gone ahead into other art forms and the contemporary research on brain function (which is more properly seen as a function of the whole body, which is another thing she fully grasps) to define any art as the management of consciousness.  First one learns one’s own “connectome,” which is the system of nodes of understanding and interpretation connected to each other in the brain in something like the way chords can be played on a piano keyboard.  These are composed of neurons “who” play memories together to create empathy and evocation, first in the artist and then in the audience.

Some people learn this urgently and early.  Consider the abused child who must first protect him or her self enough to record what happens and then try to find the pattern in it.  When is dad beginning to move towards a drinking binge?  When is mom about to run away again, only to return bruised and exhausted?  By googling one can find lists of ways to control a child about to have or beginning a tantrum.  Some of the same strategies work on adults when practiced by kids or other adults.  Check it out.  Children don't have to google to find out how to control adults: it is instinctive and learning combined.


The difference is that a child cannot consciously control her or his own connectome: not until there's enough brain power to connect.  Otherwise a neuron filament reaches out for a skill or interpretation that’s not there yet or that meets a contradiction.  An adult, particularly one teaching acting methods that influence the connectome of others, supplies or evokes what’s missing from one's own brain connects -- maybe by supplying information, maybe by expressing confidence that makes enough space and time to figure it out, maybe by being a role model.  AK did all those things.  She had a powerful need to shift your consciousness into effectiveness.

If everything she tried met a stone wall, for whatever reason, she told you to get out -- that there was nothing she could do for you, and that was true, though most people took it as an insult and the thought didn’t get to them for a while that maybe someone else COULD shift their consciousness to a new place.  Or maybe over the passage of time, the needed node would grow in, the nerve axon would reach out and find AHA!!  If the desire was there, the person would find a way to learn somewhere somehow.

When AK failed, her attempts to "wake an actor" could be cruel out of her frustration with her own limits.  She was conscious enough of herself to know it and probably repented quietly alone at night, but she was a very self-disciplined person who could not easily be governed by others.  She knew it was collateral damage but felt it had to be done to get to the goal.  I'm deducing this -- she never said it.

The interviewer and AK agree that some people have a desire so strong that it amounts to a constant driving need to create forms.  Schilpp’s “expression of the relationship between a person and the universe.”  But then AK goes on to the necessity of knowing where that desire, that need, comes from in the first place.  Look at the character.  Is it because of trying to avert attacks, feeling that is a way of evading danger?   Is it a conviction that it will confer status and that status is a kind of safety?  Is it trying to fill an emptiness?  Is it trying to justify oneself to a harsh judge remembered from early in life?  Is it boredom?  This is the playwright level of need.  The level of need on the actor's part had better be invested in the needs of the character portrayed.  “How can I show what drives this character?”


The two women agree that the need to touch other people’s lives and make them complete propels art forms, but particularly the art form of teaching.  AK uses a phrase, “touching off,” which is like lighting a flame, touching off a fire, somehow kindling the person’s ability to operate their own feeling system.  She speaks of blindfolding people to get them to understand what it is to be unable to see.  In class and rehearsals we watched her as she experimented, maybe going onto the stage in the middle of the play, prowling around the actors, whispering in their ears, slapping them on the shoulder, tugging at them, all to get them to shift out of being stuck playing chopsticks instead of the melody.

The interviewer mentions the work of group therapy and recalls interviewing Virginia Satir.  She feels this work, which is just beginning in this time period, is very much the same sort of thing -- working at “touching off” the right awareness to free a person’s stuck brain.  These groups often use movement.  Satir’s speciality was family dynamics (nodes and connections) and the paradoxical impact of clumsy efforts at “helping” (secrecy, forcing behavior) becoming greater damage.  I think that AK was very much in tune with this sort of work and that her teaching and acting Method were as much informed by it as Stanislavsky’s sense memory.  There was a secret, closed, advanced class for only a few invited people.  Even now no one will tell me, but I think it was for the exploration of the actor's own inner life.  

Hedda Gabler

But the interviewer focuses on acting and not on how this applies to the play as literature performed to demonstrate something about human beings.  AK asserts,  “no man [sic] is alien to me” but her examples are nationalities, cultures.  As always she goes back to Hedda Gabler.  These are well-trodden paths.  One wonders what would “touch off” a post-Edwardian consciousness, knock her out of her comfort zone.  One had the feeling that it had happened to her at least once when she was young.

I suspect the sudden realization of danger as in her last years at NU "touched off" insecurity and a desire to go underground.  She was always circumspect, diplomatic, with authority figures, but I don’t think she had ever really felt vulnerable even after various challenges.  Her life had been a continuum of considerable depth and reward but she had mostly played it safe.  Even at forced retirement she had a second house, a reliable partner, a body of defenders and other resources, and soon she found her feet again.  But just as we are tempted to speculate on the inner life of actors, we are curious about the inner life of teachers.


Alvina Krause was a small woman who stood tall, the youngest of sibs, trained as a speaker more than as an actor, and at first protected by powerful people, particularly Dean Dennis of the School of Speech.  I think there was always a little edge where she was not that confident of what she might call her “gifts,” (I would call “capacities”), where some things could touch off core vulnerability.  Lack of control, for instance.  The effects of modernity and surrealism, existentialism.  She was essentially American, thus rejected despair and could not get her mind around concentration camps or African heart of darkness --horrific things that are not censored these days.  But she doesn’t SAY “nothing human is alien to me.”  She says (I'm paraphrasing), “An actor must always work on the premise that nothing human SHOULD be alien to me.”  In short, she was a universalist, a progressive, a person of her time and place.

Monday, April 21, 2014

EUTOPIA, DYSTOPIA, CACOTOPIA . . . KAKATOPIA.

Eutopia

Dystopia

Cacotopia

In composing a post about dystopias, I did a little research and discovered a new term: cacotopia, which is a place/time that is WORSE than a dystopia.  Most of the dystopias are gray, featureless, emotionless -- the Russian stereotype of concrete apathy. Banality .  Bureaucracy.  It appears that a “cacotopia” is the breakdown of every sort of government or order plus horrific aspects that are not survivable, like genocides.  

I would coin a new variation:  a kakatopia, that is -- a society organized around money (using Freud’s idea that money = shit = kaka) -- that not only requires its citizens to be obedient and to stay in line, but requires them to stay alive by spending money.  Not just an oligarchy, which is run by people with money, but a welfare state that makes poor people pay.

Kakatopia with money

Kakatopia without money.

Every day one goes to the wicket and pays or qualifies as a pass-through justification for someone else's funding.  Whoever does not, starves.  Gets no meds.  Is excluded from housing.   A cacotopia is like the African jungles where no one, not even with modern technology, can stop a single maniac running a small army that enslaves children, amputates their limbs, forces them to violate every taboo, then discards them.  

A kakatopia is where a heroin addict who has exhausted all resources cannot pay his drug bill and is knee-capped.  It is where a middle-class entrepreneur miscalculates and goes broke, so his house is taken, his wife leaves, and his children scorn him.  He lives on the street until he dies.   

A kakatopia is where a very wealthy man thinks he is safe until his children are taken in an extortion kidnapping, he cannot get the money quickly, and the hostages are killed.  A kakatopia is where low-status women are killed and no one investigates because it’s not worth it.  A kakatopia is where soldiers are paid so little that if they aren’t killed in battle, afterwards they die of exposure on the streets.  But the top officers make enormous salaries.

A cacotopia is like Somalia, where things are so disorganized and broken that people survive through piracy.  A kakatopia has the added dimension of making people into commodities -- the return of slavery, human trafficking, not just sexual access but also work camps that are death camps (yeah, like the holocaust) and the general right to indefinitely confine, torture and kill as is convenient if it makes money.

In fact, incarceration, nursing homes, extra-governmental armies, extradition, private prisons, and hospitals are all commodified, growing, institutionalized sources of money.  Schools, even public ones and elite universities, put money ahead of learning.  Big pharm is notorious for profiteering.  Young men are encouraged to compete at sports that destroy their brains and knees for the sake of the status of the sponsoring entity, whether school or small town.  Girls are encouraged to have surgery and diet to be more attractive, to look marketable, to marry someone who makes a lot of money and to do well in their own jobs because “pretty” gets promotions.  Children who are inconvenient, unprofitable, and defiant live in sewers and abandoned structures and die young.  Families who only have 80% of the income they need to survive -- in spite of both parents (if there are two) working -- first banish the boys and then pimp out the girls, one way or another.  

The description of “dystopia” below comes from readwritethink.org, a website for teachers.  We used to teach this stuff.
Utopia: A place, state, or condition that is ideally perfect in respect of politics, laws, customs, and conditions.
Dystopia: A futuristic, imagined universe in which oppressive societal control and the illusion of a perfect society are maintained through corporate, bureaucratic, technological, moral, or totalitarian control. Dystopias, through an exaggerated worst-case scenario, make a criticism about a current trend, societal norm, or political system.
Characteristics of a Dystopian Society
Propaganda is used to control the citizens of society. 
Information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted. 
A figurehead or concept is worshipped by the citizens of the society. 
Citizens are perceived to be under constant surveillance. 
Citizens have a fear of the outside world. 
Citizens live in a dehumanized state. 
The natural world is banished and distrusted. 
Citizens conform to uniform expectations. Individuality and dissent are bad. 
The society is an illusion of a perfect utopian world. 

Types of Dystopian Controls
Most dystopian works present a world in which oppressive societal control and the illusion of a perfect society are maintained through one or more of the following types of controls: 
Corporate control: One or more large corporations control society through products, advertising, and/or the media. Examples include Minority Report and Running Man. 
Bureaucratic control: Society is controlled by a mindless bureaucracy through a tangle of red tape, relentless regulations, and incompetent government officials. Examples in film include Brazil. 
Technological control: Society is controlled by technology—through computers, robots, and/or scientific means. Examples include The Matrix, The Terminator, and I, Robot. 
Philosophical/religious control: Society is controlled by philosophical or religious ideology often enforced through a dictatorship or theocratic government.

The Dystopian Protagonist 
Often feels trapped and is struggling to escape. 
Questions the existing social and political systems. 
Believes or feels that something is terribly wrong with the society in which he or she lives. 
_________

So the “topic” is control.  How much control is too much control?  And on whose terms towards what goal?  A Dystopia is generally defined by a society where there is too much control, a “Sim City” that has gone mad and is bringing everything to a halt with rules.

A cacotopia (compare cacophony which is disorganized noise) is the other end of the spectrum.  NO order.  

A kakatopia is only controlled by “monetary” profit with no regulation except desire to accrue money.  The “free hand” of capitalism soon creates its own order and values human life and the planet itself only according to the profit.  Maybe it’s an oligarchy.  Maybe it’s a mafia.  Soon it will be a desert in an acid sea.  We already see the beginnings.


The opposite might be an ecology that is not based on money but on the sustaining benefit for all elements.  An alternative eutopia might be based on relationship and affinity.  Some people already try it: barter, energy off-the-grid, co-operatives, living in a style of basic simplicity, small communities who support their members.  Maybe in the city -- where it might be problematic -- and maybe in a rural place -- where the problems would be of a different sort.  The biggest problem I see is how to manage the media, which irreducibly remains in the kakatopia, even the presumably “public” radio and television.  As the hippie communes soon discovered, free-loaders are also a problem since they can’t just be eliminated the way a kakatopia would, converting them to cash customers through drugs, maybe. 

So how does apocalypse fit into this?  That’s when the bills come due, the water rises and the sheep separate from the goats.  The big secret?  Apocalypse doesn’t always come.  Arks capsize.  The escape spaceship blows up.  Apocalypse is not a punishment imposed by some God, but merely the collapse from within.  No judgement is involved -- just natural law.

Fear of this will lead to a dystopia, which justifies rigid control as it tries to figure out and prevent every disaster.  Not possible.  What ends kakatopia?  Someone somewhere figures out that money is worthless.  It’s all IOU’s.  Imaginary. 









Sunday, April 20, 2014

DESPERATE THRASHING


When I looked for the formal definitions of “thrashing” I did not expect to find a computer term, although many things have become metaphors for something technical in the computer world.

“When referring to a computer, thrashing or disk thrashing is a term used to describe when the hard drive is being overworked by moving information between the system memory and virtual memory excessively. Thrashing is often caused when the system does not have enough memory, the system swap file is not properly configured, or too much is running on the computer and it has low system resources. . .

"When thrashing occurs, a user will notice the computer hard drive always working and a decrease in system performance. Thrashing is bad on a hard drive because of the amount of work the hard drive has to do and if is left unfixed will likely cause an early failure of the hard drive.”

The original word, which has an onomatopoeia element (sounds like what it means) is about separating wheat from chaff by beating on the grain stalks, forcing the meat of the seed out of the husk.  Since grain harvest is done by machinery now generally -- people use the word to mean beating or fighting.  They also use it to describe violent punishment, like a parent beating a child to an extreme, presumably beating out bad traits.

Shark. Thrashing attracts them.

The meaning I want is psychological, but I don’t see it in the definitions.  Maybe it’s local but my friend the psychiatric nurse recognized it.  I mean a situation when all hope is lost and the body goes into a state of wild random energy, throwing the body around, pulling and pushing -- because there’s no rational way out and there’s nothing left to lose.  Once in a while it works.  The first time I set my cat trap, the cat I caught (which I never saw, only heard) thrashed around enough to pop the door open and escape.

But decades ago we visited the scene where a grizzly had been trapped and had thrashed but didn’t escape.  It had plowed the ground around the point of entrapment to a depth of two feet, it had torn up trees six inches across, it had thrown logs, and bellowed loudly enough to make the sheepherder some distance away cower in his flimsy wagon.  The bear did not escape.  It is dangerous to approach a thrashing animal to rescue it.  When daylight came, they shot the bear.

We're just trying to help you.

So people, when trapped in some circumstances with no way out, will throw themselves emotionally against the “walls” of the people around them, especially those with whom they have a strong pre-existing connection.  The thrashing brain will see ghosts of all the most feared forces of their lives: oppression, blame, lack of success, punishment instead of love, injustice, on and on and on.  The people who are the walls can suffer because cause-and-effect have been disconnected.  If they are lucky walls, there won’t be physical violence or only ineffective physical violence -- just verbal attack.  If they are not lucky and if the thrasher is armed, the consequences might be in the newspaper.  But usually a thrasher is too disorganized to plan.  Shooters are deluded but not out of control.  They are over-controlling.

If one is the thrasher, like a little kid at that stage of development when the brain storms and the child beats itself howling against the floor, there’s not much to do in the way of intervention except physical restraint or chemical restraint.  The wall must protect itself and wait for the tantrum to pass.  Even an adult person who is in the grip of the storm cannot get a hold on the situation.  



Psychology Today, always ready to offer pop ideas, suggests there are two kinds of tantrum, as follows.  (Neither is flattering to the person in the storm.)  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201111/blame-storms-and-rage-attacks-common-borderlines-narcissists

"Both borderlines and narcissists get into rages in which they blame and criticize others. However, the rages are slightly different and are motivated by different things. . . . Keeping these differences in mind will help you anticipate the rage and respond when it happens.
"As you know, people with Borderline Personality Disorder are emotionally unstable. . .  Their intense and annihilating anger comes from believing that others don't care about them, are not listening to them, or are not meeting their core needs. Their pain is your punishment. You're still, though, the equal in the relationship.
"The anger of narcissists, on the other hand, can be more demeaning. Their criticism evolves from their conviction that others don't meet their lofty standards--or worse, aren't letting them get their own way. "Narcissistic injuries," or wounds to the ego, often pave the way for narcissistic rages, which can be passive-aggressive or planned out, as well as sudden. They are above you and you have displeased them and probably deserve punishment they will dole out."
Neither of these ideas addresses the desperation of someone fighting for survival.  Nor do they consider how much a person who is desperate is exploited by other people who can passively and “innocently” deny help, thereby adding more insult and entrapment.  They see a person “in the stocks” -- that old punishment of trapping someone’s head and hands so that they are vulnerable -- and can’t resist throwing rotten objects at them.
Most of the advice in Psychology Today is meant for young adults in relationships or raising children.  I don’t read it often.  This recent study is more helpful.
A study, published in the March 2014 issue of Psychology and Aging, examined 1,315 men — mostly military veterans who participated in a 15-year survey — between the ages of 53 and 85. Some 80 percent said that at age 50, life became easier.”  But then at seventy things get rough: people die, health declines, money runs out, people are no longer listening, past accomplishments are forgotten.  Then there’s the added element of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, having been in life-threatening circumstances that demanded extreme reaction:  killing, extreme exertion, high risk, major loss.  More than one veteran has told me that it is a truism that when a person has no idea what to do, that all indications are gone but the danger is extreme, it is much better to do anything than nothing.  Even if all you can do is thrash people with your cane.  You might accidentally strike the one holding a gun and knock it to the ground.

When I was working at a nursing home, one of the patients had been an aide in that same place.  She was much admired and loved by everyone.  When she became a patient, she lost her mind and began thrashing:  that is, screaming, throwing herself around, striking people, in what looked like self-destruction and is called “acting out.”  Finally she was sedated into unconsciousness for the sake of the people around her.  If her sane and healthy self had known, she would have been mortified.  But one couldn’t help but speculate (Freudian-style) about whether she had been repressing irritation and impatience all along and now that the restraints were weakened, they were bursting out.  I think that’s putting a psych layer onto something that was purely physical -- not even spiritual, but merely (!!)  the desperate attempt of a body to find some way out.  
In the days with Bob Scriver we shot a gopher every summer morning in order to feed the eagle.  A raptor that doesn’t get roughage (fur and bones) will die.  I got pretty handy with a .22 and there was usually a choice between shooting the critter in the head or the heart.  If you shot them in the head, there were enough reflexes left in the spine so that they thrashed and often the thrashing took them down their hole.  No breakfast for the eagle.  If you shot them in the heart, that was it -- they dropped.  Things are simpler with ground squirrels.  

But even a grumpy old man who “acts out” is trying to survive with the resources at hand.  If he has a lot of "backbone," it will be hard for everyone.  "The system does not have enough memory, the system swap file is not properly configured, or too much is running on the computer and it has low system resources."

Saturday, April 19, 2014

RELIGIOUS ATTACHMENT IS EROTIC

Bernini  St. Therese

Much of human meaning comes from the psychological/physiological phenomenon of attachment, the first manifestation of which is literal and maternal -- the umbilical cord.  Throughout life one yearns for attachment, usually to another human being but sometimes to a surrogate (dog? institution?  art?), and -- in religious terms -- to God.  One of the main functions of portraying God as a person (regardless of factuality) is that it demonstrates attachment.  Call it love if you like.  

A specialized kind of love/attachment, physically erotic, is often expressed in words and music, love songs.  I’m appending a quiz that compares the attachment rhetoric of eroticism to the attachment rhetoric of spirituality when God is seen as a Person.  It was composed by a Christian homeschooler R.L. Stollar, and comes to me courtesy of http://whiskyprajer.blogspot.com.  Don’t assume that everyone in the believing Christian community is stuffy and blind.  These people are not.  The category of the bands, I'm told, is "Christian Rock."  I’ll put the answers on the next post.

The co-opting of religious rhetoric in the service of S/M sex is a demonstration of how thin the wall between the two can be.  But also there’s something about defining a privileged meaning-community.  I think of the feminists in the Seventies busily “correcting” the UU hymnal lyrics which were Humanist but white male.  The claim was that male pronouns included people of every gender but that was demonstrably (if not very consciously) not true.  Of course, only a few decades earlier the Humanists had been scratching their heads to find words for the hymnal replacing Godtalk, even though the claim was that God could be considered an abstract principle, like “love” or “creativity” or “the Force.”  What is an one-syllable synonym for “man” that IS inclusive?  “Folk?”  (“Human” has man in it.)


The next twist on attachment is that if there is a God, then there is a Devil.  Isn’t the S/M lover in Shades of Gray just Lucifer with a bankroll?  The opposite of good is evil because they are both addictive, which is an extreme paradoxical attachment.  Ecstasy is almost painful.  Pain is almost ecstatic.  If there is addiction, the addiction is demonstrated by the withdrawal.  If the addiction is simultaneously to the “good” of bliss and the “bad” of suffering, then the addiction is twice as powerful -- maybe more, a synergy. (Like an abusive marriage.)  The other extreme of the detach/attach spectrum is fusion.  But then the relationship collapses: the two entities are the same.  


Indifference is the real opposite of attachment.  (I admit that I am addicted to the study of meanings, including that of attachment.  I am not indifferent.  But perhaps this is a protective addiction, a kind of methodone or antidote.)  Indifference/attachment is a spectrum, but a basic level of attachment is necessary for survival.  Doesn’t matter whether it’s good or evil.  Total meaninglessness is not evil but catatonia: numbness.

The ultimate meaning of meaning is survival and therefore attachment is a means of survival.  I ask all the time, what is the addiction UNDER addictions?  ALL addictions.  Of course, in the physical sense it is molecular responses in the brain, the triggers and plug-ins of various kinds.  But what connectome, what consciousness pattern?  


No one shoots up with “street serotonin.”  That can’t be the only key.  Meaning is historical.  Heroin has more of a history than serotonin.  It has glamour, wickedness.  (The root meaning of glamour is witchcraft, right?)  Every flame needs a chalice, every act of sex, religion or drug use needs its ceremony.  I’m sure folks out there can offer the rhetoric of drugs in songs, which will be close to those of God-worship and sex.  Every meaning needs its rhetoric and if the meaning is near to the core, that rhetoric will dwell in the lyrics of the songs.  

So here’s the quiz and I’ll put the answers in the next post.

*****
1. Which of the following is a lyric from a Newsboys song?
a. Giving it over, I was flat on my back.
b. I come instantly
2. Which use of “hand” is from 50 Shades of Grey and not a CCM song?
a. You gentle your hand…
b. Gushing with surrender in your hands…
c. My hands are open, so take what you see…
3. Three of the following four lines are from Skillet songs. Which one is from 50 Shades of Grey?
a. Stretch me bigger….
b. An empty vessel to be filled at your whim…
c. I’m exploding like chemicals. I’m going crazy — can’t get enough!
d. It’s so urgent. It’s so desperate I can feel it in my bones.

4. One of these four is dirty talk. The other three are DC Talk. Which one is dirty?
a. You consume me like a burning flame.
b. Anytime, anyplace.
c. I am calling out your name.
d. Oh, you know that I surrender.

5. Which “you” is from a Sonicflood praise song? (The other two are about sex.)
a. God, I want you
b. I want to touch you.
c. I am in awe of you.

6. Can you figure out which is neither Rebecca St. James nor Audio Adrenaline?
a. Here I am. I will do as you say.
b. You’re pinning me to the wall.
c. I’m enslaved to what you say.

7. Different people handle pain differently. Which one is the 50 Shades of Grey way?
a. How can I scream when the pain is such a release?
b. The pain is such that I refuse to acknowledge it.
c. I do not deserve to be set free.

8. Once you experience something you really like, you usually want more. Which wanting more is not about God?
a. We’re going all the way.
b. I’ve never wanted more, until I met you.
c. I’ll be chasing you.
d. I wanna do it soon.

9. Which romantic exclamation is not about Jesus?
a. When I’m in your arms is when I feel the best.
b. My heart beats for you.
c. I want my world to start and end with you.
d. I can feel your power surging through the whole of me.

10. One of these is about a BDSM master/slave relationship. The other three are from Christian music.
a. Capture me, make me a slave.
b. I’m struggling to resist, but I’m drawn.
c. If I could only be your master.
d. You can have everything I am.

ANSWER KEY TO LYRICS


By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator
Growing up evangelical, I listened to a lot of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). I never understood the whole “rock music causes demons to eat your brain” mentality. But I did understand — to some extent — their point that Christian rock music was just normal rock music with “Jesus” pasted on top. To my friends and I, that wasn’t actually an intelligent critique. It was more a joke, something we all laughed about.
Fact is, my peers and I often thought it was funny that many CCM songs appeared to be sexy romance songs where the “you” was just capitalized so it suddenly was about Jesus rather than a hot piece of man-flesh. And some CCM bands — Skillet, most of all — have lyrics that are so spiritually kinky, even actual kinksters might blush.
So to honor this humorous memory of CCM’s steamy lyricism, I decided to create a quiz where you must identify whether certain phrases are lines from the bestselling erotic BDSM novel 50 Shades of Grey by E.L. James or lyrics from Contemporary Christian Music songs. So pull out a pen and paper and keep track of your answers; an answer key is provided after the quiz.
Make sure you don’t cheat. God is watching you. As Phil Joel says about God, “He’s gonna keep the night light on. He’s waiting there to receive you.”
Or was that something Anastasia Steele wrote in her diary about Christian Grey?

Friday, April 18, 2014

IF THY BLOOD OFFEND THEE . . .


The book of Matthew is fond of the editing theory of how to have a good life.  Eliminate trouble by eliminating the "bad."  The advice of excision shows up in several places.  Here’s one version.  Matthew 5:29  And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.   This is social disciplinary metaphor, not realistic.  The medical advice of amputation or surgical removal is very close to torture methods.  Quarantine is defensible medical practice while shunning or excommunication is often a disciplinary method in churches.  I mean, this idea of plucking and casting is right on the edge between effective and evil.  It's bad enough as a social theory (eliminate all Jews, blacks, gays) but as a way to manage a family it really sucks.  (As those kids thrown into the street would put it.)

Maybe it’s the Scots outlander in me that considers banishment kind of attractive.  I almost court it.  But I have not wanted to be identified as a person who writes about Indians (who I am not) nor gays (who I am not) nor persons with HIV-AIDS (who I am not).  Maybe I’m just liberal or progressive or ornery or naturally inclined to stick up for the underdog, no matter what the justification for exclusion.  But it is clear to me that to pluck out an offending eye (maybe it’s really painful or malignant in situ) is different than draining out blood because it is diseased, though that was medical practice until surprisingly recently.  (It's how Robin Hood was killed, right?)

We construct categories, then stigmatize them, then assign people to them in ways that are not even accurate.  As long as HIV-AIDS was still considered to be directly caused by anal intercourse, then maybe it made sense to wall off everyone who did that, esp. if it was thought that only gay men did it.  But then it turned out that HIV is a blood disease.  And then it turned out that a lot more people, both male and female, straight and kinky, were having anal intercourse.  When mainstream magazine articles begin to discuss better orgasms through rear entry, it’s clear that the category is useless as an indicator of perversion.

HIV-AIDS is a blood disease.  We cannot expect people to go around with no blood.  It has to be treated as though it were any other infection of the body.  But that’s not all I want to talk about.  The category of “gay men” has also been pretty much destroyed by increased knowledge.  It is not a medical or anatomical category (though it may be genetic or epigenetic).  The single defining criterion is men who desire sexual relations with other men.  Desire is a reflex response located in the autonomic nervous system, all THREE branches.  (Until recently no one knew about the third "enteric" (guts) branch, which is sometimes called a "second brain.")  You can't see it on any instrument we have, just the response to it.  Like a slightly swollen upper lip and dilated eyes.

Medical categories are based on appearance and function.  A man might have a penis the size of a thimble.  I’m realizing that decades ago when that woman called animal control to complain about her husband who would only have sex with the family cat, it may not have been so unlikely as we thought.  Scott O’Hara, who won size contests, was eloquent on the subject of how-you-use-it being more important that what-you’ve-got.  But some people have tabs, some people have slots, and some people have both, or neither, or some modification or mixture of the two.  I'm saying "gay" is about desire, not equipment.  And desire is only one aspect of a person's identity.


Fourth grade is a turning point year for kids in our school systems.  Usually classes begin to go from one teacher to another because presumably they’ve got the basics down and are ready for specialization, which means teachers with special training.  Most kids are about eight, which in medieval and frontier times would have been old enough to begin working for a living, because all you needed then were the basics.  How much math do you need to clean a chimney?  How much literature do you need to string an industrial loom?
  

When I was in the fourth grade, we still believed in the humanities, so one of the special classes was art.  I remember quite clearly that when the teacher was out of the room, two boys explained that anyone who wore yellow on Thursday was “gay.”  This, like the disloyalty of not wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day, meant you were entitled to pinch them, hit them, and slander them.  No one quite realized that it was connected to sexual preference because we hadn’t hit puberty yet.  Only a few of us understood heterosexual practices or that some people had three orifices down there -- counting the boys’ all-important pipi.  It was something about being a sissy, which is why girls couldn’t be gay even if they wore yellow on Thursday because girls can’t be sissies because that would be redundant.


Only recently has it occurred to me that the two dignified and graceful women across the street who were good friends of my family -- let alone my several high school teachers who lived with same-sex partners (all women) -- could be considered lesbian.  Not that they went around waving dildos -- they were all at least sixty.  Nor did it occur to me that my closest friend’s elegant “bachelor” uncle who took us to the ballet would be recognized as “gay” today.

In college I was in theatre and it was -- now it turns out -- to be an exceptionally gay-friendly theatre department.  I’m not sure that even the gay guys were conscious of it.  We were all wrestling with issues like finding the spine of a character, summoning up the sensory world of Cleopatra and Caesar, or surviving period underwear.  In some ways we were slow maturing, even with “Tea and Sympathy” as the “Brokeback Mountain” of our time.  One friend called me “Deborah Kerr” and that role stuck with me.  There’s not that much difference between coming out as a Gay and coming out as a proud "half-breed" Indian or consorting with a grandpa.  Defying stigma rules.

Once in seminary I was asked to identify a key primal “script” for my life.  To the professor’s dismay, I chose “The Princess and the Goblin,” a Tolkien-lite story about a little girl who lived in a chateau on top of a mountain but was close friends with a boy miner who understood the catacombs and labyrinths within the mountain.  She also was given a ring by her many-times-great grandmother who lived in the top of the highest tower of the chateau and was on good terms with the Holy Spirit in the form of doves.  This ring was attached to a filament or thread that the girl could use as a guide for the right direction for her life to take.  Just what was needed for going with Curdie (that was the miner boy’s name -- was it short for Courage?) through the lightless passages to keep the goblins (trolls?) under control.  (One stamped on their tender feet.)  

The filament, an "Ariadne's thread, named for the legend of Ariadne, is the solving of a problem with multiple apparent means of proceeding - such as a physical maze, a logic puzzle or an ethical dilemma."  If you try to go backwards it disappears.  In the myth it is provided by an inspired woman to an heroic man who must fight the Minotaur, the half-bull.  My professor, who earlier had sighed over my characterization of the universe as a copper scouring pad that wears you down to your core, was not impressed.  He liked the former physics professor in the previous class who talked about the distortion of the gravity plenum being like a ball-bearing on a rubber sheet.  I didn’t see the diff.

The point is that in my world the goal is not bigger and better orgasms or high status relationships.  It is a metaphysical justice problem with the goal being survival.  It has no concern for genital variation, genomic interweaving, or gender culture roles.  It’s about what will get you through the maze and slay the minotaur, which I take to be violence, war, plague, famine, and so on.  


Not that I’m against using force.  But I don’t see why a gay guy can’t be an excellent swordsman.  It occurs to me that “Arya” in “Game of Thrones” is probably named for Ariadne.  George R.R. Martin messes around with the stuff all the time.  But he’s nothing like the Reverend George MacDonald, who was a Universalist (“God will save everyone.”)  clergyman with too many kids and an attitude far too inclusive to suit his superiors.  He was more of the spirit than the blood.   Institutional Christianity is blood-centered.  They think they are in charge of blood.  At some points of their history they have demanded the blood of others be spilled.  Then there's Communion.  But maybe Christianity as a concept, a category, is also disintegrating.  Certainly, the Universalist aspect of it seems to be neglected.



http://www.universalist.org  This is the url of a "saving remnant" in Washington, D.C.  Good location for building an ark!