Arts One Open, from the University of British Columbia

The power of humility

Dear Readers

After writing excerpts from Selected Writing of Hildegard of Bingen, I found that Hildegard was surely an interesting figure in the middle ages. She was exceptional in the sense her was able to describe many if not all of her extraordinary visions in Latin. In many occasions, she claims that her visions are inspirations from god. In the middle ages, receiving messages directly from God was a huge honor and privilege. Consequently, the person who has the capacity to receive information from God was regarded as honorable and authoritative.

Strangely enough, In one of her letters, she describes herself as “a mere woman ” who delivers messages of the god. In a letter to the pope Eugenius, she writes “Gentle Father, through a small and insignificant figure, I write to you now, in a true vision by mystical inspiration, on all that God wishes me to teach”. However, despite her humility, Hildegard remains “one of the most influential figure in the middle ages” to quote Jason. To an extent, her reverence to god was the source of her authority. Nobody could disobey the instruction from the divine. Precisely because nobody could see the visions that Hildegard experienced, she became one important source of information. Precisely because people took Christianity seriously, they desperately wanted to know what God want to say to them. They are a lot less interested in what Hildegard has to say to them. In other words, when Hildegard, tries to emphasize her insignificance,people are more inclined to listen to her .

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Hildegard of Bingen

Feminism in the film vs. the book

An interesting topic that arose in today’s make-up seminar [Hendricks] was the different ways in which Hildegard was portrayed in Margarethe von Trotta’s Vision and in our Selected Writings text.

What struck me was how the two pieces delivered very different meanings in the context of feminism. Von Trotta is a director with an undoubtedly feminist agenda; her filmography consists primarily of films with strong, independent female figures. Hildegard represents such a character – her story boasts of strength in the face of the misogynistic Christian faith. One area of the film where von Trotta’s feminist agenda is expressed is in the segments of Hildegard’s life to which she adds emphasis (and those which she neglects). Vision skips over Hildegard’s early life in the monastery at Disibodenburg where she would have received most of her theological education, which leads us to believe that von Trotta’s interest lay more in Hildegard’s character than the spiritual context surrounding her. This claim is strengthened by the fact that Hildegard’s visions are very underplayed and implicit in the film; Vision seems to be more engaged with the physical aspects of her life than the metaphysical ones. The film is set during the time when Hildegard establishes herself as a mystic and solidifies her reputation. This coincides with a few occasions where doubt in her is expressed by male members of the church; yet each time, Hildegard is able to stand her ground and rally support for her preachings. This creates an image of a very strong and determined Hildegard to an audience of Vision.

From a more technical standpoint, the feminist agenda can also be seen in the film language in Vision. One technique used by von Trotta that struck me especially was the ways in which the director juxtaposed men and women in the film. The men, who are almost exclusively members of the church, always appear in an inside setting. The overall mood of shots with men in them, for example when high-standing members of the church come to visit the monastery at Disibodenburg to come to a verdict on the legitimacy of Hildegard’s vision, is somber. Faces are often shadowed, and dark colours dominate these shots. This application of mise en scène is heavily contrasted to the women in Vision, primarily Hildegard’s sisters in the monastery. They often appear outside, in the gardens of the monastery, in a bright and colourful setting. There is a strong association made between the women, led by Hildegard, and nature in the film. One concrete example is when the sisters pack their things and leave to establish a new cloister just for nuns – shots of the nuns with their wagons riding through the bright and colourful woods, accompanied by cheerful music, are contrasted to dark and quiet shots of the brothers of the monastery sitting inside, dark expressions on their shadowed faces. Apart from the positive association that von Trotta creates to women, and the negative one to men, the director also uses film language to further establish Hildegard’s strong character. An example in the area of cinematography is that, whenever Hildegard is making a demand of a priest or taking a stand, the audience is shown a close-up up Hildegard’s face. This makes her seem powerful and resolute.

The Selected Writings text paints rather a different picture of Hildegard, in my opinion. For one, the text is not tainted by another persons opinion of Hildegard as Vision is; it merely consists of the visionaries various writings. Undoubtedly, Hildegard understood her place in the world -she realised that, as a woman, she was severely disadvantaged and that she had to act in a meek and subordinate manner so that men would not feel threatened by her. We can see this through the way that she describes herself when writing to important members of the church. And although Hildegard’s actions reflect an important step for women in her time period, I don’t believe that she herself was a feminist. Hildegard did the things that she did not in the interest of women, but so that she could record the words of God that were spoken through her. Another example of this in literature could be Antigone in Sophocles’ tragedy bearing the same name – she rebels against the male-dominated state and its laws but not with that purpose.

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Hildegard of Bingen

Plato Republic

Through the reading of Plato Republic, it can be seen how Plato seeks to create a just state (Kallipolis), with the specialisation of people, and the rule through philosophers. This brings me to question how well Plato’s just state would work in our present day if it were to be established. Although Plato provides interesting theories and ideas such as the myth of the metals (Gold being the philosophers, Silver being the auxiliaries, Bronze being the producers), it is not ideas which are feasible in today’s society. This is because the theories such as the myth of the metals limits people’s creativity and motivation to innovate as they are suppose to only do work which suits their class of metal. This would be problematic if applied to the present day, since it would mean that there is less elasticity in job finding, and also limit in advancements such as technology. Plato believes a just society must also have just people, which would mean people who have control over their appetites. This would be counter productive in today’s society, since if everything were to be under strict control, and limited what people can do, it would remove the idea of freedom and also create a society which ironically seems much like Plato’s allegory of the cave. People are unable to see beyond what Plato or the philosophers allow them to see, meaning that new philosophers never see the forms that Plato sees, as the city is controlled by Plato’s ideals meaning that they cannot see beyond Plato’s views.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Plato, Republic

Hildegard of Bingen

To be or not to be: Feminist

People often discuss the question, “If you could have a dinner party with 8 people, living or dead, that you want to talk to, who would you invite”? Among my list would be some of my favourite authors and activists (e.g. Shakespeare, Harvey Milk, etc. – definitely NOT Plato), and after reading some of the selected writings of Hildegard of Bingen, I would consider adding her to my guest list. Not necessarily to stay for dinner, but perhaps just to stop by or take a polygraph test on the truthfulness of her visions.

Our discussion in seminar today really got me thinking: Was Hildegard an early Feminist? Were her constant references to her gender identity a mere projection of women in society at the time, or were they being used to gain the respect and support of her male counterparts in the church? In my opinion, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. As people, we are often conditioned and shaped by the societal norms we see around us as we age. During this period of history, women played relatively no substantial roles in the church: This may have influenced Hildegard’s self-deprecating remarks and beliefs about her gender identity, claiming to be “timid” and “miserable and more than miserable in my womanly existence” (Hildegard 3-4). Nevertheless, Hildegard could also have been using her gender identity to her advantage. By presenting herself as meek or somewhat uneducated, her claim that her visions were bestowed upon her by G-d is strengthened: Male heads of the church that questioned the validity of her visions would not be challenging Hildegard as a woman, but rather G-d himself. What could be more powerful than that?

I guess we’ll just have to invite her to dinner to see.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Hildegard of Bingen

Importance of reflection

When reflection becomes incredibly important to your own survival and well-being, it suddenly gets a huge priority boost. I won’t claim that without it I would literally have died, but for the period that I worked on the pearl farm, I might have come close.

I’ll explain where I was, and what I was doing, before giving the rationale behind my reflective process on the events.

My final exam had concluded on November 6^th, and I was ready for a break. My plan was to work for the next 8 months then move to Canada to begin university, but at least for the next week I was going to kick back and chill. That all turned to shit unfortunately, when my good friends father offered me a job. The terms were as follows;

At least 8 weeks, maybe more
Work on a pearl farm, doing manual labor of one variety or another
The work place is an isolated farm in the furthest reaches of the Northern Territory, in a bay 3 hours from the nearest town by boat in Arnhemland, called Gove (Nhullunbuy).

Of course, this would mean living there, without good phone service, for a period which included my 18^th birthday (the legal drinking age in Australia, so an important one), Christmas, new year, Hannuka, and Australia Day.

My decision was made 3 years prior to this however, when I decided UBC was going to be my university, so I said yes. Dave, my friend’s dad, went into another room, and – in his usual manner—immediately booked a flight without telling me.

Cut to 50 hours later and I’m sitting in a dongle, sweating profusely in the North Australian wet heat, wondering how on earth I got there, writing in a journal. This is where my self-reflection suddenly became so incredibly important. What I’ll do now, I think, is give a brief account of a few points of reflection which I still have with me, and which I immediately put to use out on the farm.

Be a 0. Don’t try, when you aren’t sure of your own ability, to be a +1, because inevitably, you will be a -1. Here is what happened to lead me to this conclusion. I was on the boat as it was pulling out of the harbor to make the 3 hour journey from Gove to camp. It’s a big ship. The ropes holding it to the wharf were as thick as a man’s thigh, and probably 25 meters long. The call was made to pull them in, and a woman covered in tattoos was dragging one up onto the boat. I was standing around like a limp scarecrow, and desperately wanted to prove myself. With that in mind, I rushed over to Kerry pulling in the rope, and also got a grip on it and tried to pull. It immediately stopped reeling in, so I pulled harder. Kerry told me to “fuck off”, and I suddenly realized that I was pulling the rope at an angle that caused it to jam up against the side of the ship, preventing it from moving. From then on, I stood back until I knew I could have a positive, +1 influence on a situation- which can only come about through this process of self-reflection.
Never, ever mess with animals. This one is less of a personally reflective concept, but I think Mengzi might approve. Animals, in the outback of Australia, want you to die. It’s like the combination of heat, misery, desert, and hunger makes them furious, and almost always out to murder you. Here are a few cases where that turned out to be incredibly true. When I first arrive I was told, “watch out for cigarette snakes. They’re everywhere. We call ‘em that coz if you get bit by one, you just wanna si’down, roll up a ciggy, and ‘ave a smoke, coz… well, it’s the last thing you’ll ever bloody do.” It turns out that the anti-venom only lasts for about 2 weeks, and it’s very expensive- so they just don’t keep it on camp. The venom from these snakes takes about 25 minutes to paralyze a grown man, and with a helicopter, you still wouldn’t make it to hospital in time. I couldn’t believe it when, a few weeks later, I walked out of my dongle to see a 6 foot 4 Estonian bloke staring at a 3ft snake right in the eyes. It looked like he was in a trance, and frankly- so was I- until someone else saw him and screamed “get the fuck away from it! That thing’ll kill ya!”. So I was taught, both through practice and self-reflection, to stay well clear of anything in the bush or water that moves.

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Mengzi

Mengzi for the People?

In The Essential Mengzi, I interpreted that Mengzi was a socialist. He believed in order and ruling, but he also believed in giving blame to the rulers, rather than the people. Mengzi said, “They had already done their utmost with the reflection of their hearts, so they went on to use governments that were not unfeeling toward others, and benevolence covered the world” (Mengzi 43). It appeared to be like Mengzi was saying that the people reflect the ruler, if there were problems arising throughout the society, it was possibly because the ruler was not doing their part. If I remember correctly, Mengzi mentioned in the book that if a person in charge cannot lead the people, they should reflect within themselves, rather than reflect upon the people. When Mengzi said, “When ‘gentlemen’ violate righteousness, petty people will flaunt punishments” (Mengzi 43), how can one not think Mengzi was a socialist? He believed in rulers who benefited the community as a whole, which is not a bad thing, but it is definitely different than how other rulers behaved. Mengzi believed human nature came from within, and if a person reflected on their inner good nature, they could transfer it outward. It can be said that he thought human beings were indeed human beings, and he believed in the potential of them. He believed people could be good, if their environment helped them become good, and if they supported their sprouts and helped them grow. Sprouts, are Mengzi’s analogy of human nature, in order for the sprouts to grow strong and healthy, they needed to be nurtured well. In other words, for the people to be good, they have to be raised in a good environment, so they could reach their full potential of being good. When a person cannot reach their full potential, it is not the person’s fault, but the society in which they are subjected to. A ruler is in charge of the society, therefore the well-being of those in that society should be the ruler’s number one priority, that was what Mengzi believed. Then again, I could be wrong, just my opinion.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Mengzi

Honoring Ideas

Over the course of history humanity has used literature to express the ideas of countless individuals so that those ideas could be passed down generation after generation. An interesting aspect of Mengzi is that despite being an influential voice in the philosophy of his time, he didn’t write his own book. At the time, books were far too cumbersome to transport and reproduce efficiently. Mengzi, near the time of his death, had a book written by his followers on his teachings, compiled from notes that they had saved. This wasn’t only culturally significant to China; many writings from all over the world follow this pattern, the most prolific being the Holy Bible. The Bible was written after Jesus Christ of Nazareth’s passing by his followers, and could easily be compared to Mengzi (despite its religious significance). Although this differs from our modern method of philosophical writing, there have been numerous examples of contemporary philosophers and writers receiving honoring texts and other works. A good example would be Franz Kafka, and how despite writing in his will that he wanted his works to be burned, his good friend Max Brod decided against this, publishing his larger stories and later compiling his notes and poems into other volumes. The idea of writing about someone after they’ve passed may seem strange in terms of the modern era; books have become so easy to produce that one can take their existence for granted without thinking of their impact on the spread of ideas. Books used to be much more difficult to produce, and could only be reproduced by hand for hundreds of years. Luckily, we’ve had countless individuals throughout history who’ve seen importance in the preservation ideas. Without them, the world would be a much different place.

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Uncategorized

Mencius’ teachings now and then

Students nowadays complain about the abundance of books we must buy during the school year. I definitely wasn’t prepared to have to buy more than five hundred dollars worth of books for my first year of university. The only plus side I found besides getting to read new books were the fact that they were not ancient, bulky bamboo scrolls that I would have to lug around campus. In the time period where Mengzi (Mencius) was originally taught, Mencius the philosopher’s ideas were not presented through a book but through speech that later turned into writings on bamboo strips and much later into translated books like The Essential Mengzi that we have today. Mencius engaged with his students directly and his collection of anecdotes and conversations on political philosophy and moral were put together in later days by his followers to continue these beliefs onto later generations. His teachings were passed down successfully as he is someone we continue to read from all over the world due to followers who chose to translate and share his knowledge. Although the book The Essential Mengzi isn’t exactly how Mencius may have explained his teachings before the fourth century BC, his values and ideas were not lost in translation. His ideas on human nature, goodness, and social order are relatable to people in all generations and is what keeps his practices going. Thankfully, we are able to learn Mencius’ beliefs without having to carry around fourteen scrolls that would likely equal to this one short book with commentary that we are able to have in the palm of our hands.

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Mengzi

Being Good in the Eyes of Procedural Crime

You know that a text is on your mind when even when you’re watching or doing things other than reading the text, the text is still able to connect back to whatever you are doing. In this case, I happened to be catching up on NCIS‘ new season. The name of the episode that I was watching was called ‘Being Bad’, and the premise followed as such:

In the beginning, you see a high- school reunion going on. These two men, both very nerdy looking, are walking into the gym when a grade- A douchebag looking guy (you know the type: peaked in high-school, never grew out of it) approaches them and antagonizes them, just as he did back in the day. Neal, the nerd, isn’t really taking him on, that is until Bruno (the douchebag), throws a punch at him. Neal then grabs his arm and flips him over onto his back and delivers this line that made me jump in pride: “Hey, so what’d you end up doing after high-school? I joined special forces.” (1:38). I was like ooooohh my GOD! Yes!

A minute later, Bruno is dead. Poisoned. *Cue NCIS opening theme*

The episode takes a load of turns as the team finds out that Bruno had hidden a bomb in a locker, a bomb that had the ability to kill everyone in the gym. Obviously things aren’t looking good for our douchebag. Tries to beat up a nerd, commit mass murder, and then they find out that he was involved in a major theft ring that Metro PD had been trying to solve for years. He was the guy on the team who broke into the houses and stole the stuff. The latest thing he stole was a painting worth over a million dollars, but no one could find it. As the investigation continues, the team finds out who else was involved in the theft ring; a group of 5 people, Neal (our nerd), included. The other three also all went to the same high-school, and they came up with the idea for a massive theft ring when the five of them (from drastically different social backgrounds and classes), had a Saturday detention together.

It was like the Breakfast Club, just with less musical montage and more illegal activities.

Bruno is really looking like a bad guy here, but the thing is that one of the group members is insistent that Bruno would never want to kill people. Then another group member speaks up and says that he was a nice guy, and that he even staged the fight with Neal so that Neal could look good in front of the ladies. If you want to know what happened to Neal, he kills himself so that he doesn’t have to go to jail. Not before he confesses everything via video and a typed out document, though. Thanks, Neal.

Another bit of evidence turns up when it’s found that right before putting the bomb in the locker, Bruno had tampered with it and deactivated it, so that the ‘pretty girl’ (the mastermind behind the bomb idea) of the ring couldn’t detonate it. At this point, Abby, the forensic scientist, and Gibbs (the team leader), while talking say something that I think Mengzi would definitely agree with:

(This is after finding out about the bomb being deactivated)

Gibbs (about Bruno): Bad on the outside, good on the inside.

Abby: Maybe he got cold feet. Decided he didn’t want to be a depraved mass murderer after all. See, this is why I’m a people person. Because the good on the inside, it always-

Gibbs: Abbs… (and so the dialog continues)

(35:40-35:53)

Okay, so Gibbs interrupted Abby when she was JUST getting to the Mengzi part, but I think we can all conclude what she was about to say. That the good on the inside, it always shines through. That definitely relates to Mengzi’s innate goodness theory. When she started to say this, I got unreasonably excited as my brain instantly made the Mengzi connection.

As the episode comes to a close, we find out that Bruno’s landlord killed him to steal the painting for herself, the remaining members of the theft ring are arrested and sent to Metro, and one last piece of evidence for the case of Good Guy Bruno is shown: they found a laptop in Bruno’s car, on the laptop was an email that confessed everything and outed everyone. He never got the chance to send it. Agent Torres tells Gibbs of this development in this exchange:

Torres: … Guess he figured which version was the real him (about Bruno).

Gibbs: The good guy.

(40:40- 40:53)

Basically, I think that if Mengzi was here today he’d really like this episode of NCIS. It showed that even though this guy had stolen millions of dollars worth of items from peoples’ homes, and though the police themselves had absolutely no leads on who was behind it all, he still had a conscience. He showed his inherent goodness, and it shone through. He was literally being a good guy until his last breath, which is sad to think about. But at least in this case, Mengzi’s theory rings true: that we all have the capability to be good.

I believe it too, and I think Abby would also definitely agree.

Citation:

“Being Bad.” NCIS. CBS, WBBM-TV, Vancouver, 27 Sept. 2016

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Mengzi

Oedipus and Freud’s theory on the psyche (Superego, ego & id)

When reading Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, I immediately did a mental character analysis on Oedipus and realized how similar he is to Marlow from Conrad’s Heart of Darkness…Now bare with me, I know it is a bit of a stretch, but what I’m trying to say is, if you apply Freud’s psychology on the psyche as being structured in 3 parts – superego, ego, and id, you can see the qualities these two protagonists share.

So, what is Freud’s theory on the psyche? Allow me to explain. I love this theory, I’m honestly so psyched to tell you!! (Yes, that pun was intended)

THE SUPEREGO – It incorporates the values and morals of society which one learns from parents and other people. It controls the id’s impulses, especially the ones society forbids. The superego focuses on morality instead of reality and impulsivity. It also has two systems: the conscience and ideal self. The conscience can punish the ego through guilt and the ideal self is a visual/imaginary image of how one aspires to be.

THE EGO – This is the malleable part of the psyche, as it mediates between the unrealistic and reckless id and the real world. It works by reason and reality. It postpones satisfaction and considers society’s norms and etiquette. It is rational and orientated towards problem solving. For example, Freud made an analogy that the ‘id’ is the horse whilst the ‘ego’ is the rider. This would mean that the ego would have to have superior strength over the chaotic and unreasonable id.

THE ID – This is the primitive and instinctive component of one’s personality. It is the unconscious and impulsive part of one’s psyche as it responds directly and immediately to instincts. It is illogical, irrational, and fantasy oriented. It has no sense of being realistic and therefore it is selfish and ambitious in nature.

So, how does this all relate to Oedipus and Marlow?

Well with Oedipus the King, initially in the play, Oedipus displays all these Apollonian (I’m apply Nietzsche’s theory of the Apollonian and Dionynsiac duality) qualities (being righteous, in order etc), but as he meticulously and desperately searches for his own truth, he begins to show Dionysiac qualities. He begins to lose himself as he discovers himself. His superego consisted of being godly like for his people as well as being a confident, courageous, and respectable leader. However, once he took the time to truly discover his ‘riddle’, his id took over. His ego could not mediate between the two extremes and therefore, in the tragic moment of the third act when Oedipus stabs himself in the eyes, it is a moment of impulsivity and aggression. His emotions overtook his thoughts and his rationality.

When you apply the Psychodynamic Theory, an individual’s moral standards are malleable because when given the proper circumstance, an individual may succumb to the id’s urges and act irrationally. For Heart of Darkness, when Marlow sees ‘the woods unmoved, like a mask – heavy, like the closed door of a prison – they looked with their air of hidden knowledge, of patient expectation, of unapproachable silence’ (pg. 71), it draws a parallel to the journey into the Congo with the journey of discovering self-hood. Marlow begins to understand the thoughts, emotions, and desires everyone represses from their daily consciences. He comprehends ‘When you have to attend to things of that sort, the mere incidents of the surface, the reality – the reality, I tell you – fades. The inner truth is hidden – luckily, luckily’ (pg. 43). In addition to this, when he comes face to face with a tribe member, he recalls the face ‘looking at me very fierce and steady; and then suddenly, as though a veil had been removed from my eyes’ (pg. 75). This conveys a sense of having peeked behind the mask to see what is concealed under the unconscious. This scene draws a parallel to Oedipus the King because when Oedipus and Teiresias have their confrontation, Teiresias plays the role of the tribe member, the one who knows the truth, the one who actually personifies the truth of the protagonist and the overarching theme of the narrative.

When Marlow searches for Kurtz, he enters unknown land and water, which can serve as the unconscious because whilst he is discovering this unknown territory, he is also discovering unknown parts of himself. The steamboat is a metaphor for a consciousness rowing in an all-too-primitive mind because the steamboat portrays a super-ego trespassing into an id. And once one goes into this territory, there is no going back. This analogy applies to Oedipus because in the third act, when he figures out his truth, there is no going back because he is too far deep in his chaotic origins/id and therefore reacts irrationally.

So yeah that’s basically it. I literally thought of Charlie Marlow from Heart of Darkness when reading Oedipus the King. I saw immediate parallels between the two characters. It’s amazing how literature and psychology bleed into one another.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Freud, Oedipus, Sophocles

Welcome to Arts One Open

Recent posts

The power of humility

Feminism in the film vs. the book

Plato Republic

Hildegard of Bingen

Importance of reflection

Mengzi for the People?

Honoring Ideas

Mencius’ teachings now and then

Being Good in the Eyes of Procedural Crime

Oedipus and Freud’s theory on the psyche (Superego, ego & id)

Search