Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Omni

When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky”

One of the most fundamental debacles to humanity is religion. It has plagued this world like a sickness, like a cancer, rotting through our minds, disillusioning our living conditions, and killing our women, children, and men alike. Religion burns through humanities existence like a wildfire, spreading quickly, jumping gaps, chaotically yet methodically destroying our landscapes and leaving ash in its firey wake. It slaughters one another, brothers, cousins, sisters, fathers, mothers, as if they were insects climbing through the place where you keep your food. Our morality, or what is left, has been rotting for thousands of years with religion at its core like a blackened, darkened, heart. 

Religion is a sickness, at least how humans have altered it. 

Two primary sects of religious belief, or two religious groups who worship two "different" Gods, have caused the primary destruction in modern history. One, worshipping Jehovah, and one worshipping Allah. There are two things which have caused such destruction. One, both believe their religions justify them to massacre, murder, kill, and destroy infidels. The second is both groups have come to rely on some sort of scripture. A third, and perhaps more hidden truth is, both Gods, if existent, are one in the same. It is a requirement of both of their religions. If they are not the same, then they are, in fact, non-existent, fallacious, untrue, dishonest, lies, and therefore, not good. 

These are not the only ones, in fact. There are several others. Yet, what does this premise rely upon? One key claim which motivates, creates, and is the central part to both of these Gods-

Both Gods are allegedly Omni.


Yet, what does this mean? Omni is the latin origin for the root of several words used to describe most main Gods in history- Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent... And it is not these two Gods alone. "Om," for example, central to several religions including the Yogism, Buddhists, and even dabbling into Hinduism, is a universal mantra   worshipping this Omni figure. Do most even understand what Omni Gods must entail? Let us explore further.


If a God is Omnipotent, then a God is all-powerful.
If God is all-powerful, then God was all-powerful.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God has all power.
If a God has all power, then a God has all the power from every God.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God is the power from all Gods, all humans, and all creatures.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God must be all things, Gods, life, and unlife, alike. 
If two Gods are all-powerful, then they must be the same thing.

If a God is Omniscient, then a God is all-knowing.
If a God is all-knowing, then a God knew everything.
If a God is all-knowing, then a God knows everything.

From here, you might make several implied implications, for every one of these logical axioms must be true if and only if God, or Gods, are Omni.

For example... We could combine a couple and see what happens.

If God is all-knowing (and knew/knows everything), and God is all-powerful (and was all-powerful), then God must have been the Power which creates, devises, and guides our thoughts, for to deviate from this path requires power, but the only power we have is also a part of Gods power. 

Therefore (to put it simply), God, even before our existence, knew every thought you would make, and planned every thought you would make, and then created you, otherwise God is not Omni.

We could go on and on.

If a God is all-powerful, then every action performed by a human being is an action of God (for a God is all-powerful, and if a single action weren't God's, a God would not be all-powerful).


Regardless, it becomes apparent that these two bickering and fighting children who fight for some title are in fact worshipping the same Omni figure, for if something is all-powerful, it must be all of the power. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, they all worship the same all-powerful image, and each one presupposes the other. If one is true, all must be true. If one is not true, all must not be true. It's simple as that. Still, they insist on fighting one another like two kids fighting over identical water bottles. 



This is, of course, simply highlighting the fact that all of these religious wars, which have gone on since humanities beginning, are in fact, based upon ridiculous illogic. 


Still, what purpose for religion?

Here, I'd like to contrast two groups, Atheists, and believers.

Believers tend to base their belief upon either scripture or a God, and act, behave, and devise their morality from such a feat.
Atheists have nothing separating them from their morals, actions, thoughts, and motivations- an atheist takes responsibility.

For example, when a believer performs a murder, they justify through a series of explanations, none of them relating to themself. 
"My scripture tells me to kill non-believers."
"I was receiving messages from Almighty which told me to kill people."
"I was proving my God is stronger than yours."

In contrast, when an atheist performs a murder, there is nothing to blame it on but themselves.

When an atheist acts, it's a matter of them. When a believer acts, it's a matter of their belief. One is deeply fallible, leaves tons of room for disillusion, and provides a framework for justification.

Who is moral, deep down?

Truly, think about it. Perhaps we shall return to this argument, at least in one shape or form, later.



One of the motivating factors behind why religion has wrought so much destruction over humanities existence is the fact that it is based upon interpretation. Scripture could be read thousands, and thousands, of ways. As a result, a Christian can perform something, justify it with a scripture, and explain it through that scripture, and another Christian will say "Oh, what a good Christian." Yet, if something is open for interpretation, does that not mean anything in the world is justifiable with that scripture? The inevitable answer is yes. Thus, could a religion based upon scripture ever be moral, or is it merely a way to justify actions?

This is one of the fundamental premises behind religion- it is created to make people feel good about their behaviors, to justify actions, and to allow them to blame bad things which happen on something which is greater than them. Inversely, it is to send gratitude toward something which is greater than them. Both are inevitably true, like two sides to a coin.


Now, let us discuss a few things. First, if God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, would God ever blame something or judge someone? No. If God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, would God ever punish someone? No. For God could punish no one but God. 

Still, believers go around trying to judge, blame, punish, and damn. What a childish, immature, and broken concept based on illogic impossibilities. 




Then, there are the fundamental parts to religion which are, simply, ridiculous. People pray, they send their thoughts to an all-knowing creator. If God is all-knowing, God already knows every thought you think (ironically, God even planned those thoughts). If God knows every thought you think, are you not always praying? Are you not always on the mental telephone with God? If not, your God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent. And if your God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, then your God is untrue. If your God is untrue, could your God be good? 

Think about it.






Not to mention, Religion is based around location. It's like a genetic defect, a cancer, passed forth from generation to generation forced upon people by their environment. 

It's just a crutch. It's just an excuse. It's just a way to blame others for something an individual has not the courage, nor the internal truth, to take responsibility for.

By all means, if you wish to believe in a God who is Omni, great, and if you enjoy reading scripture, fantastic, but realize how hypocritical believing your religion is true and others are false is.

Learn to take responsibility.





The quote this post begins with... I could explain in so many ways, and that is perhaps the purpose of the quote. However, realize, if there is something greater than you, especially if it is an Omni God, it is perfectly perfect with you and your neighbor, even with a sword going through either of your stomaches. 





Saturday, May 26, 2012

Once...

‎"Stories, stories, what's a story. when you were in high school did you learn about the civil war?
Yeah of course.
How?
Did you read about it perchance in a book?
How's that any less real than any book?
History books are based on history.
And story books are based on what? Imagination?
Where's that come from?
It has to come from somewhere.
You know what the issue is with this world? Everyone wants some magical solution to their problems, yet everyone refuses to believe in magic."- Once Upon a Time

Universe's Thoughts Creating Multiverses like Infinite Strings Being Pulled in Varying Directions

Multiverses. Universes. String Theory. Quantum Physics.

One aspect to each of these is their infinite nature- although there are new theories arising which claim there might be a lack of infiniteness due to energy not being able to be created, thus it is either continually spread out, or there is some sort of reaction to whatever it is on the outskirts of an expanding universe.

I suppose I'm jumping the gun a bit, aren't I? Let's explain some of the basic concepts.

The Big Bang is one of the most logical explanations of our beginning(s), both with respect to religions and even without them. The premise is this- if there is such a thing as gravitational attraction, the universes (which compose multiverses) must have a center. If so, would everything not be pulled into this center, gradually, repetitiously, cyclically? This is the primary idea behind the Big Bang. Everything comes together at this center, then becomes so extremely dense (as it would be continually collapsing to a finite point, smaller and smaller each instant), it would have to reverse. Thus, there would be a "bang" of some sorts, and all of the mass and matter and energy of the universe would expand outward.

There are two possibilities. One, the motion of the universe is cyclical. It expands, attraction causes it to slow, there's a reversal and it collapses. Therefore, the universe would collapse, and expand infinitely. Time, as a result, becomes unbound. Continually repetitious, a perfect system. Now, this requires that the universe is expanding (which is certainly true, we can observe it happening) at a rate which is slow enough to have the acceleration reduce the velocity rather than increase it (which we have not yet been able to prove). Essentially... What could happen is the universe expands at a rate which slowly decreases  (due to the opposite gravitational attraction pulling it back to the center), and it decreases at such a rate that the velocity will sooner or later become 0, then reverse direction.

The second possibility is the rate at which the universe is expanding and the acceleration with which the velocity is increasing exceeds the rate of gravitational attraction, so the gravitational pull gradually reduces, and reduces. Just to illustrate this idea, it's the same concept as shooting a bullet out into space. Most bullets accelerate, the law of attraction affects the acceleration, the velocity slowly decreases, and the bullet returns to earth. However, if something is tossed out with a quick enough velocity and acceleration, it goes beyond the grasp of gravitational attraction (it still slows, of course, but the rate at which it increases exceeds the rate at which gravity causes it to decrease), thus it would leave the orbit of the earth and slowly, but surely, lessen the affect of the gravitational pull. The gravity and attraction will always be there, of course, regardless of how far away it travels, but the rate decreases, and the bullet has the potential to travel forever (at least until acted upon by another field).

With regards to something large scale, such as the entire mass and energy of the universe, it is either expanding at a rate so quickly that the gravitational rate will forever decrease, or it is expanding at a rate which will cause the gravitational rate to increase. If it increases, the universe will subsequentially collapse. If it decreases, it shall extend forever infinitely in every direction imaginable. Either is entirely possible, and measurable.

Now, what would both of these imply?

Well, the universe is expanding regardless of which is true, therefore, new universes are continually and always created. Each moment we sit here, a new universe is being created. Thus, each new universe combines to form something known as a multiverse. Multiple universes which potentially exist on various planes reaching outward toward infinity. Some could exist directly next to us, separated only by a thin plane we have yet to learn about. In fact, an infinite number of universes (after-all, the universe may have been expanding for an infinite amount of time) may exist in parallel, tangent, and across one another! It is also probable that if the universe is always collapsing and expanding, several universes have been created on top of one another, infinite amounts of times. Therefore, one might be able to cross some sort of time plane and enter into a new universe.

These combinations of universes which create infinity, either cyclically or expanding, both compose what is known as the multiverse, multiple universes existing together.

Each new universe would therefore have varying scientific theories and principles, different amounts of gravity, a divergent balance of chemicals which create how thought patterns function, an entirely unique amount of energy (unless energy was somehow dispersed evenly), different ways of connecting with these energies due to divergent chemicals, gravitational affects, amounts of mass and matter, a different balance of local stars and moons, varying water levels, etc..

So, what creates these balances?

Something which must travel quicker, or on par, with the speed of light. Momentum, perhaps. However, a momentum of what? What is one of the only things which increases in the multiverse?

Thoughts.

This is a part of quantum physics. How fast does a thought travel? Could a thought enter several wormholes throughout the curvature of space, traveling quicker than the speed of light, reaching the outskirts of the universe and aiding in this snowball affect of new universes? It's more than a possibility.

String theory is the idea that there is a string known as existence the closer you look (if you zoom in closer than an atom) which composes all living things. What happens when we alter these fabrics to the string? Theoretically, there might be an infinite amount of strings, and each individual is able to go through and pull the strings in the locations which formfits to their existence composing, thoughts, religions, and "laws" which alter the fabric individualizing reality for them. Each individual, generation, country, star cluster, etc., has their own type of string patterns. Each composition is created by identical strings, they are just bent differently.

Each tug of the string, which is probably the resultant of a thought, creates a tangent universe, adding to the multiverse. Quantum physics has found that "thoughts are things," perhaps this is far more literal than most believe. Thoughts, beliefs, religions, heavens, wishes, desires, each of these combine to create a realm of infinite possibilities. Furthermore, quaints, or the physical matter our brains release, are solidified into matter and turned into reality through strings. So, theoretically, at an extremely finite level, even our thoughts are as real and concrete as this screen in front of you. For when you zoom in close enough, they are both composed of strings individualized for every instant.


How might one travel between these planes, these universes, and these newly crafted universes adding to the multiverse of infinity?

Dreams? Stories? Communication? Meditations?

Try to provide a better explanation for why heavy cocaine users, some being the most logical and sound minds in history, see little fairies and green men? Could they be entering and visualizing another fabric of reality the majority fail to perceive? Or why acid users find a spectrum of colors dancing through our planes of existence? Or why mushroom users claim they watch the world breathe? Or why LSD users see things that they never knew "existed?" Or why our dreams have entirely different physical and social laws (yet somehow still have certain types of physical and social laws)? Or why so many stories written by so many people who have never even read one another's work turn out so similar, even though they extend beyond the casual mundaneness of average existence? Or why so many individuals claim to have seen ghosts throughout history (a creature who may have just stepped across one plane and into the another)? Or why all of these claims are completely philosophically, scientifically, mathmatically and literarily possible, if not factual?


Might people's fear of what occurs when people cross these planes and enter new dimensions, universes, and dabble through the multiverse of infinity be why drugs are illegal? A nation, or several nations, seeking to restrict individual's freedoms merely because of their own fears? Might this be one of the principal reasons Einstein claimed his most powerful thoughts came at the moment where he just fell asleep, for he was exploring varying universes containing more knowledge than we could ever imagine, then performing some action to wake up immediately and write down whatever insight he attained?

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Intellectually Calculating Voluntarist Positions

Goodness, Will, and Divine

Free-will and goodness are two topics which transcend temporal existences. This is because people tend to, at least at one point, find difficulties distinguishing whether or not we have free-will, and if our actions (free or not) are good. Every generation of humans have struggled with this concept, debating between what is good, what is bad, what causes good, what causes bad, and whether or not the two exist at all. In regards to medieval philosophy, the two primary groups who debate back and forth between goodness and free-will are the intellectualists and the voluntarists, at least at their core. Both seek to figure out what and where goodness stems from, as well as where and how our goodness might be measured. Further, the two touch heavily on issues of will, which ties both into religious belief as well as an absurd logical debate. At the heart of their argument, voluntarists stand for the position that their minds, reason, and logic are volunteered to a God figure- that they receive two decisions, one from an omniscient creator, and a second from reason. Further, they believe that every decision is a choice between God’s desire and another, thus the Will becomes their primary factor for deciding whether or not an action, thought, or decision is good. Another stance promoted is from intellectualists, who think our goodness and badness is something to be reasoned through with rational thought and logic, regardless of its origins. There are specific philosophers who merely touch the outskirts of one side or the other, such as Alfarabi. However, his stance differs considerably in the respect that he claims people must strive to find God, and after they receive God, one receives Divine perfection. Before this, an individual, according to his view, must follow dogma or societal norms to behave well, utilizing their will to distinguish between these. His position does not, like most voluntarists, believe God's will is something innate nor something instilled from birth, nor does he support a two decision structure, nor does he support the idea that our goodness comes from will/reason alone. He instead believes any action which gets an individual closer to Divine perfection is virtuous, noble, and good. We will briefly touch on three philosophers to exemplify these stances: Thomas Aquinas, Bonnie Kent, and Alfarabi.

Thomas Aquinas, typically linked to intellectualists, follows the belief that good and bad actions are calculated through a series of logical and rational stages- that humans must think to behave good. Thomas seeks to answer two main things. First, where might an individual initially perceive goodness. Then second, where the source of this goodness stems from. He concludes “good and bad are found first in the outward act rather than in the act of the will.” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, Thomas claims goodness or badness is not determined by our will, but instead how the act affects the outside world. And further, we might perceive goodness and badness in a variety of places (including the will, reason, logic, action, and thought), but initially goodness is found through an outward act. Thomas seems to be stating our reason and intellect determines which actions might evoke good reactions. Rather than utilizing our will, Aquinas and the intellectualists seem to claim we rely on our intellect and reason. Thus, we make decisions based upon our intellect and reason which are utilized to find and apprehend the good. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the decision which is good or bad, but what the resultant action affects, which our intellect and reason logically devise, then find through reason. And finally, Thomas states because an “act of will relates as a form to the outward act… [the] formal comes later, for form comes to matter” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, an act creates a reaction, a reaction creates form (for "form comes later"), and form becomes matter, or actual substance. So, we reason (to sort through possibilities and apprehend the good), we act (which creates a reaction), the universe reacts (which creates form), and the form becomes the substance of reality.

Form here diverges from Plato’s ideal, for form is the natural laws and logical reactions of a unified body, whereas Plato’s ideal is a surrounding essence of ideas created by a God then transmitted to humans. Plato’s ideal requires a type of God figure, for an idea could not float in the ideal, the surrounding essence, without something, presumably a God, to first create it. Form does not necessarily require a God, for it is merely natural and scientific reactions. Therefore, according to the intellectualist position, goodness stems first from an action, then links to the reaction which is distinguished by form. So, all goodness comes as a result of this form, and is depicted first from the act.

Voluntarists, like Kent, find humans must believe to achieve good. There is merely a good act and a bad act, then we use our will to choose. If you don't follow the good act, you're bad. Yet, what is good? Whatever God wills. First, a voluntarist position requires belief. Second, it requires that humans are capable of making a type of decision, choosing to either follow the will of God, or to diverge from God’s path. Thus, whether or not a decision, action, or choice is good relies invariably on will. And if everything is good, and everything is from God, and God is all-knowing and all-powerful, everything must therefore be perfect, so long as one goes along with God's Divine will. Once you reach this Divine understanding, one realizes the Divine perfection- this is one transition between voluntarists, and someone who adopts several principles to both voluntarist and intellectualist philosophies, Alfarabi.

Alfarabi finds humans must spend their lives seeking this Divine perfection. In this respect, Alfarabi claims that individuals are to be types of "discoverers" (Alfarabi 64) on their journey to reach Divine perfection by means of a systematic approach through "deliberative faculty" (Alfarabi 64). Thus, an individual is to deliberate (presumably with their will) through a series of actions with the hopes of discovering the Divine. This differs from what voluntarists believe because the voluntarist position relies entirely on the premise good comes from the will. Alfarabi, however, seems to state that we are not born with Divine will, he states we must strive to find it- and after one reaches Divine perfection, they will be only good because they shall only be able to perform the perfection of the Divine. He claims our will and actions are good so far as in pursuit of "virtuous and noble things." (Alfarabi 61). Furthermore, good becomes established as either "generally accepted opinion [or] most noble to a particular religion" (Alfarabi 67). Thus, a good action comes as a result of our will performing a virtuous action either in regards to an individual dogma or generally accepted opinion, at least until the point of Divine perfection.

Therefore, intellectualists believe goodness is shown first through an outward act, and is established due to reactions which create form, but not necessarily from the will. Voluntarists believe goodness comes from the will, presumably God’s will. Alfarabi claims goodness is discovering the Divine through acts of the will which are good because they are virtuous in relation to an individual's religion.



My own belief is any act is good unless it negatively impacts another, and if so, there's a type of appropriation of goodness. With regards to our free-will, free-will only exists as illusion. This is because every decision we make is a resultant of our mind (IE what we think), which comes from what our brain is programmed to do. If one was put into the same situation and had their mind erased 100 times, the situation would be identical, for a different reaction would require a different brain. A decision is only a decision by illusion- our mind's way of convincing itself that we have the ability to make decisions. Everything is just our mind's programming responding, a mind which was crafted from our parents' minds responding, and their parents' minds responding to their parents. It's an endless cycle of neurological reactions reacting to and creating the reactions of the outside universe. Further, with regards to religion, I believe any religious argument regarding God and goodness is absurd. For God is allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, and if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, every action and will must have been known and created from this God figure (otherwise, God would not be all-knowing nor all-powerful). This means every action, will, and thought is from God. And furthermore, if God is all good, so is everything which comes from God. Otherwise, God would lack omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. Therefore, the moment God is included in a conversation regarding goodness, all actions, thoughts, and decisions must be good, otherwise God would not be omniscient, omnipotent, nor all good. So, without God, goodness becomes subjective. Thus, action is to be innately worked through based upon an individual's relative moral code (which results from their history which composes their religious views). Furthermore, every argument regarding good is of equal truth, for each belief in the religious sense becomes reality to a believer. 

My advice regarding good and morality- learn happiness.


A good technique is to ask yourself (before performing an action),
"Will it make me happy now?"
"Will it make me happy tomorrow?"
Will it make me happy a year from now?"
Will it make me happy fifty years from now?"

The more you answer yes to, and the stronger each yes is, the better the decision.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Lifestyles

A woman wakes up in the morning to a cup of coffee. It's 6:45am. She sits at her table, reads the paper, turns on the news, and slowly savors the decadent taste. At 8:30am, she drives to work. On her way to work, she stops at Starbucks, orders a latte (which is mostly espresso based, a finer grind of coffee making it slightly more strong), and works until 1pm. At 1pm, she drives to Chipotle (looking for a healthy, naturally raised, and eco-friendly meal). She orders her food (a burrito bowl with rice, black beans, pico de gayo, and avocado), and gets a beverage (a Diet Coke). She goes back to work, completes her day (leaving slightly later than normal) at 6pm. She goes home, and makes a meal for her family (pasta, bread, and a salad- a carbohydrate dense meal, but it balances well with the week plan). The family sits down, one child drinking milk, the other a Dr. Pepper, and the other a juice loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Her and her husband enjoy a glass of wine, paired nicely with the pasta meal. They watch two television programs. During the second program, she gets one more glass of wine. 11pm rolls around, and she and her family sleep. They wake up, and repeat the same schedule.

This is a modern citizen- a model for America. She supports the economy daily, contributing fairly to entertainment, the restaurant industry, the grocery industry, the alcohol industry, local farmers, and presumably a chain grocer.

She has been intoxicated from 6:45am until she fell asleep, only to withhold such intoxication until 6:45am, where she repeats the cycle.

A continual high- America.

A man wakes up at 5:00am and makes himself a large cup of coffee. After his cup is made, he commutes to work, an hour drive. His cup takes him around an hour and a half to finish, some of it cold by the time he takes his last few swigs. He's high as a kite, an average American. He works from 6:00am until 4:00pm (a fairly lengthy day, although he needs extra hours to make ends meet). His high begins to ware off at around 5:00pm. He's just arrived home. He smokes some medicinal marijuana, fully aware that the medicinal aspect is debatable at best. He makes a healthy dinner, him and his wife eat alone, watching a movie. At 9:45pm he finishes a bowl of marijuana, has a little dessert (chocolate cake, a rarity, indeed), and directly after goes to bed. His high lasts throughout his sleep (most claim it makes them sleep more soundly). He wakes up to a fresh cup of coffee.


A child wakes up for school. Her mother has her eat a bowl of Cheerios with banana slices (a serotonin based high, the same chemical which marijuana induces). She has a cup of orange juice with her meal. She goes to school. Lunch time rolls around and she buys a lunch from the school cafeteria. The school cafeteria gives them a choice between pizza or roast beef sandwiches, chips or a fruit salad, and a chocolate chip cookie or a small slice of cake. She heads to sports practice after school, running a few miles, a few sprints, and performs a few stretches. She drinks some Gatorade during breaks, a sugar dense drink, but good for electrolytes. She goes home at 5:00pm. Dinner is served at 6:30pm. She has a dessert of Oreo cookies and milk, then goes to bed. Her high begins just after she wakes up. Her high continues throughout the day, up until her little eyes shut and her mind floods itself with DMT (a drug which creates our dreams, although it's illegal).


A man wakes up. Puts on his business suit. Drinks a cup of tea. Heads to the business office. He decides to skip lunch and snorts a line of cocaine instead. Who needs coffee, he thinks. He gets off work, heads home, and his wife and kids are waiting for him at the dinner table. His high begins when he wakes up, and lasts until he shuts his eyes.

A farmer wakes up to a fresh glass of milk from one of the family cows. His daughter, eating next to him, tells her how happy she is to have a new cow at the farm. She swears it smiles at her. The family dog runs into the kitchen, joyfully licking her hand as she reaches to pet him. The farmer goes outside and does his runs, feeding the chickens, collecting their eggs, and making sure the horses have plenty of hay. One has a slight limp, he's waiting for the market to pick up so he can send it to the glue factory. He walks out to the fields and begins to make sure his laborers, all healthy Americans (he sadly reflects that he's being out-competed by other farmers because they utilize illegal immigrants) are working diligently. He walks over to the cow fields. He grabs his gun, knife kit, and hanging tools. He shoots the first cow through the head, hoping that it will kill it instantly. It rarely does. The cow falls onto the ground, slowly moving and making whimpering noises. He shoots a second bullet. The cow struggles to survive. A third bullet. The cow is at peace. He repeats this three times, hanging the cows after slitting their throats to drain them of blood. These will be cut up tomorrow, two days from now it will be someone's dinner. Lunch time, he thinks. He heads back to the family house, makes a sandwich and drinks a second glass of milk- heavy with protein, good for you. Came from one of the family cows, he thinks. It was squirted right out of the utter and into the bucket through my own hands. He heads back to the farm, grabs a couple of pigs, hangs them up, and one by one slits their throats. The first one squeals loudly, causing a chain reaction. He can barely hear himself think. He heads back to the house to tell his daughter the new cow is doing great.

A police officer wakes up at 9:00am. He showers while his coffee maker is creating his cup for the day. On his way to the station, he swings by a diner, getting a blueberry bagel with cream cheese. He gets to the station and fills out paperwork for the first half of his day. At lunch, he goes out, and gets a cheeseburger with a milkshake. On his way back to the station, he makes his rounds, arresting two drug users (one, a well known town drunk, and the other, a cocaine user). Both have a job, and miss their jobs because they are in jail. Later, they both get fired. On his way home, he grabs a bottle of wine for him and his new girlfriend. They have a couple of glasses, cuddling on the couch, talking about their days. She steps out and has a cigarette. She kisses him goodnight, and drives home. He eats some Reese's before falling asleep, only to wake up and get strung out once again, wondering over bacon if there will be any murders today.


An ex-addict goes to a drug meeting, he hasn't ate a thing, nor drank a thing all day. He's losing weight. He's not sleeping well. Sobriety is tough on him. The leader of the class, an elderly man, greets everyone at the door. The man has a cup of coffee in his hand. It's his third cup of coffee that day. Sobriety, he tells them, is the key to life, and boy does it feel great. The ex-addict, who was a recreational speed user, tells everyone he has been maintaining sobriety for one week. An arduous task, but it was court mandated so he must. He says he looks foreword to the point that sobriety will feel good. He heads to his night job. Only working a half-shift. He's exhausted. He tries to fall asleep after getting home. Yet, if he must quit all drugs, is he allowed to dream? Is he allowed to let his mind overflow with DMT? He lays in bed for four hours. It's been three days since he's slept. He wonders if he lied at his meeting when he said he's been sober. He hasn't ate in a week. Dread overflows him, his body gradually falls asleep.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Weak EDIT

Let's begin with a discussion which is central to existence- Power.

There are several ways in which to understand such a broad and expansive term. There is power as in super-normal abilities, a power which creates an individual into a superman, according to Nietzsche. There's the type of power people hold over other individuals- such as a professor's power over a student. There is the type of power which creates and crafts these dynamics, these structures, these abnormalities- Knowledge.


Yet, what is the extent to this? To any of these? What does Nietzsche mean, for example, when he declares an individual is able, and individuals have, become super-humans? It is this type of power I shall deem Abnormal Knowledge. What kind of power relations do students have with teachers, professors, police officers, government agencies, and other institutionalized (or mass) forms of knowledge? It is this type of power I shall deem Relative Power. What kind of insights are we able to devise, understand, and attain in order to create power in a type of snowball affect gaining momentum with each additional thought? It is this power I shall refer to as Knowledge.

By self-study, one attains abnormal knowledge.By group study, one attains relative power. By thinking on one's own, one develops knowledge. 

Abnormal Knowledge is the type of knowledge only few attain- a power someone gains which is rare, which diverges from the typical appropriation of power and intellect. The majority understands the power difference between a trash man, a police officer, a uniformed soldier, and a homeless man. However, these structural binaries are more relative than we realize. Even understanding the relativity of such power dynamics is a type of abnormal knowledge- for does the homeless man not have more power than any of us realize? Which types of power? Here, the majority of readers begin to question their own understanding and perception of power dynamics, of who holds what power over who and for what reasons. Your entire reality is challenged in this single sentence, if on thinks about it. This is your introduction to Abnormal Knowledge. The more you find, the more you gain; the more you gain, the more you become. However, this is only one example of this type of power, it is the lead up into Relative Power, and to understand relative power, you must first attain this intro to Abnormal Power. 

Dear reader, you have just learned Relativity.

Shall I explain it in greater detail, or allow the concept to develop in your mind? Let's let you ponder this. Does a bum hold more Power than I've realized? Religiously, for example? With respect to survival skills, to take it a different direction? Or what about with ways of perceiving reality? 

Just to show you a counter- a homeless man, a wanderer, owns nothing, has nothing, and needs nothing. They (he or she) wish only to be connected to God. They are the holiest of holy people. They do not hide in their houses, they do not falsely worship money, they do not watch 12 hours of television a week, staring at a screen like a false prophet. They travel around, speaking their messages directly from the form, the omnipotent, that which some call God.. They are the modern Friar, the modern Pardoner, on their holy and ever-lasting pilgrimage. Oh, the beauty of this paradox. I explain to you how a bum holds power, and now a significant proportion of their power comes from your understanding of it. Back and forth, a reality which is capable of flowing both ways. This is Relativity. 

The homeless man is powerless.
The homeless man is a paragon of Power.

Both equally true, both equally untrue. 

Does this inspire you to become homeless? Doubtful. Perhaps this is why they are given religious Power, a type of Abnormal Power which the majority of us do not quite understand. We would not, they will.

Abnormal Power comes from Abnormal Knowledge, both being limitless, expanding into imaginative and creative genius.


Have you found there are several groups of people who communicate telepathically? And if so, does this not mean we might speak to other species, as a result? Several authors have written of this, even auto-biographical accounts have been written explaining such a communicative possibility. Entire religions are based around this premise. You are limited by belief, and belief alone. Australian Aborigines, for example, have invited those to travel the desert with them, communicating almost solely from telepathic thought. This could be scientifically justified. Thoughts being things (the paramount theory to quantum physics), in fact, little particles known as quaints, are continually released from your mind. If your mind  realizes it might grab these particles from others, allowing them to electronically surge, one could easily read another's mind or speak to them through thoughts.

When you speak to another, for example, now I'm speaking verbally and not textually (although the point is the very same phenomenon occurs textually), have you never said a word you wouldn't normally have said? Have you not heard your partner say something which sounded like it was from you and not from them? Not to mention, when you are speaking for minutes and minutes and minutes, with a few people looking at you, do you think you're the one who thinks every single word through? Your mind covers the topics, the main areas, the figurative grammer, yet who creates the smoothness? It comes as a result of our quaints interacting.

Knowledge is power.

When another is speaking, what would occur if you repeated a word from Latin over and over and over, at different paces? What would happen if you found an iambic and rhythmic phrase and tapped your foot repeatedly while they were speaking? Or if you silent your mind, listening, hovering, and suddenly repeat each of their words backwards to trip them up, to cause their mind to revert for a moment, making their train of thought interrupted, effecting their physical speech? Would your thoughts affect their own?

Knowledge is power.




  

Learning from Aging Youth: Dickens and Bildungsroman


Throughout the trials and tribulations of life, individuals seek to find themselves; to find who they are, and to find who they are to become. This transformation, evolution, and development are central to the human condition- a development full of ambiguities, pressures, responsibilities, and plight. This universal progression from one stage to the next is replicated heavily in literature, typically in the form known as bildungsroman. One of the purposes of literature is to track these patterns with the hopes of learning from multiple perspectives, and finding ways human beings are able to relate to one another, both young to old and vice versa. Through what ways does Dickens utilize the Bildungsroman form to explain and understand a protagonist's transformation, or lack there-of? Throughout the bildungsroman tale Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, Pip remains a figurehead of character transformations, both socially as well as psychologically.
To begin, what exactly is this form known as a bildungsroman? A bildungsroman is a form of prose which tracks the progression of a protagonist from youth into adulthood. Through this process, there arise several complications the main character must overcome, both internally, as well as externally. Thus, the character is never the same at the end of the text as they were at the beginning of the text, otherwise, it would not be a bildungsroman. This form remains extremely popular because it is universal- every individual has transformed from a child into an adult, and through this transformation, has been forced to overcome several obstacles in order to attain this position. Through the analysis of a bildungsroman, one gains insight into not only how a character changes psychologically, socially, and even physically, but also regarding which characteristics and changes benefit an individual inside of specific societies, which change from generation to generation. Thus, one gains knowledge into the author’s mind, for protagonists almost invariably exhibit the changes an author believes to be beneficial inside of the society they remain.
Great Expectations begins with Pip's very first character transformation- his name. Pip initiates the text by giving the reader background regarding the historical relation of his family name, and how his name came to be adjusted. Initially, the reader is introduced with this concept to show that names will become central to a character’s identity, both explicitly and implicitly. This is shown by Dickens’ authorial decision to begin his very first paragraph with this discussion. Pip explains his name is a combination stemming from both his familial history and his own creative brevity, "My father's name being Pirrip, and my Christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip. So, I called myself Pip, and came to be called Pip." (Pg. 9). By beginning the text this way, in a broad sense, Dickens begins to emphasize the idea that his tales are about a child, a child who grows into his own self, who creates his own image, who becomes his own man. Obviously, Pip's tale begins with Pip as a young child, so young, in fact, he is incapable of pronouncing a name which was given to him. This foreshadows two things. Firstly, just like his name was forced, society will begin to push certain expectations onto Pip; he will be expected to be someone, to receive a title which is not necessarily and innately his own. As a result, symbolized through his altercation of his original name, Pip will form fit such expectations to suit his own nefarious purposes. Secondly, Dickens foreshadows the fact that at some point in the tale there shall be a clash of inner and outer identities, one presented and one expected. This proves to be an extremely powerful way to begin a novel. First, Dickens exemplifies this bildungsroman will take on its strictest form, a protagonist's growth from infancy to adulthood. Second, Dickens’ text relates to a very broad audience- Pip's struggle both overtly and metaphorically relate to something every individual is capable of relating to- titles. The brevaciousness of Pip's name also suggests he shall have a talent for taking large ideas, which intertwine to several areas (EG his name's relation to his father and Christian nomenclature), and collapsing them into something minute and powerful. The text, from the very first paragraph, provides proof that the protagonist transforms, from Pillip and Phillip to Pip.
Furthermore, Pip finds himself an adoptee, a conscientious authorial decision adding to Pip's earliest psychological plights and causing readerly empathy. Not only is this bildungsroman a tale of a youthful figure growing into adulthood, but it's one where the character must overcome rarities an average person might fail to otherwise relate to. Pip is taken away from his parents and is raised by a man named Joe- a figurehead for the "average Joe." Nearly from birth, Pip begins his earliest character transformations- both from his names as well as from his status as an orphan. He begins as Phillip, with parents connected to even his name, and transforms to an orphan named Pip, a name with only the remembrance of his family. Both of these elements combine to introduce the reader to this powerful form of a bildungsroman- two elements people are able to relate to, if nothing else. Technically, Pip's orphanhood and brevacious namesake is extremely rich with detail, both foreshadowing future changes, as well as showing changes from his past. This further exemplifies the bildungsroman's essence of continual transformative change, also from an early point in the novel.
Next, Dickens alters Pip’s identity once again. Pip becomes Mr. Pip. Biddy, probably his nearest friend, in addition to Joe, begin to give him a title of complete respect, one which he had not yet attained. To this, Pip responds, partially startled, and furthermore uncomfortable, “Not to mention your calling me Mr. Pip—which appears to me to be in bad taste, Biddy—What do you mean?” Although this statement was mid-argument between the two, it is also significant to the progression of Pip’s character throughout the narrative. Pip becomes completely detached, which Biddy seems to be claiming is a Mr., yet Pip is hesitant as to whether or not this title is something he wishes to have. There seem to be two vehicles seeking to drive Pip’s character throughout the text, one which prays for Pip to cling, and one which seeks for Pip to let go. Of course, this stems from his psychological state. Pip’s psychological reaction to his adoption, for example, pushes for him to let go, an underlying Hindu philosophy. Society in general, which seeks to Christianize him, seeks for him to cling to his past. The final progression seems to be Pip’s refusal to fall under either constraint, he instead becomes his own combination. For example, he refuses to get married, which is an extension of his refusal to become Christianized, and he also refuses to let go of his family. At the end of the text, he overcomes these obstacles. He is neither Mr. Pip, nor his child form of Pip, nor his infant form as Phillip, but instead, a grown man who exemplifies the power of not wanting. Therefore, Pip changes through, at the very least, four character types- furthermore exemplifying the role of protagonist transformation in the bildungsroman.
Through the study of psychological development stages one begins to understand the purpose for the bildungsroman form, humans, just like characters, tend to follow a very distinct path as they continue on in this living form. These stages, while they may be interrupted (which tends to cause psychological disorders), are parts to our lives where we are able to view another's individual changes and adapt appropriately. For this reason, if for nothing else, this bildungsroman form becomes extremely persuasive, enticing, and rhetorically powerful. A reader is able to develop through these stages with their characters, fix any type of disorders they have previously developed, and learn for their future. Now, the idea here being as an individual reads a book they go through these stages with the protagonist, and through these stages, they are able to recover from any psychological disadvantages they have attained in previously. As Martha Cliffe points out, “At the same time, the elements of each stage mature through each successive stage. This relationship suggests the possibility of developmental recovery at each stage” (Cliffe Pg. 7). What this means is recovery for past stages are possible through future stages. Furthermore, the inverse could be argued. Thus, as a result, an individual could theoretically recover from any stage so long as an author’s protagonist exemplifies even one development.  
To provide one with a short breakdown of developmental psychology, the essay shall focus on both Erikson and Piaget. Erikson’s development has eight stages whereas Piaget has five- both transitioning from infancy into old age. Neo-Eriksonian and Neo-Piagetian psychologists, or those who continue on with their approach to developmental psychology, have extended each to a more focused twenty-five stage system, composed of primary (or original stages), and sub-stages. Thus, the Neo-Piaget’s has five stages with five sub-stages for each. Piaget’s stages are typically displayed as follows- reflexive, sensorimotor, perioperational, abstract, and collective intelligence. Each of these are broken up into five sub-stages, known as coordination, hierarchization, systematization, multiplication, and integration.
The sub-stages are in order because first an individual coordinates a talent, desire, or reaction (that is creates the thought/reaction), then they place differences in a type of hierarchy system (that is arranging it in some cohesive list with a peak and a base), then they systemize (that is place each level of the hierarchy into a specific system, either expanding or compacting the hierarchy), then they multiply (that is apply it to various other subareas and other stages), then finally they integrate (which is putting such emotions, reactions, and talents into action rather than just cognizing through them, or integrating them into their life). Piaget’s stages which show a rapid transformation to Pip’s character, providing structure to the Bildungsroman, are the perioperational, sensorimotor, and the abstract. Some of the Eriksonian stages Pip exemplifies are hyper-participatory (social mutuality), and pre-participatory (socio-affectiveness). Also, when the term “fixation” occurs, it means there is a type of disequilibrium psychologically speaking, so to speak. The character becomes fixated and stuck on one side of what each stage develops. For example, the socio-affective stage logically develops trust and mistrust- so a character might become fixated on one or the other.
To begin, Joe, who is supposed to serve as Pip’s psychological buffer (a buffer is like a figurative psychological anchor meant to guide through example), exhibits a disequilibrium regarding his sensorimotor and perioperational development. This disequilibrium leads to his social awkwardness and an inferiority complex, most noticeably with his meeting with Mrs. Havisham.
 “It was quite in vain for me to endeavor to make him sensible that he ought to speak to Miss Havisham. The more I made faces and gestures to him to do it, the more confidential, argumentative, and polite, he persisted in being to Me.” (Dickens, Pg. 82).
Pip’s reaction to his buffer’s psychological fixation could go one of two ways. He could either follow along with Joe’s psychological disadvantage, or he could recognize them and improve his own through observation. Pip exhibits a complication with his abstract Neo-Piagetian stages, mostly as a result of Joe’s perioperational unbalance, but also due to his status as an orphan. Pip struggles with intimacy, identity, and isolationism. This is further shown through Pip’s seeming addiction to an unrequited love- by name, Stella. As Pip reflects on this romance, he gains insight to his own psychological problems, he states
“From Estella she looked at me, with a searching glance that seemed to pry into my heart and probe its wounds […] I saw in this that Estella was set to wreak Miss Havisham’s revenge on me, and that she was not to be given to me until she had gratified it for a term.“ (Dickens, Pg.228-229).
 However, this realization appears to be a turning state, for after this, Pip initiates his first progression away from his abstract multiplication deficiency, inacted partially as a result of his buffer. His final step away from this is his final talk of marriage to Biddy, where he claims not to need a wife, symbolically representing his growth into a healthy abstract stage. This is further exemplified with the final scene of the novel, with both Estella and Pip’s decision to remain “friends apart.” (Pg 358). Thus, Pip transforms away from a negative perioperational as well as abstract fixation, and becomes psychologically healthy. This, of course, further proves Pip’s change, as well as the bildungsroman’s inner link to developmental psychology.
Dickens also utilizes Pip to criticize and satirize institutionalization- mainly through the form of religious satire. As a result, this becomes a direct play on Pip’s neo-Eriksonian stage known as socio-affective stage, which plays into the substages known as trust vs. mistrust, as well as sociability vs. unsociability. Essentially, the transition develops Dickens’ critical response to institutions for slithering their way into the lives and business of, well, frankly, anything they controllable, and inversely, anyone who would not conform to their standards- hypocritically or not. One of the most heartfelt responses from Pip comes as a direct response to institutionalization, where he claims,
"As I passed the church, I felt (as I had felt during service in the morning a sublime compassion for the poor creatures who were destined to go there, Sunday after Sunday, all their lives through, and to lie obscurely at last among the low green mounds. I promised myself that I would do something for them one of these days [...]" (Dickens, Pg. 115).
One of the central ideas here being as a result of Pip’s experience with the institutionalized system, he develops a conflict in his socio-affective stage, which causes him to not only mistrust and dislike institutions, but also causes him to wish to aid those who find themselves trapped inside of them. Dickens, whose focus is institutions in general, here makes a subtle self-promise to aid those who do not wish to support such causes, the relatively obscure who meander somewhere week by week because it has become what is expected. Most do not attend because they wish to, nor because they enjoy, nor because it gives them a feeling of love and joy and graciousness, no, here Dickens shows it is mere habit, peer pressure, and institutionalized control. As a result of reflecting on this, Pip’s collective sociality stage becomes slightly disillusioned. He does not feel a desire to participate in any community groups, nor any collective meetings (like church). This development comes as a reaction to his socio-affective stage as a youth, where collective groups (and institutionalized structures) are unhelpful, promote negative reinforcement, and are hypocritical. For example, his experience at the school where his teacher was continually sleeping, the dinner with the members of the church who non-stop bashed him for ungratitude (quite hypocritically, of course), and each of these figures seeking to punish and criticize rather than offering support or positive reinforcement, all represent his socio-affective stage’s transformation which developed his collective sociality.
Pip's sister, "Mrs. Joe Gargery," replicates this strive to branch away from socially determined statuses, which exemplifies a fixation in her Neo-Piagetian stage known as abstract hierarchization. She essentially raises Joe, her husband, as well as Pip, her brother, through force. In this sense, she attempts to retain a position of power by any means necessary, regardless of her explicit and wild physical force against household males. This is perhaps socially abnormal, divergent from timely social expectations. Psychologically speaking, she does this as a result of her inability to cope with social mechanisms and hierarchy systems. She becomes a character who resorts to force in hopes of gaining, guiding, and separating from her social role. Instantaneously, this caste separation (or attempt, none-the-less), provide the reader with sympathy for Pip and Joe, while sub-sequentially undermining their "masculinity." Both figures resort to a type of "turn the other cheek" philosophy- a flee rather than fight system of neurological reactions. Mrs. Joe repeatedly draws forth a wishful longing to be separated from her status as a "blacksmiths wife." Her desire to escape from her socio-economic position, comparing herself to a slave, she states "'Perhaps if I weren't a blacksmith's wife, and (what's the same thing) a slave with her apron never off, I should have been to hear the Carols,' said Mrs. Joe." (Dickens, Pg. 23). Here, a heavy critique of society’s treatment of females in her socio-economic class is proposed. She becomes a family slave, one forced to the confinement of her house to wait, clean, and cook for the males. She is paid with housing and food, a house-mom and a slave, a fairly bitter metaphor. This establishes her incapability to accept social statuses, which show an early struggle with her development through abstract hierarchization. As a result of his sister's psychological complications, Pip picks up the same characteristics. However, due to the power structure of his home, Pip becomes the passive one (IE the one being hit) where his sister remains the aggressive one (Ie the one hitting). Regardless, he exemplifies the same problems coping with a hierarchy system, understanding and accepting socio-political classes, as well as finding a nurturing relationship. This stems, like his sister, from his abstract hierarchizational stage, plays forth and affects the majority of other stages through his abstract multiplication stage, and affects his actions as he seeks to integrate such emotions and characteristics.
Even further than his sister, however, Pip’s trouble within these stages is debatably more extreme, mostly due to his adoption. His adoption caused him to realize there was a difference between his birth parents and the parents who raised him. Typically, this results in a type of denial, for coping with two different parents (one real, one unreal), is a complicated issue. He finds himself with these essentially unreal parents, and as a result, wishes to flee from their socio-economic class. Pip does in fact overcome this. Near the end of the text, as Pip returns to his home town, Pip begins to not only accept the hierarchy, but comes to fully love Joe as a father figure regardless of his birthright. This symbolizes and exemplifies one of the largest protagonist changes this Bildungsroman has- Pip's final acceptance of his birthright.
To carry forth with a further exploration of Erikson’s stages, individuals, due to their environment, parenting structure, and institutionalized influence, develop differently during each stage. When an individual develops any kind of character flaw, so to speak, it can be paralleled to one stage. Just to make an aside, this also relates to any psychological disorder, even those which are instilled before birth. These psychological disorders are first brought out and externalized as a result of an individual’s reaction to one stage. So, if one might find which stage, or happen to stumble upon this stage in a text, they will be able to overcome such disorders. One example of Pip’s largest complication comes from his very first development, which is typically from infancy to birth. Here, a child’s dependency and independence is developed. If a child develops a fixation during this period, they will later be either distrustful or overly trusting. Pip exemplifies one who from early on has dependency issues, but later overcomes such problems becoming a trusting individual. The significance of this, of course, is Pip’s progression in and out of this stage which is instilled from infancy, then developed throughout life. Two examples to prove this are Pip’s inability to trust his lover, Estella, and his later relationship to Biddy. Relationships, because they are so central to an individual’s heart and soul, become an extremely powerful way to understand one’s psyche. This first stage thus continues to develop up into the sixth stage.
The psychosocial stage six is typically viewed during early adulthood, when children begin exploring with relationships. This stage becomes vital to their development of commitment and trust, intimacy and isolation, depression and joy. Now, this stage is not necessarily when a character begins to find romances. It could also be when they begin to make friends with the inverse sex. Pip does not ever have any friends who are female, up until Biddy. This becomes exceptionally interesting psychologically because Biddy, being his first female connection outside of his family, is also his first true friend. Prior to his relationship with Biddy, Pip wishes to be with Estella, who is unnurturing, distrustful, and lacks any type of positive emotions toward Pip. Yet, Pip wishes to stay with her, but for what reason(s)? It comes partially as a result of his relationship with Mrs. Joe.
Mrs. Joe, his sister, who is his earliest female relationship, is abusive, cold, and unfriendly. Estella, too, is abusive, cold, and unfriendly. Psychologically speaking these characters fit a perfectly logical system- Pip first interacts with his sister, which causes him to find his first romance, Estella. His second interaction is with Biddy, which causes him to find a lasting relationship to Biddy- probably as a result of her being the only female figure who has ever given him any type of positive reinforcement what-so-ever. Thus, another psychological transformation is shown with Pip.
One example of Pip’s character progressing through a stage healthily is his development through Erikson’s seventh stage. The seventh stage of psychosocial development comes during adulthood, mostly as a result of career decisions. During this stage, one’s feeling of worth, productivity, and social roles arise. Those who are not positively reinforced during this stage begin to doubt their contribution to society at large, as well as their own feeling of worth internally. Pip seems to be fairly strong during this stage, mostly due to his positive reinforcement of gaining money and making it into a socio-economic class which is above his birth level. Pip is able to communicate well with others, even those older than him. He’s able to contribute to society, for example, by his attempt to get his roommate a stronger position in society.
It is worth noting what is stated by Gerald Young in his New Ideas in Psychology, particularly when viewing these psychological stages in terms of a bildungsroman. Young states
“The stages are no magical transformations that suddenly bring more advanced thinking across all areas of cognition once they appear, nor are they divorced from environmental influences and constraints. Nevertheless, they are valid inferences from the pattern of observations and empirical studies of children’s thinking and thinking across the lifespan.” (Pg. 5).
This idea is fairly central to understanding the psyches of characters, and the role of psychological changes characters exhibit. Pip, for example, develops complications in several of the stages, but overcomes them throughout the progression of the text. However, it is not instant. It is not some transformation where Pip has problems on Pg. 222, which he overcomes completely on Pg. 223. It is a smooth and on-going transformation of character growth. The bildungsroman is of course a tale regarding a youth becoming an adult. And, through the process, overcoming several obstacles, both internally and externally, to land in a position of psychological comfort. A few ideas here must be arisen. Firstly, what this type of text does to a reader. As a result of narration, the reader becomes intertwined with the psyche of the narrator. The reader not only progresses through the action of the tale with the narrator, but also through these psychological stages. So, read carefully! Otherwise, you may find yourself a bad psychologist who develops psychological trauma rather than restoring balance and equilibrium. Of course, the power and significance of such depends invariably on how seriously a reader immerses themselves into the artform.
Furthermore, books become types of portals in and out of psychological states, and although most jump back and forth, they do not necessarily realize this. Thus, if you read a book, for example, Great Expectations, in which the author and characters have psychological issues regarding social statuses, cross sexual interaction, trust issues, abuse issues, and abandonment issues, it is more than likely your own psyche gets reformed in those directions. However, through reflection, one is able to move beyond such complications, strengthening their psyche like a muscle which was torn at the gym. Furthermore, this fine line between genius and insanity, one which tampers back and forth between psychological playing fields, is what people develop an interest for. Those who are “normal” are able to temporarily cross their own boundaries, explore another’s intellectual and imaginative faculty, and may momentarily tap into their own genius through a reaction of the author’s.
To conclude, and to take a step away from Dickens and his texts, this bildungsroman form becomes central to psychological development and improvement. A text becomes an alternate type of prescription. We go through psychological stages, and get caught up on problems as a result of stories that occur. When we read a text, we also go through those stories both imaginatively, as well as psychologically. And, as a result, we are able to gain the same advantages a character attains. Also, an individual gains psychological strength from progressing beyond what they have read into the text. Even the words themselves, prescription and prescribe, etymologically stem from the Latin word scriptor, which means to write- clearly prescripting and scribing have a more interlinked relationship than most realize. Texts, and Art in general, are better doctors than doctors, mostly because it is an individual’s own reaction. Furthermore, if humans actually begin to trust one another, we might even let them diagnose themselves. What an idea!
                                    Only the great overcome expectations
                                    Only the good become expectations
                                    Only the best make humor of them.