 |
MEDIA CENTER |
|
|
Teacher, leave them kids alone!
|
 |
|
The Golden Castle Monday morning, 6.30 a.m. and the soft, comforting lullaby of Manhattan's background noise is rudely interrupted by the jarring frenzy of TV advertising which explodes from my TV/Radio alarm clock. "And now, straight in at number 8, it's ANOTHER HOMEBOY with their brand new smash, 'YO BITCH, LETS HOOK UP!'" The bass frequency virtually explodes the TV as yet another young Rap artist hits the MTV airwaves. Pointing and throwing shapes like an air traffic controller, he's 17 years old with enough bitches to keep the Australian army happy for a month. Although desperate for another forty winks, the TV alarm clock successfully does its job and maneuvers me bolt upright after only 30 seconds! I stand still for a minute looking at my protruding belly and continue wondering if I really have managed to get out of bed? In all my twenty plus years as a Rock and Roll artist, I never thought I would see the day that I would willingly tear myself away from a warm futon at such an ungodly hour, especially to put myself through four hours of college mathematics. A quick, luring thought secretly tempts me to lie back down and surrender the morning, but the alien noises spewing from MTV make it impossible. The beat box continues singing the only tune it knows, BOOM BOOM BAP, BOOM BOOM BAP, and there are so many people talking at the same time I don't know who to listen to. The "Homies" are pointing and looking angry and the "bitches" are gyrating; there are mansions and flash cars and their trousers are hung so low that they all look like they've shit their pants. As the video reaches its climax, I realize that regardless of my scornful inner dialogue, I'm still watching the damn thing! Something about this young kid is clearly holding my attention. As a white, English male, you would think that I would have little in common with a 17-year-old African American rap artist from Detroit, but the truth is that I recognize the look on the kid's face--for it was once my own. He's Coca Cola, the new Mac Burger and Christmas advertising all in one! At forty one years and rising, I have to concede that I am probably too old to understand the priorities of the current youth movement and too beaten up by a mid life crisis to care. Like many who have gone before me, I was thrown out of the music business quite some time ago because I didn't make the Record Companies enough money. So here I am on the dying end of the cycle, and here's this 17-year-old kid who has just signed his first recording contract, bless him! We're like 1 p.m. and 11 p.m., me and this kid. It may seem like a huge distance clockwise, but it's actually really close if you look back; and now I've made the connection, I'm looking at him in the same way a Jewish father looks at his child who is wearing his first yarmulke or a Yankees fan watching his son play with his first miniature baseball bat! It's really beginning to dawn on me just how different everything is nowadays. I suppose to these young Rap artists, Duran Duran must seem like Bill Haley and The Comets and Led Zeppelin like Frank Sinatra. I find myself standing motionless in front of the TV, locked in a private dawning that I'm no longer a part of the music scene and never will be again. Back in the day, securing a recording contract with one of the major Record Companies allowed you a ticket into The Golden Castle. The Golden Castle was an imaginary world where you could live happily in a frozen state of adolescence. It was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Mary Poppins and The Wizard of Oz all rolled into one. The Keepers of the Golden Castle, or "Record Company Executives" as they like to be known, were expertly trained at manipulating children, rivaled only by the staff at Disneyland. They made sure that you were kept in a constant state of amusement so you wouldn't notice what was going on behind the scenes. No one wants to know that Mickey Mouse is actually an ex-shoplifter from Canada, and no one in The Golden Castle wants to admit that the entire music business is nothing more than financial Pedophilia. Managers, Lawyers, Executives, Accountants, Radio Stations, Marketers, Merchandisers . . . you name it--they were all in on it! You took it all in your stride inside the Golden Castle because you were more afraid of being rejected than admitting the seedy truth. Then, as time began to slip away and we weren't so young any more, the Keepers of the Golden Castle weren't so nice. First to go was the Radio Promotion budget, then the Video budget, then the Touring budget. Then, as the once warm welcome slid gradually into a state of indifference, it became more and more obvious that they perceived us "old dogs" as surplus to requirement. They were far more interested in the "new puppies" who were arriving at the Castle Gates for the first time, chauffeured by the same horse drawn carriages with bells and ribbons in which we rode once upon a time. No one tells you when you first enter the Golden Castle that one day, in the not so distant future, you must pack your bags and leave. Strangely, we all believed that we were special enough to avoid the chop, but as sure as eggs is eggs (Gabriel, Foxtrot), we were eventually asked to leave the Golden Castle and walk amongst the mortals. Too ashamed of our sad and humiliating rejection, we left quietly through the back door, never to return. We stood at the front gates bitterly watching the new arrivals, in the hope that we would be spotted by one of the staff, forgiven for our lack of CD sales and readmitted. There are legends in the Golden Castle who make so much money for the Keepers that they never get thrown out. Great Legendary names like The Stones, Aerosmith, or Rod Stewart, but in recent times, even they have had to re-negotiate their rent. Being a Legend doesn't guarantee you a life membership in the Golden Castle. Great talents such as Chaka Khan or Bob Dylan have all been turfed out . . . they just haven't realized it yet. I wonder what the keepers of the Golden Castle would say if Chaka Khan asked for a $1,000,000 video? I'm sure they would tell her she was out of her mind! Eminem, on the other hand, sports a $2,000,000 video without anyone batting an eyelid . . . at least for the present time. In Golden Castle terms, Eminem is actually just another Duran Duran, Boy George, The Bay City Rollers, MC Hammer, Gary Glitter, David Cassidy, and a stream of other artists who were once elevated to the rank of "Most Special." In the seventies, you simply couldn't imagine a time when the music business would ignore the likes of David Cassidy and right now it's hard to imagine Eminem in such a forgotten position. Mark my words, that day will come. Everyone is thrown out of the Golden Castle at some point. Even the brilliant Michael Jackson is in the process of being turfed out. He has tried everything to stop the rot, but his shelf life has long expired. They are dragging him towards the back door as we speak. It won't be long now. THE KEEPERS OF THE GOLDEN CASTLE The Keepers of the Golden Castle are traditionally permanent members. They do not have the same popularity concerns as the artists, for they have completely different rules. Even age doesn't affect the status of The Keepers of the Golden Castle. The rules for the Artists are really quite simple: so long as the Artists can contribute to the Keepers wages and help them to scale the corporate ladder, their position inside the Golden Castle is relatively safe. If the Artist fails to produce these basic requirements, they are rejected immediately with all friendships severed, all strings cut and no questions asked. "Dance or be rejected, young man," they said! So I was rejected! I was going through my e mails today and I came across a very interesting article that someone sent me. The article said: MASSIVE JOB CUTS AT WMG; ELEKTRA FOLDED INTO ATLANTIC Notice how it says "exiting their positions." This very polite, secret code-word actually means that they have been FIRED, SACKED, TOLD TO WALK, LET GO. Call it what you want, but it means they won't be getting paid any more. And to all of you who don't understand how the music business operates, this unprecedented event means the music business as we know it, is over. The Keepers Of The Golden Castle have abused and pillaged this once proud business to such an extent, that they are now having to fire themselves! And I remember those people, Danny Buch, Bonnie Slifkin, Bob Clark, etc., and my time with them in the Golden Castle. How I handed over all my power to them and gave them the ability to make or break my life. How I failed to make their grade and their inevitable rejection of me when I didn't sell a million records. I remember, I really do. I have long since stopped scrounging around the gates of the Golden Castle, looking for scraps and pieces of someone else's good fortune. I left the frightened beggars and those unfortunates who are sick with desperation behind. Around 1999, I packed up my tent and walked away from the shantytown of lost souls that has grown around the perimeter of the Golden Castle. I was done with begging. I turned my back and walked terrified into the void, headlong into the unknown canyons of my own life. Without guarantees, I shuffled through the dark forest, over the steep cliffs and across a deep river to a distant land. It was far enough away from my old life that I could clearly see my past mistakes. Joni Mitchell described it perfectly when she said, "You can't find your goodness cos you've lost your heart." Alone in this new land, a pioneer in my own life, I claimed a patch of turf because I saw it had my name on it. I started to build shapes with the rocks that I found even though I had no idea what the shapes would turn out to be. I couldn't rely on my mind for it had deceived me in the past, so I followed my heart and my intuition and I continued regardless. Five long years went by. I woke up today and realized I had built a Golden Castle. There are no beggars here, only friends. I swapped the begging for Fatherhood, Psychology, College, Horse riding, Picnics—and the music is better than ever. Today, as I sipped my morning cup of green tea, I couldn't help but look out over the horizon to watch The Keepers of the Golden Castle being evicted. "All things must pass" sang the late, great George Harrison and boy, was he correct! And from this beautiful Golden Tower that is truly my own, it seems absurd that I'm now looking down at this sad debris, to the shipwreck of those who stayed too long. © Francis Dunnery 2004
|
|
|
Editors Note: I have updated the Wounding and Healing of Men due to an extraordinary amount of e mails from women who seem very angry with me. I do need to say that although the great majority have come from women, I have also received a percentage from Men who are glad someone is finally telling THEIR story. I will attempt to clarify some of my points that I wrote on the original piece back in 2003 because obviously my writing wasn't clear enough. I have received more mail on this subject than any other articles on my web site including Celtic and Rangers! Before you read the original piece, please read the following for it may help you understand what I am saying. 01. This is absolutely NOT against Women. If I was talking about a Tiger I wouldn't need to bring up the subject of Rabbits. As I am talking about Men, I don't need to bring up the subject of Women. Most of the e mails from women contain sentences along the lines of "Yes, but women also have needs, women can also lift heavy things, women also want to have sex , women also want etc. etc. etc. I am talking about Men! This is one of the biggest problems that Men have. It is impossible for us to talk about OUR NEEDS without being immediately confronted and shot down by angry females. 02. I didn't make this up. A lot of women seem to think that this is my opinion based on my own experience. This is a UNIVERSAL FACT based on the works of brilliant minds such as Socrates, Plato, Rumi, Freud, Jung, both Greek and Roman Mythology. If you don't want to accept it please don't blame me, I'm merely the mouthpiece. 03. It is psychologically damaging for a Woman to lose her Femininity just as it is psychologically damaging for a man to lose his Masculinity. I am NOT implying that Male energy is better or more valid than Female energy. In fact, quite the opposite. I am saying that both Male and Female energy has an equally important role to play in human consciousness. 04. All men lie to keep the female passive. I am not saying that Women don't lie. I am not saying that it's good to tell lies. I am saying that All men lie. Women do not know the secret world of Men. (Yes, I understand that Women also have a secret world but we are talking about Men) 05. I don't need to lie to women because I am a self sufficient Male actualizing my life. If women refuse their affection to me I can survive perfectly well. This piece wasn't written for women. It was written so Men could begin to understand what they have sacrificed. I say one more time..........THIS IS NOT AGAINST WOMEN, IT IS FOR MEN. Thank you! The Wounding And Healing There is an "Internal warrior" that we as Men must discover and actualize if we are to be fulfilled in this life. Philosophers and psychologists refer to it as FIERCENESS, Inner Fire, Potency, The Masculine Principle or The Animus. It is the ache to leave the comfort of the nest and go forth into the challenges of life. A deep felt pioneering spirit. All men are Fierce. Do not mistake Fierceness for Male violence. Male violence is the product of a Man's reluctance or inability to express his Fierceness. When a man is not expressing his fierceness he becomes violently explosive, for he secretly knows he is betraying himself. Fierceness is a natural and healthy Male quality. It is the urge to go forth and conquer life. When a woman enters a relationship with a Man/boy she will most often (consciously or unconsciously) attempt to get the Man to give up his Fierceness. She knows how attractive it is to other women, for it was equally attractive to her. She may become possessive and protective of her man. She nurtures him to sleep so he feels comfortable. She offers him comfort and softness so he will stay. The Male responds and gives up on his goals. He has nothing to strive for, he feels comfortable, complacent, and protected in the arms of a soothing female. He is with his mother once more. By ALLOWING the Woman to choose his dress sense, wash his clothes, and generally subdue the Warrior Archetype in him, the man will swap the challenges of his life for the maternal protection he is receiving from his Woman. He will put down his sword because he believes he is under the protection of his Mother once again. He will give up his life. The Man seeks his Mother's softness in his wife or girlfriend, but her price is his Fierceness. Men HAND OVER their Fierceness in an attempt to guarantee a woman's nurturing. Instead of facing the challenges of their life these "boymen" CHOOSE to stay by their Mother's side. The Woman in turn protects him from the WOUNDING HE NEEDS in order to become a Man. Without this wounding (separation from his Mother), the Man psychologically remains a boy, no matter how old he is. With his Fierceness gone, his true identity lost, and his life abandoned, he is now reduced to a child at his Mother's side. He is terrified of upsetting his " Protector" for fear of her withdrawing affection for him. Once the Man has GIVEN his fierceness away, he then resents the woman for the power she has over him. He resents her in the same way that he resented his Mother and for the same reasons. With his fierceness gone, the Woman then constantly reminds him that he is weak and ineffective and he cannot fulfill her dreams. He is a disappointment to her. She uses this disappointment to keep him as a child. He has been demoted to the ranks of "idiot" or "fool" and the Masculine hobbies (competitive things such as Sport) in which he shows interest are ridiculed as stupid and shallow. He is hopeless and full of rage for he has failed HIMSELF. Animals The Human intellect has indeed come a long way in our brief time on the Earth but whether we care to admit it to ourselves or not, WE ARE STILL ANIMALS. The Male carnal instinct is no different from a Bull in a field of Cows. Women would withdraw their affection if a Man told the truth about his Natural Urges for it would shake the foundation of the Woman's emotional needs. The Man lies about his own biological animal-nature in order to keep his female counterpart (who is basically his mother in another body) happy. If he can keep her ignorant to what he really thinks, she will continue her role as his Mother and protector. The Story of Samson and Delilah explains the dynamics of this castration. Samson's source of strength was a secret. No one could take away his power (Fierceness) so they sent a woman to him. For the price of her affection, HE TOLD HER that the secret to his strength was in his hair. He fell asleep in her arms and she cut off his hair. She used his secret against him and he became blind. With his great strength now gone he was at her mercy. This mythic story symbolizes the power that the Feminine has over the Masculine. ALL MEN HAVE SECRETS AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. NO MAN SHOULD ALLOW HIMSELF TO BECOME WHOLLY POSSESSED BY A WOMAN. "For her merchandise he traded in his prize." Both Men and Woman have Male and Female energies. A Man's main energy is the Masculine and his Female or Feminine energy plays a secondary role. A Woman's main energy is her Feminine and her Male or Masculine energy plays a secondary role. Male energy, in general, is for the purpose of discovery and change (masculine). Female energy, in general, is for protecting what one already has (feminine). Since Women are becoming more Masculine in today's society, they no longer use their feminine energy as their main energy. Therefore, Women's inner female is suffering because women are using their female in a secondary role. Many would argue that the gender roles are equal. It's true that a Man is capable of nurturing a child. But it is also true but that a man will never be able to do so in the same way as a woman, because SHE is naturally more intuitive and nurturing than HE. This is Nature's way. Nature means Natural. In exactly the same way, Men are more naturally suited to Masculine roles. By performing Masculine roles a Man has his energies properly placed. His primary energy is Masculine and his secondary energy is Feminine. In contrast, the modern-day western Woman's insistence on using her Masculinity as her main energy damages her Female and further degrades her sense of herself. By insisting on Masculine roles, she's telling herself that her Female energy is of no value in today's society unless it is used in a secondary role. When a man is two-thirds masculine and one-third feminine and a woman is two-thirds feminine and one-third masculine, it's no wonder we all feel good when we meet a partner, for they make us whole. Since Women have demoted their Female to a secondary role, what was once a partnership is now a competition. And so it goes on. © Francis Dunnery 2004
|
|
|
IN SUPPORT OF GENDER ROLES As Anglo-American society passes through another challenging phase of its brief history, it may be time for all of us to review the importance that traditional gender roles have played in the shaping of successful family life. "Although it is not necessary to be married in order to legally define a family" (Hurley 2005), history proves that it is largely within the boundaries of traditional marriage that modern family life has been able to prosper and grow. Indeed, this transitory period that we are currently experiencing may be due to the shifting roles that both men and women are being asked to participate in. While many of the traditional roles of men and women have become stagnant and unhealthy, it is important that in our haste to appear fair and balanced, we avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water and become a society of gender liberals. Whether we like it or not--men and women, males and females--call us what you will, but we are not the same. Men and women have definite differences in our physical make up, our psychological make up, and most definitely our spiritual make up. It is undeniable that much of our behavior regarding gender is learned behavior. Over the years many brilliant minds have successfully documented and researched particular areas of human psychology where society has influenced how we define ourselves. In contrast, it may also be a fact that the gender roles are far more natural and functional than we care to admit. It is always the so called 'liberal minded' in society who keep insisting men and women are the same without fully understanding the consequences of such actions. Having a baby boy and forcing him to play with dolls is probably not the answer. There are surely better ways for females to force males to understand them. Is it entirely nonsensical to suggest that a boy comes into the world with a different psychic structure than a girl? Why do Male animals act differently than Female Animals? Won't forcing boys to act like girls further complicate matters? Isn't our gender somewhat of a haven, a personality in which we can grow? Contrary to popular liberal belief, we aren't meant to "be everything" in physical terms, by eliminating many aspects of our consciousness, our gender roles and personalities although limited, offer us a shield to stop us from becoming overwhelmed by options. We simply are not meant to be every single thing we can be at the early stages of life. We have a growth pattern that nature has shaped over millions of years. We shouldn't be experiencing a mid-life crisis at 8 years old and as males we shouldn't be acting predominately female at the age of seven. Psychiatrist Carl Jung was adamant about the importance of each one of us expressing both male and female or anima and animus as it is now termed. Rather than limiting men's and women's roles to a political issue which it is not, he spoke in great detail of the complications of not expressing our whole selves. He spoke clearly about the importance of the role of anima and animus equally within men and women while simultaneously offering a realistic approach about the differences between men and women. Carl Jung was renowned for attempting to understand the issues or subjects that many of his peers avoided or conveniently ignored. While further developing the concept of the anima and animus he discovered the issue of cross dressing as a prime example of gender confusion. Cross dressing can be described as a deep urge usually within men to dress as a female. Jung's studies led him to discover that cross dressing was in reality an issue of the confusions of gender roles brought about by a confused relationship with the anima and animus. Jung states: Each boy has traits that society considers feminine. When a boy displays these traits, they meet with disapproval. The boy represses these feminine traits, which become the anima. The boy develops a normal male persona (mask), and enters the world. He goes to school and follows a career. The urge to actualize his repressed female potentials manifests itself in dreams and fantasy. At mid life, he experiences unhappiness due to the unrealistic and limiting nature of his masculine persona. At this time he may feel a strong, even overpowering interest in wearing women's clothes, or of being a woman in fantasy. This urge is natural and healthy: it is because his completeness as a person requires expressing the potentials he has repressed. Lacking societal cues that validate or guide his impulses, he experiences confusion. The world says cross dressing is wrong, but his "heart" says it is right. Guilt, shame, moral concerns, and his own overly idealized view of masculinity constrain his cross dressing. He also asks questions like, "Am I gay?" and "Should I change my sex?" The stage of confusion can last years and decades. The cross dresser may dress often, delve into the culture of cross dressing, or even take female hormones. Or he may remain highly closeted. But the hallmark of this phase is that he remains confused and highly ambivalent, uncertain how to proceed. (Jung 1933) Although Jung is stating that we have highly defined, learned gender roles, he also is careful to recognize the difference between the anima and the animus. He continues: The cross dresser gradually experiences his "inner female." As he does, he finds parts that are of fundamental importance, and realizes that these transcend labels of "male" or "female." He also learns to distinguish the positive, profound parts of the anima (spirituality, love, beauty, etc.) from the trivial (promiscuity, vanity, etc.). For a while the cross dresser experiences his male and female personalities as distinct. Eventually he allows parts of the female into his ordinary male personality. This stage gradually merges with the next. The inclusion of the female effects a change in the male personality, producing a new personality that is better than either alone. The female empowers and transforms the male. This stage is ongoing. The new self continues to grow--presumably in the direction of greater spirituality and service to others. It is consistent with the anima theory that the urge to cross dress may diminish during these later stages. The cross dresser now understands that it was not the clothing or being a woman that he sought--these merely symbolized the deeper aspects of his personality he sought to express. Once he experiences and expresses these aspects directly, female clothing itself has less meaning and importance. (Jung 1933) While equal rights in all areas of society must be extended to both men and women, it is not necessary to throw away our roles as men and women in order to do so. It is very important that we do not confuse equal rights with the anima and animus because both have an equally constructive role to play in society and life in general. In the past several thousand years, our close family relationships have been able to survive multi-dimensional hardships due to strongly defined gender roles and because the roles of men and women were so easily defined, there was less conflict when it came to duty and survival. When a man has a fixed role to play and a women has a fixed role to play, both partners have clearly defined roles which are naturally not in conflict with each other. Each partner possesses what lies unconscious in the other. Each partner naturally gravitated to what they could do the best. Women raised the children because they had breasts. Men did hard manual labor because they were mostly physically bigger and stronger than women. It was a matter of survival that these roles were first created and it seems a great mistake to attack all of their integrity at this stage of human development. These roles got us to where we are. Jung never doubted the validity of differences between men and women or the masculine and the feminine, on the contrary, he saw both masculine and feminine qualities as equal contributors to the sacred inner marriage. "Woman, with her very dissimilar psychology, is and always has been a source of information about things for which a man has no eyes. She can be his inspiration; her intuitive capacity, often superior to man's, can give him timely warning, and her feeling, always directed towards the personal, can show him ways which his own less personally accented feeling would never have discovered". (Jung 1938) At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I would say that there is something quite magical and honorable about two people needing each other and offering what the other lacks as a contribution to the relationship. With the divorce rate spiraling out of control we are in somewhat of a quandary when it comes to issues of marriage and family, for women seem to have devalued their own inherent feminine qualities. By insisting on masculine roles they are really saying that the feminine has no value. Instead of fighting to discover and uncover value for the feminine, they have embraced the masculine as the answer to their problems. Psychiatrist Liz Greene states, "Militant feminism does not help a woman to make a relationship with her own worth, it only strengthens her aggression and individuality. The roots of women's problems are not political and the solution lies ultimately within themselves". The rise of the feminist movement and its aspiration towards equal rights has brought with it an alarming amount of upheaval and confusion. It would be equally damaging if men threw away their masculine traits and started a life of sensitivity and understanding. Since the old model of relating hasn't yet died and the new model hasn't yet been formed, we find ourselves in a disturbing catch-22 situation. If we are going to be able to build families in the future in which our children can prosper, we are going to have to learn to relate to each other in a different way without throwing away what is natural to both men and women. It is not natural for a young male child to have an equal relationship with both his anima and animus if he is heterosexual. The journey of life for a heterosexual man (once he is of age) is the journey from masculine to feminine, from animus to anima, from male to female. This is true in reverse for women. Like most things in life, science is heavily slanted towards objective reality and pays little or no attention to the more subtle aspects of personality or human behavior. Sociologists and liberals seem to think that if we brainwash our children in the classrooms into believing they are equally masculine and feminine they will solve the problem. "Let the girls join the army and give the boys dolls." On the contrary, it would create a generation of confused individuals who have no sense of who they are. We need the ego, we need a role to play for it acts like a barrier. What we are not, is equally as important as what we are for the former defines the latter. I am a man because I know I'm not a woman and I feel safe and confident in the knowledge that my life path and development is being shaped by nature and not a bunch of liberal minded humans who seek to inflict their own problems with their own gender onto me. No amount of strong mothering can take the place of a real father regardless of what people would like to believe. Just look at the prison system. All those young men seeking their Father's discipline in an institution that tells them what to do, where to go and when to do it. The prison has become the father figure and they are experiencing relations with their Father. It is the only way they can experience a relationship with Father because their biological Father was never there. Alternatively, there are an equal amount of young men in prison seeking their mothers protection because they never learned how to be a man. They feel weak, ineffective, and unable to navigate their way through life, for they have no sense of masculinity. The prison system therefore becomes a safe, nurturing Mother who shields them from life. They have no responsibilities, no pressures. Everything is taken care of as they lay in the arms of society the mother, as old and stable as the country itself. As the glue of the past begins to melt away--religion, one-parent family shame, and other methods used to force people to stay together--we are forced to find new ways of relating to each other. If the current trends are to continue there would seem little point in getting married at all given that most of the evidence points to divorce. Yet, perhaps somewhere in our attempts at relating to the opposite polarity we can get a glimpse of what is possible, a small flicker of hope among the pain and the fighting that will keep us going to the end. In conclusion I would say that rather than being a hindrance to our development, gender roles are actually a blessing in disguise in that they allow us to become someone. Whether we like it or not the human condition has a deep-seated need to "be someone" in order to shut out the fact that philosophically speaking we are indeed everyone and everything. Gender roles are natural. They are nature's way of helping us come to terms with our vastness. Gender roles are filters. A puppy shouldn't be fully grown at 6 weeks old, a flower is not meant to bloom after only 3 days, and males and females should not be fully developed at 7 years old. Perhaps in our politically correct era we should be careful not to interfere too much with what nature has slowly developed over thousands of years? Perhaps we don't pay enough attention to the positive aspects of gender roles? Perhaps we fail to acknowledge the natural integrity of male and female roles? Perhaps the issues of feminism are best left to the feminists to discover the meaning of their own lives in private. © Francis Dunnery 2005 Works Cited 1. Jung, C. (1927). "Women in Europe" . Retrieved Jul. 01, 2005, from Jung: on the anima Web site: http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/jung/anima.htm. Parenthetical Within Text APA Citation Parenthetical Within Text APA Citation Parenthetical Within Text
|
|
|
Safe Passage After reading Mark Twain's classic, Huckleberry Finn, one cannot help but sit back in amazement at the labyrinth of potential meaning that this great novel possess. Never have I been so torn as to which direction I should take in my analysis and never have so many roads been available to me within one novel. As with all writers and creative artists, it is impossible to separate ourselves from our work, for each creation carries within it something unique about the life of the creator. Because of this I have always viewed novels, whether fact or fiction, as symbolic manifestations of the authors unconscious life. After reading Mark Twain's compressed biography I have no reason to doubt my initial conclusions, for Huckleberry Finn seems to be nothing more than a rich and elaborate biography of the author's unconscious life. I believe that Huckleberry Finn is nothing more than the author's inner fears, hopes, and dreams projected outward onto a page and secretly disguised as a novel. In many ways Huckleberry Finn is a secret cry for sanity from a sensitive man who found himself alive in the wrong era. Mark Twain was born Samual Langhorne Clemens in the town of Florida, Missouri in 1835. He spent most of his early life in an affluent family, which also owned slaves. This time of privilege in Twain's life came to an abrupt end for him at the age of four, when his father died, and times grew hard without his father's income. He worked as a printer when he left school, but then quit the printing business in order to pursue his real passion which was driving the great river boats up and down the Mississippi river. By the time the Civil War exploded across America, Clemens was forced to retire from the river boats with the Mississippi becoming closed to river traffic. Once again Clemens found himself forced out of sanctuary by the unfairness of life, first with his father's death and then with the closing of the Mississippi river. His father's early prosperity had offered safe passage until it came to an abrupt end and likewise, his life as a river boat Captain had offered the same. This is the main theme that runs throughout Clemen's life--the haven of safe passage and its inevitable destruction. The idea of a safe passage was something for which Clemens had always striven, as his fathers death and the resulting hardship taught him that nothing in life is secure. His pen name Mark Twain is actually derived from the river boat leadsman's signal "By the mark twain," which actually means that the water is deep enough for safe passage. It would seem that as the captain of the river boat, Clemens had somewhat control over the events on the ship and while he was aboard it, his life was in his own hands. Although many different characters came and went aboard his river boat, while the vessel was in the middle of the river it was safe from the insanity that constantly peered out from the banks of the Mississippi. This is much like the novel, where Huckleberry Finn and Jim quietly saunter down the river on their raft and all is safe and serene so long as they remain in the middle of the river on the water. As writer William Rosenheim eloquently states, "The pastoral quality of the freedom they enjoy on the river, living off plentiful catfish and wild berries, is offset, however, by the murderous brutality of a local feud they witness on land, the chicanery of two conmen they encounter (self-styled `the Duke and the Dauphin'), and by the constant threat Jim faces as a runaway slave with an automatic bounty on his head." (Rosenheim, 1996) In reality, there was never going to be a safe passage for Clemens because he lived in a time of moral confusion, where not even the most religious could be trusted. To the ordinary everyday people of that time, the brutality of slavery and the diabolical treatment of children were seen as necessary and "right." How could he find sanctuary in such a world? Clemens was extremely aware of the massive hypocrisy that permeated every pore of society, both in religious terms and also in the constant abuses of slaves and children. Author David Cozy highlights Clemens relentless attack on moral Christian religious values when he states, "The irony of these scenes lies, of course, in Huck's belief that by aiding Jim he is committing a despicable act. What makes this ironic is that Twain's readers will understand that he is, in fact, doing good. Indeed the irony is so broad that no reader of even minimal sophistication could miss it. What many readers have missed, though, is that Twain's irony has a target, and that the target is the same one he has been battering throughout the novel, the Christian religion." (Cozy, 2004) Clemens was a man who, much like Huckleberry Finn and Jim, constantly faced the darker side of life and in certain terms never actually managed to leave the river, for the river followed him home. Symbolically speaking, no matter how hard he tried to stay in the middle of the river, the boat seemed destined to drift to the riverbank, where each time he would face the ravages of hypocrisy and the brutality of life. Even after Huckleberry Finn became tremendously popular, Clemens still couldn't escape the riverbank. When his popularity was at its peak, Clemens built a beautiful house which was the envy of the neighborhood. Perhaps he tried one last time to go "by the mark twain," yet once again the cruel hand of fate played its part as Clemens suffered the death of a child and then the death of his beloved wife. He simply hit the river bank once again. I think the raft, on which both Finn and Jim drifted down the river, was a symbol for what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature," where both black man and child could meet in an arena and simply be alive without the brutal social identity, with which both Huckleberry Finn and Jim were forced to collaborate. In many ways they were both slaves to a society that refused to allow any personal freedom whatsoever beyond its twisted sense of puritan values. Writer Karen Sloan elaborates, "Although not a proponent of re-colonization, Frederick Douglass, whom Twain knew and respected, also decried the continued inequity of black Americans: 'He ("the colored man") has ceased to be the slave of an individual, but has in some sense become the slave of society. (Sloan 159-164) I think it is quite ironic that in these technological and serious times, we as Americans can read a book like Huckleberry Finn and think that the insanity has somehow gone away. We continue to drop bombs on foreign countries for financial gain under the same old puritan religious banners. We all sit back in this most elegant of asylums while our own government sends its own citizens off to war to die in the name of God. Maybe the raft that harbored Jim and Huckleberry Finn is still sailing on that river and we are all in some ways sitting nervous on that same raft. We are all looking for a safe passage through life, but just as Huckleberry Finn and Jim clearly demonstrated, it is not possible to remain constantly in the middle of the river. Unfortunately, the raft is fated to hit the riverbank. Let's just hope that the next time we hit land, we all manage to find our way back to the sanity of the raft and keep ourselves safely in the middle of the river, at least until the next time. © Francis Dunnery 2005
|
|
|
Walt Whitman Friend, give me but two minutes of your time. I'm in no mood to beat around the bush like some I could tell you about. I have just suffered my second attack of "The Walt Whitmans," and I'm absolutely furious. I don't care what all the intellectual types preach, I'm telling you right now, Walt Whitman is the luckiest bloke ever to suck on a pen. Yes folks, that's right, I'm out of the closet on this one, I absolutely hate Walt Whitman with a passion. To put it mildly, I think he's crap. I would rather have sex with a fish than suffer another Walt Whitman Valium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed that great writers are supposed to be great communicators. I thought the honored men of literature could magic their pen like the pied piper's flute, lead the masses to the river's edge and then educate them, challenge their mental boundaries, construct great highways to the inner worlds before drowning them in their own imagination. It could be argued by "the Whitman faithful" that I have no scholarly qualifications and therefore, "couldn't possibly hope to comprehend such deep and meaningful grammar." Admittedly, I'm definitely not the brightest light on the Christmas tree but I'm no idiot either. In fact, I can quite comfortably navigate my way across the mathematical oceans of quantum physics, I can read a musical score for a 40-piece orchestra, and even repair a TV set so long as it's British made. But try as I might, I'll be damned if I can understand a single sentence that drops out of Walt Whitman's mind. I had never read Walt Whitman before this class, but I was very excited about him. I had heard his name mentioned all over the place with the highest esteem, people were passionate about him. Since I have been attending Touro College, I have had the good fortune of being introduced to great writers like Hemingway, Edgar Allen Poe, Flannery O'Connor and Ralph Ellison, all of whom had me kidnapped by the third page. So when the "great" Walt Whitman said in the opening paragraph of "Preface to Leaves Of Grass," "Is not so impatient as has been supposed that the slough still sticks to opinions and manners and literature while the life which served its requirements has passed into the new life of the new forms . . . perceives that the corpse is slowly borne from the eating and sleeping rooms of the house . . . perceives that it waits a little while in the door . . . that it was fittest for its days . . . that its action has descended to the stalwart and well shaped heir who approaches . . . and that he shall be fittest for his days," you may imagine how disappointed I was at that particular moment of my life! Was this "the" Walt Whitman that everyone had been talking about? The great genius, the Master? This is preposterous. I mean, am I supposed to be blown away by that little tirade? Do people actually understand that dribble? I truly believe that ninety-nine percent of the population couldn't comprehend that paragraph even if you gave them twenty six hits of acid . . . and a dictionary . . . and a tutor . . . and a degree in literature. Anyone with an honest bone in their body would have to admit that Walt Whitman's "Preface to Leaves of Grass" as well as the actual poem "Leaves Of Grass" simply cannot be understood. He cannot and should not be hailed as a literary Master for he couldn't write his way out of a wrong. Walt Whitman is an utter twat! The real question should be, "How on earth has Walt managed to secure such a lofty name for himself within the halls of literature when no one can understand a word that he says"? Walt Whitman tricked his way into the history books and gave birth to a hundred million liars . . . spawned a generation of lying intellectuals pretending to understand his verse when in reality they didn't know what the hell he was talking about any more than I do.(Walt's style) Yep, old Walt was a classic Mercurial con man. He tricked the public and the literary world into believing he was a genius by writing his own flattering reviews under another name and associating himself with great minds like Ralph Waldo Emerson, another idealist who wrote about extremely difficult philosophical concepts and did a good job of explaining them. No one stopped to think whether it was good writing because they didn't want to admit they didn't know what he was talking about. Intent travels faster than a mosquito, and before you knew it, the legend of Walt Whitman was born--or should I say, "The plague of Walt Whitman was born"? During the course of my research for this paper, I was given an essay by the great D.H Lawrence who had also commented on Walt Whitman's work. Much to my absolute astonishment, Lawrence actually felt the same way as I did. "This awful Whitman, this post-mortem poet. This poet with the private soul leaking out of him all the time. All his privacy leaking out in a sort of dribble, oozing into the universe." Wow, maybe I wasn't the only guy on the planet who thought Whitman was hemorrhaging bullshit! Forgive me if I sound a tad mean but I tried, I really tried. I read it and then read it again and then just to make sure, I read it again and again. After each attempt I was left staring into space, confused, angry, and disappointed. I was blank. There were no revelations, no breakthroughs, no beauty, no shocking truths, no stories, no profound insights, nothing--just a massive bunch of meaningless word after word after word. Walt Whitman reduced me to an inadequate fool. If I cannot navigate my way through an essay, how on earth am I going to navigate my way through life? He reminded me of how small I am. He dethroned my academic confidence, he locked me out, he highlighted my second class upbringing, he left me on the step. Like some sort of vicious joke, Walt Whitman relives his punch line with each student who is forced to plod their way through his quagmire of words. "Go read Walt Whitman," they said. "Say hello to Uncle Walt." Quite Frankly, I'd have more fun trying to kill myself. To be absolutely fair to Whitman, D.H Lawrence also spoke highly of his work in a later paragraph when he said "Whitman was the first to smash the old moral conception that the soul of man was something superior and above the flesh." He continued, "Whitman was the first heroic seer to seize the soul by the scruff of the neck and plant her down among the potsherds. 'There,' he said to the soul, 'stay there! Stay in the dark limbs of Negroes. Stay in the body of the prostitute. Stay in the sick flesh of the syphilitic. Stay in the marsh where the calamus grows. Stay there, soul, where you belong.'" I really don't think that Walt Whitman actually wrote those words because I understand them very clearly. More likely this was D.H Lawrence's interpretation of his work. But if those sentiments are truly written by the man himself, then it's a crying shame that Walt Whitman's bloated intellect purposely hoarded the meaning of his work from the ordinary man. It is said that the one-ton granite door of his mausoleum remains permanently open at Whitman's request. "He said he wanted it that way so his soul could roam free," and his soul does indeed roam free. In the colleges and classrooms across this great nation . . . free to roam the insecurities of the students who struggle with his grammar . . . free to intellectually undermine generation after generation . . . free to infiltrate the African American communities struggling to gain academic confidence in a country that once enslaved them . . . free to overwhelm immigrants, children and adults alike . . . free to belittle the working class, ordinary men and women whose dedication this country was built on. Here "lies" Walt Whitman, He probably should have written gay porn novels. © Francis Dunnery 2005
|
|
|
Deciphering Walt Whitman Few American writers have been more acclaimed than Long Island's own Walt Whitman. Visit any school, library, or coffee shop throughout our great country and among the video games and pop culture magazines you will be sure to find an assortment of Whitman's works still standing toe to toe with literature's modernities. Walt Whitman's reputation certainly precedes him, for I cannot remember a time in my life when his name wasn't familiar to me. Even to an uneducated, English immigrant like myself, born and raised on the shores of Britain, Walt Whitman's name sat like buttered toast with the bacon and eggs, beside the names of Shakespeare and Louis Carol. Oddly enough, few had ever read any of those writers' works, but their names have always remained strangely familiar. It is with great irony that forty-two years later, Walt Whitman has suddenly reappeared in my life and become a part of my academic fate. No self-respecting American ever can avoid reading Walt Whitman, for Whitman is the staple diet of the USA, ingrained into the very fabric of American education. Yet, if one is graced with even the tiniest percentage of honesty, it doesn't take long to realize that Walt Whitman's writing is extremely difficult to comprehend. Indeed, when I finally read my first Walt Whitman poem, I discovered that it wasn't only a few scattered sentences that were difficult to grasp, on the contrary, there were actually whole pages that I could not understand even with a dictionary at hand. The further I navigated his words, the more distant his writing became. The construct of his sentences seem to contain no adhesive to lift the meaning up from the page and I finally reached a black-out when I realized that my eyes were simply passing over words. Whitman's work was so beyond my comprehension that I am now left wondering whether anyone ever truly understood him and whether or not the majority of students and professors in America still choose to remain secretly baffled. Although it's not the intention of this paper needlessly to attack Walt Whitman on a personal level, I would like to raise the issue that Walt Whitman's work is so vague and difficult to comprehend that it simply cannot be understood by the overwhelming majority of Americans and therefore doesn't belong in the halls of great literature. Like lower-ranked Jazz musicians bickering endlessly with one another about the technical aspects of musicianship while ignoring the simplicity of the melody, it seems that those who bestowed Walt Whitman with the title of Sacred Cow have ignored the fact that for most of us ordinary people, Walt Whitman has left the worm off the fish hook. In his observation of Whitman, writer Stephen Black said, "The poems are Homerically digressive, often seeming aimless to the point of incoherence." (Black 1998) Although I feel reinforced to find another writer agreeing with me, quoting Stephen Black perfectly highlights another problem when dealing with Whitman, for Stephen Black is a highly educated writer with a degree in literature and is therefore not representative of the everyday populace. After three weeks trying to find an acceptable manner with which to present an argument that academic America might accept, I decided to survey fifty students on the Touro College campus from across every divide you can imagine--race, religion, gender, age, and nationality. I simply requested that they read and decipher a short passage from a random section of Whitman's most famous poem, "Leaves of Grass" or "Preface to Leaves of Grass." After reading two or three random paragraphs, I asked each one of them if they understood the meaning behind the words. It came as no surprise that out of the fifty people surveyed, not one student said they understood Whitman's work and even more disturbing was the fact that five of the fifty people surveyed were professors at the college. One might argue that the survey tested only fifty people, but statistically speaking this would translate into almost everyone on the street once one had applied the statistical calculations for predictions. These were real people, the same people for which Whitman's supporters claimed he wrote. My sentiments are further echoed by Stephen Meats who accurately stated, "Whitman was disappointed also that his poetry did not reach the audience he had intended, the common working public." (Meats, 2003) Perhaps Whitman saw himself as a Robin Hood figure who would steal from the academic rich and give to the poor uneducated masses. The problem was that the poor uneducated masses could barely say the alphabet let alone comprehend the meaning of life through Whitman's eyes. It is my guess that Whitman's poetry didn't actually reach anyone beyond a few intellectuals. More than likely, his work has been allowed to exist with such stature simply because he eulogized Abraham Lincoln. Apart from being a writer, Whitman was also a classic Mercurial con man. He consciously tricked both the public and the literary world into believing he was a genius by writing his own flattering reviews under another name. He also used his distant association with great minds like Ralph Waldo Emerson, another idealist who wrote about extremely difficult philosophical concepts and did a good job of explaining them. No one stopped to think whether Whitman's work was quality writing because they didn't want to admit that they didn't know what he was talking about. As Ed Folsum accurately states: Even though Whitman claimed that the first edition sold out, the book in fact had very poor sales. He sent copies to a number of well-known writers (including John Greenleaf Whittier, who, legend has it, threw his copy in the fire), but only one responded, and that, fittingly, was Emerson. Whitman emblazoned one of the first "blurbs" in American publishing history: without asking Emerson's permission, he printed in gold on the spine of the book the opening words of Emerson's letter to him: "I greet you at the beginning of a great career," followed by Emerson's name. And, to generate publicity for the volume, he appended to the volume a group of reviews of the first edition-including three he wrote himself along with a few negative reviews-and called the gathering Leaves-Droppings. Whitman was a pioneer of the "any publicity is better than no publicity" strategy. At the back of the book, he printed Emerson's entire letter (again, without permission) and wrote a long public letter back-a kind of apologia for his poetry-addressing it to "Master." Although he would later downplay the influence of Emerson on his work, at this time, he later recalled, he had "Emerson-on-the-brain." (Folsum and Price 1997) No one questioned Whitman's work because no one questions the validity of someone who is close to the President or to supposedly revered writers such as Emerson, especially in the 1800s. In order to understand this concept, ask yourself how many people claim that Miles Davis is a genius without understanding why or without ever having listened to him. I believe the same applies to Walt Whitman. We have to be told by scholars that Whitman was a genius because, as everyday people, the meaning of his work avoids our comprehension. We can't decide for ourselves, so his work goes unchecked. In the course of my research and much to my absolute astonishment, even writers like the great DH Lawrence supported my claim. "This awful Whitman, this post-mortem poet. This poet with the private soul leaking out of him all the time. All his privacy leaking out in a sort of dribble, oozing into the universe." (Lawrence Chpt. 12) There is no denying that Walt Whitman certainly has his fans in very high places and because of his mythical importance among American culture his enemies have largely remained silent. Just as Malcome X or Martin Luther King became sacred cows for the African American culture, glorified, positive symbols regardless of other, less angelic aspects of their reality, Walt Whitman seems to have silenced his critics in exactly the same way in the literary world. He still remains largely unquestioned. I really tried to understand Whitman's work. I read it and then read it again. After each attempt I was left staring into space, confused, angry, and disappointed. I was blank. There were no revelations, no breakthroughs, no beauty, no shocking truths, no stories, no profound insights--nothing . . . just an ants' nest of meaningless words. Walt Whitman reduced me to an inadequate fool. If I cannot navigate my way through an essay, how on earth am I going to navigate my way through life? He reminded me of how small I am. He dethroned my academic confidence, he locked me out, he highlighted my second-class upbringing, he left me on the step. Like some sort of vicious joke, Walt Whitman relives his punch line with each student who is forced to plod through his quagmire of words. I've always believed that great writers are supposed to be great communicators. I thought the honored men of literature could magic their pen like the pied piper's flute, lead the masses to the river's edge and then educate them, challenge their mental boundaries, construct great highways to the inner worlds before drowning them in their own imagination. Walt Whitman doesn't do any of this. At best he is a copy of Emerson and at worst he is completely incomprehensible. In conclusion I truly believe that Walt Whitman's legacy is unmerited and his mind-numbing work should not be force fed to college students across America. It would seem fitting to finish my paper with a sample of Whitman's work so that one can decide for oneself. Maybe he is a genius and I'm just a fool. Maybe he will move you. Maybe I'm blind to great literature. Here is a short sample of "Preface to Leaves of Grass" which I believe accurately represents the complexity and the unfathomable jumble of his whole work: "Is not so impatient as has been supposed that the slough still sticks to opinions and manners and literature while the life which served its requirements has passed into the new life of the new forms . . . perceives that the corpse is slowly borne from the eating and sleeping rooms of the house . . . perceives that it waits a little while in the door . . . that it was fittest for its days . . . that its action has descended to the stalwart and well shaped heir who approaches . . . and that he shall be fittest for his days." (Whitman, p. 989) "Go read Walt Whitman," they said. "Say hello to Uncle Walt." If only I could! © Francis Dunnery 2005 Works Cited Black, Stephen A. "Leaves of Grass." Walt Whitman: An Encyclopedia. ed. 1998. ( this book has over 900 pages;did not indicate which page Meats, Stephen E. "Walt Whitman." The Literary Encyclopedia. 30 2004. 01 Jun. 2005 <http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=4702>. Folsum and Price Lawrence, D.H. Studies in classic American literature . New York: T. Seltzer, 1923. Whitman Walt Norton Anthology of American Literature Shorter sixth edition 2003
|
|
|
The Astrology Of Health "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." --Herbert Hoover " Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." --John F Kennedy "Mr. Gorbachev, tear that wall down!" --Ronald Reagan Each politician running for public office instinctually understands that in order to get elected they need to create a strong message that is simple enough and potent enough to pierce the thick, hard, outer shell of the mass consciousness. If they are constructed properly, these political "snippets" can works wonders on the childlike minds of entire populations. By inserting or manipulating the mass media, politicians can turn themselves into symbols of strength and responsibility, like a parent offering hope to the suffering children. Unfortunately, the real truth tellers are always left behind in a "haze of spin" while current slogans such as Arnold Schwartzenegger's "Don't be a girlie man" continue to shield the public from the complexities and disappointments of every day living. Sadly, the public face of Politics and the public face of Astrology share the same twisted fate. The daily, weekly, and monthly magazines drip-feed the mass populace doses of Astrology which is so far removed from the truth. It becomes nothing more than meaningless drivel. The public face of Astrology has become distorted to the point that it actually contains no valid reason for being. Abused by charlatans and religious maniacs for centuries, this once rich and elaborate art form has been reduced to a media freak show. Rather than offering any serious insights, newspaper Astrology offers nothing more than a valid reason to avoid it at all costs. "He's a Capricorn so he must be ambitious," or "He's a Taurus so he must be lazy,": these disturbingly simplistic attitudes towards Astrology will not help anyone to discover its true value any more than listening to the Spice Girls will give insight into the depth of Music! Although this essay is not an appropriate "stage" to defend the theories of Astrology, I do feel compelled at least to try to give it a meaningful presentation if nothing other than to counterbalance the years of prejudice it has suffered for the above mentioned reasons.. If we really want to have a serious look at the validity of astrology, then we have to dismiss any notions that we will satisfy our curiosity with a sound-bite mentality or catch phrase, it just isn't going to happen that way! I truly believe that "living" is such a profound concept that no one person can consciously know the entire knowledge of the universe. Yet, used in the correct manner, Astrology can offer us a glimpse into the secret workings of the psyche and the various psychological drives that are forever striving for expression. If you plant an apple seed in fertile soil and give it water, there is no doubt that the apple seed WILL grow into an apple tree. It's extremely important to note that this is not my opinion, it is a FACT. If the apple seed consistently grows into an apple tree then there has to be some form of intelligence, some inner blueprint that allows the apple seed to know what it is! If the apple seed did not contain this information then the apple seed would grow into different things like a rose bush or a pear tree. The FACT is that each time an apple seed has been planted, it has consistently grown into an apple tree. Biologists call it DNA, Religions call it the soul, I actually don't care what it is called; I just want to draw attention to its factual validity. The Hindus had a word for this phenomena: they called it Dharma. They said that when an apple seed grows into an apple tree it commits an act of truth and therefore fulfills its Dharma. The Grass is green, a Lion roars and a Fly buzzes. All of these are examples of the concept of Dharma. The Astrological mandala is a symbolic map and shows where the planets were located in the heavens in relationship to each other's respective location at the times of our births. In Astrology, the planets themselves are more than just physical bodies for they each represent or symbolize a psychological drive or an archetypal drive. Astrology views the psyche as a collection of archetypal, psychological energies that are each seeking expression. The moon symbolizes our emotional needs, Venus symbolizes our romantic values, Saturn our defenses and so forth. We all have emotions, we all have the ability to love, and we all have defenses, so the planets symbolize universal patterns. Continuing with the idea of the psyche as a collection of individual psychological drives, Shakespeare wrote that the whole world's a stage and all the men and women are merely players, and in a sense, the Astrological chart is a metaphor for your own individual play, complete with a stage set, cast of characters, and a story line which lies at the heart of your life journey. No person can be other than himself or herself and everything we do as individuals reflects in some way our character and individuality. The renowned Jungian Psychologist and psychological Astrologer Dr. Liz Greene, describes it perfectly when she says, "We are complex creatures made up of many facets, and all the different dimensions of the human psyche will seek, sooner or later, to find their place in the light of day and achieve expression in the outer world." I believe that all our psychological drives must be expressed in order to achieve homeostasis. Astrology can be a tremendous aid in uncovering what we each need to grow and flourish into our true potential. Astrology is a map of consciousness. I have witnessed the profound connection between the outer cosmos and the inner cosmos and although no one can claim to consciously know the secrets of the universe, I have seen enough in my time to suggest that Astrology is a profound tool and a vital aid in the health of any individual. © Francis Dunnery 2005
|
|
|
What Is This Thing We Call Love? In the opening paragraphs of Dr. Liz Greene's book The Inner Planet, she states, "We discover ourselves through reflecting upon what we love and find beautiful, because the object of desire is a hook for the projection of what is of greatest beauty and highest value within oneself. This is the most profound meaning of Venus--the beloved, be it person, object or intellectual ideal, as the mirror of one's own soul." During my fifteen years soaking up Jungian Psychology, the countless seminars I've attended at Regents Park College, London, the lectures from the Jungian institute in Switzerland or my frequent visits to the Jungian Center in New York City, I cannot help noticing that the most respected psychologists in this field rarely grant responsibility for the dynamics of love solely to our partners. On the contrary, the "Jungians" insist that rather than being our "Soul mates," our partners are simply "physical manifestations" of our own unconscious selves. Furthermore, rather than falling in love with an actual man or woman, it is often the darker aspects of our unconscious selves with which we end up falling in love. A man struggling with his internal emotional capacity will pick a woman to reflect his struggle. A woman fighting hard to find her potency will pick a man who also lacks potency or carries her own unconscious potency. I believe this to be the truth both from my experience and also from my respect and trust for those great minds who first discovered and explored these theories. So when asked such a profound question as, "What is real love or true love?" the answer is so incredibly overwhelming that I feel I cannot do it justice without perverting the classroom with inappropriate statements that do not reflect the real meaning behind the question. I am caught between trying to answer it honestly and boring everyone or giving an answer that I don't believe, just to pass my grade. I can truthfully say that I really don't know what Love is. I think somewhere between being born and now, I became hardened to romantic idealism and so find it extremely difficult to get excited about any new romantic encounter. I don't believe in the woman of my dreams because she doesn't exist anywhere other than my dreams. When I was younger I used to experience the most beautiful, intense feelings of infatuation for certain girls that I would date, a deep romantic ache that I've since discovered to be the glue on the Venus Fly Trap of "love at first sight." On the surface, our initial experiences with romanticism often leads us to believe that we are involved in something "other worldy" or "special," or that the emotional fever we are experiencing has permanently taken over our souls. But if you wait a little longer, you will soon discover that this thing we call Love wears off! If our partners truly are responsible for our feelings of love then surely it shouldn't wear off? I think a more honest and realistic answer is that we project our ideals of love onto those whom we deem fit to receive them, experience our own self love, and then when the projections begin to wear off we accuse them of being different. . . . "YOU'RE NOT THE PERSON I MET!" we scream . . . but the truth is, he or she never was the person we met, for that person doesn't exist outside of ourselves. Once we begin to see that our partners are actually normal human beings and not the fascinating creatures of our imagination and ideals, we are left feeling depleted and angry. This is the tragedy of romantic love. In his best selling book, The Road Less Traveled, the American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck stresses the importance of self love. "We are incapable of loving another unless we love ourselves. . . .We cannot be a source of strength unless we nurture our own strength. . . . Not only do self love and love of others go hand in hand but ultimately they are indistinguishable." This assignment asked that I speak to someone of the opposite sex and get her to write her views on love. Below is a short paragraph written by my friend, Annabelle. "To me love is being able to give of myself and offer support to another person. Loving because I want to. Not for some reward or validation. Hopefully the same ideal is reflected back. Love is not a contest. Love can also be an understanding between two people with the idea to respect one another for who they are as a person; it is not about going in and changing all their uniqueness. When you're in love with someone you have to allow for their personal growth as well as your own. I think through this process comes the evolution of a strong couple. I am in love with someone for who he is. I see in him qualities that I possess or would like to posses, so I love him and I love myself. Like looking in a mirror, I find him very attractive on many different levels." I think that Annabelle's ideas of love are far more idealistic than mine. On one hand you could say that she's not realistic and on the other hand you could say that I've lost the magic of life. The problem for me is that I have paid the price for the magic of life in the past and it was a pretty heavy price to pay. The magic of life cost me collectively 30 years of my life, two beautiful houses and an alarming amount of physical work, $150,000 in lawyers fees and emotional confrontations that made my life utterly miserable. It makes me laugh when people say to me, "You have to try again, you've been hurt, don't give up on love." Why would I run blindly into a fire that has never failed to burn the skin from my bones? Because of societal fabrications? Am I supposed to go along with "The Jerry Springer Show" because everyone else does? Is it not human to question the things that have caused us pain in the past? The love I have for the planet does not exact a price, the love I have for my daughters does not exact a price because both are based in universal truth. There are other expressions of love that are not caught up in societal trends and fantasy. I don't have to visit a lawyer to sit on a beach and feel "blown away" by a sunset. The love I have for my daughters doesn't wear off. Romantic love is merely a trick played by the God Eros to get us together. When Eros gets bored and decides to slip away into the night, we are left to spend the rest of our lives with other Gods while secretly hoping that Eros will one day return, hence love affairs and love triangles. When someone gets married I often ask their friends, "Would you bet me $10,000 that they will stay together more than 10 years." The reply is always the same: "Are you crazy? Maybe they won't last 10 years but you can't think like that." Sometimes we go running blindly up a ladder only to realize it's leaning against the wrong wall. © Francis Dunnery 2005 |