It is possible to find sanctuary in a modern world because the most basic form of sanctuary lies within oneself. Somewhere inside our cerebrum lies our personality, our imagination, our reward centers. There is a place that we create inside the mind that we create as a place of escape. As we are slipping away into sleep, we allow our minds to go blank, though still conscious, we allow dreams to overtake us. This internal mental escape is where we keep our sanity, our peace of mind. This explains the formation of mental illness. Those afflicted are simply unable to create their own mental sanctuary for which to escape from the daily stresses and pressures of the world. This in turn drives them crazy, as it would anyone. This mental sanctuary is our safe place inside our mind, the place our conscious runs to for rest unconsciously.
I would also like to address the idea that in a modern world, sanctuary is only for those with money. In a modern world we overlook basic sanctuaries that we could integrate into part of our daily lives (such as the inner sanctum, a quiet area at home, a relaxing environment anywhere, other places of refuge) and focus instead on a short term, long distance sanctuary. People dread monday and anticipate the weekend enthusiastically, but why? Because they are relieved of the stress from the week, which they keep compartmentalize throughout the week and release on the weekends. Many people consider the mountains a sanctuary, but consider the distance to the mountains from denver, the stress of getting caught in traffic, the price of snow gear and a lift ticket, wouldnt all of these factors be equally stressing if you didn't have the disposable income to facilitate such trips? Also, people take weeks off from work/school in order to go on vacations. The first thing that tends to come to mind at the mention of the word vacation is a perfect white sandy beach, resorts and exotic drinks all around. Of course, trips like this can be pretty pricy as well. It is our materialism, the way we have been born and raised in a society taught to do little but consume, that has defined this modern definition of sanctuary. Thus, it seems as though barely anyone will focus themselves internally, and instead seek these cost worthy places of refuge instead. Any way you look at it, finding sanctuary in a modern world is possible, so long as you provide it for yourself.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Crime and Punishment as it relates to my big question..
What are the potential conflicts when one person's reality is another's illusion?
The book's entire plot is centered around Raskolnikov's initial illusion, his Napoleonic drive that he later reveals to Sonya towards the end, which motivates him to kill Alyona and consequently resulting in the death of Lizaveta as well. Alyona is living in reality, in her very real life, that is abrubtly interrupted by Raskolnikov's illusionary motivations. Without much defense, both women instantly have their organized reality powerfully overtaken by Raskolnikov's forcive illusion.
Not only does Rodya posess the "superman" ideaology, he also has a very real, rational side to his character, which poses an interesting paradox within the novel. This dichotomy within the protagonist is elegant, that he can defend killing for the betterment of society, simultaneously finding no justification for committing such an act. Thus, another universal truth can be derived, when reality and illusion exist together, they are constantly in competition, and no tie between the two exists.
Finally, the reality of Raskolnikov's situation is highlighted by his dreams, His extremely real reality is mirrored by his desires, illusions in his dreaming, altered state of consciousness, which is in iteslf an illusion. The potential conflict is obvious, with such opposite, strong and competing ideas, it is no wonder that he it ultimately driven to confess.
Reality and illusion may coexist, though one ultimately prevails.
The book's entire plot is centered around Raskolnikov's initial illusion, his Napoleonic drive that he later reveals to Sonya towards the end, which motivates him to kill Alyona and consequently resulting in the death of Lizaveta as well. Alyona is living in reality, in her very real life, that is abrubtly interrupted by Raskolnikov's illusionary motivations. Without much defense, both women instantly have their organized reality powerfully overtaken by Raskolnikov's forcive illusion.
Not only does Rodya posess the "superman" ideaology, he also has a very real, rational side to his character, which poses an interesting paradox within the novel. This dichotomy within the protagonist is elegant, that he can defend killing for the betterment of society, simultaneously finding no justification for committing such an act. Thus, another universal truth can be derived, when reality and illusion exist together, they are constantly in competition, and no tie between the two exists.
Finally, the reality of Raskolnikov's situation is highlighted by his dreams, His extremely real reality is mirrored by his desires, illusions in his dreaming, altered state of consciousness, which is in iteslf an illusion. The potential conflict is obvious, with such opposite, strong and competing ideas, it is no wonder that he it ultimately driven to confess.
Reality and illusion may coexist, though one ultimately prevails.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Conflicting Realities, A Giant Illusion?
What are the potential conflicts when one person's reality is another person's illusion?
Spirituality is important to everyone at least to some degree. There are those who go above and beyond the definition of devotion, while others focus their importance on the matter to harnessing others' perceptions to render a lack of importance. That is, they care about not caring. So many texts have biblical allusions and potentially the guidance of a higher power, but at what point, to whatever extent you believe, do they draw the line in intervention? Does divine intervention remain omnipresent in one's real life, despite their belief that a higher power is an illusion?
In my summer reading choice,The Magus, by John Fowles the protagonist Nicholas is stuck living his own perceived reality in what he believes to be Conchis' illusion of a reality. The reader is left also caught in this same vulnerable state of assumed reality, until the end where all is questioned and Fowels puts down the pen leaving questions so immense that it is a wonder to find the book tangible anymore. The eloquence and subtle nature of the conflict between these two character's very real illusions and the diliberate nature of Fowle's ambiguity makes it too entirely possible that the novel itself is entirely an illusion applied to the reader's notion of reality.
Also, in Oedipus, his fate is decided for him by the prophecy. Although it seems that Oedipus does what he can to avoid fulfilling this prediction, he ends up failing in his attempt and killing his father anyway. If spirituality was not so highly valued in these times, if the words of prophecies were not viewed as truths, as realities, would Oedipus' doom have fulfilled itself anyway?
Prepare to question everything.
Happy Reading! :)
Spirituality is important to everyone at least to some degree. There are those who go above and beyond the definition of devotion, while others focus their importance on the matter to harnessing others' perceptions to render a lack of importance. That is, they care about not caring. So many texts have biblical allusions and potentially the guidance of a higher power, but at what point, to whatever extent you believe, do they draw the line in intervention? Does divine intervention remain omnipresent in one's real life, despite their belief that a higher power is an illusion?
In my summer reading choice,The Magus, by John Fowles the protagonist Nicholas is stuck living his own perceived reality in what he believes to be Conchis' illusion of a reality. The reader is left also caught in this same vulnerable state of assumed reality, until the end where all is questioned and Fowels puts down the pen leaving questions so immense that it is a wonder to find the book tangible anymore. The eloquence and subtle nature of the conflict between these two character's very real illusions and the diliberate nature of Fowle's ambiguity makes it too entirely possible that the novel itself is entirely an illusion applied to the reader's notion of reality.
Also, in Oedipus, his fate is decided for him by the prophecy. Although it seems that Oedipus does what he can to avoid fulfilling this prediction, he ends up failing in his attempt and killing his father anyway. If spirituality was not so highly valued in these times, if the words of prophecies were not viewed as truths, as realities, would Oedipus' doom have fulfilled itself anyway?
Prepare to question everything.
Happy Reading! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)