Skip to main content

Happiest war best (17 February 2009)

James, the sort of "hyper-adrenalized" state I associate with animal

passions(!), is something I associate with those who have experienced

the sort of brain development that follows a traumatizing/menancing

childhood. Love, empathy (the higher emotions!), I associate with

those whose course of brain development was determined by long

accompanying loving caregivers. I truly do believe that the

marvel of homo sapien sapiens is that their DNA hasn't trapped them

so that regardless of phylogenetic development, they remain

fundamentally, at the core, brutish (I understand that this isn't

quite what you're arguing). Instead, once freed from sadistic threats

(something I believe entirely possible), the homo sapien sapiens’ child

will become, for all intents and purposes, an entirely loving being.

I've read a lot (well, quite a bit) of the neuroscience (though it is
the work of Stanley Greenspan which ripples through my thoughts/
feelings right now), and, I feel sure, so have you. But it isn't all
this which convinces me: instead, it is my experience of people: I
have encountered those it cannot but seem misleading to attend to how
parts of them still draw them to be aggressive and such. I'm sure
your experience of people has lead you to different conclusions.

You know, what works on the battlefield is really something I'd have
to hear more about. I've heard various different generals argue
various different things. Moreover, I think a heck of a lot of
military officers like to imagine their troups as needing bravery more
than they do minds/self determination, to satisfy their own self-
assessment needs. Typical managerial (classist) think. Knowing/
suspecting this doesn't mean you're wrong, though. Also, not making a
connection between the field of sports and the battlefield might be
the right thing to do, but it certainly would go against the
(historical) grain.

Intellectualization as a defensive tack to ward of feelings of
abandonment, sounds interesting to me. I'm thinking that I associate
it mostly with early experiences of maternal emotional excess. What
is coming to mind is all the literature I've read where complaints
against unreason and for good reasoning (and the spartan life), go
hand-in-hand with tirades against (feminine--read: maternal) luxury
and indulgence.

Link: RealPsychohistory

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…