Maktub

A quick note:
Ignorance is bliss. Normally I would not agree with this saying. However, Oedipus would have benefited from not knowing his true nature. Also, my own ignorance of the play’s dramatic irony would have saved my endocrine system a lot of misery while reading this painfully ironic play. Despite my struggle for wanting to slap Oedipus in the face many times during the tragedy, this is my favorite piece of literature we have read all year.

Sophocles was a master of his art. It broke my heart to find out that only seven of his alleged 120 plays survived for my eyes to read. Sophocles weaved an elegant tapestry of truth, light, sight, and destiny. What touched me most about Oedipus Rex was the dynamic struggle of a man against his fate. However, Mr. Coon, today you said that “fate is character.” And how can one escape that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is one word in Arabic that describes fate: maktub. Translated, maktub means, “It is written.” The word is commonly used in the contexts of chance and destiny. Applying this word to Oedipus’ story, I believe that both he and the gods wrote his fate. Now, I know you may be thinking, “Deepa…fate and free will are NOT compatible! They are like oil and water, dinosaurs and giant asteroids, Bush and any life form of reasonable intelligence!” How could Oedipus write his own fate, when presumably it was already written? Well, I’m not sure. However, sifting through this Theban play, I found that Sophocles incorporates both possibilities into this tale.
Here is my mystery to solve: Who is the culprit of Oedipus’s tragic destiny, free will or Fate?

Searching Stanford’s philosophy site, I found a quick dissection of the fate vs. free will debate. It states:
a.Fatalism is the thesis that human acts occur by necessity and hence are unfree. Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows infallibly the entire future, then no human act is free.

b.The theological fatalist argument just given creates a dilemma because many people have thought it important to maintain both (1) there is a deity who infallibly knows the entire future, and (2) human beings have free will in the strong sense usually called libertarian.

c.In order to accept 1, one needs to deny 2, and vise versa.

Oedipus encounters his fate “at a place where three roads meet.” I may be extrapolating a bit much here, but the paths could symbolize a crossroads of past, present, and future, or man, gods, and fate. (1303) Here he slays his father, later replacing him as king, and mating with his mother/wife.

First let us examine Oedipus’ opinion on fate vs. free will. Rex states, “But no man in the world can make the gods do more than the gods will.” (Scene 1: 63) From this sentence, I gained the sense that he believed in a preordained fate—yet, he tried desperately to escape his own. The tragedy is that Oedipus, in trying to escape his prophecy, actually fulfilled it. Maybe it was fate, a series of bad decisions, or the gods’ punishing Oedipus for trying to outwit divine will (by running away from Corinth).

Oedipus conversely believed that a man’s actions (free will) could change his fate. That is why Oedipus attempted to run away from his home-city of Corinth, consequently putting him on the path of Fate. Perhaps Oedipus’s tragic flaw is his Fate. What’s so painful about this tragedy is that so much of Oedipus’s fate seems out of his control. Yet his reckless actions, whether out of self defense, pride, or ignorance, lead to a horrible conclusion. In Shakespear’s plays the tragic hero often has a character flaw that iniates his downward spiral. However, Oedipus has the gods against him! So no matter how hard he tries to lead a good life, he will loose. But there is still that issue of free will. Did Oedipus have to hastily marry Jocasta? Did he have to kill the king out of self defense? Or is his fate his character?

After his dreadful realization and blinding, Oedipus speaks to his children about his fate. He says, “Apollo. He brought my sick, sick fate upon me. But the blinding hand was my own!” (éxodos: 112) Reading this line metamorphically, it says that the gods created his twisted fate but he himself formed it. Oedipus on his search for truth, shed light on his dark fate. Unable to cope with the pain of his reality, he blinded himself to ease his suffering. I agree with Choragos when he frankly tells Oedipus, “You were better dead than alive and blind.” (éxodos: 139)

Teiresias is a blind seer, gifted with second sight. The prophet reveals Oedipus’ future. But Teiresias warns the king by saying, “You weave you own doom.” (Scene 1: 162) How can the seer of fate itself, say that Oedipus is the crotchetier of his own destiny? I think Teiresias’ statement is a vital clue to this murder case of free will vs. fate. A prophet, a reader of destinies, is telling us that one can weave his own fate. So that means Oedipus’s free will is the culprit.

Jocasta shares Oedipus’ view of fate. When discussing Oedipus’ prophecy, she states, “Why should anyone in this world be afraid, since Fate rules us and nothing can be foreseen? A man should live only for the present day.” (Scene III: 65) However she differs from her husband because he believes that he can change his fate. Jocasta believes that Fate rules man and that nothing can be changed; only lived out. In this instance, Fate is the culprit.

So, here is what I can conclude after gathering and examining the evidence:
1) Man is flawed.

2) Therefore Teiresias (being the closest to the gods) has a better if not accurate understanding of Fate.

3) Oracles are charlatans!

a. The nature of oracles is that they are ambiguous, mysterious, and often misunderstood. I wonder if the oracle’s words were a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, where the prophecy “itself sets in motion events that conclude with the oracle’s own fulfillment.” (wiki) As the Stanford blurb stated, “…foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree.” If the prophecy was never told or heard, would it have come true?

4) While Teiresias tells Oedipus of the crimes he has already committed, he does prophesize one thing: that Oedipus will go “out of this land some day, with only night upon your [his] precious eyes.” (Scene 1: 204) If Oedipus had never heard this prophecy, would he have gouged his eyes out. He could have chosen a less painful end: death.

5) I am with Teiresias. We weave our own destiny. If our character is our fate, then we must learn to control what we can control and leave the rest to the gods.

6) I still don’t know who is guilty! Fate or free will? The mystery lives on another day…


Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (French, 1780-1867), Oedipus Solves the Riddle of the Sphinx, oil on canvas, 1808.

All this makes me wonder…am I in control or have the gods written my destiny?

Magic

Oedipus: Your infantile riddles! Your damned abracadabra!

SYLLABICATION: ab·ra·ca·dab·ra

NOUN: 1. A magical charm or incantation having the power to ward off disease or disaster. 2. Foolish or unintelligible talk.

ETYMOLOGY: Late Latin, magical formula.

WORD HISTORY: “Abracadabra,” says the magician, unaware that at one time the thing to do with the word was wear it, not say it. Abracadabra was a magic word, the letters of which were arranged in an inverted pyramid and worn as an amulet around the neck to protect the wearer against disease or trouble. One fewer letter appeared in each line of the pyramid, until only a remained to form the vertex of the triangle. As the letters disappeared, so supposedly did the disease or trouble. While magicians still use abracadabra in their performances, the word itself has acquired another sense, “foolish or unintelligible talk.”

It's Turtles All the Way Down!

The Turtle

by Pablo Neruda, as translated by Jodey Bateman

The turtle who
walked so long
and saw so much
with
his
ancient
eyes,
the turtle
who ate
olives
from the deepest
sea,
the turtle who swam
for seven centuries
and knew
seven
thousand
springtimes,
the turtle
hooded
against
the heat
and cold,
against
sunrays and waves,
the yellow
turtle
plated
with severe
amber
scales
and feet for catching prey,
the turtle
stopped
here
to sleep
and didn't know it.
So old
that he kept
getting harder,
he quit
loving the waves
and became rigid
like a clothing iron.
He closed
the eyes which
had defied
so much
sea, sky, time and earth,
and went to sleep
among the other
stones.

Ode to a Large Tuna in the Market

Among the market greens,
a bullet
from the ocean
depths,
a swimming
projectile,
I saw you,
dead.

All around you
were lettuces,
sea foam
of the earth,
carrots,
grapes,
but
of the ocean
truth,
of the unknown,
of the
unfathomable
shadow, the
depths
of the sea,
the abyss,
only you had survived,
a pitch-black, varnished
witness
to deepest night.

Only you, well-aimed
dark bullet
from the abyss,
mangled
at one tip,
but constantly
reborn,
at anchor in the current,
winged fins
windmilling
in the swift
flight
of
the
marine
shadow,
a mourning arrow,
dart of the sea,
olive, oily fish.
I saw you dead,
a deceased king
of my own ocean,
green
assault, silver
submarine fir,
seed
of seaquakes,
now
only dead remains,
yet
in all the market
yours
was the only
purposeful form
amid
the bewildering rout
of nature;
amid the fragile greens
you were
a solitary ship,
armed
among the vegetables
fin and prow black and oiled,
as if you were still
the vessel of the wind,
the one and only
pure
ocean
machine:
unflawed, navigating
the waters of death.

~Pablo Neruda

Okie Dokie Artichokie

Ode to the Artichoke by Pablo Neruda

The artichoke
of delicate heart
erect
in its battle-dress, builds
its minimal cupola;
keeps
stark
in its scallop of
scales.
Around it,
demoniac vegetables
bristle their thicknesses,
devise
tendrils and belfries,
the bulb's agitations;
while under the subsoil
the carrot
sleeps sound in its
rusty mustaches.
Runner and filaments
bleach in the vineyards,
whereon rise the vines.
The sedulous cabbage
arranges its petticoats;
oregano
sweetens a world;
and the artichoke
dulcetly there in a gardenplot,
armed for a skirmish,
goes proud
in its pomegranate
burnishes.
Till, on a day,
each by the other,
the artichoke moves
to its dream
of a market place
in the big willow
hoppers:
a battle formation.
Most warlike
of defilades-
with men
in the market stalls,
white shirts
in the soup-greens,
artichoke field marshals,
close-order conclaves,
commands, detonations,
and voices,
a crashing of crate staves.

And
Maria
come
down
with her hamper
to
make trial
of an artichoke:
she reflects, she examines,
she candles them up to the light like an egg,
never flinching;
she bargains,
she tumbles her prize
in a market bag
among shoes and a
cabbage head,
a bottle
of vinegar; is back
in her kitchen.
The artichoke drowns in a pot.

So you have it:
a vegetable, armed,
a profession
(call it an artichoke)
whose end
is millennial.
We taste of that
sweetness,
dismembering scale after scale.
We eat of a halcyon paste:
it is green at the artichoke heart.

Beneath the Crunchy Exoskeleton Lies the Heart of a Struggling Man: the True Story of a Man Battling his Id

Sigmund Freud the great Viennese psychologist changed modern psychology and thought with his theory of the id, ego, and super ego. First, a quick lesson:

1) Id: inner desire- the id is responsible for basic desires, infantile emotions, amoral and egocentric urges, and it is in constant struggle with the super-ego. The Id is divided into two portions: life and death. The life instincts are essential for a pleasurable life. While the death instincts are our unconscious desire to die, as to relieve us of earthly struggles. The id is expressed through art, anger, fiction, media, and mind-toying substances like alcohol and drugs.

2) ego: the I-the ego’s task is to mediate between the id and the super-ego. It forms a set of morals, a reality, and drives that satisfy the id and super ego. It must balance inner desires and the external world.

3) super-ego: the conscience- the super ego is the internalization of the father-figure and the regulations of society. It is in conflict with the often amoral, unrealistic desires of the id. The super ego maintains our sense of morality and makes sure that our behaviors is in-line with society.

In Franz Kafka’s novella Metamorphosis, the clear struggle between Gregor Samsa’s id, ego, and superego are displayed through the dream-like experience. Freud’s approach to understanding the three layers of the mind was through dream-analysis. Kafka, sets the stage for Freudian examination through his fantastical transformation of Gregor into an insect. Through this metamorphosis the inner layers of Gregor’s mind and the Samsa’s family dynamics are exposed.

Oedipal Complex?
The struggle for authority between Gregor and his father may be an extension of the Oedipal Complex that Freud believed in. Gregor’s father is in great debt and is out of work. Gregor is the bread winner and is forced to work in order to support his family. However with the transformation and deterioration of Gregor, his father reassumes his position as the authority head of the Samsa family. Father Samsa represents the super-ego, the father figure and the regulations of society. Just as Gregor’s office manager, the father embodies the pressure of society on an individual to make money, work, and survive for the sake of others. Gregor slaved away for years like a drone ant in order to help the ‘colony’ of his family. However, he was betrayed by his family (most importantly his father) when he overheard that a portion of Gregor’s earnings were not being used to pay off debt but were being saved for a rainy day! Gregor was filled with shame and grief after hearing this.

The fact that Gregor has a voice and conscience but cannot express himself in understandable terms, is a direct reflection of his id’s inner struggle. His voice is a murmured insect tongue; but his thoughts are clear. Gregor’s id is in constant struggle with his father and his super ego. Gregor must keep supplying the family with money at the expense of his happiness.
When reading this novella I felt strong feelings of compassion and admiration for Gregor. Despite the disgust, disrespect, and harm he received from his family members, Gregor was still considerate towards them. He spent hours trying to cover himself with a sheet in order to sheild his family from the site of him. Although he acted this way out of consideration, he ultimately saw himself in the same light that his parents and sister did. Especially after hearing his sister’s desire to get rid of Gregor, his self-image drastically deteriorated. Kafka said, ''The rotting apple in his back and the inflamed area around it, all covered with soft dust, already hardly troubled him. He thought of his family with tenderness and love. The decision that he must disappear was one that he held to even more strongly than his sister, if that were possible.” Soon, Gregor died. But throughout his struggle, pain, and alienation, Gregor remained loving and understanding of his family.

Finally, Gregor's id's balance between life and death instincts falters. Gregor sees death as his escape from his worldly situation. His unacknowledged desire to die, consumes him in his state of grief and shame. While his family continues living at the expense of their loyal son, brother, and worker.

Interesting observation: There are many aspects of this novella that are coupled in groups of three
There are three:
- family members of Gregor
- layers of the mind: id, ego, super-ego
- metamorphosis typically has three stages (caterpillar)
- story is in three parts
- the three Samsas write three letters
- doors to Gregor’s room
- lodgers

I apologize for the disjointedness of this blog entry. I really loved the story; however, writing about it was hard for me because there was so much to think about. I had trouble organizing my thoughts this time. I’ll make sure the next one is more logical and coherent.
(836)

We All Have an Inner Insect

First of all, I would like to say that everyone’s preconceived notions of insects should be reexamined. They are not something to be squished, shooed, or screamed at. These creatures are invaluable to the environment. They’re also ancient and wonderfully adapted! Take the praying mantis, which dates back to the time of the cockroach and dinosaurs, comes in 2,300 varieties, camouflages as a stick, leaf, or even a flower, and is a miniature assassin. Or the humble ant, who colonizes every place on our planet (except for the poles) and is the only creature to domesticate animals other than humans! Insects can be gross, annoying, scary, or invasive. But then again, so can people. Simply because there are few bad apples with worms in them, does not mean that every insect is horrible, grotesque, or otherwise not worthy of living. Let’s give everyone a chance.


... to be continued

Orchid Mantis


Leaf Mantis: