Curious Conscience

The human conscience is something that is very curious to me. The conscience is something that is so abstract and hard to understand, but plays such a huge role in the most influential decisions throughout our lives. The conscience makes us feel upset, proud, guilty, content, and pretty much has a role in every other emotion or state of mind. What is my conscience and why does it have such a loud voice?

This voice that comes from inside myself has been influenced by my experiences from birth to this very day. My parents have taught me what is right and wrong through punishment and praise, my culture has taught me what is acceptable by the images that surround my life, what I see on the TV, what I read, and those I choose to spend my time with. All these things are still teaching me what is acceptable and what is not, even if I don’t always feel as if I’m learning.

Each aspect of every individual’s life affects this conscience. Everyone has this conscience too. We may look at someone who commits a crime, a horrible crime such as murder or rape, how could some one do that how could their conscience allow them to commit such an act? This is where the conscience draws me in. Even if two people were to grow up in the same culture, or even have experiences as similar as growing up in the same family, no two consciences are the same. At least it would be downright difficult to prove that two consciences are the same.

For example we can look at how our conscience affects us in an intimate relationship. Over the years of childhood two brothers soak up this and that, their minds are being shaped and two consciences being formed and fed by what they see and more importantly how they interpret these images. These brothers grow up in the same house, have the same parents, go to the same schools, and live in the same culture, so on and so forth. During their childhood their parents divorce… A horrible break up, one parent cheats on the other and the family is ripped apart. Both brothers see this event, they both experience the pain and the heart ache, the anger, all the emotions that would come with such a traumatic family experience. These brothers grow older and then begin to have relationships of their own. Through what they have learned and experienced they have an idea on how to treat their significant others, however it is not at all a stretch for these two brothers to treat their significant others differently. Their actions and could range from one brother being reclusive and not wanting to get hurt from what he has seen in intimate relationships, to the other diving head in and making each day special in the relationship as a way to keep it satisfying for both sides. Each brothers conscience experienced the same event and had very similar upbringings, but maybe because one brother sided with the mom while the other with the dad, or that one was picked on in elementary school more than the other their relationship skills are unique. Their consciences are unique.

Although this example may not be as direct a comparison of two consciences as can be, I think it shows how each event in a persons life makes an impact and that it is rare for one event to effect two people the exact same way or better yet to influence two consciences in the exact same way because it is more than just one event that makes up our conscience. To make an analogy to go along with my physics class, our conscience can be compared to a shadow that is cast upon a wall from an extended light source. This shadow is not crisp with defined lines, rather it is dark in the middle and dimmer towards the edges. The dark area is the umbra and the lighter areas are called the penumbra. This shadow is not one entity, instead it is the overlapping of many shadows. The dark area in the middle that looks similar to any other shadow made by the same shape can be called a basic human conscience, one that says lying is bad and sharing is good (for example, obviously this center area is subjective as well) while the outside, the penumbra is blurred. This blurring comes from more or less overlapping of images, which can be compared to an individuals conscience where the overlapping is different for each person, where one experience in someone’s life may cast a darker shadow or overlap in a different way.

The human conscience is so subjective and is always changing. The conscience is something that cannot be escaped or that one cannot hide from because it is within. We have the choice to listen to our conscience or to stray from it, and whatever we do decide to do will then most likely affect our conscience and our decisions in a future situation. The conscience is a curious curious thing.

Economical Free Will (at home w/ the parasite)

Welcome to my humble abode.

How we invite in parasites is a very curious thing. It seems odd that more often than not we put ourselves in positions to be parasited and taken advantage of. Rickles speaks of the human’s desire to be parasited when discussing the fact that a vampire must be invited into one’s home. This aspect of a vampire is something that is very contradicting to the norm when thinking of a parasite. The usual connotation that comes with a parasite is something that is unwanted, a burden on one’s life and livelihood. Rickles then sets us up to wonder: If a vampire must be invited in to be able to parasite you (something we shouldn’t want), then how are they so successful (the proof of their success coming from the human’s obsession with them)? One can come to a tentative conclusion that us humans want to be parasited, we do not feel complete until there is something inside us or something branching off of our business.

In intimate relationships the parasite is an ever-present figure. It is the flea that inhabits our mind and body, controlling a good portion of our actions and thoughts. Those who we are in relationships with influence who we want to spend time with, and even what we eat. Even if one likes to believe that they are a separate entity, the opposite party, or significant other influences us and puts us in situations that question free will. As Stephen reminds us in his “Identity Interrupted (Parasites) blog.

“Some time ago there was written on the board the question: Who are we when we write? With the intriguing and frightening knowledge that parasites may be able to manipulate our emotions or even our complex behavior, the question may just as well be: Who are we? Is free will even an option any more?”

So if we have this illusion of free will that parasites can exploit, maybe there is an illusion of a home that vampires can exploit. Whose definition of a home sets the standard for the relationship between a vampire and his prey? Is it the guest that sets the stage, in that case the coffin would be home and everything but the already dead is fair game, or does the host create the definition of a home.

If we look at the second option than this rule that governs the vampire becomes even more ambiguous. The spectrum of what a home is could range from that of a homeless man to a cowboy at home on the “range”, or to a patriot who considers their country home. How does the host argue this point to the guest in an attempt to fend off an attack, and if the conversation comes down to logistics and is drawn out in politics it no longer seems like much of an attack. However, it seems more often than not the parasite eventually gets in and we become the victim, the victim of the parasite and the victim of free will.

Rickles makes it a strong point that the parasite easily becomes at home in our economy. These types of parasites hangout unnoticed in our home (economy) for a long time before manifesting themselves, before taking all that they can from the host leaving it weak and fighting for life. This parasite has begun to show it self in the economy of Greece. Greece is in the middle of a financial crisis with bureaucratic parasitism that dwarfs what we have recently seen in the United States. After taking loans on top of loans from banks that helped the country reclassify and recategorize their debt in ways in which it would essentially not need to be paid back, the country is on the brink of bankruptcy and threatening the value of the Euro, and therefore all the other countries in the European Union. The parasite that manifests itself in these large banks enticed its host (Greece) with promises of profit and essentially free money, insuring the idea of a perpetually growing economy. The economy then took a pause, Greece’s debt was called in and the parasite was revealed. Now, in a time of economic crisis created by the banks the parasite continues to try and profit from it’s host. Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash of The New York Times describes the situation very poetically (poetry is in the eye of the beholder).

Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin… These contracts, known as credit-default swaps, effectively let banks and hedge funds wager on the financial equivalent of a four-alarm fire: a default by a company, or in the case of Greece and entire country. If Greece reneges on its debts, traders who own these swaps stand to profit. “It’s like buying fire insurance on your neighbor’s house – you create an incentive to burn down the house,” said Philip Gisdakis, head of credit strategy at UniCredit in Munich.

The head honchos in Greece, under some perceived free will, invited the parasite to lay its head for the night, but only to figure out that the parasite will not leave, but multiply until there is no more room and it must move on.

With no particular direction.

We love vampires

The projection of a vampire is the outcast of society. The vampire is in the in wrong preying on those of us who are good, god-fearing, helpless people. The vampire is the threat that stems from the wrong. It is the vampire who is the alcoholic, the murderer, the rapist, or he who commits suicide. As Rickles describes, the vampire is the social outcast, one that we feel must be conquered and put to rest. This perception of a vampire still exists in our culture today, but it is changing.

Today’s media is glorifying the creature of the night. The vampire is changing from a creature to be feared, he is becoming one to be desired even before the first bite. With the Twilight series and shows such as “True Blood”, the vampire who was once the social outcast is now standing in the spotlight in a whole new way. The attention that is focused on the vampire is no longer one that wants to see him vanquished. The attention is now directed to befriending vampires. In essence the recent depictions of vampires are desensitizing us to the downsides of something that wants to suck our blood, we are going through the process of accepting and romanticizing the outcast. Our body is accepting the parasite.

Are we approaching a time where vampires and humans can live side-by-side, accepting the vampire for what and who he is and no longer labeling him as a social outcast who is harbored in a foreign land. I have seen this cultural acceptance during my summer job at The Viewpoint Inn in Oregon that was the filming sight for a few of the scenes in the first Twilight movie. Day in and day out over the summer I saw fans of the vampires coming to the Inn and hoping to get a glimpse of the area that was once blessed with the aura of vampires. These fans of Twilight would make the pilgrimage to the site of the vampire, but unlike the trek that John Harker once made these people are coming support and give praise to the vampire. These people are not there to exterminate the devilish creature they are there to feed him.

Even if our cultures view of the vampire has changed, it is hard for me to believe that he himself has made much of a change. For the vampire is an undead undying creature that sees time race by never able to find a foothold, a perpetual outcast. So is this cultural change one that our society has chosen, or is it that the vampire has used his time over the years wisely. He has infected those of significance, parasiting those at the top so as to make less work for himself. I don’t find it hard to believe that the use of the media to desensitize us humans to vampires is anything other than a ploy by the vampire himself to make us do the footwork. What would make a vampire happier than having hysterical women in search of him, so all he has to do is sit back and wait. And it is the women who are hysterical. The future brides are already knocking on the counts door. Ready for an answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NIj8VK67W4

Why the women some may ask. Well beyond the obvious of the Count Dracula and his many wives, the vampire’s lust for women. It seems that it is the infected women who control with the greatest of ease the rest of the humans, using the power of seduction and lust to lure and take advantage of the male libido as well as being able to befriend and infiltrate more women. In this way, by doing his part to infect the women who are captivated by the new depiction of him it is a no lose situation for the vampire. The vampire gets his pick of the women who are desensitized to his image, who then go out and do the bulk of the work for him.

It seems that the creature who has been pinned and stereotyped as a demon for so many years has used his everlasting life wisely, playing and preying on the mind of us. It seems as if the vampire has taken the centuries of abuse and persecution badly and is now coming back to steal the women and control society how he likes it. Almost as if he has a direct line of circulation to our bodies, feeding us what he wants and filtering out what he doesn’t. He is the romantic who tugs at our heartstrings, however is it he who has changed or us?

The parasite within us

From our reading, Serres has made it clear that the human species is a parasite. We cannot sustain ourselves and rely on the bounty of the earth, harvesting grains and vegetables and creating space for herds of animals to grow big and fat so that we can bring them to slaughter; taking the energy that the sun and earth have provided is the only way humans can survive. Other than being a parasite to our earth Serres has also made it clear that we are parasites in social relationships and situations as well. The host to the guest and the guest to the host, one takes from the other, one lives off of the other. As I have been reading the work of Serres and can see the argument that Serres is making I have begun to think that the human’s parasitical relationship can be broken down one more level. We are parasites to the world, parasites to each other, and could it be that we are even parasites to ourselves.

There are so many preconceived thoughts, situations, and roles that we come out of the shoot hardwired for. These stereotypes and roles play on our actions in everyday life. Whether we succeed and fulfill theses roles or not our emotions are affected and our mental state is affected as well. Success and failure builds our “character”, and these social situations weigh on our minds even if the relationship is one within our own minds. Our mind becomes a parasite on our body and our body becomes a parasite to our mind, the mind causing actions and the body changing thoughts.

All humans have similar aspirations throughout their life. Most strive to complete various goals, be involved in some community relationship, and have a utilitarian aspect to their lives. These events of our lives are looked at as a linear progression. Getting better and building from one level up to the next. The desire or thoughts cause our body to take action, but the actions don’t always live up to the expectations that we have built for them. When we succeed we are satisfied, content, happy with our self and the outcome, and all our previous effort is validated. This validation gives confidence to take the next step and our mind is at ease. When we fail to reach our goals or the next step is not what we had expected thoughts of “why?” and “for what?” come to mind, we are disappointed and in the future are less likely to take risks and to put ourselves out of our comfort zone. This comfort zone is where everyone likes to live trying to spend as much time in the median area as possible and while reducing the number of outlier events. What expectations our mind creates affect what actions our body makes, and in turn the actions our body makes will in the future affect what expectations we build for ourselves.

Some expectations are ingrained in us from birth. The expectation that life is a linear progression is a common one. In this mindset we move up the stairs of life, thinking that the future always holds a brighter light than the one we currently have. An example of a common progression through life goes from adolescence, to college, to a good job, a companion, marriage, children, and retirement. How is our mind and body affected when this progression is not what we expected? Doubt encompasses our mind in these situations, for example if one is unable to conceive a child – What is wrong with me, with us, with this relationship? – and the same if one cannot retire – Will I be working like this for the rest of my life, where is the rest that I have earned? – our mind begins to feed the fire of doubt and the melancholy feeling can spread from mind to body. This concept of depression is an obvious example of the mental state that sucks the life from the body. It is a physical state that stems from a failure to fulfill the mental expectation of a linear progression. The only cause of this physical state is the preconceived notion of something different, the mental parasite that feeds information and creates an expectation for the physical self.

The power that the mind has on the body is very strong, but the body can also exert a force on the mind to satisfy and quell the ever-present narrative. Over my weekend spent at my grandparent’s retirement home I observed many actions that come from the human’s need to be useful and the power that movement has over the mind. Even as the physical capabilities of my grandfather weaned and his cognitive state deteriorated his personal drive to be useful or productive remained strong. In his mid-nineties my grandpa still has the motor skills to be self-supportive, but his ability to express a complete thought is no longer with him. As a man who spent most of his life in a career using his skill of communication rather than physical skill, the loss of useful communication seems to give him pain that a large part of the meaning to his life has been lost. To combat this mental pain he has taken on the task of folding and saving his napkins from every meal. This task, although small, in some way has given meaning to his daily life; a goal to complete that he is capable of. The physical movement and physical accomplishment that comes with the task of folding his napkins sustains the mental need to be productive. The physical movements of the host body exert a force stronger than the power of the guest that is the mind, therefore allowing his mind to find some accomplishment from the days past.

The interrelationship between mind and body is a push and pull relationship. The mental expectations push and pull the physical being, giving strength or weakness to the body. At the same time the body has the power to complete and give meaning to actions and events in an effort to feel content in one’s mind. This is a powerful relationship of parasitism that seems to make the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

the effect of receivers on communication

Those who receive them affect our thoughts and speech. Although we would like to think that what we say is a separate entity and independent of whom we are communicating with, but I realize more and more that my thoughts are affected by how I perceive the thoughts and reactions of those around me. To think of language in this way gives a new perspective on communication.

Now that we are all technically adults, in the cultural sense of the word, we come to think that our emotions and drivers have moved above those that affect school children. That is, that with our every word and action we do no think as much about “will we be liked” or “will they think I’m cool”. In the past when I have thought about the motive for speech by my elders, I have thought that what they say is their thoughts. I felt that they spoke “true” to what they believe or what they are trying to express. As I begin to dissect the communication and speech patterns of those who are educated, more and more I see that they are looking for the same validation as the kids in the schoolyard.

If we look at politicians we can see the effect that receivers have on communication in a very straightforward manner. It is hard to argue that politicians don’t stretch the truth, or impossible to argue. So what point does it serve to consciously say something to a group and not deliver on that statement, obviously it is to gain the support of the constituents and be elected. In the political realm the constituents have some general opinion and that affects what the politician has to say in the strictest sense. An example of this was presented in today’s New York Times regarding President Obama’s new plan to double U.S. exports.

In promising Wednesday night to double the United States’ export growth over the next fiver years, President Obama set an ambitious goal for American trade policy that, he said, could create two million jobs.

The touble, trade experts say, is that meeting that goal would require the president to engage in a fight to the death with the liberal wing of his own party, persuade China to allow its currency to appreciate 40 percent, get global economic growth to outperform the salad says from 2003 to 2007, and lower taxes for American companies that do business abroad.

And while he is at it forget about strengthening the dollar in the foreseeable future.

Since the Obama administration has not yet clearly articulated a trade policy or even sent several completed trade agreements to Congress, his pledge to double exports in five years was greeted with incredulity, even among Democratic trade policy experts.

In an effort to please the public it seems that Obama has made a statement that many think cannot be fulfilled. It has been one year since we elected our current president, and there has been much talk about what he has done during his first year in office and what he hasn’t done. Many have come to the conclusion that it hasn’t been much and what he has done hasn’t helped, and these types of conclusions seem to be a given in today’s partisan politics. It seems that this mounting pressure and criticism has led Obama to make a statement that is not necessarily feasible. Looking for validation it seems the language was formed on what the receivers want to hear. This may seem obvious in this example, but why does this point not carry over to a work of fiction or casual talk.

I recently experienced a conversation where those I was speaking to were not able to comment on my thoughts. There was no “yes”, “I see”, “Gotcha”, or even head or facial expressions. Although I didn’t see much difference in that conversation as in previous encounters in my life. Since that experience I have noticed how much influence a confirming head nod has on my thought process. It is as if I feed off of that little validation and instantly change what I’m going to say in an effort to get more, in an effort to feel cooler or smarter to those who I’m speaking with.

With the experiences in my everyday life and examples I read about in politics supporting the thought that the receivers have a very strong impact on communication it is hard for me to think that the work of an author writing in his study is not equally impacted by the perceived reaction of those he is writing for. So who is actually writing what we read?

In what context?

Why is the thought of something living off of our bodies so unnerving? When the majority of people hear the word parasite they quiver and images of grotesque worms come to mind, but what draws the line between the parasitism of a hookworm and that of me and why is one worse than the other?

Comparable to the parasites in shivers, humans leech off of their surroundings in many ways. In means of food we cannot sustain ourselves, we crave validation on actions and thoughts, and long for some form of social interaction. It can be argued that these actions don’t benefit our surroundings in any matter. Our effect on those around us may not cause such a drastic change as a parasite that makes one thirst for lust and bring on rape, homosexuality, or incest. However there are those who live their lives in this way, and who is to say what causes them to be different from the “norm”. Are lifestyles where one enjoys/loathes rape, incest, and homosexuality a product of natural endorphins, or are they the product of information, experience, and ideas that someone has fed off since birth. It is difficult to prove one idea is correct over another, because societal relations play a large part in what is what is right and wrong. For that reason, the thought of humans as parasites is foreign. If someone compares many of their daily actions to the actions of a parasite the differences are small, especially if taken out of their respective context.

When is incest okay, when is polygamy accepted, and why is bride-burning tolerable? All of these actions are received by people in different religions, locations, or communities, and at the same time draw intense emotions of disgust and hatred in other groups of people. In comparing these actions to parasitism, we communicate our ideas about them in a way that is socially accepted. This context, makes them good or bad. The idea of context is ambiguous and always changing, as Derrida tries to explain to us.

In some prophetic way, it seems Darrida is trying to convince us that context only limits ideas and communication. If this is true than it is possible that by taking something out of context we will be able to understand it more clearly. Similar to the way experiencing a different culture can give insight or clarity to seemingly mundane tasks or experiences of everyday life.

So to take the concept of a parasite out of the context of a gross bug that lives inside an animal or plant and sucks it’s blood or what have you, and look at it in a literal definitive way as something, anything, that lives on or in a location… lets say Bellingham, or our Mother Earth… and it is nourished by this host with out killing it, maybe by eating the plants around the area, (the second part of that last statement is a little less comparable, with all the ideas of global warming, land degradation, deforestation, and so on floating around out there.) is it a stretch to call us humans parasites?

Perhaps we are the greatest of parasites, one whose actions seem so normal and accepted that how could they be compared to those of a lowly hookworm. How are we to say that the hookworm thinks any less of his actions, or maybe justifies how he lives by comparing it to how we live… Ehh well in comparison I’m not that bad, says the hookworm…

Never thinking in this manner before, it is now funny why the thought of a parasite living inside me is so repulsive and why a movie such as shivers evokes such strong emotions of a foreign being. One that is drastically different from me.

Although, it’s not that foreign to Marriam and Webster, whose number one definition of a parasite is:

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery