The Goddesses Who Wove the World

Standard

MythCrafts Team's avatarMyth Crafts

Weaving was an important skill in many cultures around the world, allowing humans to create textiles from natural fibers found around them. For those readers that weave, they will know the magical feeling of creating that comes from weaving, knitting or the like. The creation of an object out of seemingly nothing; that two simple strands of thread can be woven into magical patterns. Weaving becomes a metaphor for creation: we weave our way through our own lives, tangling with the threads of others. Words woven together become stories and songs with which we can share our experiences of existence.

Now, there isn’t a single mythology that doesn’t love a metaphor, so here a few ways that weaving has been used to tell our stories.

We have previously written about the Fates of ancient Greek and Roman mythology. The three sisters that weave in the underworld, doling out the threads…

View original post 811 more words

Infantry

Standard

Niall O'Donnell's avatarEnglish-Language Thoughts

I told you yesterday I’ve been enjoying some light, frothy, sunny-weather reading in the form of Siegfried Sassoon’s 1930 tale of the horror and drudgery of World War I: Memoirs of an Infantry Officer.

View original post 206 more words

cave people

Standard

Wunderschön ❤🌺❤

Greek Mythology: “Nemesis, the Goddess of Revenge”.-

Gallery

Aquileana's avatar⚡️La Audacia de Aquiles⚡️

►Greek Mythology: “Nemesis, the Goddess of Revenge”:

guarda_griega1_3 (1)

 Justice and Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime by Pierre-Paul Prud'hon. (1808). “Justice and Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime” by Pierre-Paul Prud’hon. (1808).

guarda_griega1_3 (1)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Nemesis (In Greek νέμειν némein, meaning “to give what is due” was the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to  Hubris (arrogance before the gods).

She was also known as Rhamnusia. Another name for her was Adrasteia, meaning “the inescapable.” 

Nemesis directed human affairs in such a way as to maintain equilibrium.

Her name means she who distributes or deals out. 

She was related to the ideas of righteous anger, due enactment, or devine vengence.

The Greeks personified vengeful fate as a remorseless goddess: the goddess of revenge and righteous indignation.

Happiness and unhappiness were measured out by her, care being taken that happiness was not too frequent or too excessive. 

Nemesis has been described as the daughter of Zeus.

But, according to Hesiod, she was a child of Erebus and Nyx

View original post 394 more words

The 1,700+ Words Invented by Shakespeare http://www.openculture.com/2018/04/the-1700-words-invented-by-shakespeare.html

Standard

There is no doubt that the Art must be timeless because, in the matter of fact does never belong to any kind of time, country, culture, or all kind of grouping. it is a kind of creativity which we have been given by God, or our creator or what so ever might like to call.  Anyway, as you see, the creator has created the hu-wo-man and has given a small part of its soul that the hu-wo-man gets her or his fun! after all here comes Shakespeare; I really think that he was not a normal human being.. he was wide more than that! Therefore, we might do more research to understand him better and better.;

“”One of the favourite reference books on my shelves isn’t a style guide or dictionary but a collection of insults. And not just any collection of insults, but Shakespeare’s Insults for Teachers, an illustrated guide through the playwright’s barbs and put-downs, designed to offer comic relief to the beleaguered educator. (Books and websites about Shakespeare’s insults almost constitute a genre in themselves.) I refer to this slim, humorous hardback every time discussions of Shakespeare get too ponderous, to remind myself at a glance that what readers and audiences have always valued in his work is its lightning-fast wit and inventiveness.

While perusing any curated selection of Shakespeare’s insults, one can’t help but notice that, amidst the puns and bawdy references to body parts, so many of his wisecracks are about language itself—about certain characters’ lack of clarity or odd ways of speaking. From Much Ado About Nothing there’s the colourful, “His words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes.” From The Merchant of Venice, the sarcastic, “Goodly Lord, what a wit-snapper you are!” From Troilus and Cressida, the derisive, “There’s a stewed phrase indeed!” And from Hamlet, the subtle shade of “This is the very coinage of your brain.”

Indeed, it can often seem that Shakespeare—if we grant his historicity and authorship—is often writing self-deprecating notes about himself. “It is often said,” writes Fraser McAlpine at BBC America, that Shakespeare “invented a lot of what we currently call the English language…. Something like 1700 [words], all told,” which would mean that “out of every ten words,” in his plays, “one will either have been new to his audience, new to his actors, or will have been passingly familiar, but never written down before.” It’s no wonder so much of his dialogue seems to carry on a meta-commentary about the strangeness of its language.We have enough trouble understanding Shakespeare today. The question McAlpine asks is how his contemporary audiences could understand him, given that so much of his diction was “the very coinage” of his brain. Lists of words first used by Shakespeare can be found aplenty. There’s this catalog from the exhaustive multi-volume literary reference The Oxford English Dictionary, which lists such now-everyday words as “accessible,” “accommodation,” and “addiction” as making their first appearance in the plays. These “were not all invented by Shakespeare,” the list disclaims, “but the earliest citations for them in the OED” are from his work, meaning that the dictionary’s editors could find no earlier appearance in historical written sources in English.

Another shorter list links to an excerpt from Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke’s The Shakespeare Key, showing how the author, “with the right and might of a true poet… minted several words” that are now current, or “deserve” to be, such as the verb “articulate,” which we do use, and the noun “co-mart”—meaning “joint bargains”—which we could and maybe should. At ELLO, or English Language and Linguistics Online, we find a short tutorial on how Shakespeare formed new words, by borrowing them from other languages, or adapting them from other parts of speech, turning verbs into nouns, for example, or vice versa, and adding new endings to existing words.

“Whether you are ‘fashionable’ or ‘sanctimonious,’” writes National Geographic, “thank Shakespeare, who likely coined the terms.” He also apparently invented several phrases we now use in common speech, like “full circle,” “one fell swoop,” “strange bedfellows,” and “method in the madness.” (In another BBC America article, McAlpine lists 45 such phrases.) The online sources for Shakespeare’s original vocabulary are a multitude, but we should note that many of them do not meet scholarly standards. As linguists and Shakespeare experts David and Ben Crystal write in Shakespeare’s Words, “we found very little that might be classed as ‘high-quality Shakespearean lexicography’” online.

So, there are reasons to be sceptical about claims that Shakespeare is responsible for the 1700 or more words for which he’s given sole credit. (Hence the asterisk in our title.) As noted, a great many of those words already existed in different forms, and many of them may have existed as non-literary colloquialisms before he raised their profile to the Elizabethan stage. Nonetheless, it is certainly the case that the Bard coined or first used hundreds of words, writes McAlpine, “with no obvious precedent to the listener unless you were schooled in Latin or Greek.” The question, then, remains: “what on Earth did Shakespeare’s [mostly] uneducated audience make of this influx of newly-minted language into their entertainment?”

McAlpine brings those potentially stupefied Elizabethans into the present by comparing watching a Shakespeare play to watching “a three-hour long, open-air rap battle. One in which you have no idea what any of the slang means.” A good deal would go over your head, “you’d maybe get the gist, but not the full impact,” but all the same, “it would all seem terribly important and dramatic.” (Costuming, props, and staging, of course, helped a lot, and still, do.) The analogy works not only because of the amount of slang deployed in the plays, but also because of the intensity and regularity of the boasts and put-downs, which makes even more interesting one data scientist’s attempt to compare Shakespeare’s vocabulary with that of modern rappers, whose language is, just as often, the very coinage of their brains,

Hypocrisy, Truth and Lies #repealthe8th

Standard

via Hypocrisy, Truth and Lies #repealthe8th

Reviewing Homer’s Iliad: The Shield of Memory by Dr. Ken Atchity

Standard

via Reviewing Homer’s Iliad: The Shield of Memory by Dr. Ken Atchity

Franz Xaver Kosler (1864 – 1905, Austrian)

Standard

CantervilleGhost's avatarLA CONCHIGLIA DI VENERE

Diana

Young Beauty

Veil Dance

View original post

From language games to mysticism – Allan Watts and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus

Standard

fallenAngel's avatarstOttilien

This article explores Wittgenstein’s Tractatus as a mystical, metaphysical insight in the light of Eastern philosophy, Catholic mysticism and C. G Jung. Please be gentle and read this as an (intuitive) essay not as a scholarly article. There are methodological implications of Wittgenstein’s doctrine of silence for transcendental philosophy, Zen Buddhism, psychoanalysis and metaphysics. Or there is a line from Lao-Tse to Wittgenstein, connected by Jung and Watts.

Wittgenstein’s Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus,(Logisch-Philosophische-Abhandlung,1921 translated by C.K. Ogden 1922) is much closer to me than his work  Philosophical Investigations (Philosophische Untersuchungen,1953 translated by G.E.M. Anscombe). Simply because I understand the Tractatus largely transcendental (similar to Allan Watts). A fellow blog author (Recollecting Philosophy), who knows definitely more about philosophy and Wittgenstein than I do, objected slightly to Allan Watts rating the Tractatus higher than the Investigations,however. 

In the eighties and early nineties during my time in California  I picked up Allan Watts thoughts. Allan Watts knew C.G. Jung well and both were quite knowledgeable…

View original post 2,071 more words

Ένα Μήνυμα στις Γυναίκες από έναν Άντρα: Δεν Είστε «Τρελές»

Standard

via Ένα Μήνυμα στις Γυναίκες από έναν Άντρα: Δεν Είστε «Τρελές»

A Message to Women by a Male: You Are Not “Crazy”

a4e94-agkalia-klamma

You are so sensitive. So emotional. You are so defensive. You react too much. Calm down. Chill out. Stop fucking! Are you crazy? Plaka I did, you have no humour; You are so dramatic. Just overtake it!

Do you hear familiar?

If you are a woman, probably yes.

Do you ever hear any of these comments from your husband, your partner, your boss, your friends, colleagues, relatives after you have expressed disappointment, regret or anger about something they did or said?

When someone says these things to you is not an example of indifferent behaviour. When your husband appears half an hour late in your appointment without getting a phone – this is an indifferent attitude. A comment designed to make you feel like, “Relax, you react too much”, after you have referred to someone else’s bad behaviour, are emotional manipulation, clear things.

And that’s the kind of emotional manipulation that feeds an epidemic in our country, an epidemic that defines women as mad, irrational, hypersensitive, whimsical. This epidemic helps reinforce the idea that women only need a minimal incentive to put their (crazy) emotions into the forum. This is erroneously wrong and unfair.

I think it’s time to separate indifferent behaviour from emotional manipulation and we need to use a word that is not in our daily vocabulary.

I want to introduce a useful term to distinguish these reactions: gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a term commonly used by mental health professionals (I’m not one of them) to describe the manipulative behaviour used to confuse people to believe that their reactions are so extreme that they are mad.

The term comes from the 1944 film by MGM, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. Bergman’s husband in the film, played by Charles Boyer, wants to put her jewels in her hand. She realizes she can do it if she officially describes her as insane and closes her in a psychiatric institution. For this purpose, she intentionally sets the lights of the house to flicker, and whenever Bergman’s character reacts to it, she tells her how she imagines things. In this context, one who does gaslight is someone who presents false information to change the perception of the victim for himself,

Today, when the term is mentioned, it is usually because the offender says things like “you are so stupid” or “no one will ever love you” to the victim. This is a deliberate, pre-meditated form of gaslighting, similar to the actions of Charles Boyer’s character at Gaslight, where he sets up a knitted man to confuse the character of Ingrid Bergman to believe he’s crazy.

The form of gaslighting that I am addressing here is not always premeditated or deliberate, which makes it worse because it means that all of us, especially women, have faced it at some stage.

Those who engage in gaslighting cause reactions – whether they are anger, annoyance or sadness – to a person with whom they interact. Then, when that person reacts, the person using gaslighting makes them feel dishevelled and insecure, pretending their feelings are not rational or normal.

My friend Anna (all names have been changed to protect their privacy) is married to a man who finds it necessary to make unmistakable and arbitrary comments about her weight. Whenever she gets upset or angry with her rude comments, he answers in the same way, “You’re very sensitive. I was joking”.

My girlfriend, Abbie, works for a man who finds a way, almost daily, to unduly reduce her professional performance. Comments like “Can not do anything right” or “Why hired you” are often repeated. Her boss has no problem dismissing people (she does it often) so they would not have imagined these comments that Abbie has worked for him for six years. But every time she defends herself and says, “It does not help to tell me such things,” she faces the same reaction: “Relax. React too much ”

Abbie thinks her boss is just a jerk but the truth is that she makes these comments to get her to believe her reactions are absurd. And it is precisely this kind of manipulation that lets her feel guilty that she is hypersensitive and as a result has not resigned.

But gaslighting can be as simple as smiling and saying “You’re very sensitive @” to some other @. Such comments may seem inconclusive but when they speak, they express judgment on how someone else should feel.

While gaslighting is not an ecumenical truth for women, we all know that many have faced it at work, home their personal relationships.

And gaslighting does not just affect women who are not sure about themselves. Even dynamic women with confidence are vulnerable to gaslighting.

Why?

Because women bear the brunt of our rib. It is much easier to load our emotional weights on the shoulders of our husbands, our girlfriends, our relationships, our colleagues, than putting them on the shoulders of men.

It is much easier to manipulate emotionally one that has been prepared by society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they do not deny our weights so easily. It is the ultimate cowardice.

Whether gaslighting is conscious or not, it produces the same result: it makes some women emotionally speechless.

These women can not express clearly to their spouses that what they did or say hurt them. They can not tell their bosses how their behaviour shows disrespect and prevents them from giving their best to work. They can not tell their parents that, when they are critical, they do more harm than good.

When someone repudiates their reactions, these women often reduce the importance of what they said by saying “Forget it, there is no problem”

This “forget it” is not just the rejection of a thought, it is self-rejection. It is sad.

It is no wonder that women are unintentionally passive-aggressive when expressing anger, sadness or frustration. For years they have undergone so much gaslighting that they can no longer express themselves in a way that would seem authentic to themselves.

They say “sorry” before they say their opinion. In an email or message, they will put a smile next to a serious question or concern, thus reducing the impact that they have expressed their true feelings.

You know how it looks: “You’re late :)”

These are the same women who live in relationships in which they should not, who do not follow their dreams, abandon the kind of life they would like to live.

Since I started this feminist self-exploring journey into my life and the lives of women I know, this perception of women as “mad” has emerged as a major issue in society and an equally important source of frustration for women in life in general.

From the way women are represented in reality shows, how we learn to see boys and girls see women, we have come to accept the idea of women as unbalanced and irrational, especially when they are angry or upset.

The other day, on a flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a flight attendant who recognized me from my many trips asked me what a profession I do. When I told her I was mainly writing about women, she laughed right away and asked me, “Oh, how stupid we are?”

Her instinctive reaction to my work really troubled me. While she said it, her question still gave a pattern of sexist comments that permeate all aspects of society about how men see women, which also greatly impacts on how women see themselves.

As I see it, the gaslighting epidemic is part of the fight against the obstacles to the inequality that women face continuously. Gaslighting acts deprives them of their most powerful tool: their voice. This is something we do to women every day, in many different ways.

I do not think the idea that women are “crazy” is based on some sort of huge conspiracy. On the contrary, I believe it is linked to the slow and steady rate at which women are undermined and devalued on a daily basis. And gaslighting is one of the many reasons we face @ with this common construction of women as “crazy”.

I recognize that I have been guilty of gaslighting to my female friends in the past (never to my men-my surprise friends). It is shameful, but I am glad to have realized it and stopped it.

While I take full responsibility for my actions, I believe that, like many other men, we are products of our social learning. It has to do with the general feeling that this social learning gives us about the assumption of our mistakes and the exposure of our emotions.

When we are discouraged in our youth and teenage years from expressing feelings, it makes many of us remain immune to our refusal to express repentance when we see that our actions are hurting someone.

When I was writing this article, I remembered one of my favourite phrases by Gloria Steinem. “The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn but to nurse.”

For many of us, the issue is first and foremost how we will not be able to blink out those lights and learn how to recognize and understand the feelings, opinions and attitudes of women in our lives.

But the issue of gaslighting does not have to do with the fact that we have learned to believe that the opinion of women does not have the same weight as our own; With what women have to say, what they feel is not just as valid;

Yashar Ali

The above is a translation of Yashar Ali’s “A Message to Women from A Man: You Are Not Crazy” article that first appeared in The Current Conscience and was republished in Huffington Post. Here you can see the original text.

Source: http://naieisaimisogynis.com