"Ideally"

"Ideally... theoretically... hopefully..."

Why do we use all of these words when we talk about things "as they should be?" If we want to regard things as being perfect we always use these words to preface what we want. But then, if we even have to use those words, then are we not just implying that what we are about to say is not quite possible? There are always flaws in us as humans that will prevent More's idea of "Utopia" from happening. I guess he did not really consider free will and the like when he imagined it! It's a good idea in theory, though... see, there I used it again!

When I was in class and we were talking about what came to mind when we thought of the word "Utopia," I mentioned something I saw in a magazine a while ago about different types of "places of paradise" as it pertains to different cultures. I should like to point out some of them for you here!

The first I mentioned was Valhalla. This is from Norse mythology (Icelandic sagas, anyone?), and it is a huge and majestic hall ruled over by the god Odin. Those who have heroically died in combat go there, and outside of it there is big golden tree, and the roof is lined with golden shields. It is supposed to be a hall of the "chosen dead," or the most heroic people. Neat, right?

 

I imagine "Clair de Lune" playing in the background.

The next one I thought of is called Shangri-la. Surely you have heard of this one! This mythical place was described by James Hilton in his novel Lost Horizon, and it is supposed to be a permanently happy land because it is isolated from the outside world. Ha! Interesting! The inhabitants of Shangri-la are supposed to be immortal. Did More consider immortality? No me acuerdo. It reminds me of a "Garden of Eden" sort-of place. Since I am going to China soon I think this a cool thing to talk about since it is like an exotic oriental ideal. 

Pretty picture, isn't it? Looks lovely!

Now, similar to Shangri-la, there is Shambhala, the place upon which Shangri-la is based. Shambhala is supposed to be a mythical kingdom in Tibet, (from Buddhism) and it has been mentioned in several ancient texts! It is a very spiritual place, but interestingly it seems to be hidden, which is an interesting concept because some places like this are either only attainable if you find them yourself, or if you have performed good deeds throughout your life, or what have you. So I suppose there are different ways of getting to these ideal places, because the issue in whether or not you have the ability to get there lies within yourself, within the "gods," or within society itself. Confusing!

I discovered this directly on the Shambhala website - it exists! It is the "Primordial Rigden Thangka." Taken directly from the website, it "portrays the basic enlightened nature of all human beings, their basic goodness."

If none of these things are the "ideal" place, then I don't know what is! But I thought it would be interesting to have a look at just a few of the different Utopias as imagined by several different cultures (and from several distinct time periods as well!)

Also, in case you wanted to click around a bit more and learn about Shambhala (I sort of find myself following in Gail's footsteps and experiencing an interest in Asian cultures) and it's really very fascinating. Go here!

What does your Utopia look like?

Paper

Well. 

It was hard but worthwhile (I hope) to write this last paper. I wrote about Boccaccio, and I never realized how difficult it was to try to keep to the format of a true Renaissance author while also keeping my dialogue unique and interesting. I liked Boccaccio's stories so I knew that was what i wanted to write about, but I originally did not have enough of an idea of how I was going to formulate what I wanted to say. I even considered setting up a dialogue between Dante and Petrarch, simply because of their interesting ideas and I thought it would be interesting to contrast them. But, I did not know what I was trying to prove or what I wanted to show my audience (ha, only another audience for you guys to wrestle with, as though there weren't enough already) in my dialogue. So, I sincerely hope I managed to write a coherent and not completely pointless and rambling paper. I tried to make it as quaintly humorous as possible because I wrote it running on Enviga and a protein bar (Thanks, Chipi-Chipi!). What would the Renaissance be without its unique style of humor? Or perhaps dark humor. MET referred to me a little bit ago as "the figure in black," so if we ever feel the urge to put on a play about the upcoming Sonnets, I volunteer myself to be the Dark Lady. 

Off to Social Psych! When I come back to you later, loyal Mac, I think I might blog away about Utopia.

A Question For You

What do you suppose a heretic like Luther would have been treated like TODAY? I was sitting here getting annoyed with Google because I was looking for our Luther, not MLK Jr., and this question popped into my head. Would someone be able to create their own religion like that today? Would it be taken very seriously as a real threat to the Roman Catholic Church and the center of it all at the Vatican in Rome? Curious. I wonder. 

Incidentally, in case we all wanted to condense Lutero's 95 Theses into one convenient little bundle, here is a "word cloud," as it is called, which I created about the Theses [Brigette is right: it's also called a wordle]. What happens in a word cloud is that you provide a text and from that is generated the following neat little image that gives greater prominence to words that appear the most frequently in your text. 

I just thought this was rather droll so I supposed my fellow Husties might get a kick out of it. "Pardons..." "Pope..." "Indulgences..."

Go here to make your own wordle!

H i l a r i o u s !

What Methinks of Luther

[Everytime I see the name "Luther" I read it to myself as Lutero. Because that's how you say it in Spanish. Martín Lutero. Jajaja.]

Well I sure have been horrible about updating this. I apologize... I have had a lot going on in my life lately and I get really overwhelmed with school (understatement of the century). But better a bit late than never right?

I sense a post filled with such uncertainty coming - which is ironically a big part of this class, a big part of Luther, a big part of theology around the world? WEIRD!

Well, my biggest thing with Luther (that some of you might remember I have raised in class before) is... okay, I lied. TWO things.

1. The fact that he is searching for certainty and wants to rely not on good works but on faith alone. But... isn't faith precisely that? Uncertainty? 

2. The fact that he has the balls to break away from the Church and form his own religion. How is that possible? 

On one hand, sure, why shouldn't he be allowed to question his system of beliefs, because I suppose that many people go through that at some point in their lifetimes. I understand that. And I understand his frustration. Definitely. 

But on the other hand, "here, let me rewrite the Bible for you? The Gospel of Anyone NOT John? Unimportant! *dismissive wave of hand*" How does he assume he has the right to go ahead and do that? I wrote the word "authority" first there, instead of right, but then I refrained because I thought about how he said that we are all supposed to be equal as Christians. So I suppose that's the second issue I wanted to raise about Lutero and where he gets off creating his own religion like that.

Maybe I want to create my own religion. And not some sort of Scientology or Kabbalah bullshit because although money is a handy thing to have I am not out to scam people. No, in Meghanism everyone would treat everyone with respect and be hilarious while doing so. Humor is a wonderful thing and everyone should bubble over with happiness and they should laugh so hard they cry. I do that everyday! Now that makes me wonder how often Lutero laughed... curious.

Zee Poifect Gentlemahn

Hmmm...

Obviously since I have presented on Castiglione and his The Book of the Courtier, I thought I was able to give a lot of valid points in class (hopefully, right, at least I hope it was somewhat coherent). Even though, good lord, I am freaking out because I went way over the time limit. I promise it was not intentional! Believe me, I hate giving presentations and I am surprised I was able to talk for that long. Castiglione sure does have a lot to say about what exactly constitutes the perfect gentleman! One question, though: when one man suggests something and another man shoots it down, does that mean that, by default, Castiglione himself also hates that characteristic that he had his character shoot down? I do not know. Because remember, he is a courtier himself and he is constantly reflected in his work.

I think I went over enough themes in class as far as both the life of Castiglione and some humanism/Renaissance main points (I have posted my PowerPoint on the class wiki), so now I'd like to have some fun.

-cue Also Sprach Zarathustra-

First, there was chivalry.

Then, there was a courtier.

Now, there is a perfect gentleman!*

Castiglione can have his requirements for the ideal man? Well, here are MY thoughts for MY perfect man! [Note: Only some of my thoughts are included. I am an incredibly intricate woman and my brain is a swirling with complexities; so this is what I can think of for now. Teehee! Also, I suppose not all of these have to apply to simply dateable men, but rather any sort of man, friend, whatever. Get your mind out of the gutter.]

• Respect. Enough said.
• Humor. Also enough said.
• Courtesy. Kind of like respect, but a little different.
• Supportive. Duh!
• Sensitive. But not wimpy.
• Goal-oriented.
• Responsible. (I'm almost 21... you'd think this shouldn't be a problem. WRONG.)
• Fun. Entertain me!
• Honest. Don't lie to me. I will find out. And I will hunt you down.

See something I missed, ladies? Comment your little hearts out and add to this list!

These are the major ones I can think of for now. 

* I tried so very hard to think of something clever that could be alliterative and match the c-sound at the beginning of both chivalry and courtier but alas, the only thing that even remotely made sense was companion. But that wasn't exactly the right word I was looking for... I also briefly entertained the idea of "classic" or "classical" companion, or something, but that didn't really make as much sense as I had hoped. Sad.

Cereta, ugh

Here is a supposed image of Cereta, even though no portraits of her apparently survive.

WELP. When I ordered Cereta over Christmas Break, I remember thinking, "The Collected Letters of a Renaissance Feminist. Awesome." Now I hope you don't think I am being ridiculous or close-minded, because I did assume that the concept of feminism is a bit different now from what it was in the late 15th century or early 16th century. I just was somewhat wary about reading a book from that sort of topic. I did not know what to expect (like I said I assumed that the voice of feminism would be different then), because other than Christine de Pisan and some other female writers we encountered last semester, I have never really encountered or studied feminism. So, maybe like I have seen some of the other girls suggest, I do not understand that much about it. But just because I do not happen to agree with all feminist ideas does not mean I cannot have an open mind and a discussion about it. 

To be honest with you, I had trouble getting through the readings. There were some interesting parts, yes, but (and this might sound immature) but it was really long and quite dull to me, at least most of the time. A lot of times I was getting annoyed with the book ("I'm will not go into detail about blank but blah blah blah here it is anyway"). I also wasn't sure if, when indicating her anger with women "for their complicity in their own oppression," she was inadvertently lumping all women into that oppressed category or perhaps only some of the women that she observed in her day. I figure she is supposed to represent women as a whole? Much of the time it was hard to distinguish between whether or not she was talking about herself, and in what light I wanted to categorize those thoughts in: Humanism? Renaissance? Christian? I do not know. I guess it just really frustrated me, especially with the whole tension thing: there are some things that Cereta seems to be innately drawn to but that she also tries to shy away from because she thinks they are wrong. AUGH! How do I distinguish? 

There were some good and valid (and interesting!) points too. I really enjoyed the idea of Time (notice the capital T) as being a commodity, or a necklace. How fascinating, I had never considered it like that before. In that sense she also critiques fashion sometimes, so it is like... wait, where are you coming from again? Another thing I loved (because I totally enjoy weird metaphors) was the pen-needle/masculine-feminine thing. That was really interesting! Of course we also had to see the Fortune idea come up again, like we seem to see in so many readings... she is apparently obsessed with death and the afterlife. Of course I felt bad for her when her husband died, though...

I guess that is enough of my ramblings for now!

The Picture I Referenced In My Paper

Just a quick post to upload the picture I found about the two lovers from Canto V who are caught in the middle of their affair-founded kiss by the husband of the woman... My paper discusses the differences between the translations of the Inferno by

-Pinsky
-worldofdante.org e-text

and so when I was clicking around on the world of Dante website and other sites, it was such a coincidence to find an artist's representation of the exact scene I had been writing about. That's what I had just been talking about!

Enjoy. [: