There's not much to say about me but a lot to say about what I think about because what I think about is pretty cool. I hope you think so.
I am older but not old and in great health. I am a card carrying introvert who can talk (listen) to extroverts. My political information comes from books at least 20 years old. I do not read the newspaper nor watch TV except baseball and now there is a year round baseball channel for guys like me. I also watch HGTV because my wife does and Ellen show each morning before wok because my wife does. I have seen some pretty good chick flicks thanks to Linda. I do not watch fictional violence and I love comedies.
I have made a multitude of relationship mistakes in my life mainly because ... well... ignorance. So I feel well qualified to tell you what not to do and why you shouldn't do it.
Actually I think people suffer due to ignorance -- the ignorance of not knowing how not to suffer. And some think that if i hurt, ignore, or manipulate others then happiness will follow. Wishing to be free of suffering is our prime motivator and makes us equal. Also, that we came from mother makes us equal. The obstacle to changing how we try to be happy is not appreciating basic cause and effect and not understanding the real situation.
Luckily my major career goal since adolescence was to do exactly what I do now. In college I majored in Biology and chemistry. Chemistry was a waste of energy when compared to the literature, sociology history and especially philosophy courses that I could put to practical use. Anyway, my professors encouraged me to stay in biology but I have not left that science because I work with the most advanced animal species (some would argue with "most advanced").
I want to leave this world better than I found it and as a psychiatrist I have a wonderful opportunity to make a difference. I don't do much but my patients do the doing and that is very gratifying.
I believe in the power of now but it keeps slipping into the no longer happening. I believe the buck doesn't stop because no one is excluded. I have have been told that death and taxes are unavoidable. Now that I am no longer an atheist I believe that only taxes are unavoidable. I believe we should prepare for death as though are preparing for a vacation. I believe that the study of death will cause us to lead better lives.
My craving to understand life and why people do what they do grows each day. With no effort at all except for staying alive I have joined a large group of people that science know little about. Therefore, I am a pioneer explorer of my own psychology. There are no books to tell me how I am to view life.
This morning seems like yesterday though time is streaking by and this morning should seem like 5 minutes ago. I am finding out that time never moves - only things.
The stuff that ran my life is trying to catch up now but is no longer gaining because the stuff needs me more than I need the stuff.
I want to travel lighter with less baggage. In other words the all important details to me a decade ago are merely annoying irritants today.
I call dementia, the letting-go of trivia, I always find my glasses when I lose them so why worry about it. Where is the wisdom that's supposed to replace youth? The only wisdom thing I can think of is - beentheredonethat. To worry just doesn't make sense over 60 years old.
If I start writing about politics or entertainment in a serious vein you have my permission to take me away because it means I have become senile.
There are many reasons I like blogging. One reason is that I can start every sentence with I if I want to.
Stay tuned. This site will change as I do.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Shakespeare and Bacon were gay
The great thing about the scientific spirit and the scientific method is that spirit and method fosters the search for information here to fore unknown to the scientist and average citizen - information that increases our knowledge thus bringing us closer to a point of truth for the betterment of people. With understanding, solutions become obvious.
Case in point: The official rumor held that Shakespeare was probably gay and because Shakespeare scholars still believe in the Shakespeare-Santa Clause I hadn't accepted anything they had to say on face value until my quest for understanding Francis Bacon finally led me to Sonnet 20. Please refer to Honest Sonnet 20.
The author of the sonnets --Shakespeare/Bacon-- reveals the kind of dramatic struggle true for anyone torn between duty to be straight and pleasure of being gay. Believing that Francis Bacon was straight I posted an piece about Francis Bacon's women. All things considered I don't think he pursued women except for social position. Excluding his mother and excluding the women who were satisfying to him or satisfied them the number of women who were the target of his affections was zero.
To paraphrase, the sonnet explains that women are part of the natural order but the poet questions the nature of his passions regarding is male and female desires. He recognizes his compassion but the emotions that shift like women's fashions are unknown to him. The poet claims to be a better judge of the object of his attention, apparently men, than women. He asserts that as a man he has better control of his appearance that women ( I am assuming he means his ability to conceal his sexual orientation) and knows how to appear beautiful to both genders. The poet finishes the sonnet with the observation about himself that I believe is common to people who are coming to grips with their homosexuality. He recognizes that he was built for loving women but allows that nature has furnished him a fondness for men. There is a tragedy here, of sorts, because in other sonnets he expresses a clear obligation or need to produce children that would carry on his work. He adds that by adding the love of men to his life's purpose nature has removed him from women's pleasure. Then, I think he recognizes that he can love only one gender.
To confirm my interpretation a Ben Johnson quote in my popularity contest a few weeks ago left me very puzzled since I thought Francis Bacon was heterosexual at that time. Specifically, Ben Johnson wrote to Francis Bacon about the good times they had had by saying, "and oh the men."-- A clue wouldn't you say?
So the question becomes, who were Bacon's men? Well, we can begin with Ben Johnson and proceed to name his Good Pens-- a group of authors with whom he collaborated to write most all of the Elizabethan literature.
According to the Peter Dawkins in the "Shakespeare Enigma" Francis Bacon's collaborators were George Peele, Robert Green, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Heywood, Thomas Middleton, John Day, George Wilkins, John Fletcher, Philip Massinger. He had influences from Sir Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Thomas Watson, Thomas Nashe, Thomas Kyd, Samuel Daniel, Francis Beaumont. There is more. He had association with Thomas Sackville, Gabriel Harvey, Edward Dyer,Fulke Grevlle, Mary Sidney, Nicolas Breton, Edward de Vere, Sir John Davies, Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, Michael Drayton, George Chapman, Anthony Munday, Ben Johnson, John Davies of Hereford, John Ford, George Wither, and William Brown.
I am not suggesting that any one of these men, besides Ben Johnson, were gay and he could have had no more relations with them than he did with his women. Francis Bacon was in fact very gregarious and charming to both men and women but apparenly had the inclination to agree with Ben's, "Oh the men."
Case in point: The official rumor held that Shakespeare was probably gay and because Shakespeare scholars still believe in the Shakespeare-Santa Clause I hadn't accepted anything they had to say on face value until my quest for understanding Francis Bacon finally led me to Sonnet 20. Please refer to Honest Sonnet 20.
The author of the sonnets --Shakespeare/Bacon-- reveals the kind of dramatic struggle true for anyone torn between duty to be straight and pleasure of being gay. Believing that Francis Bacon was straight I posted an piece about Francis Bacon's women. All things considered I don't think he pursued women except for social position. Excluding his mother and excluding the women who were satisfying to him or satisfied them the number of women who were the target of his affections was zero.
To paraphrase, the sonnet explains that women are part of the natural order but the poet questions the nature of his passions regarding is male and female desires. He recognizes his compassion but the emotions that shift like women's fashions are unknown to him. The poet claims to be a better judge of the object of his attention, apparently men, than women. He asserts that as a man he has better control of his appearance that women ( I am assuming he means his ability to conceal his sexual orientation) and knows how to appear beautiful to both genders. The poet finishes the sonnet with the observation about himself that I believe is common to people who are coming to grips with their homosexuality. He recognizes that he was built for loving women but allows that nature has furnished him a fondness for men. There is a tragedy here, of sorts, because in other sonnets he expresses a clear obligation or need to produce children that would carry on his work. He adds that by adding the love of men to his life's purpose nature has removed him from women's pleasure. Then, I think he recognizes that he can love only one gender.
To confirm my interpretation a Ben Johnson quote in my popularity contest a few weeks ago left me very puzzled since I thought Francis Bacon was heterosexual at that time. Specifically, Ben Johnson wrote to Francis Bacon about the good times they had had by saying, "and oh the men."-- A clue wouldn't you say?
So the question becomes, who were Bacon's men? Well, we can begin with Ben Johnson and proceed to name his Good Pens-- a group of authors with whom he collaborated to write most all of the Elizabethan literature.
According to the Peter Dawkins in the "Shakespeare Enigma" Francis Bacon's collaborators were George Peele, Robert Green, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Heywood, Thomas Middleton, John Day, George Wilkins, John Fletcher, Philip Massinger. He had influences from Sir Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Thomas Watson, Thomas Nashe, Thomas Kyd, Samuel Daniel, Francis Beaumont. There is more. He had association with Thomas Sackville, Gabriel Harvey, Edward Dyer,Fulke Grevlle, Mary Sidney, Nicolas Breton, Edward de Vere, Sir John Davies, Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, Michael Drayton, George Chapman, Anthony Munday, Ben Johnson, John Davies of Hereford, John Ford, George Wither, and William Brown.
I am not suggesting that any one of these men, besides Ben Johnson, were gay and he could have had no more relations with them than he did with his women. Francis Bacon was in fact very gregarious and charming to both men and women but apparenly had the inclination to agree with Ben's, "Oh the men."
Sunday, March 14, 2010
HONEST SONNET#20 GAY SHAKESPEARE AND LOVING IT
HONEST SONNET#20 GAY AND LOVING IT
First I will show you the standard old school view of the sonnet which is squirrely if not totally flaky.
- according to a website called: “Sonnet 20 and Sonnet 130″
The old school meaning goes like this …..
You were created by Nature as a woman but more beautiful than any woman, for you do not have their faults. But Nature changed her mind as she made you, and turned you into a man, for she herself adored you, and, perhaps desiring congress, gave you male parts. Therefore I cannot love you with the fulness that I would love a woman. But let me have your real love, while women enjoy the physical manifestation of it, which I know to be merely superficies’.(“Shakespeare’s Sonnets” by Kerrigan).
Squirrely right? There is no psychology anywhere in any culture past present or future that would account for the above description of human motivation. Now exchange the reference to the “young man” for the poet himself and you have a very intimate glimpse into the poets realistic struggle with his homosexuality.
– according to Larson:
WOMEN ARE NATURALLY WOMEN
BUT DO I HAVE THE PASSION OF MALE AND FEMALE
WITH A KIND HEART, BUT NOT ACQUAINTED
WITH PASSIONS THAT SHIFT LIKE WOMENS FASHION
AND I HAVE A BETTER EYE THAN WOMEN WHICH IS LESS FICKLE
IN BEAUTIFYING THE OBJECT (MEN?) OF MY ATTENTION?
MAN CONTROLS THE HUE OF HIS APPEARANCE (GAY OR NOT)
IN WAYS THAT MEN FAVOR AND WOMEN ADMIRE
AND WAS FIRST CREATED FOR A WOMEN
UNTIL NATURE AS SHE ALLOWED ME TO BE VERY FOND (OF MEN OR ME)
AND BY ADDITION OF THAT NATURE DEFEATED MY CHANCEs FOR (CHILDREN)
BY ADDING MEN TO MY PURPOSE BUT SINCE SHE REMOVED ME FOR WOMEN PLEASURE,
MY LOVE IS MINE AND AND MY LOVE IS THEIRS (MEN’S) TREASURE (AND NOT WOMEN’S)
Doesn’t that make sense? Below is the original sonnet.
-- by William Shakespeare:
A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted
Hast though, the master/mistress of my passion;
A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion;
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue, all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men’s eyes and womne’s souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she pricked thee out for women’s pleasure,
Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their treasure.
Helen Vendler (of the traditionalists) states that the readers should not make the base assumption that Shakespeare’s writings interpret their own feelings.
I’ll drink to that.
First I will show you the standard old school view of the sonnet which is squirrely if not totally flaky.
- according to a website called: “Sonnet 20 and Sonnet 130″
The old school meaning goes like this …..
You were created by Nature as a woman but more beautiful than any woman, for you do not have their faults. But Nature changed her mind as she made you, and turned you into a man, for she herself adored you, and, perhaps desiring congress, gave you male parts. Therefore I cannot love you with the fulness that I would love a woman. But let me have your real love, while women enjoy the physical manifestation of it, which I know to be merely superficies’.(“Shakespeare’s Sonnets” by Kerrigan).
Squirrely right? There is no psychology anywhere in any culture past present or future that would account for the above description of human motivation. Now exchange the reference to the “young man” for the poet himself and you have a very intimate glimpse into the poets realistic struggle with his homosexuality.
– according to Larson:
WOMEN ARE NATURALLY WOMEN
BUT DO I HAVE THE PASSION OF MALE AND FEMALE
WITH A KIND HEART, BUT NOT ACQUAINTED
WITH PASSIONS THAT SHIFT LIKE WOMENS FASHION
AND I HAVE A BETTER EYE THAN WOMEN WHICH IS LESS FICKLE
IN BEAUTIFYING THE OBJECT (MEN?) OF MY ATTENTION?
MAN CONTROLS THE HUE OF HIS APPEARANCE (GAY OR NOT)
IN WAYS THAT MEN FAVOR AND WOMEN ADMIRE
AND WAS FIRST CREATED FOR A WOMEN
UNTIL NATURE AS SHE ALLOWED ME TO BE VERY FOND (OF MEN OR ME)
AND BY ADDITION OF THAT NATURE DEFEATED MY CHANCEs FOR (CHILDREN)
BY ADDING MEN TO MY PURPOSE BUT SINCE SHE REMOVED ME FOR WOMEN PLEASURE,
MY LOVE IS MINE AND AND MY LOVE IS THEIRS (MEN’S) TREASURE (AND NOT WOMEN’S)
Doesn’t that make sense? Below is the original sonnet.
-- by William Shakespeare:
A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted
Hast though, the master/mistress of my passion;
A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion;
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue, all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men’s eyes and womne’s souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she pricked thee out for women’s pleasure,
Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their treasure.
Helen Vendler (of the traditionalists) states that the readers should not make the base assumption that Shakespeare’s writings interpret their own feelings.
I’ll drink to that.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
HONEST SONNET#19 — wrinkles on my face but not in my poetry
I feel that I should apologize to the intelligent teachers and authors who earnestly try to negotiate and arrive at a sensible and literary understanding of the sonnets from the bizarre assumptions of very old critiques but I won’t because they should know better. They blindly do what they’re told.
A vital work of art has been graffiti-ed, stained, and perverted for centuries. I talk to average people most of whom grimace or go blank when I mention Shakespeare’s Sonnets – some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. Some people do remember only the most famous sonnets that are straight forward love poems.
The issue for me is not love between man and man but with the old school assumptions that the poet wants the beautiful young man to get a woman pregnant to have a child that is also beautiful.
Where the knock-her-up-handsome-for-the-child came from is a mystery to me but I haven’t researched the history of this interpretation yet. Some day.
The paragraph below is a common example of blind obedience to the teachers of the teachers who were, at best, also gullible. In the paragraph below I extracted from Shakespeare Online.
I have substituted “himself” for “male lover,” “himself” for “his lover,” “mother” for “dark Lady” and “narcissism” for “lust.”
SHAKESPEARE ONLINE modified by me says:
The theme of Sonnet 19, as with so many of the early sonnets, is the ravages of time. The poet expresses his intense fear of time primarily in the sonnets that involve himself and his worries seem to disappear in the later sonnets that are dedicated to his mother. Specifically, the poet is mortified by the thought himself showing physical signs of aging. There is no doubt that his relationship with himself is one built upon narcissism- more so than his relationship with his mother which is based on love and mutual understanding.
There. Doesn’t that feel better? Only six words were changed and suddenly the sonnets become clear and do not make one uncomfortable. I believe my discomfort of the perverted interpretation is shared by most people.
SONNET 19 by Shakespeare ………………..SONNET 19 interpreted by Larson
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion’s paws, …………all-consuming time you dull the Lions claws
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood; …and make the earth take me back
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger’s jaws,…….pullout sharp teeth from the fears Tiger
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; ………and destroy my ability to revive my youth
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleets, …………..you rejoice over my season to be fleeting
And do whate’er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,…………be swift and do what you have to do
To the wide world and all her fading sweets; ………….to the wide world and fading youth
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime:………………but I forbid you to do your worst
O, carve not with thy hours my love’s fair brow, ……..oh do not slice away the time of my youth
Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;……..do not make wrinkles on my face
Him in thy course untainted; ……………………………….. allow me time and an untainted face
For beauty’s pattern to succeeding men.;………………..so I can always be beautiful to others.
Yet, do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong;………..go ahead old time hit me with your best shot
My love shall in my verse ever live young………………….my love in my poetry will remain young.
I feel that I should apologize to the intelligent teachers and authors who earnestly try to negotiate and arrive at a sensible and literary understanding of the sonnets from the bizarre assumptions of very old critiques but I won’t because they should know better. They blindly do what they’re told.
A vital work of art has been graffiti-ed, stained, and perverted for centuries. I talk to average people most of whom grimace or go blank when I mention Shakespeare’s Sonnets – some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. Some people do remember only the most famous sonnets that are straight forward love poems.
The issue for me is not love between man and man but with the old school assumptions that the poet wants the beautiful young man to get a woman pregnant to have a child that is also beautiful.
Where the knock-her-up-handsome-for-the-child came from is a mystery to me but I haven’t researched the history of this interpretation yet. Some day.
The paragraph below is a common example of blind obedience to the teachers of the teachers who were, at best, also gullible. In the paragraph below I extracted from Shakespeare Online.
I have substituted “himself” for “male lover,” “himself” for “his lover,” “mother” for “dark Lady” and “narcissism” for “lust.”
SHAKESPEARE ONLINE modified by me says:
The theme of Sonnet 19, as with so many of the early sonnets, is the ravages of time. The poet expresses his intense fear of time primarily in the sonnets that involve himself and his worries seem to disappear in the later sonnets that are dedicated to his mother. Specifically, the poet is mortified by the thought himself showing physical signs of aging. There is no doubt that his relationship with himself is one built upon narcissism- more so than his relationship with his mother which is based on love and mutual understanding.
There. Doesn’t that feel better? Only six words were changed and suddenly the sonnets become clear and do not make one uncomfortable. I believe my discomfort of the perverted interpretation is shared by most people.
SONNET 19 by Shakespeare ………………..SONNET 19 interpreted by Larson
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion’s paws, …………all-consuming time you dull the Lions claws
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood; …and make the earth take me back
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger’s jaws,…….pullout sharp teeth from the fears Tiger
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; ………and destroy my ability to revive my youth
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleets, …………..you rejoice over my season to be fleeting
And do whate’er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,…………be swift and do what you have to do
To the wide world and all her fading sweets; ………….to the wide world and fading youth
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime:………………but I forbid you to do your worst
O, carve not with thy hours my love’s fair brow, ……..oh do not slice away the time of my youth
Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;……..do not make wrinkles on my face
Him in thy course untainted; ……………………………….. allow me time and an untainted face
For beauty’s pattern to succeeding men.;………………..so I can always be beautiful to others.
Yet, do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong;………..go ahead old time hit me with your best shot
My love shall in my verse ever live young………………….my love in my poetry will remain young.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)