markwatersme - Tumblr blog

markwatersme · 8 years ago

Text

DNA and Embryo Technology

All living things contain DNA. DNA is basically a chemical that contains all of the information about us (in code form.) DNA is what makes your hair start to turn grey on your 18th birthday. It is what causes your ear lobes to become attached or detached during the development process and it even determines the probability of certain genetic illnesses. All living things contain this protein strand. According to the US Department of Energy. These strands are tied together in pairs and produce a visual image of a double helix. The DNA strands are contained inside every cell in our body. These Strands are often referred to as the building blocks of nature. Every species of life is different. In humans their DNA contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. That means that there are 46 individual chromosomes. Each chromosome contains then contains 50 million to 250 million base pairs. When we compare that to a small bacterium which contains around 600,000 base pairs. That is roughly like comparing 600,000 to 3 billion. This explains the complex nature of humans and the simplicity of a basic bacterium.

Each chromosome contains genes. Genes are passed on from one generation to the next. However genes contain only 2% of the human genome, the rest actually provides structure for the chromosome and regulates the production of proteins. Proteins are very complex. Their basic function is to regulate chemical production. There are about 20 amino acids that help with this process.

The US Department of Energy has an area that specializes in genetic research they have an office known as The Office of Science. The US Department of energy had this idea to map out what every gene in the human body did. They were successful; they formed the HGP or the Human Genome project. The goal was to produce a map of the human body, identifying the entire genetic make up of humans. The sequencing is mostly complete; they now have all 23 base pairs mapped out and even include a list of genetic defects that occur in each pair. For example in base pair one there are 246 million base pairs. This chromosome is responsible for such genetic defects as cataracts and chondrodyplasia punctata rhizomelic type 2 and even measles. Chromosome 20 only contains 63 million base pairs. This is the chromosome that is responsible for breast cancer.

The HGP was launched in 1990. This originally began with two men Craig Venter and Sir John Sulston of Britain. Eventually a feud broke out between the two and president Clinton was asked to help settle the argument; he did. That began the official launch of the HGP Human Genome Project.

There are varieties of diseases that can be cured through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is simply the changing of the genes; that caused the disease, or could potentially cause a disease or illness. If you fix the defective gene, you cure the disease. Remember that DNA determines everything about you. Not all diseases are genetic diseases; if it’s not a genetic disease then genetic engineering will be of no use. By genetically manipulating genes you could cure a disease. By genetically manipulating the gene before birth you could eliminate the possibility of ever getting the disease. Even as an adult some genetic illness’ can be cured 100% within one week. Genes could be changed as easily as taking a pill. Scientists and doctors have the ability to view the complete DNA strands of a fertilized egg. The results don’t show what diseases your child could catch but rather which diseases they were susceptible to. That is where the potential problems could lie. This is also where the cure is as well. A child who is susceptible to lung cancer would more than likely never have a problem unless he/she smoked. That could be cured with just the knowledge of the increased potential for the disease. On the other hand not all diseases have circumstances that can help you prevent them. Breast cancer is one. It is a genetic disease but, it isn’t caused by someone doing something that is bad for you. It just happens and it can be cured if the genes are altered. According to Windfall films, a production company hired to produce a TV series for PBS, there are a lot of benefits to genetic engineering. First of all we now have the ability to test our embryos for genetic illness potential. The procedure in some cases involves actually removing the fetus from the women and then performing the test. The fetus can then be placed back into the women where the mother will carry the baby to term. The procedure seems really complex. According to another television special on ABC “Fear of Designer Babies” this same procedure that was touted as complicated by PBS; was made to seem simple by ABC. The US Department of energy has done much to help settle any debates over the ethics between conflicting sides to the argument. They have been able to do what most private labs and research companies were unable to accomplish; that is to provide a lot of facts; the areas of genetic research that our government has chosen to spend a lot of money on involve the ethics and procedures used or potentially used for genetically testing and engineering humans.

NBC news published an article on the ethics of testing babies for potential genetic problems. They have poised a very serous question “...27 year old women decided to have her embryos screened for an inherited gene that would have left the baby would a 50% chance of developing breast cancer. The women has a long history of breast cancer and her husband tested positive for the gene.” According to that, there should be nothing ethically wrong with testing the fetus to determine weather there is a potential for the disease. Davis Masci, journalist mentions that there seem to be a whole array of things that could ethically go wrong, or right. He has studied both sides of an ethics argument and has come out with some pretty interesting facts. It is possible to redesign a human to live 150 even up to 300 years. Is it ethical? That would depend on weather the individual was happy or not. I think that is a very good ‘meter stick’ to measure the ethical outcome of genetic engineering. Some people are saying that regardless, we are still “playing god” and that until the long term effects on society are studied that we really wont know the full outcome. Once we genetically alter something, those altered genes are passed along to there off spring. It could be argued that by just changing a few people we could change an entire race of humans. This “ripple effect” would eventually work into all areas of society.

To test or not to test, that is the question. Then what do you do with the results? Well, in the case earlier mentioned; the 27 year old women with the fetus who has a 50% chance of getting breast cancer, testing is obviously a good thing. This wasn’t a test for intelligence or attractiveness. This was a test for a disease, or the potential to get one. The child tested negative for the faulty gene. Even a positive test for a bad gene doesn’t mean that you will definitely get the disease, it does mean that you should be on the look out for it. The scientific community is in great fear of this technology getting into the hands of the wrong people; it could be potentially used to create a superior race. Although, the scientists really don’t think we have the ability to do that, David Masci mentions that the scientists think that while we improve certain qualities of an individual other qualities will disappear. They don’t seem to think we could make a ‘superior’ race. The benefits of being able to do this kind of testing are that we could determine which diseases to be on the look out for when our children are born. The other is that there are a lot of genetic problems that could be fixed later on in life, just by taking some medication. This isn’t what comes to mind when we talk of genetic engineering. We are thinking of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. We are thinking about government control as in the movie GATTICA. The scientists are also thinking along those lines but according to Masci’s report on designer humans, ABC news, PBS and the US Department of Energy all have agreed that we are still another 10 years off from producing perfect humans.

In Masci’s report he quotes several a Sharon Terry from the US Department of energy. Sharon mentioned that the government has stopped all efforts on human cloning. She also mentions that we are still investigating the possible ramifications of human cloning. We are also concerned about the overall safety of the whole process. The way the US Department of energy is focusing on the moral issues is they are questioning “the very essence of what it means to be human.” That means that all the money that we were going to use to clone humans has been diverted to more of a research side of the cloning process (specifically human cloning.) We are in dire need of addressing all aspects of cloning. The issues of how to safely genetically manipulate human’s genes are the starting point for most scientists. We have been cloning; which is at the extreme end of the genetic engineering scale (not in humans.) It seems that it is ok to use genetics to test a fetus in a high-risk category for a disease. It is not ok to create a human designed to kill. Somewhere in the middle should lay the uses and methods used for genetic manipulation. There really is no governing body that has laid out the rules for genetic engineering. The science as we know it today is fairly new. Its original roots began in the 1860 with a man named Gregory Mendel. He was a Monk living in Austria. He discovered the basic laws of genetic inheritance. We have known for some time how genes are passed along. We now know how to change, or repair the broken ones. Right now the scientific community is readily accepting the use go gene manipulation and testing in un born fetuses as well as newborn babies. So far the testing procedures have been deemed ethical. There have been a few issues raised in fertility clinics. They are able to fertilize the egg with the sperm in a petre dish. Once that is done they can test it to determine certain factors like hair or eye color. They can determine which genes are faulty and which ones are great. They can already and they currently do this in a lot of private fertility clinics. They aren’t controlled by anybody and are into such a new technology that people can’t even figure out who should control them. Once the process of determining what type of off spring the parents will conceive the egg can be placed in the mother where the child will be delivered full term; with the parents knowing a whole lot about their child. They didn’t genetically change anything but; the parents do have the option of trying a different combination of sperm and egg if they aren’t happy with the first test results. That brings forth a whole bunch of other moral issues.

There is the belief that parents will always do what is right for their children and should be trusted to make judgment calls in regards to their children’s health and well being. “Parents will still be parents,” continues professor lee silver a molecular biologist at Princeton University. The notion that parents are going to make better decisions and well informed decisions balances on the facts and the knowledge that the parents have about the individual circumstances. While I’m sure that picking the hair color and eye color may be an option I really think that the biggest concern and use for this technology should be used diagnosing and curing fatal illnesses. There is even an argument governing what is fatal illness. Some doctors are saying that it should include life-changing illnesses as well. A great example of this would be mental retardation. I cannot think of any reason why that gene shouldn’t be repaired before birth. With limitations gene therapy could be a great thing. Even if it’s just testing an egg and sperm to make sure that there is nothing life threatening that is going to happen to the baby. There is always that doubt that is placed in there with genetic testing, just because the fetus has the bad gene doesn’t mean they are going to contract the specified disease.

These solutions only raise more questions. Let’s say you know your unborn child has a genetic defect that could cause him to have Huntington’s disease, a very bad genetic illness that comes with a death sentence. Knowing this in advance could cause you to raise the child differently. Maybe you don’t let him play football at fear that he may get hurt. Maybe you won’t let her move out when she turns 18 because you want to keep her in your sight. Those are just a few possibilities of knowing the potential fate of another individual.

The critics are in fear of increasing the social classes of people. The way it works is that half of the people enhance their children while the other half of the population doesn’t. The half that doesn’t chooses not to because of moral, religious or ethical reasons. Now we have a society that is half superior while the other half (in comparison) would be deemed inferior. The superior children end up with all the really great jobs while the inferior children have to struggle. We could potentially end up with two classes of people. That also ties into the affordability of genetically altering our children. If this is something you wanted to have done; it would more then likely be very expensive, at least for a while. That would mean that only the rich could afford to have it done. That too could potentially be damaging.

The experts are questioning weather or not smarter equals happier. If we genetically enhance our children to make them smarter does that make them happier? That is a really tough thing to prove. We know that there are a lot of children with downs syndrome who are very happy and we also know that there are a lot of very smart people who aren’t happy. It would have been acceptable to test the child with downs syndrome and remove that gene before the child was born. In that particular circumstance, it wouldn’t be used for vanity purposes. That is for survival. The US Department of Energy is saying, “Gene tests can be used to diagnose and confirm disease, even in asymptomatic individuals; provide prognostic information about the course of the disease; and, predict the risk of future disease in individuals or their progeny.” They mention that there are 100,000 people that die each year of prescription related deaths. It would be nice to not to have to drug up our children; we could cure the problem at its epicenter, right where it started in the gene.

Back to the argument or rather the question what makes us human? I think the scientific approach would be the best to start out with. We need to understand how a living cell works. Contained within the living cell is the “parts list” for the human. It has all the directions that the body needs in order for it to come alive and build itself. It really is quite remarkable. Now, that cell is living already yet it has the instructions and tools to continue on living. Science says that something is alive at a cellular level (not the kind of alive that we are thinking of, it just exists just as a bacteria exists; and not a whole lot different at that level.) The amazing thing is that the “parts list” and the blue print contained within every cell are capable of building an entire body. The variations in genetic patterns across populations are currently being studied by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science. It turns out that “slight variations in our DNA sequences can have a major impact on whether or not we develop a disease and our response to environmental factors…” The environmental factors they are referring to are things like infections, toxins and even drugs. These slight variations in DNA code make it a little bit more difficult to test for every genetic disease in the fetus. The standard DNA test will be able to test for a lot of different genetic diseases. The problem is that the tests can be broken down even further. Scientists think the average human has at least 10 million SNP’s or single nucleotide polymorphism. Basically that is taking the tiny little chromosome and further breaking it down to smaller and smaller units. This recent discovery was made in 2005. It involved a team of scientists from six countries. The team studied patterns of illness across the world and attempted to link the patterns to the defective gene. They found a great deal of evidence that showed that people in certain regions were born with a higher rate of certain genes being defective. This is fairly new research and a lot of information is still missing; maybe there really is something in the water.

Roger Fortuna of ABC news stated that, the testing for life threatening genetic illnesses should be a priority if; the possibility of the off spring getting the disease is higher than that of the average person. He has also stated that it could get a little bit out of hand and that a line should be drawn somewhere.

PBS blurts out in bold type across the top of its story “curing cancer” that “Bud Romine was diagnosed with incurable cancer in 1994. He was given three years to live. In 1996, a newspaper article caught his eye.” According to Windfall production company a doctor was testing a new type of cancer drug “Gleevec” within 17; days Buds cancer was completely cured and never came back. The drug Gleevec is a gene-altering drug. The way it works is to repair the defective gene effectively stopping the spread of cancer. This drug is so good for this very specific rare cancer that if a child were to be born with the defective gene it could be fixed later on in life. This perspective adds a different approach to look at gene testing in the fetus. This brings up the points that if we can cure something later on in life with a pill then why test on the unborn fetus? Alas, it is true there are at least three sides to every argument.

The US Department of Energy stands behind a philosophy that “knowledge about the risk potential future disease can produce significant emotional and psychological impacts.” This is because genetic testing can tell a lot about a person. If you agreed to be genetically tested they would literally know everything about you, or at least everything that makes you…you. Consequently the dynamics of the family directly affect the outcome of such testing. There is a psychological side to the testing, which is huge, according to the US Dept. of Energy. It seems there are more hurdles to overcome then merely being tested or testing a fetus for a genetic disease. The possibility also lies in that you just may learn something about yourself. Before they test the fetus they look into the background of the mother and father to see if there are any common ailments that run in the different families. In a lot of cases the testing of both parents may be required. They can then take the combined information and determine if the fetus is at risk for anything. If it is then the genetic engeneers and parents are faced with some options. They could terminate. They could repair the damaged DNA while the child is in the womb. They could do nothing and live with the knowledge that they could have prevented the disease from ever forming. Then again maybe genetically engineering the fetus would have caused other damage. David Masci reminded us earlier that even altered genes are passed down to off spring. If you change the gene in your child, you have changed the building code for the child; you have changed the instructions and have even altered the tools in the “toolbox.”

So, now what? Currently if a child is at risk of getting a genetically inherited disease there is help available. That is the job of a geneticist. A geneticist is an M.D. specialty position. Help is also available in the form of counseling they are called genetic counselors; the qualifications for the position are graduate-degree training. They could explain the current options and treatments that are available.

The idea of being able to pick out the sex of your child seems like a great one. It would be nice to make them free of physical birth defects as well as the potential to get diseases. It would be great to determine the eye color or hail color. In fact everything you could think of could be pre determined. There is some concern over parents claiming ownership over certain children, since they technically created them. Most scientists have the same concerns in regards to genetic engineering. Most want someone of oversee them; they want someone to tell them what is right and what is wrong. This seems to take the pressure off the scientists. I personally am ok with the genetic testing of the fetus. I think I can live with myself knowing I tested the fetus. At the very least you could make informed decisions from the test results. For example I mentioned earlier that tests were made all over the world to see why certain children were born with certain defective genes. If I noticed that the fetus had or was developing or had developed the tendency to get cancer I may consider moving to an area in the world where that tendency towards that disease was less common. I could take the test results and inform my child that “you really shouldn’t smoke because you are 200 times more likely to develop lung cancer that the average person.” I think that if DNA testing was just used to inform; then millions of lives could be saved. Just the knowledge of “hey, I need to be a little bit extra careful” is sometimes enough to save a life. As far as testing because a parent wants the next beauty pageant winner, I think that is crazy. There is no need for that type of vanity. So, that rules out choosing the hair color, eye color and the sex of the baby. As far as minor birth defects go that falls into the vanity category. But, this is where I differ. If the fetus is tested and is determined to have a life or death illness or an illness that wont allow them to function in a normal society then I say yes. Genetically alter the genes. At this point I bring up the question…can this be cured after birth? If it can still be altered after birth then the genetic manipulation should wait. Maybe the child wont be born with the disease after all. Only under these most extreme circumstances should the genes of an un-born fetus be messed with. The reason for this was the study put out by our own government, The US Dept of Energy, office of Science. They actually put it best when they stated that they discovered this ‘sub gene’ basically the gene of a gene. Wow, I hope the scientists realize this; they have sure failed to mention it. Either way, until more research is conducted, repairing someone’s genes could end up being a big mistake and should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.

Works Cited

"DOE Office of Science." DOE Office of Science. Government. <Science.energy.gov>.

Fortuna, Roger. "The ethics of testing embryos for disease.” Genetic testing helps British Women Conceive Breast cancer free baby. ABC News. 30 June 2008.

"Genomics GTO Road Map." Genomics GTO Road Map. 2005. geonomicsgtl.energy.gog/roadmap/.

Human Genome Project. USA. US Department of Energy. Office of Science. Oak Ridge, TN: DOE Geonomics:GTL.

Masci, David. "Designer Humans will altering human genes divide society?" CQ Researcher 11 (2001): 1-23. Masci, David. "Should the federal government ban human clone research?"

Interview. Designer Humans 18 May 2001: 13-15.

Massarella, Carlo. "DNA." PBS. 2003. PBS. pbs.org/wnet/dna.

Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden How genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. Avon, 1998.

0 notes

markwatersme · 8 years ago

Text

The Metamorphosis of Envy, One of the Deadly Sins

Envy is commonly recognized today as one of the “seven deadly sins.” To really analyze its origins I need to go way back. Although envy seems to have its roots based in Christianity the actual personification of envy and its roots predates the Christian religion. I plan on exploring the origin of envy and explaining how it relates to Renaissance literature as well as modern literature.

The first glimpses of envy were personified in around the year eight. The book Metamorphosis of Ovid was the earliest writing that I could find, that mentioned envy. The concept of envy had been around long before then. It had not yet been personified. It was Ovid who brought envy to life. Ovid did two things for envy: First he embodied envy and second he personified her. I separate these two very familiar terms for a reason. I am using the term embodiment as an abstract term. Embodiment is referring to envy (Invidia) as a whole, whereas envy was personified into an entity (person) know as Invidia. The separation of embodiment and personification is crucial to understanding that it was the concept of envy that was personified into the character Invidia and that the embodiment of Invidia includes everything about Invidia including her home and the symbols that are scattered throughout her property (even the weather that “follows her” around).

We are initially introduced to Invidia’s home. Her home is referred to as a “disease.” The embodiment of envy begins with her home. We learn that people who get near her property waste away. According to Matthew W. Dickie and the American Journal of Philology, the idea of wasting away and envy was introduced in about the fourth century BCE. This idea was introduced in the form of a painting. The painting was called “Slander” by Apelles of Diabole. The painting was that of a man who had wasted away from envy. It is believed that the idea for this painting was taken from the book, Metamorphosis. Furthermore there are additional references in the Anthology Menander backing up this claim and adding additional claim to the concept that envy is a disease, with the result of wasting away.

Rust and rust coloring were often used to represent envy. The Greeks liked to use the color bronze to convey this message, whereas the Romans liked to use the color black to represent the same thing. The black cloud over Invidia’s house is a clear representation of this. The home is not a symbol within itself. The home is connected to envy (Invidia) and therefore Invidia’s home and property are actually embodied together into one entity…Invidia. I could argue that the home cannot represent envy without Invidia. It is this personification of envy that has brought Invidia to life and with her came everything that she embodies. That is just what we see. What we can’t see is even more prevalent. This is important because envy was commonly referred to as the “hidden vice.” This fits well when viewing Invidia’s home as a metaphor for envy.

During the fourteenth century, the Catholic Church took on Ovid’s idea of envy being a bad thing. The church took his concept of envy and determined that it would be re-classified into a category known as “the seven deadly sins.” So, a bunch of new rules to live by were also born. Now that Catholicism had a connection with the sin of envy, a lot of its origins became lost. Several sources all of which are connected to religion have taken claim for “discovering” the sin of envy. Most are failing to look back to Ovid’s time. One source in particular credits a Greek theologian, Evagrius Pontus for coming up with the idea of envy being a sin. The only problem was that Ovid had employed that concept about 350 years prior to Evagrius’s claim. It was claimed that there were actually eight deadly sins and at some point during the late sixth century it was reduced to seven deadly sins. According to Pope Gregory the sin of envy was the second most serious sin. The sins have all evolved in some ways. For example the sin of sloth was originally called “sadness.” It was the church who changed it. There were other varying terms in different languages that caused the original concepts and ideas to change into new concepts and ideas. However the original sin of envy is still the same as it was in the metamorphosis.

People routinely needed a way to spread the message of the sins. A great way this was done was through a list of “Heavenly Virtues” or “Contrary Virtues.” Spiritual manuals were produced from these virtues. The virtues originally derived from a poem from the Psychomachia it was also known as The Battle of the Soul. It was written in the fifth century by Prudentius and is considered to be an epic poem. It was through literature that the message of the seven deadly sins the word was able to “travel” throughout the world. The psychomachia poem, Battle of the Soul is a play where there is a battle between the sins and virtues of different individuals. It clearly has a political message about sinning. In the end, the virtues beat out the vices. The poem also helped to spread the word of Catholicism; the religious elements seemed to “piggy back” with the messages of sin throughout the poem. More specifically the poem ABC des simples gens was taken directly from the psychomachia and was also widely distributed to tell the story of good beating out evil.

During the sixteenth century, a lot of the images were transferred into the form of pictures. Now even the illiterate could understand what was going on. This gave yet another “outlet” to communicate the seven deadly sins. It was during the Renaissance time that the news of the sins and the telling of what not to do and what to do really took off. The sins evolved to the point where the punishment for the sins was also determined. It was known that if you violated one of the seven deadly sins, your punishment in hell was already determined. The punishment for envy was that the individual would be put into freezing water. It was during this period that the color green was added to represent envy. It was William Shakespeare in Othello that first referred to envy as being green. He also used the term in The Merchant of Venice. At this point there is some speculation that Shakespeare may be the one responsible for the emotion of envy being connected to the color green.

Along with the Metamorphosis being a book that is about change, so is the sin of envy. According to the book The cement of Society A study of social orde” by Jon Elster, envy isn’t about wanting something that someone else has, but it is about simply not wanting them to have whatever it is that they have. Elster breaks the envious person down into two categories, the strong envious and the weak envious. A person who is weakly envious simply doesn’t want the other person to have what they have. However, a strongly envious person is willing to give up what they have in order for the other person to not to have what they have. In other words they want to take away whatever it is that they are envious over. It is that concept that Ovid spoke of in the Metamorphosis. The person who will do anything to take away from others, not so they can have something but so that the other person can’t have it, is morally and ethically corrupt and this corruption is represented by Invidia and her home. The decay is helpless. Once a person experienced decay brought on by envy there was no stopping it. There was no cure. The only cure for envy was not to experience it. That basically involved staying away from Invidia and her house. It is worth mentioning that before one experiences envy (in The Metamorphosis) the individual sees Invidia’s house. It is at that point the person must make a conscious decision to “visit” Invidia or to turn around. The home is not inviting and obviously represents something bad.

Invidia is represented in many forms. There are a few pictures showing what Invidia would look like. Throughout the fourteenth century, the seven deadly sins were commonly displayed in the form of art. I mentioned earlier that this was a way to send a message and to communicate to those who couldn’t read. One of the more remarkable pieces of art is a painting by Hieronymus Bosch. He was an artist and was very well known in the fourteenth century. He was especially known for a painting that he did entitled, The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things. This was a painting on a square surface. In the middle of the square was a circle and within that circle the seven deadly sins were painted. In each of the four corners were four small circles which contained the four last things. The four last things were added to the seven deadly sins in around the fourteenth century. It seems that this was a remarkable time for growth. The Renaissance period was new to all sorts of things and things seemed to be in a constant flux and growth; the four things that were added to the seven deadly sins were Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven. That is a far cry from the original concept of envy that was introduced fourteen hundred years prior. It just represents the metamorphosis that occurred and continually occurs throughout time.

Whether envy is represented in the form of written text such as the Metamorphosis or rendered in early fourteenth century paintings, the use of personification is clearly abundant. Even the play, Psychomachia personified envy. It wasn’t just envy that was personified. All of the sins were personified. In order to have a battle between good and evil we must first make them human or give them some human traits. This helps us better relate with the sins.

As we continue throughout the Renaissance time, we can clearly see the Catholic churches need to communicate the sins to the general public. Envy started showing up everywhere. Geoffrey Chaucer even integrated the seven deadly sins into the Pardoners Tale. During the Middle Ages, a lot of people owed Ovid a debt of gratitude. This included Chaucer, Dante and Boccaccio. Even the modern day authors have mentioned that Ovid was their inspiration; among these authors were Dryden, Pope and Milton. They all have their own unique takes on the subject of sin.

According to Brother Jacob, a monk at Mt. Angel Abbey, the book, Metamorphosis is taught at the Mount Angel Abbey as part of a class. It is taught as mythology and is actually taught because of the exceptional use of language. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ovid is popular in Christian culture; Ovid set the standard for the usage of metrics, prosody and poetic diction.” As we move out of the Renaissance Era and into more modern times we can see that the seven deadly sins are still around and are still being preached by numerous religious groups, not just Catholicism.

The sins were viewed differently by everyone. Dante actually grouped the sins into three categories: Perverted love; The sins were pride, envy and anger. The next category was insufficient love; sloth was the responsible sin. Finally the last category was excessive love of object; greed, lust and gluttony were the responsible sins. This idea of sins being categorized into different groups is nothing new. It seems that since the inception of the sins they have been categorized. Originally the Catholic Church divided the sins up into two categories, venial sins and capital sins. The venial sin was a minor infraction whereas the capital sin such as envy was a mortal sin. That may explain why once an individual becomes infected by Invidia, they simple wither away. Ovid didn’t give the victims of envy a way out. That could be because of the seriousness of the infraction. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 8, sin “Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them.” According to their website, sin is a personal thing. Furthermore by helping others commit a sin, you are directly responsible for committing the sin as well. The responsibility of who is guilty for the sin rests in the knowledge of who committed the sin and who helped them commit the sin. If you “advise praise or approve the sin,” you are guilty of the sin. If you don’t stop someone from committing a sin, you are also guilty of the sin. This aligns with Invidia and her house and the conscious decision to approach her. These are personal decisions made by the individual. Now, if someone were to advise an individual to go visit Invidia, then that individual would be just as guilty of the sin as anyone else.

The “modern” day rendition of the seven deadly sins can be seen in movies. It seems that the current modern day concept of “the seven deadly sins” has changed (metamorphosis) from the original concept. It has kept true with the original idea. The idea that envy is a process of withering away is still the same idea. The images have changed that are used to represent the original ideas. Some newer concepts have arisen from the original ideas. For example the original color of envy was copper and now it is green. I’m uncertain whether or not to give Shakespeare credit or not for changing the color of envy from copper to green. He was the first that I could find to mention the new color of envy. There seem to be two modern “outlets” that seem to specialize on the subject of envy. The first is Catholicism. The second are psychologists. Each group has pronounced in no uncertain terms that their views on envy including its orgins are the correct view. It became very difficult to determine the reliability of information. I have used an exasperating number of sources to best show accuracy and consistency within the topic. I have fact checked all my sources and they all seem to be consistently in line and in agreement with each other. I have noted any inconsistencies such as my indication of not knowing for sure if Shakespeare coined the phrase, “green with envy,” or not. I think I have clearly made a case for the origins of envy and have successfully shown the metamorphosis of envy.

Works Cited

Benziger Brothers, and Michael Augustine. "THE FOUR LAST THINGS." CATHOLIC TRADITION. Archbishop of New York 1899, 5 Oct. 1899. Web. 31 May 2010. <http://catholictradition.org/Classics/4last-things.htm>.

Cunningham, M. P. "Ovid in Christian Culture." New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 838-39. Print.

Dickie, Matthew W. "Ovid Metomorphosis 2.760-64." Ovid Metomorphosis 2.760-64 Winter 96.4 (1975): 378-90. Print.

Elster, Jon. The Cement of Society a Study of Social Order. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ., 1989. Print.

"Essay on Chaucer's Canterbury Tales - Sin in The Pardoner's Tale :: Pardoner's Tale." Essay on Chaucer's Canterbury Tales-Sin in the Pardoner's Tale. Web. 30 May 2010. <http://123helpme.com/view.asp?id=15609>.

Hobbins, Daniel. "The Schoolman as Public Intellectual." The American Historical Review. 2003. Web. 30 May 2010.

Hurd, John Coolidge., and Bradley H. McLean. Origins and Method: towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity : Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT, 1993. Print.

Brother Jacob "Questions about Ovids Connection with Religon." Personal interview. 22 May 2010.

Psychomachia “Aurelius Purdentius Clemens The Battle For the Soul of Man” Web 25 May 2010 <Richmond.edu>

"USCCB - Catechesis in the Catholic Church." United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Web. 30 May 2010. <http://usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.shtml#1865>.

1 note · View note

markwatersme · 8 years ago

Text

Antithesis and “A Room of One’s Own”

Virginia Woolf is probably one of the top writers to have ever graced this planet. She redefined what writing is through a style that only she could muster. In the book, “A Room of One’s Own” Woolfe uses an unseen rhetoric force to tell us about the struggles and issues associated with female authors in the early 1900’s. It is within this “voice” that she is able to untangle the hypocrisy and sexism associated with writing and publication. A few things came to mind while I was reading “A Room of One’s Own.” The first being her usage of rhetorical devices and the second focusing around her literary elements. The main rhetorical element in which is consistently employed throughout the book is “antithesis.” The University of Kentucky, Department of Modern and Classical Languages, Literature and Cultures, defined “Antithesis” as a rhetorical device focusing on “opposition, or contrast of ideas or words in a balanced and parallel construction.” The second thing that came to mind was the literary concept of “the other” which seems to fit in as both as a literary element and a rhetorical device. My primary focus is on how Woolfe used these rhetorical devices to “show” the readers some of the issues faced by female writers.

In the book, “A Room of One’s Own” Virginia Woolfe tells a tale of what it is like to be a female author. The reader learns of her struggles through her use of antithesis as a driving force used to clarify and explain a pretty terrible situation. She starts right at the beginning by telling us, the reader her views on “Women and Fiction.” She starts out by telling us what the “words” “Woman and Fiction” might mean and begins to tell us her story. “They might mean simply a few remarks about Fanny Burney; a few more about Jane Austen; a tribute to the Brontës and a sketch of Haworth Parsonage under snow; some witticisms if possible about Miss Mitford; a respectful allusion to George Eliot; a reference to Mrs Gaskell and one would have done.” Woolfe goes on to tell us the opposing side to her argument… “But at second sight the words seemed not so simple. The title women and fiction might mean, and you may have meant it to mean, women and what they are like, or it might mean women and the fiction that they write; or it might mean women and the fiction that is written about them, or it might mean that somehow all three are inextricably mixed together and you want me to consider them in that light. But when I began to consider the subject in this last way, which seemed the most interesting, I soon saw that it had one fatal drawback. I should never be able to come to a conclusion.” She may never be able to “come to a conclusion” but through their antithesis, the reader is clearly able to come up with the conclusion on their own. It is within this binary opposition that she begins to create and build upon her rhetorical force.

The opposition of Woolf’s antithesis could very well be the “male” himself. According to Annette Kolodny’s “Some Notes on Defining a ‘Feminist Literary Critism’” Woolf had studied a great deal of male authors for their style and technique in an effort to establish why they were being published. Kolodny tells us that Woolfe studied male writing in such great detail that “…a similar confinement could not be possible for the richness and variety of women’s writing.” The interesting thing here is that the antithesis contained within her writing is also embodied within the criticism of her writing. Kolodny goes on to say “But it is precisely that richness and variety which will escape us if we practice a criticism based on assumptions…” The literary critic, Annette Kolodney now faces the similar opposition as Woolfe herself expressed in the book.

Virginia Woolfe continues to use her rhetoric and voice as the story progress along. She never tells the reader what he or she should think and feel she just tells us the facts and we are able to draw our own conclusions as to what we should feel. A prime example is when Woolfe tied her antitilogical style into an example using Shakespeare… “I looked at the works of Shakespeare on the shelf, that the bishop was right at least in this; it would have been impossible, completely and entirely, for any woman to have written the plays of Shakespeare in the age of Shakespeare.” Woolfe continues on with the other half of the antithesis… “Let me imagine, since facts are so hard to come by, what would have happened had Shakespeare had a wonderfully gifted sister, called Judith, let us say. Shakespeare himself went, very probably,— his mother was an heiress — to the grammar school, where he may have learnt Latin — Ovid, Virgil and Horace — and the elements of grammar and logic. He was, it is well known, a wild boy who poached rabbits, perhaps shot a deer, and had, rather sooner than he should have done, to marry a woman in the neighbourhood, who bore him a child rather quicker than was right. That escapade sent him to seek his fortune in London. He had, it seemed, a taste for the theatre; he began by holding horses at the stage door. Very soon he got work in the theatre, became a successful actor, and lived at the hub of the universe, meeting everybody, knowing everybody, practising his art on the boards, exercising his wits in the streets, and even getting access to the palace of the queen. Meanwhile his extraordinarily gifted sister, let us suppose, remained at home.” According to the book “Literature after Feminism” by Rita Felski, “Woolfe is a figure who is torn and contradictory, ambivalent and multifaceted, concerned with aesthetics and politics.” It is through this articulation of style that Woolfe is able to lock on to certain literary devices and essentially “ride” them through the entire story. This is demonstrated throughout the story and Felski’s commentary on Woolf’s contradictory style further emphasizes her technique.

Virginia Woolf’s comments on other authors such as George Elliot in order to further show this “opposite but equal” comparison. Woolf tells us about how useless men are “It is useless to go to the great men writers for help, however much one may go to them for pleasure. Lamb, Browne, Thackeray, Newman, Sterne, Dickens, De Quincey — whoever it may be — never helped a woman yet, though she may have learnt a few tricks of them and adapted them to her use. The weight, the pace, the stride of a man’s mind are too unlike her own for her to lift anything substantial from him successfully.” Woolfe then goes on to tell us how great these same male authors were … “All the great novelists like Thackeray and Dickens and Balzac have written a natural prose, swift but not slovenly, expressive but not precious, taking their own tint without ceasing to be common property.” It is, once again her usage of antithesis as a literary devices that allow us to “see” both sides of the story. It is through this rhetorical voice that we, the reader feel like we are getting an unbiased account of what it is like to be a female writer. On one hand she tells us that men are not so good but she is willing to point out the good qualities as well. According to Margaret Kirkham’s book “Jane Austin Feminism and Fiction” Jane Austin saw men in a similar way, particularly George Elliot; she goes on to tell us that… Woolfe “sees Austin as the well nigh miraculous example of the female artist of androgynous mind, whose are transcends such irritations as the author, as a women, must have experienced.” This androgyny view of Woolf’s further exemplifies the usage of antitheses within the story. The term androgynous is an example of opposing and balanced ideas, as was defined by “The University of Kentucky.”

There is one line in particular that really stood out as a prime example of the antitholigical rhetorical device. Woolf was talking about Mary Carmichael’s novel, “Lifes Adventure” and she was thinking about Carmicheals writing style; and Woolf’s thoughts were on weather, “she has a pen in her hand or a pickaxe.” This once again resurrects the idea of antithesis and binary opposition. The pen has the ability to create, while the pick axe has the ability to destroy. The fact that she was wondering this about a female author and not the male counterpart shows us that either the male of the female can create or destroy. It was that line that eliminated any remaining idea that I may have had that Woolfe was more bias towards women. It was that idea that showed the equal oppositions associated with antithesis.

Another critical element employed by Woolfe was her concept of the “other.” Annette Kolodney tells us “That women often write out of that different and sometimes ‘other’ perspective of experiences has now become virtually a truism in feminist critical circles.” She was talking about the variations of styles between women and men. Woolfe mentions “…when a woman speaks to women she should have something very unpleasant up her sleeve. Women are hard on women. Women dislike women. Women — but are you not sick to death of the word?” This ties into the concept of the “Other” in a sort-of-reverse manner. In this particular case, we are led to believe that the women are not the “Other” or literary “the one”. The previous quote lays claim that, that is not the case. So, in fact, women would be “the one” and the male counterpart would be classified as the “Other.” Jacques Lacan spoke of the “Other” in terms of… “…the very place called upon by a recourse to speech in any relation where it intervenes. If it speaks in the Other, whether or not the subject hears it with his own ears, it is because it is there that the subject, according to logic prior to any awakening.” Using Lacan’s description, I am once again reinforcing that Woolfe is describing women as the “one” and men as the “Other.”

A Room of One’s Own is a masterpiece of literature. Virginia Woolf beautifully weaves this story using many different literary devices. The main literary device that stands out is her usage of antithesis and how she employs it and ties it into a flawless rave of rhetoric’s. Finally, she concludes this work of art with the literary element of the “other” nicely tying everything together and allowing the reader to make his or her own judgments about the types of challenges faced by female writers. In the end…Woolf’s room of her own, gave her a voice of her own.

Bibliography

Castle, Terry. Boss Ladies, Watch Out!: Essays on Women, Sex, and Writing. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Felski, Rita. Literature after Feminism. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2003. Print.

"Kentucky Classics." University of Kentucky - Welcome to the University of Kentucky. Web. 02 Mar. 2011. <http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html>.

Kirkham, Margaret. Jane Austen, Feminism and Fiction. Sussex: Harvester, 1983. Print.

Kolodny, Annette. "Some Notes On Defining A "Feminist Literary Criticism"" 1975. Feminist Criticism: Essays on Theory, Poetry and Prose. USA, 1978. 37-58. Print.

Lacan, Jacques. The Meaning of the Phallus. Print.

Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989. Print.

0 notes

markwatersme · 8 years ago

Text

The Signifier and the Signified

Many people have taken a great interest in two seemingly different terms namely, the signifier and the signified. I plan of focusing on two individuals, Saussure and Lacan. Both Saussure and Lacan use the two terms in some very different ways. It is somewhat universally agreed upon that the Signifier is defined as a word that “points the finger”to its meaning and that the signified is what the word represents (what the finger is pointing to). That is about all that any can agree upon about the two terms. From there on out the disagreements begin. The complexity of the issue is immense. After all, we are asking how the sound of a word conveys meaning. The one thing we do know for sure is that sounds do convey meaning. If I were to say the word “wine” you would know exactly what I was saying and an image would present itself in your mind. If you didn’t speak English you would still have a word, or series of sounds that would point the way to the same image. The fact that sounds can be put together to mean something, seems to give language a sort of commonality. All spoken language consists of a series of sounds that will point the direction to the object which the sounds represent.

Lacan begins his ambiguous and round about explanation in The Meaning of the Phallus. I am led to believe that the Signifier and the Signified are embodied everywhere. He begins with the conceptual idea of the “other.” The “other” is not the one but is literally the other. This brought up the question “What does that have to do with anything?” Lacan says “If it speaks in the Other, I say, designated by this Other the very place called upon by a recourse to speech in any relation where it intervenes. If it speaks in the Other, whether or not the subject hears it with his own ears, it is because it is there that is the subject.” Yet another question is raised. Who is the signified and who is the signifier? The signifier is the word “Other” while the Signified is what the word represents. It represents “not the one.” So, if it doesn’t represent the “one” it must represent the “other.” We really need two things here. We need the signifier and the signified. So, that means we need one word and an object of what that word represents.

Let’s take Lacans idea of the phallus. First of all we need a signifier. Lacan explains that the phallus is a signifier and its function is to “lift the veil from that which it served in the mysteries. For it is to this signified that it is given to designate as a whole the effect of there being a signified, inasmuch as it conditions any such effect by its presence as signifier.” In this particular instance the phallus is the signifier, so he is saying that the signifier is the word “phallus” and the signified is what that word (phallus) represents.

Saussure has a slightly different view. He seems to be saying that the signifier and that signified “reflect” each other. Saussure is telling is that the words meaning is a “series of negative values.” Let’s take the boat. It is nothing but a bunch of letters B-o-a-t. It really doesn’t have a ‘boatness’ about it because the word boat means something different to everyone. In order to determine what the boat represents we can tell what it doesn’t represent. We know that it doesn’t represent a car. Using these negative images (reflections) we can get a better idea of the signifier and signified represent.

The concept between the signifier and the signified is to establish the relationship between the two. This relationship is referred to as signification. Saussure also brings out two other concepts; Langue meaning language and parole referring to the actual speech. If the relationship between langue and parole (language and speech) is identified as langue being a part of parole then we could draw the conclusion that signifier is also part of the signified. Back to the word ‘boat.’ The signifier points its finger at the object which is the boat. The word boat is only the signified which in turn represents the actual object. The formula that Saussure used to help visualize this concept is, sign=signified/signifier. According to Semiotics for beginners, using Saussure’s model, a sign must contain both the signifier and the signified in order to work.

Saussure took a concept and connected it to a sound. The word boy, b-o-y. The sound that each individual letter makes are joined together to make one sound. That new sound, of combined letters (the word boy) is then connected to an image. According to Saussure It is the establishment of that link between the sound and the image that is most important.

Lacan’s theory of the signified and the signifier originally came from Saussure. Saussure stated that the signifier and the signified needed each other and depended upon one another. It is the signifier that makes the signified. Whereas Lacan believes that you can have one without the other, he called this “Pure Signifier.”

Aristotle originally started studying the philosophy of language. According to the article Semantics and Cognitive Research, Aristotle said “Spoken words are the symbols of mental experiences and written words are the symbols of the spoken words.” After Aristotle, many philosophers have taken his idea of spoken words and have either agreed of disagreed with it. Nearly all people studying semiotics agreed upon one thing, there is a code model. This model states that “communication is achieved through encoding and decoding messages.” Recently philosophers have been proposing a new model stating that “communication is achieved by producing and interpreting evidence.” They called this model the inferential model. That theory seems to take the Signifier and the signified to a whole new level. I was able to find out very little reliable and understandable information on this theory. I have concluded myself that this model would require the signifier (the word that points the finger) and the signified to change roles throughout the course of communicating. For example if I say the word “boat” that is the signifier, but rather than the word pointing the finger directly at a boat it merely points in the general direction of a boat. It is then up to the individual hearing the word “boat” to decode the message. Once the individual hears the sound “boat” it would still remain the signifier until the individual is able to decode it. Once the word “boat” is decoded it than will become the signified. This second theory seems to allow the signifier and the signified to move into different states at different times.

I noticed a tiny flaw in the concept of the signified and signifier. If I look at an object and I say the word “red.” You look at the same object and say “oh yes, that object is red.” I’m relatively certain that you aren’t seeing the same identical “red” as I am seeing. Yet we have assigned it the same set of sounds “r-e-d.” One could ultimately argue that we were seeing the identical color. One could also argue that it really doesn’t matter. I would have to say that it would matter based on the situation. The other way to deal with a situation like this is to go with the majority. If the majority of the people identify the word “red” with a certain shade of pigmentation than that will be the standard and anyone who sees it differently could be referred to as color blind. That appears to be the best and most popular way to make the concepts hold true.

I have attempted to take the works of Saussure and Lacan in regards to their ideas of the concept of the signifier and the signified. I then asked myself the most important question “Why should I care?” I tried to look it up online; I tried to research it in the library and after countless hours of research I couldn’t find the answer. I thought about it and I think I came up with an amicable answer. By studying a concept such as the signified and signifier we are able to better understand what a concept is. A concept is just a set of ideas that really aren’t real; or rather they are as real as the creator and interpreter of the concept wants them to be. That within itself forces the word “concept” to be the signifier and the ideas that the “concept” represents become the signified.

Bibilography

Bakhtin, M. M. Bakhtin reader selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, and Voloshinov. London: E. Arnold, 1994.

Chandler, Daniel. "Semiotics for Beginners Signs." Semiotics for Beginners. 2004. Routledge Francis e-library.

"Lacan and Language." Lecan and Language. National University of Singapore. 25 May 2009 http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/lacan.htm.

Lacan, Jacques. The "Meaning of the Phallus" in feminine sexuality. New York: Norton, 1985.

Semantics and Cognitive research. Francois /rastier, 2006.

"Signifier." Encyclopedia of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. 12 Nov. 2006. 30 May 2009 http://nosubject.com/Signifier.

Straker, David. "Signifier and Signified." Changing Minds.org. David Straker. http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/signifier_signified.htmBaskin,

0 notes