Thursday, May 8, 2014

Questioning Reality

         Interestingly, I also do a very similar thing to what ST describes in her blog post “Unifying Our Stories.” When I read books of myth and magic I automatically think of ways in which I could explain those events rationally. For example, when I imagine Hagar in Guitar’s bedroom unable to murder Milkman, my immediate reaction is that love has handicapped her and she is therefore unable to kill Milkman. I do not conclude that there is a magical, protective force surrounding Milkman that prevents Hagar from stabbing him. So too, when Guitar tied the noose around Milkman’s neck in an attempt to strangle him, and Milkman seemingly comes back to life, I picture Milkman receiving an adrenaline rush, a phenomenon common to people in life and death situations. This event is similar to being numb to pain when running through thorn bushes to escape a threatening situation. It is the result of our autonomic nervous system, a system that unconsciously regulates the body and is responsible for “fight or flight” responses. A “fight or flight” response is an unconscious physiological response to danger that involves an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose levels, and prepares the body to fight or flee. Furthermore, I’m not even phased by Pilate not possessing a navel, as there is a fellow staff member that I work with at camp that also doesn't have a navel. I believe the reason for my zealous tendency to rationalize is due to our brains constantly attempting to make sense of information that we process. 

  There is plenty of research in the psychological field of study that portrays this idea. There was someone named Joe who was suffering from severe seizures. He had his Corpus Callosum, the connection between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, severed as a surgical management option for his epilepsy. However, the left side of the brain processes things in the right visual field, and the right side of the brain processes things that appear in the left visual field. Without the connection between the two sides of the brain, information Joe viewed in his right visual field and processed in his left brain, could not reach the right side of his brain, and information Joe viewed in his left visual field could not reach the left side of his brain. Additionally, speech is processed in the left brain, while the right brain is more visual. Therefore, when the word BELL was flashed in Joe’s left visual field and the word MUSIC was flashed in his right visual field, and he was asked to point to the picture that corresponded with the word that he saw, he chose the picture of a bell rather than that of music. When he was asked why he chose that picture, he explained to the researcher that he saw the word music and subsequently and innocently concocts a story as to why the picture of the bell represents music. Joe believed he heard church bells outside a few minutes prior and therefore he associated bells with music. Curiously, no church bells had chimed. Joe knew he was in a lab and that they were manipulating his brain, and he still fabricates a reason for why he chose a picture of a bell for the word music. The brain feels a need to explain occurrences, and when the brain cannot come up with a plausible explanation it goes to such an extreme extent to rationalize the event that it invents answers that may not even exist. Unfortunately, this often unknowingly leads to wrong perceptions of reality.  

A similar idea is portrayed in Man’s Search for Meaning, a book by Viktor Frankl about his experiences in Auschwitz. Frankl explains that in order to survive the hells of the Holocaust, men had to maintain a vision of a future goal.
Woe to him who saw no more sense in his life, no aim, no purpose, and therefore no point in carrying on. He was soon lost. The typical reply with which such a man rejected all encouraging arguments was, “I have nothing to expect from life any more.” What sort of answer can one give to that?
What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life — daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.
The only way for human beings to prevent despair in that situation was for their brain to dream up a future. Many men did so despite the fact that the chances for a positive outcome were slim to none. However, those that did survive the Holocaust were those that had familial visions, spiritual visions, and the like. 

        Perhaps myth and magic have more of a hold in reality than our brain allows us to believe.

       Woe is the power of the brain. Woe is the weakness of reality. 





4 comments:

  1. Interesting points Rachel. It is true that when a book is so close to real, except for some minor points, it is easy for us to excuse them. However, there is still an genre of intense fantasy, where there is no acceptable reasoning other than "its a different world", and people do still enjoy reading it. I'm wondering if this is, at least in part, because if there is such a disconnect between what we are reading and our real life, we don't feel the need to excuse it, allowing our brains to rest more, and not try to make these excuses subconsciously.
    However, I don't know enough about psychology to analyze it more fully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not one to talk about psychology either, but I enjoy reading sci-fi/fantasy that can’t be interpreted as being real, so let me tell you how I see it.
      I think it’s easier to excuse the fantasy elements than to accept them as a given in a novel. It’s easier to say “it’s the same world”, and since we know very well how this world is supposed to work, it’s very easy to fix flaws in the realism.
      But If you take the flaws as a given, you have a more difficult issue of understanding it, because then you have to try to make sense of it without the givens of real life. You can no longer take for granted that actions will have the reactions we assume they will, which leaves us wracking our brains to figure out why it’s different, and what the consequences of those differences are.
      There was an article I once read called “Human’s in Funny Suits,” about the difficulty in writing believable science fiction. It’s easier to just write up a human character and say it looks like an alien, than to make it truly alien in its character: unusual, unfamiliar and maybe even a little disturbing.
      Same is true of fantasy. It is much harder to analyze in it’s context because it’s so unfamiliar. How can Fleur bring devastating storms but not avoid being raped? Why does Hagar freeze? Why is Grendel invulnerable? Maybe we don’t know why, but we can try and understand what its effect is.
      Saying “it’s magic” is an evasion, an excuse. Saying “Ok, it’s magic. Now what?” is more difficult.

      Delete
  2. Really great post Rachel! Shulie, I think I do agree with you in your comment as well. When things are too fantastical we tend to just attribute it to fantasy or magic, such as in Tracks. To me, the myth and magic that is involved is way too fantastical or it to be rationalized in my mind. I think that may be part of the reason why I did not like Tracks so much; I find that too much magic is incorporated into supposedly 'real life' for it to be real, and since I don't really think it is true, I found myself at constant odds--this magic seems misplaced. However, in Song of Solomon, I found myself doing exactly what Rachel said--trying to find practical reasons for the apparently 'magical' events that occur. Perhaps this is what makes Morrison such an incredible author. She is able to appeal to those who want to believe in the magic, as well as to those who want to read the book in a more practical down to earth way. Whichever method you choose to employ, there is substantial evidence in Song of Solomon to support you. In Tracks however, I found the magic to be way too fantastical to actually fit in with our reality. And, since I received the notion that Tracks is supposed to be more the type where 'magic pervades everyday life' I just found it to be completely unrealistic, and so I found it very hard to follow. (Whereas in a book like Harry Potter, it is clear that it is fantasy, and therefore is much easier to grasp. In Tracks, I received conflicting ideas, and thus had great difficulty understanding and following the novel).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interestingly, I think I liked Tracks better than Song of Solomon for similar reasons. Song of Solomon had just enough verisimilitude for most of the book for the magic to really jar you- to force you to chose between a far-fetched natural explanation and a magical one, and that guise of verisimilitude was always there. Song of Solomon didn't have a very present narrator, so what was presented in it was presented as truth. Conversely, Tracks put together two accounts as seen by two (dramatic, superstitious, and probably insane) people. Tracks gave the reader a framework for its magical events- not necessarily as true, but as the true feelings of two people, which made the differences in their accounts poignant and beautiful. (On a more mundane level, I think Tracks can say a lot about the different ways people see things, even in non exaggerated form). Song of Solomon never let me get comfortable in one point of view- I still have not decided whether to take the magic as magic or reason.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.