King Lear Act II Response 2

After Edgar "fights" Edmund, he runs away because he is under the impression that everyone is going to be looking for him.  He hides in a hollow tree because "I heard myself proclaimed, and by the happy hollow of a tree escaped the hunt.  No port is free, no place that guard and most unusual vigilance does not attend my taking."  Due to his confusion of the actual situation (and his ignorance regarding the treachery of Edmund) he decides to disguise himself as "the basest and most poorest shape that ever penury and contempt of man."  On a surface, this disguise is simply to avoid himself being caught for the transgressions he has made against Edmund.  However, on a deeper level, Edgar feels as though his own character is of no worth to society.  He feels that due to the actions that everyone else in the society perceives him  to have done that they no longer value him and would value him more as a vagrant.  At least they would cast some semblance of charity onto a wanderer.  On a different note, this character may be used as a symbol.  Typically these characters of whom Edgar is disguising himself are known as insane people who have escaped from an asylum, and as such are generally confused and crazy.  This might be used as a symbol of the confusion and craziness that both the reader and Edgar himself are feeling at this point.  All things considered, however, this extreme disguise is probably employed mostly due to the fact that Edgar must pick something so drastically differed from his typical self so that those who seek to punish him for his supposed wrongdoing will not be able to find him.

King Lear Act II Response 1

Sad as it is, there is often the case in which a child (though he or she may not be necessarily of a child's age) turns against their parent.  They undermine, they neglect, or they in essence mistreat their parents to such a degree that an outward appearance of the actions borders on the despicable.  The exact reason for this phenomena is wide open for debate, and can range from a grudge of a past wrongdoing, the result of a spoiled childhood, a culmination of years of irritation, or simply out of the questionable character (morally/ethically) of the child his or herself.  In the case of the two daughters in this story, i would say that a combination of all of the aforementioned scenarios can apply (probably with less of an emphasis on the wrongdoing).  The daughters have more likely than not known throughout their lives that one day they would inherit their father's land.  Whether that came by the way of the king's death or by some other means is unknown to them, but they have undoubtedly lusted after their hefty parcels.  Sheer greed mixed with the years of irritation of their father lecturing them about their mannerisms and what have you may have definitely fueled their treatment of their father.  Furthermore, the fact that the once king has handed over his land to his daughters, then proceeded to encroach on what was at one time, but no longer is his power may also come as an irritation at an extent great enough to make the daughters want to turn him away.

King Lear Act I (post ii)

Loyalty is a rather interesting concept.  It is typically based on friendship, but doesn't necessarily have to be.  For those loyalties that are based in friendship, the basis is usually in that the two people trust and support each other and in that right, will remain loyal to one another.  For those loyalties that aren't based on friendship, it can be for a similar mutual respect between the two individuals.  The type of loyalty in which a person devotes themselves to the other person (like Kent to Lear in this case) is modernly referred to as being clingy and is typically not tolerated.  The situation between Lear and Kent is practically beyond explanation.  This prime example of altruism is rarely (if ever) seen for the simple reason that it rarely benefits the one showing the loyalty.  In Kent's case, it didn't benefit him at all (considering his banishment).  Put short, the loyalty in Kent's case was not at the same extent as loyalty will be referred to in more modern times.  Probably one of the most important characteristics of someone who wishes to attract loyalty is a capability for the understanding of the feeling of those loyal to him/her.  Those wishing to attract loyalty must give those exhibiting loyalty an incentive to stay loyal.  They must show those loyal to them that they mean something to the person shown loyalty.  One of the people that I feel best exemplifies what it takes to attract loyalty is Dr. Vesper.  He has only the best interests of the community at large at heart, while simultaneously making sure that every individual is also taken care of.  

King Lear Act I (post 1)

While i do not condone the behavior of either Goneril or Regan, i do understand what is going through their minds in this instance.  Up for grabs is a rather substantial part of a kingdom.  Now, this is much better than anything any naive daughter got on MTV's Super Sweet 16.  It's logical that they are going to want the most of this gift that they can get, and will do things that they wouldn't do normally in order to get it.  There's a saying that goes, "everyone has their price."  This most definitely applies here as a parcel of a kingdom of this nature is like learning that you and another family member are the sole benefactors of a large sum of money left in a passed loved one's will, but you have to do something out of the ordinary for yourself to get it.  The world inside their heads is completely obsessed with getting as much of their dad's land as they can possibly get, and this means that they're not paying much attention to others feelings.  I can't say that I personally have ever been in a situation in which i would completely disregard others in order to acheive a desire, but I am aware that there is a certain amount of prosperity that i would start to loosen my morals and ethics in order to obtain.  

I want real danger for a change.

Living in a persistent ant state of bliss is good, but only for a while. It's not real. The way the human psyche is set up, there is bound to be conflict. A human cannot mentally handle being happy all the time. Let's approach this from a scientific point of view. Happy thoughts are caused by things called endorphins (if I'm wrong here then please be gentle in your criticisms). As with any stimulus, the body would ultimately become used to to endorphins and they would lose their effect. So, the fact of the matter is that happiness can only ever be fleeting. For people to truly live a full life, they must experience a full range of emotions. This also hearkens back to the concept of you can't really know happiness unless you've felt sadness. In a utopia, there is no discord (other than the entire existence of the utopia itself, despite the fact that those involved in the utopia aren't aware of this), so by this logic there can't actually be happiness. Due to the lack of the full range of emotions in this case, the people in this society don't live full lives. While they themselves my not realize it, it takes a certain more attentive and in tune group to realize that we were meant to live for so much more. (Have we lost ourselves?)

Sex, drugs, and Mind Control.

I've been to Soma. That is, the South of Market District in San Fran.

www.soma.fm --- Zone Out

Mയ personal opinion on the use of sex and drugs to control the general populus is the fact that they are appealing to peoplemost base instincts and pleasures. It is our natural instinct to want to have sex, and more often than not we as animals enjoy the process. Effectively, through equating essentially every aspect of life with either partaking in a sexual act or through using drugs, they are keeping everyone in a perpetual state of happiness. What's more, people who are kept in such a state are much less likely to question their state. They'd rather exist in a perpetual state of bliss (and we all know that ignorance is bliss). I mean, why mess with a good thing? Furthermore, because these people have been preconditioned to be a certain way and perform certain soceital roles, they are even less likely to question any practices. Human nature is a funny thing, however. Despite the fact that the people have been preconditioned and are already very unlikely to question their situation, the governing powers that be have covered the event that anyone should question the personal role. After all, "A gramme is better than a damn." Any happy thoughts? Obliterate them with soma.

Comparison

While on the whole ludicrous, there are certain aspects of Huxley's Brave New World that are at least partially true. The aspect that was a most clear parallel (while not at a 1:1 ratio) was the concept of being pre-disposed to a certain role in life. While we are not necessarily conditioned to be exactly a certain way, it is arguable that the position in which we are born predetermines where we will ultimately end up in life. For example, those who are born into a low-income family or into a family that does not encourage education and does not instill certain traditionally positive values will generally end up the same way: being the parents of children who will also not value an education or good ethics. This recurrent pattern is a very difficult one to break, and except for a certain few instances generally holds true in our society. The opposite of this situation is also generally true: Children who grow up in families that instill good values and encourage education will generally go on to continue such a lineage. This situation is easier to deviate from (unfortunately), but in large part holds true. This pattern can also be applied in large part by regional constraints (sad but true). Now, if we were to approach this fictitious society from a Leninist perspective (notice how many characters have names similar to important communist or socialist figures; Lenina for example), the society is perfect and as the best for overall happiness. However, there is a large regression in human advancement (not all of which that I believe are necessarily good things)that makes the society out to be a morally and ethically disgusting place. The Beta class and below are encouraged to engage in mindless entertainment, and the fact that small children are encouraged to engage in erotic play is unnerving. The part that disgusts me most of all is the "Bokanovskying" of eggs to produce up to 96 offspring from the same egg. Manipulating nature with science should only go so far.
My summation is thus: Once we've begun allowing certain procedures (mainly ones that a decade ago would've met large scale protest), it's a slippery slope before we can get away with practically whatever we want to. Where will we limit ourselves, and furthermore, WILL we limit ourselves?