"Oh, my God!"

[amicus]

Figured the title would snag you...but...while watching a film, I heard for the ten thousandth time that phrase, "Oh, my God!" This time the line was spoken by Jamie Leigh Curtis in the film, "Forever Young", with Mel Gibson.

Since I do not believe in a god and since I really hate to use phrases in my stories that have become cliche's and much over used and since, "Oh, Shit", just doesn't get it most of the time...what do you, as a writer, replace it with?

Not the end of the world, I know, and perhaps it is only me, who also bridles when I hear network news anchors continually say 'gonna, gotta, woulda, coulda', in place of real words..but then I was doing radio when most of these shits were in short pants. so, forgive me.

Also in that song was a piece of music....one that reminded me of a comment someone made, ( I searched six pages on two different threads and could not find it to give credit), concerning intellectuals and artists, musicians to be specific....the snippet was,"... if you hate the lifestyle of left wing intellectuals, why do you listen to or read their works..."?

The song was, "The Very Thought of You", performed by Billie Holiday. I happen to love much of her work even after knowing she was black, a prostitute and a heroin addict.

Once upon a time, I interviewed Miss Joan Baez, a folk singer in the 60's for those who are too young. The interview was about politics as she was returning from Vietnam and stopped off in Honolulu and my agent snagged the interview.

I hate her politics, I loved her song, "Diamonds and Rust", and also Dylan's. "Lay Lady, Lay", although that is not music you might expect a red neck, right wing nutcase to enjoy.

There is more to the story....I broadcast live Jazz from a nightclub in Honolulu and got to know a great many musicians, all of whom, it seems, I am sure there were exceptions, were always 'high', when they performed. I know, they were always polite enough to offer me a 'hit', during intermission.

This ties in with my thoughts in other threads about why intellectuals, musicians and artists, even old Tom Hanks is a flaming Liberal, and the ongoing question of why high intellect and artistic talent seems at home in the socialist camp?

My daughter is organizing a book of my poetry and I linked her to this thread, so please be civil in your responses, I don't want the Author's Hangout, or Literotica in general to get a bad name with normal peeps.

Thanks...



Amicus...

 

[Guest]

The song was, "The Very Thought of You", performed by Billie Holiday. I happen to love much of her work even after knowing she was black, a prostitute and a heroin addict.

This line was necessary why?

I try very hard to read 99% of the posts on the board; I believe in fair play. Lines like that make me want to wring your neck.... do you hear yourself at times?

And by the way, this was civil.

 

[amicus]

Today, 08:32 PM #2
Elizabetht
Finally safe...

~~~~

Well, if you read that many posts on this forum, you know full well the buzz on me; that I am a racist, misogynist, misogamist and sociopath, all roled into one old and wrinkled package.

I thought it to be self evident that I was saying regardless of race, color, creed or religion, I judge art and excellence on its merits and not other wise.

But you, apparently, like most, just can't wait to throw a stone.

A pity...it is a rather interesting post.

Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

"Oh my God" is one of those phrases that is used as a catch-all exclamation of surprise, anxiety, or horror in mainstream media. The idea, obviously, is to convey a sense of something truly dramatic happening, because no one would invoke God if it wasn't important.

Or something like that.

Regarding your other comments, Ami. I doubt you're as misogynist, racist, sociopathic, or otherwise as you may think others see you. But then, given the blunt way in which you present yourself, I guess I can understand why others have labeled you as such. It's a convenience, you see. People like to label other people.

But you already knew that.

I get the impression that your original argument started as a reaction to the blabbermouthing people resort to when they can't find the right words. We say "Oh my God!" when we really mean, "What is that disgusting thing, and why is it eating her face?" . . . or something along those lines. Like I said, it's a catch-all, one that quickly and easily conveys the sense of drama inherent in the moment. It's not exactly an expression of religious belief.

However, if you were watching a movie in which a hippie-esque character exclaims "OH, by the grace of Gaia," would you feel the sense of profound anxiety the character was expressing? Likely, like most people, you'd think, "Well, that was cheesy." I admit that I would.

Language is as much the evolution of sounds and phrases as it is the psychology behind those sounds and phrases. "Gaia," for the most part, just doesn't carry as much weight as "God" for the bulk of modern society (in the US).

 

[amicus]

Yup, yup, yup to everything and thanks, but what are we left with to express that particular emotion if not that?

Not speaking subjectively with that 'we', just writers...like your 176th love story when it gets down to writing the sex part and you wonder if you haven't described it exactly the same before....

Ah, well, guess there really is no answer to it...

amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

Yup, yup, yup to everything and thanks, but what are we left with to express that particular emotion if not that?

Not speaking subjectively with that 'we', just writers...like your 176th love story when it gets down to writing the sex part and you wonder if you haven't described it exactly the same before....

Ah, well, guess there really is no answer to it...

amicus...

No, you've got a definite point there, Ami. The association of God and sex has been established for generations now. Hard to go up against an institution like that. After all, many people equate great sex with what they envision would be an incredible religious experience.

The only way to introduce an alternative would be to use it over and over again until readers begin using it in their casual lives. Not always an easy thing, of course; Most of Shakespeare's turns of phrase did not become popular until after his death.

 

[amicus]

God and sex, eh? Had to laugh at that, for reasons I will not provide but, suffice it to say my oldest son lived with me as an adult for a while in his younger years and he blushes whenever I remind him of, "Oh, God, Oh, God, Oh, God."

Heh...



amicus....

 

[slyc_willie]

God and sex, eh? Had to laugh at that, for reasons I will not provide but, suffice it to say my oldest son lived with me as an adult for a while in his younger years and he blushes whenever I remind him of, "Oh, God, Oh, God, Oh, God."

Heh...



amicus....

Hey, how often have you seen the words "rapturous," "rapture," or other variations thereof used in erotic or romantic writing?

Thought so.

 

[DeeZire]

I'm a fan of "oh crap!" - as in when a guy accidentally shoots his hunting buddy, or a slacker high on pot runs over a toddler.

Joan Baez was in my neck of the woods in the 60s. I met her at a New Years Eve party. I was outside puking in the bushes and she came over to rub my back. I told her to leave me alone, but probably used more definitive language. (Blame it on Red Mountain Vin Rose.) I ran into her a few weeks later, gassing up her red XKE Jaguar (at 21 cents per gallon!). I apologized for being an asshole. She was not impressed.

Up in Carmel Valley, the people who lived across the road from her used to blast Frank Sinatra on their stereo, hoping to drive her and her hoard of peace activists out of the valley. There was a lot of animosity going around back then. She did finally leave the area, but it had more to do with her sister Mimi's husband Richard Farina getting killed on a motorcycle on his birthday blazing down the Carmel Valley road.

My favorite album of hers was called Miracles. She wrote a couple of the tunes, including the title track. Joe Sample played on it. She also did a cover of "Cry Me a River". It was her earliest foray into pop music, and, I think, her best.

In answer to the question why do liberals and creativity go together? I think it has to do with the altruism gene, which is found in liberals but not in conservatives. My take on it is that altruism is related to being sensitive to one's surroundings - emotionally vulnerable perhaps. People who are emotionally vulnerable might be more likely to be in touch with their creative side - more likely to succumb to emotions that drive them into their own little world of creativity. In fact, many creative geniuses are known to be quite childlike - Brian Wilson, for example.

My one beef with tying liberals with socialism is that it's a bogus characterization, but that's for another thread - one that I probably won't visit.

 

[amicus]

Hello, Deezire, and thank you for the anecdote concerning Baez, I found it most interesting.

"...In answer to the question why do liberals and creativity go together? I think it has to do with the altruism gene, which is found in liberals but not in conservatives. My take on it is that altruism is related to being sensitive to one's surroundings - emotionally vulnerable perhaps. People who are emotionally vulnerable might be more likely to be in touch with their creative side - more likely to succumb to emotions that drive them into their own little world of creativity. In fact, many creative geniuses are known to be quite childlike - Brian Wilson, for example..."

There is a lot in that paragraph, of course, being a Randroid, I take umbrage at your use of altruism as a virtue. Further I greatly question even the concept of any kind of gene, that is of recent being postured as responsible for human actions in direct conflict with the concept of free will.

My take on liberals is that they lack a sense of self identity, which could be caused by many nurture based reasons but has nothing to do with the genetic code. Survival in the wild requires being sensitive to one's surroundings, or in reality, but I think you infer, 'social surroundings', not the reality as I define it.

This discussion could and will, in other places and times, go on forever, but I will end this part with another word of gratitude for your civil response. Thank you.

Amicus...

 

[DeeZire]

There was a discussion around here about the altruism gene - probably a few months ago. I never saw the study claiming the connection, but in your case, Ami, if you're going to claim the validity of the genetic differences between the male and female of the human species, (as you often do in your posts) you must also accept the genetic differences peculiar to individual humans, regardless of gender.

Take music for example. Some folks have a natural-born talent, some don't. Those who don't can study music, they can learn to read sheet music, but will they ever learn to play by ear? Not if they lack the genetic makeup. I can see the same thing happening with the altruism gene. Will conservatives ever see the value of the common good? Not if they're missing the gene that triggers that response. It is a rather profound proposition - the idea that half people in this country are emotionally crippled because of a genetic defect, but it would help to explain the political divisions we see in society today.

 

[amicus]

Seems proper to stipulate that I am not schooled in the science of genetics, so I cannot provide page and paragraph in any refutation or even disagreement.

The X/Y Chromosome is pretty well been figured out, artistic talent, musical ability, to my knowledge has not.

Mendel, trusting memory, and a host of science following, has somewhat determined inherited characteristics, at least in fruit fly's & such things. And red haired kids keep popping up from red haired parents all over the place.

So, yes, many things may/may not be inherited, passed on, but I think the concept of the 'altruism gene', flies in the face of science and human nature.

"...Will conservatives ever see the value of the common good?..."

That becomes a question in the realm of politics, sociology and economics, in addition to just plain old common sense.

Not to start an argument or a disagreement with you, we both know where that goes, but...to state the basis of a rational philosophy concerning the welfare or the common good of all men at all times, is to acknowledge and act to protect the innate rights of the individual, by far the best a society can do for the common good of all humanity.

That is but the foundation upon which an entire philosophy is built and really will not answer questions about what you think you owe society, or that society owes you. Nor will it solve the critical problems of catastrophic illness and the ability to purchase medical care.

The very basis of the American ideal of liberty and justice is founded upon an understanding that individual rights reign supreme over the rights of the state or the church.

That is why people from every nation on earth are protected within the borders of this nation, seeking that, 'American Dream', of individual freedom and success.

There was a re-run of a piece on Ellis Island, on PBS the other evening, it reminded me of the millions of people who escaped the oppression from their homeland to begin a new life in America.

It is a proud heritage.

Amicus...

 

[DeeZire]

So, yes, many things may/may not be inherited, passed on, but I think the concept of the 'altruism gene', flies in the face of science and human nature.

It was science that discovered the correlation between genes and altruism. The fact that human nature can be so radically different between similar people would seem to support the concept of the altruism gene.

I wonder if accepting or denying this theory could be an example of science versus faith?

Whatever. I have to take my computer apart now, which will require a supreme act of faith on my part.

 

[amicus]

It won't be faith or good luck, which I was about to wish you with your computer, it will be your knowledge and ability.

But....thas just the ice-breaker; I see where you are coming from on the 'altrusim gene'.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060529_altruism.htm

Not a very substantial foundation, basing the deductions on primitive multi-celled critters.

It might perhaps be helpful in understanding the nature of bees and other hive like beings that indulge in, 'self sacrifice', for the benefit of the whole nest, but, for humans?

I don't think so.

Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

Seems proper to stipulate that I am not schooled in the science of genetics, so I cannot provide page and paragraph in any refutation or even disagreement.

The X/Y Chromosome is pretty well been figured out, artistic talent, musical ability, to my knowledge has not.

Mendel, trusting memory, and a host of science following, has somewhat determined inherited characteristics, at least in fruit fly's & such things. And red haired kids keep popping up from red haired parents all over the place.

So, yes, many things may/may not be inherited, passed on, but I think the concept of the 'altruism gene', flies in the face of science and human nature.



That becomes a question in the realm of politics, sociology and economics, in addition to just plain old common sense.

Not to start an argument or a disagreement with you, we both know where that goes, but...to state the basis of a rational philosophy concerning the welfare or the common good of all men at all times, is to acknowledge and act to protect the innate rights of the individual, by far the best a society can do for the common good of all humanity.

That is but the foundation upon which an entire philosophy is built and really will not answer questions about what you think you owe society, or that society owes you. Nor will it solve the critical problems of catastrophic illness and the ability to purchase medical care.

The very basis of the American ideal of liberty and justice is founded upon an understanding that individual rights reign supreme over the rights of the state or the church.

That is why people from every nation on earth are protected within the borders of this nation, seeking that, 'American Dream', of individual freedom and success.

There was a re-run of a piece on Ellis Island, on PBS the other evening, it reminded me of the millions of people who escaped the oppression from their homeland to begin a new life in America.

It is a proud heritage.

Amicus...

For those who ever question why I like you, Ami, I will in the future refer them to this post.

Take this only as an expression of goodwill and good feeling, and not as any religious message: God bless you, Amicus.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Herbert A. Simon, a liberal, and Nobel Laureate economist-psychologist, said that altruists are docile & stupid. The quote's in a 1990 journal article he published.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...MON+altruists+docile&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

 

[jomar]

Herbert A. Simon, a liberal, and Nobel Laureate economist-psychologist, said that altruists are docile & stupid. The quote's in a 1990 journal article he published.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...MON+altruists+docile&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

He might have said that, but your article concludes:

It can be concluded that, altruism and docility seem to be two important concepts for social and economic reasoning. Many advances appear possible if we think of applying them to psychological, social, political and, mostly, economic domains.

It's complex. Even before you referenced this article, since genetics came up here, I was thinking that if altruism was not helpful for humans it would be weeded out over generations. But even then it is clearly subject to social and environmental factors - from the holocaust to Kitty Genovese and countless other examples.

But then on the news today is a story about a basketball player who grabbed and sheilded a six year old boy whom he didn't know from gunfire (drug related drive by...it wasn't clear) with his body....and countless other examples.

Interesting.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

I have a different thesis.

Altruism developed in order to halt lethal competition. The docile, dum, and meek give the king their pigs & chickens, and the king lets them live. The peasants march off to war, and the king stays home.