Humanities desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 9[edit]

DSM and masochism.[edit]

okay if we are being specific. Then if DSM is when a man or woman is dominant and just does strange things to people for their personal gratification then what is it when a person loves to be a slave but hates gratification. Its like they enjoy being a masochist its just that certain things in the symptoms of this masochistic disease just arent things that they want or feel. Is that still masochism? Im not asking for a diagnosis because im pretty sure this disease is what it is. I just want to know if it has a name. Wanting to be a physical slave and do phyisical labor for their "master" AND wanting pain enflicted on them in a sexual reference. What is this called?

--70.42.211.4 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one of our articles states:

The BDSM term is a portmanteau acronym intended to take in all of the following activities:

Bondage and Discipline play (B & D or B/D)
Dominance & submission (D & S or D/s) (including "master and slave" role-playing scenarios and ongoing relationship structures)
Sadism and Masochism (S & M or S/M)

You appear to be describing masochism. I'm not sure / I doubt that masochism per se is a disease. DSM is not "when a man or woman is dominant", it indicates three things, dominance & sadism, and masochism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe also has a good "submission" component. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes but what if they dont want the "master" to lift a finger, but somtimes they do. Its just a mood that over takes them now and then that makes them just want to be submissive in everyway possible but other times be pure dominant. can you really have such strong lifestyles in both? i know its sadomasochism but isnt that wanting both at one time. what is it when you dont relize that you feel that way? If its not a disease and you dont know you feel that way then what can it be? its not a sexual fantasy because you feel it all day long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose to be a sadist. You can choose to be a masochist. You can choose to eat an apple. You can choose to watch a film. You can watch films all day. None of these are, as far as I know, a disease. They are a choice presumably based on factors such as the cost of the activity and the gratification it gives you. You appear to vacillate between thinking that those involved in S&M are sometimes S an sometimes M, or are M all the time. I'm sure there are examples of both types (and of the permanent S type, as well). "what is it when you dont relize that you feel that way?" Lack of self awareness? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you should read a couple of good books about BDSM. Obviously you've got certain needs, and obviously you don't know how to deal with them -- yet. That's most likely not a medical condition; having urges like that is typically not indicative of a disease. It's just a kink. Kinks are fairly commonplace and not such a big deal; you seem distressed about this, which is understandable, since you're finding out pretty fundamental things about yourself, but you really shouldn't worry. Don't freak out! Kinks aren't a bad thing -- if anything, they probably make you more interesting. But as you're obviously not an experienced kinkster, you should strive to get educated about this stuff... so, read up on it.

Yes, a lot of people can and do switch between a dominant and submissive role. No, even if you're into that kind of stuff, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily into it all the time, or into all aspects of it. There are people who just want to be spanked, for example, or to be verbally humiliated, or immobilized, or simply to be told what to do, whereas some people really want the whole shebang in all its forms. These are personal preferences that you don't need to justify any more than you need to justify whether you prefer coffee or tea.

Our article on BDSM is pretty informative, and so are the articles it links to. Safe, sane and consensual is probably something you want to take in. Just take it easy, and take the time to learn; you'll probably find out a whole lot about what you want and about what you don't want, and both of those are very valuable things to you. Also, the columns of people like Dan Savage and Mistress Matisse are likely to provide a lot of useful perspective. Just relax, you'll figure this out. There's no reason to think that you're not going to be okay, and there isn't anything wrong about having urges like this. If that's how you happen to be wired, hey, more power to you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructed literary and musical works[edit]

I've been having a discussion over at Talk:Felix Mendelssohn#London cab about a report I read that he left the only available copy of his incidental music to "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in a London cab and had to rewrite the entire score from memory. As far as we can tell so far, there's no basis to this story. However, it got me thinking. We've mentioned 2 real cases where writers did have to start from scratch all over again, but I'm sure there are numerous other cases. The same might apply to composers whose scores were lost or destroyed before they were ever printed, and they had to be recreated from memory. Or painters. Any ideas, folks?

If we had an article with a list of such details, what would be a better title than the one I jocularly suggested? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of works rewritten from memory --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have that list, but we do have Lost work which isn't exactly what the OP was looking for. The question brought to mind Darkness at Noon, a novel whose original German manuscript was lost but was recreated from an English translation. —D. Monack ^talk 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Do you know of any others? I think Tolstoy wrote out War and Peace in toto about 6 times before he was happy with the final version. But he had the previous versions by his side as aides-mémoire (? aides-mémoires, ? aide-mémoires). I'm sure I've heard of non-Mendelssohn cases where composers had to rewrite their operas or symphonies from memory, but I can't bring any to mind. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T. E. Lawrence left his first version of Seven Pillars on a train; John Steinbeck lost Mice and Men. These mention others: [1], [2] . Gwinva (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that the First Folio is a collection of reconstructed works, cobbled together after Shakespeare's death. No doubt many parts, like deeds done in one's youth, were remembered "with advantages." --- OtherDave (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a story that Zamenhoff's first grammar of Esperanto was burnt by his father, who thought it was a waste of time. Steewi (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard that one, but it would account for the paucity of information about early versions. —Tamfang (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble thinking of musical examples, but here's one: Alexander Glazunov had a prodigious memory, and produced a memorial reconstruction of the first movement of Alexander Borodin's Third Symphony from just hearing him perform it once on the piano (Borodin left only a few scattered sketches on his death; nothing continuous). Shostakovich's memoirs contain some entertaining reading about that magnificently talented alcoholic. Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'd heard that one. And didn't he reconstruct the Prince Igor overture after only a few hearings, played on a piano, or something? Ah, I see it was a bit more complicated than that. Then there was Mozart writing out Allegri's Miserere note-perfect after one hearing (that wasn't lost, but it may as well have been since the score was not available to anyone except the choristers, I seem to recall). -- JackofOz (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't quite count as "lost" since it wasn't written down in the first place, but there is the case of Bach's 3-voice fugue improvisation for Frederick the Great, which he later wrote down from memory, apparently, with improvements no doubt, and sent to Frederick along with the rest of The Musical Offering. Pfly (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we're straying into the whole subject of musical memory, which probably deserves an article. It would certainly encompass all the above examples, but it would also cover the ability of a soloist to play concertos and whole recital programs without a score in front of them; and the ability of singers to warble away in 4-hour operas in languages they don't speak at home. Thanks for all the contributions. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more: French composer Albéric Magnard, composer of huge symphonies, may be most famous today for his heroic (or maybe foolish) defense of his estate during World War I, during the German advance just before the First Battle of the Marne (he shot at least one of the Germans who approached his house; they set the house on fire: according to the account by Nicolas Slonimsky, he killed more than one of them, and they found his body by the window, in firing position). His scores were destroyed in the fire, but his opera Guercoeur received a performance in 1931, with the orchestration reconstructed entirely from memory by Joseph Guy Ropartz. (Presumably the piano reduction was extant.) Antandrus (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church and death before Jesus[edit]

Does the Catholic Church have (or has it ever had) a stance on what happened to people who died before Jesus was born? Did Jews go to heaven and no-one else, or did everyone go to hell? Have they ever taken a position with regards to people who didn't have the opportunity to learn about Christ? Thanks in advance. 90.192.223.228 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resurrection is trans-temporal. A simple answer is that, at Jesus' resurrection, everyone was saved (those who had died prior to the resurrection and those who would be born after). A more complicated answer is that God exists outside of time, so the question has no meaning as it implies false restrictions (i.e., linear time) on a greater reality. Wikiant (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Limbo informative. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question made me wonder, assuming we evolve, at what point did we gain souls? But I'm thinking that that's a bit of a juvenile a-ha sort of a question arising out of the problem of squaring evolution and faith in the supernatural tales, and or a misunderstanding about what christian religions think a soul is. So scrap that question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an exciting scene in Dante's Inferno where Jesus mounts an invasion of Hell to rescue Moses and guys like that who had been waiting around for a long time. It was like a Missing in Action (film) prequel. See Harrowing of Hell. --Sean 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next-to-last paragraph of Salvation#Roman Catholicism seems to answer your question. -- BenRG (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption is that we have souls. Saintrain (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you believe, he assumes... The noted theologian George Carlin commented on limbo, and would have had a field day with the language in the Vatican document. Not a great deal of spiritual comfort in "a possible theological hypothesis." It makes Pascal's gambit sound like a promissory note. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's a little unfair. Imagine the question was "Assuming the earth does go around the sun, when did we lose our wings?" Saintrain (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Saintrain was making a pun on Assumption. Corvus cornix_talk 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I wish, but no. Saintrain (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to be unfair. Theology doesn't have much in the way of verifiable fact (always the best kind). Within the Catholic church, though, I think it's safe to say that the notion of a soul is more than an assumption. Outside it, I'd agree; you could say from that standpoint that someone else's dogma seems to you only an assumption. (My three verbs were just the usual debater's comparative: "I state, you assert, he purports...") --- OtherDave (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to check out Sheol Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

religion[edit]

I know that there are different religions with the same name like paganism with A higher power, Or believing in the nature's elements such as Sun, Wind, Fire, Forest and Earth so on and so forth. What category would this religion fall under: Beleiving in God and Satan not as enemies but as partners. When the earth was created it was created with Good and Bad. (Rocks can be beautiful but you can also throw one at someones head.) Beleiving that we were put here to see how far we could get from evolution. Like a bet. That is how people have happiness and anger. Whichever the person holds more of God or Satan has more power over their head and heart. and satan is not neccesarily evil. Just grumpy and in charge of peoples feelings of anger and sadness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see how this is a question- this is a place on Wikipedia to ask questions about topics, not to post personal beliefs. If you're asking religious questions (as in, which religion is correct), I'm afraid we cannot answer questions like that here. You need to work that out for yourself. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Manichaeanism#Theology. (By the way, Alinnisawest, I read Chaela89's question as a factual question entirely appropriate for WP:RD). --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, after rereading the question, I see that it is indeed a question- at my first skim-through, I didn't catch the question bit. Punctuation, that's where it all is... oh, all right, and reading things thoroughly!! ^_^ --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the post contains a perfectly appropriate question. Manichaeanism is an example of a belief system like the one described by Chaela89. Such belief systems can be described as forms of dualism. Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amba Prasad G S (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)When we question ourselves or face querries regarding the existence of God and Satan. I acknowledge the fact of Good and Bad which has been mentioned above. Good and Bad are very absurd terms to use. What I feel is Good can not be accepted by the other. The relativity of usage depends on individuals' outlook and the culture in which they are brought up. Acceptence of certain facts depends on various cultures. However, i always believe that the moral standards remain the same across all countries, religions, cultures and people. The basic standard of living, respecting the other human being and living in the society as a human being is most required.[reply]

Is there an unwrapped mummy in the British Museum[edit]

You know, one of those mummies with the bandages removed like they have in the dark room in the Cairo museum? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to this. Ka renjc 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Thanks a ton. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorist[edit]

I remember having a conversation with a friend a little while ago, and he brought up the subject of conspiracy theories. One of his favourite theories was one that seemed mild at first. Stories of banking families and all that, but then wound up with five people who controlled everything, except they weren't people, they were shape shifting lizard men from outer space who ate humans and ruled over us by pulling the strings so to speak.

Does this sound familiar? I'd like to know who came up with it or what radio show it's from. Cheers 70.79.61.172 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See David Icke#Conspiracy writings, excellent stuff, probably the source of some of the plots of recent Dr. Who episodes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lizard Men conspiracy theory is obviously false—everyone knows the world is actually controlled by the Crab People. —Kevin Myers 02:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally we also have an article about the reptilian humanoids. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)[reply]

Crab People? No, it's the New World Order! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet did win the election, so you see -- it must be true! :D Antandrus (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

donating internationally[edit]

Recently, I've contacted the United States Postal Service regarding sending international money orders to a few museums in Italy and Switzerland. A representative told me that those two countries don't accept international United States Postal Service money orders. Are there any other ways I can send financial contributions to a few museums in Italy and Switzerland?72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By cheque or certified cheque? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can wire money through an agency and through a bank. You can also purchase international money orders in banks in almost any international currency, though there may be local limits on the amounts. You may also be able to use a credit card. If none of these ways works for you, I suggest you get in touch with the institutions and ask them. It seems unlikely in the extreme that there won't be a way that it can be done. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]