Shame

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 40 of 267 · 20 per page

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxiii) But what wonder, if God foretold truly, man presumed falsely. Respecting this denial of Peter we should remark, that Christ is not only denied by him, who denies that He is Christ, but by him also who denies himself to be a Christian. For the Lord did not say to Peter, Thou shalt deny that thou art My disciple, but, Thou shalt deny Me. (Luke 22:34) He denied Him then, when he denied that he was His disciple. And what was this but to deny that he was a Christian? How many afterwards, even boys and girls, were able to despise death, confess Christ, and enter courageously into the kingdom of heaven; which he who received the keys of the kingdom, was now unable to do? Wherein we see the reason for His saying above, Let these go their way, for of those which Thou hast given Me, have I lost none. If Peter had gone out of this world immediately after denying Christ, He must have been lost. CHRYSOSTOM. (Serm. de Petro et Elia.) Therefore did Divine Providence permit Peter first to fall, in order that he might be less severe to sinners from the remembrance of his own fall. Peter, the teacher and master of the whole world, sinned, and obtained pardon, that judges might thereafter have that rule to go by in dispensing pardon. For this reason I suppose the priesthood was not given to Angels; because, being without sin themselves, they would punish sinners without pity. Passible man is placed over man, in order that remembering his own weakness, he may be merciful to others. THEOPHYLACT. Some however foolishly favour Peter, so far as to say that he denied Christ, because he did not wish to be away from Christ, and he knew, they say, that if he confessed that he was one of Christ’s disciples, he would be separated from Him, and would no longer have the liberty of following and seeing his beloved Lord; and therefore pretended to be one of the servants, that his sad countenance might not be perceived, and so exclude him: And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, and warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxiii) It was not winter, and yet it was cold, as it often is at the vernal equinox. GREGORY. (ii. Mor. c. 11) The fire of love was smothered in Peter’s breast, and he was warming himself before the coals of the persecutors, i. e. with the love of this present life, whereby his weakness was increased. 18:19–2119. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. 20. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

• From A Sexplanation (2021)

  To me that feels like really gross and shameful. -Yeah, yeah, I agree with you that there are some behaviors that as a society we agree are not okay, especially if they infringe on somebody else's rights or they hurt somebody else. But I worry a little bit that when we shame people those feelings, those desires, they don't disappear. They go inward. What I would much rather do is talk about things without shaming somebody 'cause when we shame people they don't share what their problems are. They get alienated and isolate, and then sometimes those behaviors end up coming out and hurting somebody even worse. -I'm wondering, you know, what advice do you have around how to actually think critically for the first time in my life about sex and sexuality? -So I think you're starting just when you're saying, I'm trying to talk to as many people as possible. The more people that we can talk to about different ways of living your life, different ways of being in the world, whether that has to do with gender, sexuality, and orientation and who you're attracted to or just the kind of life that you have, what makes you happy? The more varied models that you have for that, the easier it is for you to be okay with your own path. [Alex] So to get over my sexual hangups, Dr. Medoff prescribes hearing different perspectives. To ease my way in, I'll start at my one true safe space, brunch with friends. [Ken] There was a girl that I lived in a suite with in college and we would have all gather outside of her door- [group laughing] 'Cause she would say, "Oh yeah, circle it, daddy, circle it! [group laughing] Yeah, circle it!" And we'd all be sitting there like, what does that mean? [group laughing] Oh yeah, circle it. -What would you guys say to the biases of American culture that you guys experience? -Sex is at the same time shameful and the thing that we should be most focused on. -[laughs] Yeah. [group laughing] -Working with patients around this stuff and women come in and I'm about to do a pap smear or pelvic exam for whatever reason and they apologize for not having shaved. And every time I'm so sad. -Do men apologize as well for different- -It's like bushy down there. -I've never had a man apologize for that. Apologized once, "Oh, it's smaller than normal." But no, never for like the way they're groomed. And women it's all the time. -It's just kind of striking, but also a little bit sad the degree to which kind of lie that shame exists for people in a way that I've never had to deal with it. And you know, I'm a Black gay man who grew up in the South.

• From The Great Transformation (2006)

  Arjuna brought water from the depths of the earth with one of his arrows, so that his old teacher could slake his thirst and bathe his wounds, and the dying Bhishma’s body did not touch the ground: he remained in a state of heroic and moral elevation. But Drona’s death irreparably damaged the Pandavas. Krishna told Arjuna that they had to “cast virtue aside,” in order to save the world, and Yudishthira reluctantly and “with difficulty” promised to tell Drona his cruel lie. 65 “Untruth may be better than truth,” Krishna argued. “By telling a lie to save life, untruth does not touch us.” 66 But despite Krishna’s reassurance, Yudishthira was tarnished. His chariot had always floated the width of four fingers from the ground, but as soon as he told Drona that his son had been killed, it came sharply down to earth. Drona, however, died the holiest of deaths and was taken directly up to heaven. When Yudishthira told him that his son Aswatthaman was dead, Drona had at first continued to fight, but was persuaded to lay down his weapons by a group of rishis who appeared to him in a vision and warned him that he was about to die; as a Brahmin, he should not spend his last moments fighting. Immediately Drona laid down his arms, sat in his chariot in the yogic position, fell into a trance, and peacefully ascended to the world of the gods. The life had already left his body when he was beheaded by an ally of the Pandavas. The contrast of Yudishthira’s fall from grace and Drona’s ecstatic ascension was devastating in its implications. Arjuna bitterly berated Yudishthira: his vile lie would taint them all. 67 What are we to make of Krishna’s dubious role? He was not a Satan, tempting the Pandavas to sin. Like the brothers, he was also the son of one of the Vedic gods. His father was Vishnu, the guardian of sacrifice. 68 In the Brahmanas, Vishnu’s task was to “repair” a sacrifice that had been spoiled by a mistake in the ritual, so that it could still perform its function and renew the cosmic order. In the Mahabharata, Krishna was Vishnu’s earthly counterpart. As the heroic age drew to its violent close, order had to be restored by a massive sacrificial ritual. The battle was this sacrifice; its victims—the warriors who died during the fighting—would put history back on track, by returning the sovereignty to Yudishthira.

• From Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (2014)

  Faraj reveals the “idolatry” that is every bit as present in some forms of political Islamism as in secularist discourse, for he made the ummah a supreme value. “It is obligatory for every Muslim to seriously strive for the return of the Caliphate,” Faraj argued; anyone who fails to do so “does not die as a Muslim.”33 In the past Islam had been a religion validated by its success. Until the modern period, the powerful position of the ummah had seemed to confirm the Quran’s teaching: that a rightly guided community would prosper because it was in tune with the way things ought to be. The ummah’s sudden demotion has been as theologically shattering for some Muslims as Darwin’s evolutionary theory has been for some Christians. The sense of shame and humiliation has been acute and is exacerbated by a sense of past greatness. Much of modern Islamism represents a desperate struggle to put history back on track. But this dream of a gloriously restored ummah has become an absolute, an end in itself, and as such justifies the means of an aggressive jihad—in this case, a criminal assassination. In Islamic terms, this constitutes the prime sin of shirk, an idolatry that places a political ideal on the same level as Allah. As one commentator observed, far from condoning lawless violence, the ideal of jihad originally expressed the important insight that “the final truth for man lies not in some remote and untarnished utopia but in the tension and struggle of applying its ideals to the recalcitrant and obstructive stuff of worldly sorrow.”34 Faraj’s primitive theology is apparent when he explains why it was more important to fight Sadat than the Israelis: if a truly Islamic state were established in Egypt, he believed, Jerusalem would automatically revert to Muslim rule. In the Quran, God promised Muslims that he would bring disgrace on their enemies and come to the Muslims’ aid. In a nihilistic abandonment not only of his modern scientific training but also of the Quranic insistence that Muslims use their natural intelligence, Faraj reverted to a particularly naive form of the perennial philosophy that amounted to little more than magical thinking: if Muslims took the initiative, God would “intervene [and change] the laws of nature.” Could the militants expect a miracle? Faraj answered yes. Observers were puzzled that there was no planned uprising after the assassination. Faraj believed that God would step in and do the rest.35 He did not. Hosni Mubarak became president with a minimum of fuss, and his secular dictatorship remained in power for thirty years.

• From A Sexplanation (2021)

  There's plenty of things that I feel shame around, but I had that bubble around me of like, the way in which my mother just engaged in these topics with me in a way that I think is just much more healthy. And literally, I was looking at an apartment and she was just like, "Oh, the bathroom is too far away. How are you gonna clean yourself off after you have sex?" [laughing] Like, so I grew up in this world where for me, sex has always been something that wasn't shameful. -You know, my sexual learning education came from television, watching HBO late night. [static blares] [warm hum resounds] Like, you know, sneaking into the living room. [upbeat instrumental music] You know, like, God, I hope my mother doesn't find out that I'm watching this stuff. And that was like the first time I was just like, oh, what is she doing? What is she doing to her thing down there? Oh, let me check that out. [laughter] And I was like, oh shit! I was like, that's when I realized I was like, wait, women could have this feeling. And I was probably already in my 20s or like late teens when I figured that out. -I also feel like, especially starting in college being open about talking about masturbation. And all of my friends know the way I masturbate, the positions I masturbate in and like what I do. That's just kind of like common knowledge, wouldn't you say? [group laughing] And I feel like part of that was me being like, hey, men talk about masturbating all the time. And I had so many girlfriends who said, "Oh, I never masturbate, I don't know how." And I had to be like, "A, I don't believe you and you're lying 'cause who hasn't touched themselves?" Like, you have hands, you have a clit. But I felt like it was my responsibility to talk about me masturbating all the time to say, hey, women are sexual beings, too. And like, we masturbate also and make room for this. -And one other thing I also want to answer is this question of like, can you actually have education that prepares you for sex, right? -Good sex education would take away the shame element and talk about communication and desire and what that means, you know, and consent. -It's such a strange time to just leave adolescents alone in their bedrooms because it's of primary importance to them and nobody is helping them figure it out. The thing that I'm learning about sex as an adult is really more than intimacy and how to be intimate with somebody. [Danielle] Yeah. -And that's the thing I don't talk to my friends about. We don't talk about the difference between having sex with someone you love, someone who you just met.

• From The Erotic Mind (1995)

  As we discussed her dream I suggested that not only was she married to one of these men, but the monster who slapped her down was also within her. She wouldn’t allow herself to take the wheel. She terrorized herself. At first she resisted this idea vigorously, with a hint of exhilaration in her voice. She felt that I was blaming her for her troubles and was defending herself for a change. She was genuinely shocked when I told her how good it felt to see the strong Brenda. Immediately, she slipped back into familiar territory and began berating herself. And then, in one of those moments that remind me why I became a therapist, I watched as she interrupted herself midstream. “I’ve got to stop doing that, don’t I?” We nodded and smiled in unison, both knowing she had reached a point of no return. Brenda’s loss of desire was a subconsciously directed act of self-respect. Her body was expressing what she could not say in words: I refuse to lie turned on by someone who treats me as if I’m worthless. Loss of desire is among the most common of all sexual problems. Sometimes this is an inevitable side effect of today’s stress-filled lives. Sometimes it springs from unresolved resentments and conflicts in long-term relationships. Sometimes the culprits are the predictable routines that squeeze out the last vestiges of surprise. More often than you might think, however, diminishing sexual desire is a sign of growth, as it was for Brenda. In such cases lost desire is not a problem to be fixed but a message to be heeded. If a person’s CET consistently places him or her in a demeaning position, increasing self-esteem will usually have an unmistakable antiaphrodisiac effect. It is a signal that “business as usual” is no longer possible and a call for fundamental change. Almost one year after Brenda and I began our work she confronted Ernie with her dissatisfaction and insisted that he accompany her to a marriage counselor. True to form he refused, ranting at her about how sick and tired he was of having a frigid, complaining, good-for-nothing wife. Within two weeks Brenda moved in with a friend and filed for divorce. Although for some time to come she grieved about all she had lost and all she had endured, even during her worst days she never doubted the rightness of her decision. Away from Ernie, Brenda began to get promising clues about how her eroticism might be different without self-deprecation and fear as its guiding principles. About one thing she was absolutely certain: she would never again allow anyone to mistreat her. It was her turn to take the wheel.

• From The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures (2018)

  (Actually, millennia, if we count tattoos, piercings, circumcision, and the like.) But can we compare face-lifts and other nips and tucks with an intervention on the genome that may not even be confined to the person it is aimed for? And on that note, do future parents have a right to decide on the physical or intellectual makeup of their progeny? What on earth are parents trying to guarantee or avoid? What is so problematic, for a developing human being, about facing the luck of the draw and defining his or her own destiny by combining willpower with whatever gifts or flaws one is born with? What is so wrong about building character by overcoming bad developmental luck or exercising modesty when one’s gifts are favorable? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can see, although a colleague of mine who read this passage complained that I was being too accepting of my flaws—I know, I should have been taller—and that my attitude made me a victim of the Stockholm syndrome, a condition in which hostages become friendly with their captors. I am open to listening to counterarguments and changing my opinion. There are also important developments in artificial intelligence and robotics, and some of them are also thoroughly inscribed in the homeostatic imperative that governs cultural evolution. Complementing human cognition, from perception and intelligence to motor performance, are old homeostatic-driven practices. Just think of reading glasses, binoculars and microscopes, hearing aids, walking canes, and wheelchairs. Or think, for that matter, of calculators and dictionaries. Artificial organs and prosthetic limbs are not new either, nor are, on the shady side of the street, the performance enhancers that get Olympic athletes and Tour de France champions in so much trouble. Gaining access to strategies and devices that can speed up movement or improve one’s intellectual performance is hardly problematic except for competitions. The application of artificial intelligence to medical diagnostics is very promising. Diagnosis of illnesses and interpretation of diagnostic procedures are the bread and butter of medicine and depend on pattern recognition. Machine learning programs are a natural tool in this area and have achieved reliable and trustworthy results. 2 By comparison with some of the currently contemplated genetic interventions, the developments in this general area are largely benign and potentially valuable. The most likely and immediate scenario is the achievement of prosthetic enhancement devices that could serve to not only compensate for missing functions but also enhance or augment human perception. Examples include artificial retinal implants for blindness and the development of prosthetic limbs controlled by self-driven mental events, namely, the intention to move a limb. Both examples are a current reality and will be perfected in the near future.

• From The Erotic Mind (1995)

  Compulsive voyeurism, like other paraphilias, is relatively rare. Yet it’s important to keep in mind that millions of men and women are regularly stimulated in nonobsessive ways by the very things that excited Carlos. Who hasn’t been titillated by catching a glimpse of someone undressing or overhearing a sexual discussion or encounter? Most of us are also familiar with the bittersweet thrill of feeling inferior to those who most strongly attract us. And men and women of all sexual orientations, especially males in their teens and twenties, can identify with Carlos’s sexual preoccupation and constant quest for visual stimulation. Carlos’s eroticism was problematic because his negative core beliefs required that he stay in an inferior position. Yet within the self-defeating framework of his CET, Carlos used virtually every known source of arousal, including all four cornerstones of eroticism. The chasm between Carlos and the men he worshipped unleashed a flood of yearning. At the same time, a furtive sense of naughtiness permeated every scene, highlighted by the ever-present risk of discovery and punishment. The entire drama was further energized by a push-pull dance of power. On one hand, Carlos was clearly submissive to the men whose very existence seemed to mock him. Yet following the lead of his masturbation fantasies, primordial images of aggression and conquest helped him turn the tables. If the attention and reciprocation he craved weren’t freely given he would steal them with stealth and cunning. He stalked the men he envied as prey, using them without their consent as pawns in his psychodrama. Finally, a forceful undercurrent of ambivalence toward everyone—himself as well as the men who simultaneously excited and demeaned him—added yet another dimension to an already explosive concoction. The entire scene was infused with plentiful and intense emotions. Some were positive, such as the genuine admiration and appreciation he felt toward the men who represented his ideals of masculinity. Negative emotions included resentment, hostility, fear, guilt, and shame. As Carlos explored his eroticism more deeply, he discovered that revenge was a particularly gratifying aphrodisiac. It was both frightening and exciting to be spotted by the men he stalked. Only if they knew what he was doing could they be made to squirm, as other men in the past had made him squirm. He savored the notion that they felt humiliated when Carlos used them as pawns in his sexual games. One thing Carlos’s eroticism did not allow was the reciprocation of love and affection. He was trapped in the same bind as everyone whose eroticism is built on a foundation of self-hate: anybody who might be attracted to him was, by definition, excluded from the ranks of the desirable. Only those who reinforced his self-contempt were worthy objects of desire.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  Modesty, Shame. Whether there be an instinctive impulse to hide certain parts of the body and certain acts' is perhaps even more open to doubt than whether there be an instinct of cleanliness. Anthropologists have denied it, and in the utter shamelessness of infancy and of many savage tribes have seemed to find a good basis for their views. It must, however, be remembered that infancy proves nothing, and that, as far as sexual modesty goes, the sexual impulse itself works directly against it at times of excitement, and with reference to certain people; and that habits of immodesty contracted with those people may forever afterwards inhibit it any impulse to be modest towards them. This would account for a great deal of actual immodesty, even if an original modest impulse were there. On the other hand, the modest impulse, if it do exist, must be admitted to have a singularly ill-defined sphere of influence, both as regards the presences that call it forth, and as regards the acts to which it leads. Ethnology shows it to have very little backbone of its own, and to follow easily fashion and example. Still, it is hard to see the ubiquity of some sort of tribute to shame, however perverted—as where female modesty consists in covering the face alone, or immodesty in appearing before strangers unpainted—and to believe it to have no impulsive root whatever. Now, what may the impulsive root be? I believe that, for one thing, it is shyness, the feeling of dread that unfamiliar persons, as explained above, may inspire us withal. Such persons are the original stimuli to our modesty.[409] But the actions of modesty are quite different from the actions of shyness. They consist of the restraint of certain bodily functions, and of the covering of certain parts; and why do such particular actions necessarily ensue? That there may be in the human animal, as such, a 'blind' and immediate automatic impulse to such restraints and coverings in respect-inspiring presences is a possibility difficult of actual disproof. But it seems more likely, from the facts, that the actions of modesty are suggested to us in a roundabout way; and that, even more than those of cleanliness, they arise from the application in the second instance to ourselves of judgments primarily passed upon our mates. It is not easy to believe that, even among the nakedest savages, an unusual degree of cynicism and indecency in an individual should not beget a certain degree of contempt, and cheapen him in his neighbor's eyes. Human nature is sufficiently homogeneous for us to be sure that everywhere reserve must inspire some respect, and that persons who suffer every liberty are persons whom others disregard. Not to be like such people, then, would be one of the first resolutions suggested by social self-consciousness to a. child of nature just emerging from the unreflective state. And the resolution would probably acquire effective pungency for the first time when the social self-consciousness was sharpened into a real fit of shyness by some person being present whom it was important not to disgust or displease. Public opinion would of course go on to build its positive precepts upon this germ; and, through a variety of examples and experiences, the ritual of modesty would grow, until it reached the New England pitch of sensitiveness and range, making us say stomach instead of belly, limb instead of leg, retire instead of go to bed, and forbidding us to call a female dog by name.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  Nothing is commoner than the remark that Man differs from lower creatures by the almost total absence of instincts, and the assumption of their work in him by 'reason.' A fruitless discussion might be waged on this point by two theorizers who were careful not to define their terms. 'Reason' might be used, as it often has been, since Kant, not as the mere power of 'inferring,' but also as a name for the tendency to obey impulses of a certain lofty sort, such as duty, or universal ends. And 'instinct ' might have its significance so broadened as to cover all impulses whatever, even the impulse to act from the idea of a distant fact, as well as the impulse to act from a present sensation. Were the word instinct used in this broad way, it would of course be impossible to restrict it, as we began by doing, to actions done with no prevision of an end. We must of course avoid a quarrel about words, and the facts of the case are really tolerably plain. Man has a far greater variety of impulses than any lower animal; and any one of these impulses, taken in itself, is as 'blind' as the lowest instinct can be; but, owing to man's memory, power of reflection, and power of inference, they come each one to be felt by him, after he has once yielded to them and experienced their results, in connection with a foresight of those results. In this condition an impulse acted out may be said to be acted out, in pert at least, for the sake of its results. It is obvious that every instinctive act, in an animal with memory, must cease to be 'blind' after being once repeated , and must be accompanied with foresight of its 'end' just so far as that end may have fallen under the animal's cognizance. An insect that lays her eggs in a place where she never sees them hatched must always do so 'blindly;' but a hen who has already hatched a brood can hardly be assumed to sit with perfect 'blindness' on her second nest. Some expectation of consequences must in every case like this be aroused; and this expectation, according as it is that of something desired or of something disliked, must necessarily either reinforce or inhibit the mere impulse. The hen's idea of the chickens would probably encourage her to sit; a rat's memory, on, the other hand, of a former escape from a trap would neutralize his impulse to take bait from anything that reminded him of that trap. If a boy sees a fat hopping-toad, he probably has incontinently an impulse (especially if with other boys) to smash the creature with a stone, which impulse we may suppose him blindly to obey. But something in the expression of the dying toad's clasped hands suggests the meanness of the act, or reminds him of sayings he has heard about the sufferings of animals being like his own; so that, when next he is tempted by a toad, an idea arises which, far from spurring him again to the torment, prompts kindly actions, and may even make him the toad's champion against less reflecting boys.

• From The Erotic Mind (1995)

  Yet traumatic secrets crave the light of day almost as much as they shrink from it. Years or decades after the original trauma, particularly when the person’s psychological resources have grown stronger, inner pressure builds to reclaim the truth, no matter how painful. Some may be taunted by visual images that flash in and out of consciousness. For others, certain smells, sounds, tastes, or emotions are memory catalysts.2 Sometimes the subconscious uses the symbolic language of dreams to nudge necessary but unwanted material closer to awareness. Nowadays public disclosures by celebrities and others also serve as memory triggers. In the midst of our therapy, Regina’s memory was jolted while she was watching a group of women on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” who had been abused as children. As each guest told her story Regina felt sorry for her yet strangely detached. “I was wondering what to make for dinner or some such nonsense,” she explained, “when suddenly a woman’s voice grabbed me as if someone cranked up the volume full blast. She was complaining about how her mother had refused to listen when she tried to tell her that a family friend was putting his hand inside her panties after school. I became instantly enraged and shouted at the top of my lungs, ‘Believe her, goddamn you!’” Over a period of many months, Regina told me, the members of her group, and her closest friends the truth she had not wanted to know but always had: the man she had called Daddy had seen her as little more than a sex object. Beginning when Regina was six or seven he would slip into her room when her mother was nursing on the night shift. For a few moments he would stroke her hair and tell her in a soothing voice how sweet she was. She loved his affection, his strength, and the warmth of his caress; the attention made her feel special. But she soon learned to associate these good feelings with the terror that would inevitably follow. He would remove her pajamas and his own, and his gentle touches would turn cold and hard. Instead of caressing her, he would grope her roughly, including between her legs, jabbing his penis against her. She wanted to scream out but instead would repeat in her mind, “Daddy loves me, Daddy loves me,” over and over and over until the pain subsided. She would “go away” until she fell asleep. When she awoke the next morning she could barely remember anything except for the aching shame that was with her always. These episodes continued until she was about twelve, when she began protesting more vigorously. Perhaps he feared she would tell, or perhaps as she entered puberty she became less interesting as a sex object, or perhaps he found someone else to molest. Whatever stopped the abuse, shortly thereafter she became a seductress—not an altogether surprising development.

• From Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (1989)

  The aspiration is to glory, or a t least to avoid shame and dishonour , which would make life unbearabl e and non-existence seem pre fer able. For those who define the good as self-mastery through reason, the aspiration is to be able to order their lives, and the unbearable threat is of being engulfed and degraded by the irresistible craving for lower things. For those moved by one of the modern forms of the affirmation of ordinary l i fe, it is above all important to see oneself as moved by and furthering this life, in one's work for insta nce, and one's family. People for whom meaning is given to life by expression must see themselves as bringing their poten t ial to expression, if not in on e of the recognized ar tistic or intellectual media, then perhaps in the shape of their lives themselves. And so on. I am suggesting that we see all these diverse aspirations as forms of a craving which is ineradicable from human life. We have to be rightly pl a ced in relation to the good. This ma y not be very obtrusive in our lives if things go well and if by and la r ge we are satisfied with where we are. The believer in reason whose life is in order, the householder (I am t alking of course abou t someone with a certain moral ideal, not the census category) who senses the fulness and richness of his family life as his children grow up and his life is filled with their nurture and achievement, thes e may be quite unaware of this aspiration as such, may be impatient or contemptuous of those whose lives are made tempestuous and restless by it. But this is only b ec ause the sense of valu e and meaning is well integrated into wha t t hey live. The householde r 's sense of the value of what I have been calling ordinary life is woven throu gh the emotions and concerns of his everyday existence. I t is what gives them their richness and depth. At the other extreme, there are peo p le whose lives are torn apa rt b y th is c raving. They see themselves, over against the master of hims elf, as in the gri p of l ower drives, their lives disordered and soiled by their base atta chmen ts. Or they have ·a sense of impotence: 'I can' t get i t to gether, can' t s hake t h a t h abit (hold a regular job, etc.)'. Or even a s e nse of being e vil: 'I can ' t The Self in Moral Space • 4 5 s o m eh o w help hu r ting them badl y, even though they love me.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  A positive proof of the theory would, on the other hand, be given if we could find a subject absolutely anæsthetic inside and out, but not paralytic, so that emotion-inspiring objects might evoke the usual bodily expressions from him, but who, on being consulted, should say that no subjective emotional affection was felt. Such a man would be like one who, because he eats, appears to bystanders to be hungry, but who afterwards confesses that he had no appetite at all. Cases like this are extremely hard to find. Medical literature contains reports, so far as I know, of but three. In the famous one of Remigius Leins no mention is made by the reporters of his emotional condition. In Dr. G. Winter's case[419] the patient is said to be inert and phlegmatic, but no particular attention, as I learn from Dr. W., was paid to his psychic condition. In the extraordinary case reported by Professor Strumpell (to which I must refer later in another connection)[420] we read that the patient, a shoemaker's apprentice of fifteen, entirely anæsthetic, inside and out, with the exception of one eye and one ear, had shown shame on the occasion of soiling his bed, and grief, when a formerly favorite dish was set before him, at the thought that he could no longer taste its flavor. Dr. Strumpell is also kind enough to inform me that he manifested surprise, fear, and anger on certain occasions. In observing him, however, no such theory as the present one seems to have been thought of; and it always remains possible that, just as he satisfied his natural appetites and necessities in cold blood, with no inward feeling, so his emotional expressions may have been accompanied by a quite cold heart.[421] Any new case which turns up of generalized anæsthesia ought to be carefully examined as to the inward emotional sensibility as distinct from the 'expressions' of emotion which circumstances may bring forth. Objections Considered. Let me now notice a few objections. The replies will make the theory still more plausible. First Objection. There is no real evidence, it may be said, for the assumption that particular perceptions do produce wide-spread bodily effects by a sort of immediate physical influence, antecedent to the arousal of an emotion or emotional idea?

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  But is this so? The facts are just the reverse: the sexual instinct is particularly liable to be checked and modified by slight differences in the individual stimulus, by the inward condition of the agent himself, by habits once acquired, and by the antagonism of contrary impulses operating on the mind. One of these is the ordinary shyness recently described; another is what might be called the anti- sexual instinct, the instinct of personal isolation, the actual repulsiveness to us of the idea of intimate contact with most of the persons we meet, especially those of our own sex. [410] Thus it comes about that this strongest passion of all, so far from being the most 'irresistible,' may, on the contrary, be the hardest one to give rein to and that individuals in whom the inhibiting influences are potent may pass through life and never find an occasion to have it gratified. There could be no better proof of the truth of that proposition with which we began our study of the instinctive life in man, that irregularity of behavior may come as well from the possession of too many instincts as from the lack of any at all. The instinct of personal isolation, of which we have spoken, exists more strongly in men with respect to one another, and more strongly in women with respect to men. In women it is called coyness, and has to be positively overcome by a process of wooing before the sexual instinct inhibits it and takes its place. As Darwin has shown in his book on the 'Descent of Man and Sexual Selection,' it has played a vital part in the amelioration of all higher animal types, and is to a great degree responsible for whatever degree of chastity the human race may show. It illustrates strikingly, however, the law of the inhibition of instincts by habits—for, once broken through with a given person, it is not apt to assert itself again; and habitually broken through, as by prostitutes, with various persons, it may altogether decay.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  'This odd state of mind," says Darwin,[405] " is chiefly recognized by the face reddening, by the eyes being averted or cast down, and by awkward, nervous movements of the body....Shyness seems to depend on sensitiveness to the opinion, whether good or bad, of others, more especially with respect to external appearance. Strangers neither know nor care anything about our conduct or character, but they may, and often do, criticise our appearance....The consciousness of anything peculiar, or even new, in the dress, or any slight blemish on the person, and more especially on the face—points which are likely to attract the attention of strangers—makes the shy intolerably shy.[406] On the other hand, in those cases in which conduct, and not personal appearance, is concerned, we are much more apt to be shy in the presence of acquaintances whose judgment we in some degree value than in that of strangers....Some persons, however, are so sensitive that the mere act of speaking to almost any one is sufficient to rouse their self-consciousness, and a slight blush is the result. Disapprobation...causes shyness and blushing much more readily than does approbation....Persons who are exceedingly shy are rarely shy in the presence of those with whom they are quite familiar, and of whose good opinion and sympathy they are quite assured; for instance, a girl in presence of her mother....Shyness... is closely related to fear; yet it is distinct from fear in the ordinary sense. A shy man dreads the notice of strangers, but can hardly be said to be afraid of them; he may be as bold as a hero in battle, and yet hare no self-confidence about trifles in the presence of strangers. Almost every one is extremely nervous when first addressing a public assembly, and most men remain so through their lives."

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  It is not pain, it is not death, that I dread,—it is the hatred of a man; there is something in it so shocking that I would rather submit to any injury than incur or increase the hatred of a man by revenging it. . . . Another sufficient reason for suicide is that I was this morning out of temper with Mrs. Douglas (for no fault of hers). I did not betray myself in the least, but I reflected that to be exposed to the possibility of such an event once a year, was evil enough to render life intolerable. The disgrace of using an impatient word is to me overpowering." (Elton Hammond, quoted in Henry Crabb Robinson's Diary, vol. I. p. 424.) [574] Compare H. Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics, bk. III. chap. XIII. §3. [575] A gentleman told me that he had a conclusive argument for opening the Harvard Medical School to women. It was this: "Are not women human?"—which major premise of course had to be granted. "Then are they not entitled to all the rights of humanity?" My friend said that he had never met anyone who could successfully meet this reasoning. [576] You reach the Mephistophelian point of view as well as the point of view of justice by treating cases as if they belonged rigorously to abstract classes. Pure rationalism, complete immunity from prejudice, consists in refusing to see that the case before one is absolutely unique. It is always possible to treat the country of one's nativity, the house of one's fathers, the bed in which one's mother died, nay, the mother herself if need be, on a naked equality with all other specimens of so many respective genera. It shows the world in a clear frosty light from which all fuliginous mists of affection, all swamp-lights of sentimentality, are absent. Straight and immediate action becomes easy then—witness a Napoleon's or a Frederick's career. But the question always remains, "Are not the mists and vapors worth retaining?" The illogical refusal to treat certain concretes by the mere law of their genus has made the drama of human history. The obstinate insisting that tweedledum is not tweedledee is the bone and marrow of life. Look at the Jews and the Scots, with their miserable factions and sectarian disputes, their loyalties and patriotisms and exclusions,—their annals now become a classic heritage, because men of genius took part and sang in them. A thing is important if any one think it important. The process of history consists in certain folks becoming possessed of the mania that certain special things are important infinitely, whilst other folks cannot agree in the belief.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  "Contemptible in my own eyes, I fell into such a state of melancholy as would, if long continued, inevitably have led to insanity or death. I continued to wear my disgraceful fetters till towards the end of January, 1775, when my rage, which had hitherto so often been restrained within bounds, broke forth with the greatest violence. On returning one evening from the opera (the most insipid and tiresome amusement in Italy), where I had passed several hours in the box of the woman who was by turns the object of my antipathy and my love, I took the firm determination of emancipating myself forever from her yoke. Experience had taught me that flight, so far from enabling me to persevere in my resolutions, tended on the contrary to weaken and destroy them; I was inclined therefore to subject myself to a still more severe trial, imagining from the obstinacy and peculiarity of my character that I should succeed most certainly by the adoption of such measures as would compel me to make the greatest efforts. I determined never to leave the house, which, as I have already said, was exactly opposite that of the lady; to gaze at her windows, to see her go in and out every day, to listen to the sound of her voice, though firmly resolved that no advances on her part, either direct or indirect, no tender remembrances, nor in short any other means which might be employed, should ever again tempt me to a revival of our friendship. I was determined to die or liberate myself from my disgraceful thraldom. In order to give stability to my purpose, and to render it impossible for me to waver without the imputation of dishonor, I communicated my determination to one of my friends, who was greatly attached to me, and whom I highly esteemed. He had lamented the state of mind into which I had fallen, but not wishing to give countenance to my conduct, and seeing the impossibility of inducing me to abandon it, he had for some time ceased to visit at my house. In the few lines which I addressed to him, I briefly stated the resolution I had adopted, and as a pledge of my constancy I sent him a long tress of my ugly red hair. I had purposely caused it to be cut off in order to prevent my going out, as no one but clowns and sailors then appeared in public with short hair. I concluded my billet by conjuring him to strengthen and aid my fortitude by his presence and example. Isolated in this manner in my own house, I prohibited all species of intercourse, and passed the first fifteen days in uttering the most frightful lamentations and groans. Some of my friends came to visit me, and appeared to commiserate my situation, perhaps because I did not myself complain; but my figure and whole appearance bespoke my sufferings. Wishing to read something I had recourse to the gazettes, whole pages of which I frequently ran over without understanding a single word. . . I passed more than two months till the end of March 1775, in a state bordering on frenzy; but about this time a new idea darted into my mind, which tended to assuage my melancholy."

• From A Sexplanation (2021)

  Immediately after orgasm I'd feel like a depraved pervert. And back then I believed a pervert was one of the worst things you could be. But I just. Couldn't. Stop. Each ejaculation became a sickening secret. I agonized that my parents would eventually discover I was a filthy degenerate. So I lied to them. I pushed my mom dad away, but that just made me feel more guilty and alone. It's still embarrassing to admit I masturbate. But why? Because aren't we all masturbators? I'm a masturbator, you're a masturbator, President Obama is a masturbator. Taylor Swift is a masturbator. Oprah! If everybody does it, can it be so bad to feel so good? [Barry] We're asking for perineal stimulation- -Nope, this one first. -Oh, this was first? Okay. [Alex] Meet doctors Barry Komisaruk and Nan Wise. They're the first scientists to ever study the human orgasm with an MRI machine. -The, um, so urethral stimulation, but just put it in about a quarter of an inch into the tip of the urethra and move it around a little bit. It's very, very sensitive. [Alex] Yeah. [Barry] As long as you can feel it, as long as you can feel it clearly. [Alex] And with their help, I'm going to take one small step for sex research and one giant leap for myself. To get over my masturbation shame, I'm gonna jack off in an MRI machine and donate an orgasm to science. -For the prostate stimulation- -Perineum. -Perineum, yeah, okay. This device, bring the tip to, as you say, your taint [laughing] between the scrotum and the anus. For the prostate stimulation, just put it in deeper and forward, and it'll move like that. -All right. -Then you do the freestyle masturbation to orgasm. -Yeah, he's gonna see that. -And then as long as you can feel it, we're probably going to be able to get a recording in the brain and that's the- -I think I can do that. -Okay. -We'll see. [laughs] [Barry] The research I do is on brain activity related to sexual response and orgasm in women and men. In terms of our discoveries, we're the first to show where in the brain orgasm occurs in women. -How do you define an orgasm? -We see an overall activation of all the systems in the brain. In that sense it's similar to a seizure. We haven't come to a final definition yet. [nervous laughter] -All right. -You're ready? -I think so. -You're ready? -Yeah, okay. -Okay, so we have a mask to make. So sex is in the brain, sex is in the mind. It's not necessarily in the genitals. So those two big things reinforced that how you felt about sexuality empowered your response. And also that pleasure is very, very important. ["Nutcracker Suite"] [lighter clicking] [motor roaring] [wet slime noise] [husk ripping] [Shake Weight shaking] [hammer pounding] [tea kettle whistling] [Mission Command] Five, four, three, two, one.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  1. A letter of Count Gaufried of Anjou (d. 1060) to Cardinal Hildebrand, written in March, 1059, shortly before the Lateran Synod (April, 1059), which condemned Berengar (p. 128 and 215). The Count calls here, with surprising boldness and confidence, on the mighty Cardinal to protect Berengar at the approaching Synod of Rome, under the impression that he thoroughly agreed with him, and had concealed his real opinion at Tours. He begins thus: "To the venerable son of the church of the Romans, H.[ildebrand]. Count Gauf. Bear thyself not unworthy of so great a mother. B.[erengar] has gone to Rome according to thy wishes and letters of invitation. Now is the time for thee to act with Christian magnanimity (nunc magnanimitate christiana tibi agendum est), lest Berengar have the same experience with thee as at Tours [1054], when thou camest to us as delegate of apostolic authority. He expected thy advent as that of an angel. Thou wast there to give life to souls that were dead, and to kill souls that should live .... Thou didst behave thyself like that person of whom it is written [John 19:38]: ’He was himself a disciple of Jesus, but secretly from fear of the Jews.’ Thou resemblest him who said [Luke 23:22]: ’I find no cause of death in him,’ but did not set him free because he feared Caesar. Thou hast even done less than Pilate, who called Jesus to him and was not ashamed to bear witness: I find no guilt in him .. . To thee applies the sentence of the gospel [Luke 9:26]: ’Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall I be ashamed before my heavenly Father.’ To thee applies the word of the Lord [Luke 11:52]: ’Woe unto you, for ye took away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and hindered those that were entering.’... Now the opportune time has come. Thou hast Berengar present with the pope. If thou again keepest silence on the error of those fools, it is clear that thou formerly didst not from good reasons wait for the proper time, but from weakness and fear didst not dare to defend the cause of the innocent. Should it come to this, which God forbid, we would be wholly disappointed in our great hope placed on thee; but thou wouldst commit a monstrous injustice to thyself, yea even to God. By thee the Orient with all its perverseness would be introduced into the Occident; instead of illuminating our darkness, thou wouldest turn our light into darkness according to the best of thy ability. All those who excel in erudition and judge the case according to the Scriptures, bore testimony that Berengar has the right view according to the Scriptures .... That popular delusion [of transubstantiation] leads to pernicious heresy. The resurrection of the body, of which Paul says that the corruptible must put on the incorruptible, cannot stand, if we contend that the body of Christ is in a sensuous manner broken by the priest and torn with the teeth (sensualiter sacerdotum manibus frangi, dentibus atteri). Thou boastest of thy Rome that she was never conquered in faith and military glory. Thou wilt put to shame that glory, if, at this time when God has elevated thee above all others at the papal see, that false doctrine, that nursery of the most certain heresy, by thy dissimulation and silence should raise its head. Leave not thine honor to others, by retiring to the corner of disgraceful silence."

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  A few months after the Nicene Council, Irene dissolved the betrothal of her son, the Emperor Constantine, to Rotrude, a daughter of Charlemagne, which she herself had brought about, and forced him to marry an Armenian lady whom he afterward cast off and sent to a convent.549 From this time dates her rupture with Constantine. In her ambition for despotic power, she rendered him odious by encouraging his bad habits, and at last incapable of the throne by causing his eyes to be plucked out, while he was asleep, with such violence that he died of it (797). It is a humiliating fact that Constantine the Great, the convener of the first Nicene Council, and Irene, the convener of the second and last, are alike stained with the blood of their own offspring, and yet honored as saints in the Eastern church, in whose estimate orthodoxy covers a multitude of sins.550 She enjoyed for five years the fruit of unnatural cruelty to her only child. As she passed through the streets of Constantinople, four patricians marched on foot before her golden chariot, holding the reins of four milk-white steeds. But these patricians conspired against their queen and raised the treasurer Nicephorus to the throne, who was crowned at St. Sophia by the venal patriarch. Irene was sent into exile on the Isle of Lesbos, and had to earn her bread by the labors of her distaff as she had done in the days of her youth as an Athenian virgin. She died of grief in 803. With her perished the Isaurian dynasty. Startling changes of fortune were not uncommon among princes and patriarchs of the Byzantine empire. § 103. Iconoclastic Reaction, and Final Triumph of Image-Worship, A.D. 842. Walch, X. 592–828. Hefele, IV. 1–6; 38–47; 104–109. During the five reigns which succeeded that of Irene, a period of thirty-eight years, the image-war was continued with varying fortunes. The soldiers were largely iconoclastic, the monks and the people in favor of image-worship. Among these Theodore of the Studium was distinguished by his fearless advocacy and cruel sufferings under Leo V., the Armenian (813–820), who was slain at the foot of the altar. Theophilus (829–842) was the last and the most cruel of the iconoclastic emperors. He persecuted the monks by imprisonment, corporal punishment, and mutilation.551