hispano arabic peotry and doves neckless

           In one of the Hispano arabic poems I find the idea that one's life is but an instant, and that instant was when the speaker says he accidentally kissed the one he loved. To him, his long life meant nothing except for that moment. He talks about what he does when he is away from his object of affection. In another, the speaker can't help. I'm finding a link in these about the idea of the lover as more enchanting than the lover itself. The authors seems to be writing from the perspective of being separate from their lover. That's when they write about their love, not wen they are in the midst of their lover. Therefore, one could argue they are writing from a state of depression, or at the very least, sadness or apprehension.
            When he describes the different ways people fall in love, I noticed one of the ways, hearing a description of the person, is similar to the lesson of Narcissus. They painting an image of the person in their mind's eye, and fall in love with that image, rather than the person. They are hearing a description of a person through a double filter. The first, the perspective of the person who told him, and then his interpretation of that. It is likely that his idea of the person differs vastly from the described person.
            I find his process fascinating, even more so that he wrote down what he believes love does. I did notice though, that lust is not discussed. This also brings up the idea that humans have not changed. They behave the same way now as they did before, in ancient times. When I read the "The Dove's Neckless" this fact is only confirmed. When he starts talking about the signs of love, signs he had observed, I am reminded of the same signs I have observed. It is not a coincidence then, that different cultures in different times humans behave the same.

Islamic art

Firstly, some things I noticed early on as I was reading: Arab words are really cool. Anyway, Cultures are usually resistant to change, it takes a lot of time and it takes a lot of people living together to make noticeable change. while reading the about the information on the art I noticed that most of the art is ceramic and lacks representations of specific people. This is very likely due to the Islamic religion being against idolatry. But it was easy for cultures to intermingle because the rulers of many Mediterranean cities changed frequently as war was a frequent event. Because of trade and war, the exchange of ideas and in extension culture, created an inevitable scenario where cultures rubbed off on each other and spurred artistic an scientific evolution.

A question I have is, how does a commoner interact with art in this period? 

Ovid's Metamorphoses 4-6

          The story of Hermaphroditus was very strange. The insane nymph has an insatiable lust for the boy Salmacis. this story has a "be careful what you wish for" vibe to it, when at the end the nymph wishes never to part form Salmacis. Well she got more than she bargained for. Interestingly enough, it seemed that Salmacis was the one who was in control of his new body. I didn't get the feeling that the nymph wanted to merge with the boy, but wanted to posses the boy's body. She just wanted him to herself. In the moment as she clings to Salmacis she's happy and wishes to never part, but doesn't realize the prophetic nature of her exclamation. Is this transformation a punishment for the nymph? For while surely, it isn't what she had in mind, her hopeful thinking became a reality, though probably not in the way she intended. Salmacis though, is probably cursing his ill-luck, or perhaps his inability to escape the nymph's clutches.
         Perseus is gripped by the same force when he sees Andromeda chained. He feels the same lust that the nymph felt for Salmacis. There are huge differences though. Firstly, Perseus is a demigod, and secondly he asks Andromeda's parents if by rescuing her he wins her hand in marriage. He doesn't simply throw him self on the object of his affection like in the Hermaphroditus story. He killed the sea serpent to win the princes, and this story arc of rescuing the damsel in distress is a recurring theme in mythology and continues in today's literature. He also asks for her hand in marriage, instead of simply going straight to sex. It's a disciplined, civilized solution to the problem. In the Hermaphroditus story, the lesson is that unshackled primal urges must be kept under control and measured. The nymph's reckless misconduct caused an unnatural joining of two parties, one willing, and the other unwilling.

Ovid's Metamorphoses 1,3

          The opening of the first book immediately reminded me of Genesis. When I read it I couldn't help but think that this account of the creation of Earth seems to be a more detailed account of the Genesis creation myth. The creation of man is the same also. The god of nature makes a mold of himself to create man. Man would be "fit to rule the rest." just like how in Genesis Man would have dominion over the earth. Its odd how the Titans weren't even present.
           The fight between the dragon and Cadmus was confusing. Apparently Cadmus throws a rock at the dragon and the scales neatly deflect it. Then he throws a dart. A dart that is big enough to cause a dragon pain and wedge between two scales and into bone. It mus not have been a dart that we know of today because i don't think a dart should cause a dragon much harm at all. And then, when Cadmus fights the dragon with a spear, the text starts talking about an oak tree. When I first read this I thought the oak tree was a metaphor for the sturdiness of the dragon. After rereading it it was actually the case that the dragon backed up into a tree and with no recourse took the full force of Cadmus' spear thrust. The dragon wasn't smart, it was too used to having it's way with simple brute force. Cadmus represents humankind's ingenuity, by using tools to overcome his foe. Or perhaps I am reading too much into it, and that the actual point of the story was the part where the dragon's teeth are seeds for future man, and that the death of the dragon heralded new life, life that would clash until only five remained.

Plato's Republic reading

         I really like the way it was written. It was easy to read. I like how Socrates states that there are four regimes (methods of rule) and then states that any regime other than these four fir somewhere between them. "...that Cretan and Laconian regime, and the second in place and second in praise, the one called oligarchy, a regime filled with throngs of evils; and this regime's adversary, arising next in order, democracy, and then the noble tyranny at last, excelling all of these, the fourth and extreme illness of a city..." He then asks if regimes follow the character of men or if the regimes arise from oak or rocks. To which the other man agrees, as always. There is one other regime that isn't a regime at all but rather a lack of regime: anarchy. The type of person who would rule would be no one, the type of person that would enable it however, would be someone with no direction, not commitments, no responsibility, no care or thought in the world. It kinda like Socrates either omits it because it isn't a regime, and at the same time useless to discuss because anarchy is just an intermediary step between regime. changes.
          "Those men are ours. For they are nothing." In the Oligarchy when the poor man sees the rich man, he realizes how out of step the rich man is, how awkward he is. He realizes how much the rich man depends on the labors of the poor man to live, and is disgusted. why should the rich benefit from the toils of the poor? Why should a few, in their greed, neglect the needs of the many? In this, the egg that births democracy is made manifest. I like how the four regimes make up a cycle that repeats itself, like the cycle of life and death, or void, being, nothing.
            A question for Professor Borck: did these conversations actually occur? Was Glaucon a real person or just an imaginary speaker?