Henry Fuseli's "The Nightmare"--sleep and dreams were common themes in his paintings

Last night I had a dream so bad and so real, once I woke from it, I made some tea and stayed up for fear it would start again if I went back to sleep. I can never get good dreams back when I return to bed, but with nightmares, it's entirely different...they come back with a vengeance.

I read a lot about dreams because they fascinate me and I want to figure out how to get rid of my bad ones or the ones that make me feel guilty. There are so many theories about why we dream, but one that goes centuries back and some people still believe is that they could be sent from God or the Devil. If that is true, then I'm probably in a lot of trouble.

Neurobiology is also used to explain REM sleep and our night visions. Most of my dreams are too plot-driven or emotionally layered to be the result of science. Yet, Freud's reading of dreams drives me crazy with his Oedipal focus.

One reason dreams can be disturbing is that we believe the events in them are actually happening while we are having them. According to Wikipedia:

The reason for this may be that the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain responsible for logic and planning, exhibits decreased activity during dreams. This allows the dreamer to more actively interact with the dream without thinking about what might happen, since things that would normally stand out in reality blend in with the dream scenery.^[42]

I think guilt and repressed emotion play a huge factor in bad dreams. The more we repress things, the more they can show up when and where we least want them.

Here are some helpful websites I found while going online last night.

http://www.charminghealth.com/applicability/nightmare.htm

http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/blogs/nightmares-about-more-than-just-fear-new-study-finds

http://psychology.about.com/od/statesofconsciousness/p/dream-theories.htm

Ichabod Crane on credit cards...

Another tv show I've become quite fond of is Fox's "Sleepy Hollow." Tom Mison is just so endearing as Ichabod Crane and his views on contemporary society (he's been awakened from his own 18th century time into ours) are priceless:
 

"And that building is also a Starbucks?"

Ichabod: "That building used to be a livery stables."
Abbie: "Yeah? Well, now it's a Starbucks. Where they make coffee."
Ichabod: "And that building is also a Starbucks?"
Abbie: "Yep."
Ichabod: "Well, how many are there?"
Abbie: "Per block?"
Ichabod: "Is there a law?"   

 

"My God. Where did you procure such massive quantities of reserves? Is there a nearby citadel?"

Ichabod: "My God. Where did you procure such massive quantities of reserves? Is there a nearby citadel?
Abbie: "Supermarket—called Buy Plus. Buy in bulk, spend less; I will take you there someday."   

On the price of doughnuts:

Ichabod: "I understand, to you it sounds ..."
Abbie: "Insane when spoken out loud."
Ichabod: "No, what's insane is a 10 percent levy on baked goods. You do realize the Revolutionary War began on less than 2 percent? How is the public not flocking to the streets in outrage? We must do something."
Abbie: "Here's what we can do. No more firsthand accounts of witches or Founding Fathers or doughnut tax outrage unless you want to be sent back to the asylum."
Ichabod: "Point taken."
 

I think of all the new shows I've seen so far this season, I enjoy "The Mysteries of Laura" the most. Debra Messing is very likable (and realistic) as a woman balancing career and motherhood. 

There are so many special touches that make it endearing and not just another crime show. Laura's kids, for instance, would basically be extremely misbehaved "brats," if not for how much they love their mom and she them. 

Laura's ex (played nicely by Josh Lucas) has clearly made some bad mistakes as a husband, but the chemistry between Messing and Lucas is pleasant, instead of the nasty vibe the writers could have gone for with a divorced couple.

The critics absolutely, positively hate it and I suppose I can see some of their arguments, but the thing is "The Mysteries of Laura" seems sincere and is quite sweet at times and I just don't think there are enough of those kind of programs on tv right now.

I like that it's not perfect (though the mysteries could be stronger, it's more about the journey than the destination), that Messing's character is sometimes messy with her clothes and not a size 0 and (especially in the most recent episode "The Mystery of The Biker Bar")that she cares about people in a way that doesn't come across as overly sentimental or manufactured.

There may be no love from the critics, but ratings are decent so far and Twitter and blog posts suggest that lots of women definitely like it. As far as claims go that it's not particular feminist-friendly, I'm not going to worry about that right now unless something horribly archaic happens. :)


(For a look at how "The Mysteries of Laura" is doing in the ratings go here:http://thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/10/02/the-mysteries-of-laura-retains-93-percent-of-last-weeks-regular-slot-debut-in-adults-18-49-rating-838311/20141002nbc01/)

I was watching NBC's "The Mysteries of Laura" (I know the critics don't like it much, but I just adore it !) tonight when one particular scene stuck out for its use of a Jewel song that once struck chords of fear in me whenever I'd hear it.

For many of us a song from our past can either make or break us. This time, though, I was glad for the unexpectedness of hearing something that used to remind me of a sad time in my life.

I didn't flinch or even think of the song in terms of memory, it became a song again. And, I remembered, when the song first came out I thought I'd never get past that...past being hurt so badly by someone it forever changed the way I interacted with (or trusted) anyone who showed even the slightest interest in me.

This person and I had been good friends, or so it seemed, but I've always been grateful we never became more for reasons too complicated to mention. In the beginning I would have loved if things had worked out, it was kind of what I'd wished for, but finding out her true nature reminded me there's a reason people say be careful what you wish for.

Realizing we can survive our personal histories makes me think of "this too shall pass," which is one of my favorite sayings, ever, and something I like to believe is very much true.

Another adage that calms me (most of the time, though occasionally it can also be patronizing) is "things happen--or don't--for a reason."

There are people we're going to meet along the way that we would love to get to know better, but just aren't meant to. As painful as unrequited love can be, I'd rather have a crush on someone sincere who is also nice and kind, but obviously could and would never feel the same, than have feelings for someone who reached out with an interest that turned out to just be hiding lies and ulterior motives.

Sometimes, if we're lucky, we realize before it's too late that knowing someone wonderful and unique is a part of our lives, however casual or non-mutual that part is, is more than enough.

Asexuality is a topic not discussed often, especially in public circles, but I think it's an important one and definitely not something to be dismissed as someone's "imagination" or "confusion" or the result of a history of sexual abuse. It's very much real and the subject of a new book called The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality.

Having read about asexuality before and seen many comments on various online articles, I'm shocked at both the meanness and lack of understanding about it, especially by members of the gay and lesbian community who have responded. Nowhere in this article (at least that I can see) is the author comparing how difficult it is to be gay (i.e. facing ostracization, hate or even violence from family, friends and strangers) with what it's like to be asexual.

There also seems to be some leaps to mixing up asexuality with celibacy, which is a different thing. The former is a complete lack of interest while the latter is a commitment to not giving in to any sexual activity, even if the compulsion is strong. 

One aspect I find intriguing is that a person can still be considered asexual if she has romantic feelings for someone, but not sexual ones. It makes perfect sense to me. Sex without love would be meaningless, but love without sex is not. Of course, there are asexuals who are also considered aromantic.

Not wanting to be in a relationship or married should be just as acceptable as the opposite. Asexual, bisexual, heterosexual or homosexual, we all still care a lot about the people in our lives. We should all be allowed to be true to our nature as long as we're not hurting anyone, but apparently asexuality is as appalling to some people as much as being gay is to others.

To read the article (and comments following it) you can go here:

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/why-asexuals-dont-want-to-be-invisible-anymore/

There's a helpful and insightful review on it as well:

http://markcarrigan.net/2014/06/24/the-invisible-orientation-an-introduction-to-asexuality/