Permanence Found

Since the dawn of time, man has loathed the incertainty in his life, and his resolution has always been to acquire some kind of permanence from the tumult that encloses him. Hatred of change may have come from early man's perceptions of death, injury, and disaster, where primitive humans may have connected change with physical danger and natural disasters. Therefore, dislike of change must be an archetypal trait that exists to this day. As the old saying goes, "the only constant is change;" and change has been scaring people since the development of the conscious mind.

Utnapishtim's reply of "There is no permanence," means that there is a constant flux in life, and that humans are rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Although this idea may seem archaic in today's world of science, learning, and discovery, it is only because our society has fallen for a fasade of control over our destinies. When Gilgamesh is refused everlasting life by Utnapishtim, it is because immortality is not his destiny. The idea of fate, that humans are devoid of handling their own destinies is common in human history. From the ancient Greeks to the modern day Catholic Church, many people believe that their life is not in their hands. This link lies in the common belief in a higher authority that is guiding and instructing humans.

Impermanence is apparrent throughout history, as one can see in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the character of Enkidu is the spitting image of change. Enkidu is first changed from animal to man in his brush with the harlot, and when Enkidu tries to return to his old way of life, the animals that he had grazed with flee from him. In one simple meeting, Enkidu learns that changes come swiftly and is sometimes disguised as something desirable but in the end the important thing to remember is that change is permanent. No matter how much he longs to rejoin the wild herds, Enkidu can not after he has changed into a man; the change is permanent, and Enkidu has to learn to adapt to a new way of life.

The way in which people coexist with impermanence is by defying it. Civilization is the tool that is used by people to form (and sometimes impose) a sense of order and clarity in life. The role of civilization in establishing permanence for humanity spawns from its definition: civilization can be defined as any society that has a surplus of food, permanent settlement, and division of labor. A member of a civilized society will have nourishment when they need it, will always know where their home is, and will always know where their place in society is. Fear dissappears when we no longer have to consider it. People form habits and desire to have steady jobs with steady incomes so that they need not worry about the risks that entail the life of a vagabond. Because there is no change in a person's daily routine, there is security and only when there arises a situation that threatens to overthrow the status quo is a painful response illicited. In the days of Gilgamesh, the main threat to a continuous lifestyle was war. In the epic, Gilgamesh is hailed as the great king who built the walls of Uruk and therefore the great king who is protecting his people. Conversely, Gilgamesh is also disliked for his promiscuity amongst his subjects and for his frequent challenges against the young men in his city. When Enkidu first appears in Uruk, the people are elated at the possibility that there is someone that can beat Gilgamesh and are in fact, welcoming change. Thus, one can conclude that change is only accepted by humanity when humanity deems it in the best interest of everyone. This theme is prevalent in modern day America, where President Bush initiated the Patriot Act and a foreign policy that is based on preventive war. At first, Americans accepted these actions as a means to protect routine life in America. However, as popular support wanes for those same policies, so does support for the Bush Administration. The 2006 congressional elections were a clear indication of the country's decision that change was in the best interest of everyone, and the coming presidential elections pose to be equally momentous.

Family is yet another means by which humans are able to perceive eternal life. The continuation of one's lineage allows for the extension of one's beliefs, practices, and deeds for years to come. How often does at family get-togethers does one hear how much they looked like another family member at their age, or how the manner in which they do something mimics that of an older family member? As the children who are being compared grow older, they find themselves becoming the reference for the next generation to be weighed against. By passing on our humanity to our familial successors, we are able to life forever. In their child does every parent see themself, and it is for this reason that the death of child is mourned moreso than an adult. The death of a child marks not only the death of a newly begun life, but also the attempt of the parents to carry on their own lives through their child. It would be safe to assume, therefore, that the death of a child also results in the death of the parents in that there is no longer any means for the parents to lengthen their stay on this earth, and it is the realization of this fact that bury one in grief.

Thinking About The Hero

In Beowulf, The Odyssey, Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Huck Finn, the protagonist overcomes a series of difficulties resulting in either personal salvation of somekind or salvation for the masses and/or any fellow companions. The theme of overcoming adversity is one that is constant throughout humanity, as shown by Odysseus returning to Ithaca/Penelope, Frodo saving Middle Earth (fictional but written in contemporary times), and Beowulf saving the Danes.

A hero is one that inspires others, triumphs where others have failed, and prevails over hardships of some particular kind. However there is a clause to this definition which must include that the hero must not act solely for personal gain and be the "benefactor of their species." (Just to quote Victor Frankenstein) By defining the hero, we deduce that the actions that the hero takes can be described as: noble, courageous, kind, daring, generous, and humble. All of these adjectives cannot attributed to a single action, but instead outline the expectations or qualities that a hero is expected to have.

The idea of a woman hero is somewhat taboo in literature. The woman hero is extremely uncommon in literature- a fact that can probably be attributed to the lack of woman heroes in history. Now I base my assumption on the legitmacy of a woman hero on my naivety in terms of literature (i.e. the only "literature" that I read is assigned in school; my pleasure reading really consists of biographies, war-stories, etc.) however the legitimacy of heroic women in history is based on facts. To name a few female heroines: Boudica who lead the Iceni in resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain during the first century, Joan of Arc who inspired and commanded French troops during the Hundred Years' War, and Rosa Parks whose actions sparked the American civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century. However when one tries to recollect all the male heroes in history, significantly more come mind.Every culture has its women heroes, so why the taboo? The reason is that the overwhelming ratio of male heroes to women heroes can sometimes cause the latter to become obscured and uknown. This effect, when coupled with the medieval church's desire to lessen the importance of women, has resulted in the atleast Western view of male superiority. The major regional influences in Western civilization have all left their marks on the culture that is ours today. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and the Catholic Church have all made significant impacts on society during each power's respective dominance. The dominating influence will always challenge the ways of the past and this trend continues to this day as the society's outlook on the importance and role of women is again being challenged by the feminist movement and our modern quests for political correctness.

In a perfect world, heroes wouldn't be necessary. Everybody would be an upstanding citizen and crime and negative human traits would not exist. In fact, everybody would be a hero by the real-world definition, but because heroic traits would be the norm, the term "hero" would lose meaning and its purpose as a term to express an identity would be lost. In the imperfect world, heroes are necessary. Heroes provide for us a standard to which we compare our lives and strive to imitate. A civilization without heroes is a hiker without a compass. Civilization needs heroes to guide the population in the right direction by being an exemplar of virtue so that we can determine where we all stand in respect to the ideal citizens. Much like the hiker requires his compass to always show him north so that he can determine his relative direction and make adjustments accordingly.

Bertold Brecht implies that only plagued and disparaged lands require a heroine to lift them from their mire. Brecht failed to note however, that until humans perfect their existence, they will always need a mould from which to cast anew.