How To Build A Welded Wire Fence

halved

Here I am (finally tell someone), I just needed to complete the trilogy. My name is Medardo of Terralba, aka the Cloven Viscount. Codest is my name because of the fact that two people in one: the story of Calvin a good and one bad, I prefer to define their relationship to each other: opposite.

relation to this My plural feature on which I intend to do the reflections are not the only character in the existing literature, and also are full of the film or the theater of this kind of figures.

On close indeed, especially in the artistic works of more recent date, it is very rare to find people who are not in the throes of some kind of inner conflict. In some works, however, and here are the ones that interest me more because I look like, this conflict is the nerve center of the story (for example "to be or not to be" memory of Shakespeare, or latest "Dexter" ) , and among these there are some in which the conflict is revealed even in practice, in a tangible way, giving rise to different characters, but they represent two sides of the same person (for example the classic "Dr. Jekyl and Mr Hide ", or cult film" Fight Club " ), and this is the case in the history of Calvin, is my case. I am the Grim Medardo, but at the same time Medardo the Good. It must be said that at the end of the story, after a near-death duel, my ricomporranno two halves, giving life to be a wiser and more complete than others, which will present both the good and bad. To put it Jungian language, I, Medardo of Terralba, I get to supplement my Shadow. But this comes at the end, but now we are just beginning.

However this type of finish is one of the possible solutions that you may experience when you are somehow halved s, and is certainly the most desirable and positive. But it is not the only one. There are, broadly speaking, at least two others: the first is to try to bring together the two separate parts, the second is to take out one of the two parts and completely identified in only one remained. I try to give two examples, both from two fairly recent works of various kinds and I were very welcome.

The first is from the aforementioned "Dexter" TV series centered on the American namesake character, a brilliant haematologist of the Miami police, and at the same ruthless serial killer murders escaped the arm of the law. Dexter has a history of tragic childhood, which bequeaths to what is called the Dark Passenger, a strong inner urge to kill. With the help of his foster father, Dexter manages to convey this need to people who do not deserve to be alive for the acts they have done. The main character begins to have so two parallel lives, which are complicated, however, when Dexter decides to have a 'normal' life with a family, wife, children / friends ee / h. Dexter will try until the last does not enter its two conflicting trends, but the result, at least the end of the fourth series, will be a tragic outcome that will show the impossibility of such an attempt. It therefore seems at least in this instance, that my colleague has taken the wrong way and that the coexistence of two opposing tendencies in a person's life does not lead to anything good.

The same appears to apply to Rorscharch embarked on the road, one of the protagonists of the graphic novel by Alan Moore masterpiece, "Watchmen" . He also leaves behind tragic childhood, which, however, reacted by deciding to embody at all costs, the figure of justice. This choice, however, led him to be killed because of his inability to compromise, even when an act surely right to denounce the perpetrator of a massacre of thousands of lives, could lead to the complete destruction of life on earth. Even choose the "good" between those in conflict seems to lead to no good if you leave the other completely.

So if you want to give credit to these two examples, the only way to avoid ending up in tragedy, it seems to be that the integration of opposing tendencies that dwell in the soul of human beings.

Yet another example is contradict this conclusion, namely that taken from the animated film "Shrek 4 " . In the last (we hope) chapter of the saga's most famous ogre of recent times in fact, the protagonist, having started a family with his wife and sons and daughters, began to be nostalgic about his past, where people too were scared him, and where he enjoyed a world to play its role. The desire to return one day to be the same as before, however, catapulted him into an adventure where they are brought into play all his most recent choices. At the end of the story the main character decides to finally put aside his side in favor of an ogre of a husband and father, thereby saving the fate of the kingdom. In this example then be identified by one of the two opposing sides and set aside the other, it seems, contrary to what Moore in drama series "Watchmen" to be the decisive move.

But in the two previous examples, which would have been decisive but this move? If we take the case of Dexter, probably the same as Shrek in the case of Rorscharch, perhaps for once to bear an injustice. But both leave me puzzled. It seems, from these three examples, that the outcome of the conflict can be measured not so much by the choice between different individual tendencies, but among those individuals, whatever they are, and those of the dominant context: family indifference in the cases mentioned here. Choose the dominant tendencies of the context save.

And here someone / to say, "And no, you're wrong! And integration where you leave? "

E 'true integration. What I'll be able to do at the end of the story of Calvin. But it's really possible? And if it was only the illusion of some intellectuals to find a solution to the eternal problem of the duality of human beings? Someone to be appointed to reject the dominant values, but can not see another horizon to live in harmony with him or the other / and forced to accept them?

Calvin himself, despite the happy ending of his story, writes in the introduction to the book itself: «[...] all feel somehow incomplete, all made a part of ourselves and not the other. "From these words, it seems that a solution can be. There is no trace of a possibility of integration. It seems that the destiny of every human being is somehow to be at least half unhappy. In this sense, in those words, I feel very strong echoes of a certain Freudian pessimism towards the human nature. The pleasure principle must inevitably come to terms with the reality principle, unless you want to be mistaken for fools / e.

"There's nothing that really needs to possess" says King Crimson referring to the man of the twenty-first century schizoid. Maybe because what you have is not what matters, because what makes you happy, and therefore you need is an inner state. But what was inside? The one (the 'good') or the other (the 'bad')? And also: Who in the twenty-first century think more to the interior state that the outer, which is what you have? With all the good people I know, I can not find one. But not for bad angle, but because if you do not have, now more than ever, you can not accept to live in society. Between having and being there is integration: those who choose to be is simply discarded / a, those who choose to have (money, prestige, family, sons and daughters, power, take your pick) and save / a. But at what price?

certainly do not claim to be able to give or receive answers to all these questions. They are just food for thought, the stream of consciousness of a character who, despite the ending of the story that makes him live, do not feel at all integrated, and does not know whether it will ever be possible.

It is with this spirit that speak in this blog. I can say one thing one day and the day after the other. And not only for cause, but because both tendencies are present in me, as in all you reading. You can make choices, but some of you probably will still be unsatisfied. The same Jung, who theorized the integration of the Shadow at the same time saw the unconscious compensation for all the outward tendencies of an individual. So it's no use fretting, if out of love, in hate, if you want to die out, you want to live in, if out you're a pessimist like me, Inside you are optimistic ...