Focus passage week 7

Marathe and Steeply's conversation (not surprisingly, I'm sure!); Steeply's father's M*A*S*H obsession: pp. 638-648.

A few thoughts:

- Steeply refers to his dad's unhealthy obsession with the M*A*S*H as an "unbalance" throughout the conversation. This description seems relevant to the debate we've brought up multiple times about at what point dedication to entertainment (be it drugs, TV, etc.) becomes problematic. It seems that indulging a little (i.e., maintaining a balance) may not be hazardous, but addiction becomes essentially a sacrifice of one's very life. What was wrong with Steeply's dad's relationship to this show, and why did he develop the obsession? Why couldn't he resist? Why him?

- Comparison between the nature of a) Steeply's dad's addiction to M*A*S*H, b) drug addiction and c) psychosis, especially paranoid psychoses. All of these share common characteristics. What are the commonalities and what might this similarity suggest?

- Why does Steeply's mom get therapy to cope with her husband's prolblem instead of he himself getting help? Does this scenario seem realistic? What if his addiction were to a substance rather than a TV show--would his wife still seek therapy, or would he be more likely to? Would she force him to get therapy in that alternative situation? Perhaps since TV watching isn't considered as much of a taboo as drug use, it would be less acceptable for her to criticize or discuss his obsessive viewing as a problem, whereas drug addiction is considered a "Disease," not as commonplace or "harmless" as say 6 hours of TV a day.

- In regards to Marathe's summary of the story about Steeply's father: "His unbalance of temptation cost him life. An otherwise harmless U.S.A. broadcast television program took his life, because of the consuming obsession. This is your anecdote" (646). It seems that we see TV programs as "harmless," but how do we view drugs? How much culpability do we attribute to objects themselves? Is it the TV itself that is inherently bad? Are drugs inherently bad? How do we choose our evaluations of objects, and when do we decide that the responsibility lies with the person? Based on my own experience I would argue that our culture views drugs as inherently negative and dangerous, rather than regarding our own decisions about drug use as the problem. On the contrary, TV seems to have a positive connotation and its our own indiscriminate use that we tend to blame for its nuisances.

Remember Lyle's maxim "Don't underestimate objects"? I noticed there was a passage immediately preceding M & S's conversation in which Stice tries to telepathically will a tomato to move in his salad bowl (c. 636), which was also reminiscent of Lyle's motto.