jhameia: ME! (Under Control)
Be ready for this, people. Citations and quotes and all, but no formatting. I spent most of the night talking to Will and Heather, some of it to Sean, and got to bed only around 2 - 3am. Then I woke up at 5am to finish it off. I opened with Archibald MacLeish's Ars Poetica, and, would you believe, finished off with a quote from The Last Unicorn.

Click for the full essay. It's got sections and all that! )
jhameia: ME! (Under Control)
Here's the outline of how I'll be writing the essay.

I like outlines. They make everything easier.

Outline )
jhameia: ME! (Under Control)
Voice of poetry - Owen

My Assignment is to interpret Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Artist of the Beautiful using Michael Oakeshott's "The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind" theories. I didn't do my presentation on Oakeshott, and I didn't get to read it indepth, so it's been hard. Reading Hawthorne helped making the reading for Oakeshotte easier, actually.

Notes )

Hrm.

Feb. 6th, 2007 10:35 am
jhameia: ME! (Default)
I gotta say, George Kateb is a lot more easier to read than I thought. There're a lot of paradoxes, which I want to discuss in class today. I'm afraid I didn't quite mesh well, on a personal level, with the discussion of individuality within politics. Seemed like these writers were too concerned with individuality, and not enough on community. I understand that the point of individuality (uniqueness) is in complete opposition with the point of community (conformity), but I do think that there is a point where they CAN be reconciled within a single person.

Just because you're part of a bigger thing doesn't mean you can't be your own person too. There's a time and place for everything.

As an example, remember Dogma? There's a scene in Dogma where Bethany's all angsty and shit because she's the last scion, and she says to the Metatron, "then everything I lived was a lie." and the Metatron says "No. No no no no no. You are Bethany Sloan. No one, not even God, can take that away from you. Just... be this other person as well."

Being unable to reconciled identities is a bit like me saying that just because I'm Chinese, I should be in Comemrce, not in Arts, because all the Chinese are in Commerce. That's just silly. I can be Asian AND in the Arts, I can also be Asian AND be dumb.
jhameia: ME! (Joline)
That's a line from Nightmare Before Christmas, which I think perfectly wraps up the sentiments of a lot of people I meet who don't understand the purpose or point of poetry. In Democrative Individualism today, we discussed the "conversation of life".

Basically speaking, a conversation is just a group of different voices coming together and exchanging discourse. It doesn't have to be debate, or argument, or information. Conversation is just for its sake, in fact.

Oakshotte discusses the different voices involved in the conversation of life, and how he feels that it is predominantly the voice of practical activity and the voice of science that currently prevails, if not simply dominates, while the voice of poetry is left on the wayside.

It was completely easy for me to understand why the voice of poetry is important. Poetry delights us simply by being there. (In this sense, poetry includes all sorts of creative activity: painting, sculpting, writing, drawing, all that stuff. We normally label it "art".) It has no real practical use, unless you count Sir Philip Sidney's argument that because it delights, it's got more potential to open up its listener to the lessons within it.

So some of us in class were trying to parse the idea of conversation without a point behind it, and one of us said, "If it's just talking for the sake of talking, well, of course that won't happen, I don't have the time for it." And Arthur (the oldest in the class, he's a grandfather now, retired from the Navy but still wears his uniform and goes to work there) said, "Well, you gotta MAKE time!"

And we do have to make time! It's a hard thing to do, of course. Personal relationships are perhaps the hardest thing in the world to keep up.

The problem with the voice of practical activity too, is that it's so predominant that it shuts out other voices, and in the end other voices don't speak out because it's improper for them to. Look at us now: we're so used to thinking that business industries are what we should be working in, or science industries, that parents frown on kids who want to pursue more artsy careers, because it "doesn't make money" and the measure of happiness or success is how useful a person is.

Then we moved on to poetry and how so many people have a problem with poetry, because they're doing nothing but trying to find out "what it means". What do we do when we study poetry in class? We try to find out what the context of it was, what it symbolizes, what its themes are, what impact it had. It's not that we find actual enjoyment in the thing, it's because if we don't try finding out something we don't get brownie points in class.

We forget that poetry is oftimes meant for its own sake. That sometimes, it has no point, and it has no beginning to which it will go towards an end. It is an image, a point of contemplation, to make us stop and rest in it for a while.

Dr. Heckerl really hit deep when he said, "what other activity do we indulge in that Oakshotte talks about that has no real practical use, and that we enjoy for their own sakes?" and when no one answered, he said, "friendship and love. When you love someone, you just delight in them for what they are. You don't just think about their usefulness to you, do you?"

So, here's a poem which I think describes what we were trying to get at in class: Archibald Macleish's Ars Poetica

A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit,

Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb,

Silent as the sleeve-worn stone
Of casement ledges where the moss has grown--

A poem should be wordless
As the flight of birds.

*

A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs,

Leaving, as the moon releases
Twig by twig the night-entangled trees,

Leaving, as the moon behind the winter leaves,
Memory by memory the mind--

A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs.

*

A poem should be equal to:
Not true.

For all the history of grief
An empty doorway and a maple leaf.

For love
The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea--

A poem should not mean
But be.
jhameia: ME! (Under Control)
I'm on page 28 out of 52. That's not bad, right? I think I'm so slow because I pause every so often to scribble something down on it.

Anyway, here're my current notes:

Immortality =/= eternity.
Immortality is deathlessness, endurance through time.
Eternity is transcendence beyond life and death, beyond time.

Beacuse everything in the Green world, both nature and divinities, were immortal but generally share the same nature/characteristics as humanity (consider that the Gods are like exaggerated forms of Man), mortality was the defining characteristic of mankind.

Immortality is when the individual life doesn't die.
Individual life rises out of biological life.
But biological life is circular, ever moving, in the large scale of things. Even as things die, other things are being born, and on and on and on and on.
Individual life, however, the life of a man is linear, it begins at some point and ends at another point. The mortal is immortal through the lasting things he produces that outlives his biological, mortal life. Thus, the mortal man who strives to be the best, giving up mortal things for immortal fame are the true humans, while those who content themselves with mortality and never strive beyond that are little more than animals. I obviously have a problem with the last bit, but then, we've moved beyond that sort of thinking. For most part.

Interestingly, it's not possible to contemplate eternityn (lead the life of pure contemplation) if one is concerned with leaving some trace of thought. The eternal is thus only experienced beyond the realm of men, as a single man's experience, and it's a kind of death in itself.

Therefore, the vita activa, which seeks to establish a kind of immortality, ruins any experience of eternity, since the eternal needs absolute quiet that the quest of immortality ruins with its busywork.




So: human inventions. Now, a lot of scientific inventions that we take for granted today weren't exactly created for any particularly practical reason in mind, and most inventions are created because, well, as humans, we like trivia. We like knowledge. Even if it serves us no particularly practical purpose, it's just fun to know things like how pink and blue mixed together creates purple. Science ties into philosophy, philo sophia, the love of wisdom, where we like to think things out and see what happens.

The point where science breaks off from philosophy, though, is where science concerns itself with doing, action, in order to make sure of the truth of their theory. Philosophic concerns are mostly observations and contemplation. Science is application through action. But you can't really be sure with philosophy.

Science isn't permanent in its theories either, though, and doesn't have to make sense to Mister Regular John Doe. Do you understand physics? I don't. But physics is a complicated, important science. Sciences, in general, create implications on religions which can be very offensive, because the regular stuff that doesn't make sense, that the religious right like to say doesn't have to make sense because God created it and we shouldn't question what God made, that regular stuff, the nonsensical, becomes a truth in the applications of science.
A world that is the product of a divine, ineffable god can't be understood by man, or men can't understand what he didn't make, so he can't understand nature. But science does try to understand things, and succeeds, and apparently that's fucked.

Because of the reversals in theories that happen all the time in science or philosophy, the poor fuckers in philosophy become jaded and this has a consequence in modern philosophy, in which we think our inner senses make us know what reality is really like, and that consequence is that philosophers turn away from the world, the people they share it with, and the truth that comes alongside living in the world and become misanthropic motherfuckers.
It's worse because in this innner world he doesn't even find a permanent eternal truth either, poor sod, because all he ends up with are the cnostant shiftings of sensual and mental perceptions.

Because science doesn't need philosophy anymore, philosophers either became epistomologists or mouthpieces of their times, expressing the problems faced by their times clearly.
jhameia: ME! (Under Control)
This will be an update as I read this damn thing.

Suffice to say, I'm becoming fast annoyed at this outlook on life. A footnote says that freedom was understood to consiste of a) status, b) personal inviolability, c) freedom of economic activity, d)right of unrestricted movement. As a result, the slave is completely out, a craftsman isn't even mentioned because the craftsman is limited by his compulsion to work, and a merchant is out because os his compulsion to keep accumulating shit. This means the only people who're actually free are those who freely i) enjoy a life of consuming the beautiful, ii) devote their life to the polis (politics?) which produces beautiful deeds, and iii) devotes their lives to thinking about eternal, beautiful thing (good because it doesn't produce or affect current beautiful things).

Firstly, this devalues pretty much 90% of the human population who support that last 10%, ON THEIR BACKS. I can't believe how petty and ignorant this is. And this is Aristotle! I can't believe that a thinking philosopher would be so arrogant to believe that he is better than 90% of the population simply because he has leisure time to sit and think - there is a reason why he had no economic limits, and the reason was because of the 90% of people then! This harkens back to both Marilyn French and the current book I'm reading ("When God Was A Woman") on why men are so powerful: because women were too busy working in the domestic space to notice men were getting big-headed about their free time and what exactly the free time meant. I don't know how more time spent in public space means greater autonomy and thus superiority, but that's pretty fucked.

This is some serious being-out-of-touch with the common man here. Just because you've got time and inclination to go vote for (and participate in the politics of) how to rule everybody else doesn't make you better.

Even with the disappearance of the city-state, action wasn't becoming valued, but contemplation was seen as the ideal "free" way of life. The ideal of Christians (and many other religions too) that contemplation is superior to action is a move to be free from worldliness, but it doesn't exclude it to a small ruling elite; religion made it a right of all people. Why? Well, it's just easier to keep people in line if you promise them something beyond death, so they shouldn't complain in this life.

I'm actually rather irked by the idea that contemplation > action. It's true that if a person doesn't contemplate, their actions won't really have much thought nor quality behind them. But to think without acting is impotent and equally as worthless. You can have all the opinions you want, but you better stand up for what you believe.

Okay, here's a direct statement:
JUst as war takes place for the sake pf peace, thus every kind of activity ... must culminate in the absolute quiet of contemplation.
That is. Wow. A TERRIBLE ANALOGY.

Here's a paraphrase of a statement:
The reason why contemplation > activity is because anything a human does / produces could never measure up to the perfection of the cosmos, which govern themselves. This perfection, however, is visible only when the human mind is completely quiet and contemplative.
jhameia: ME! (Under Control)
I'm not sure how Dr. Heckerl expects us to read 52 pages of all this by Tuesday, but I'll give a shot in figuring out the first six pages.

There are three fundamental human activities: labour, work, and action,
Labour is linked to biological activity. It keeps us alive.
Work is linked to non-natural objects that are meant to last beyond a human lifetime.
Action is linked to the interaction between human beings without the need of an intermediary

I love definitions, and this particular term cropped up very early on: Conditioning Power.
Conditioning power - factors which influence men's lives, such as:
natural: environment, weather, terrain, wildlife
non-natural: social relations, money, buildings, literature
Basically, men's lives are made complicated by nature, but we still create other factors to complicate things further, because life's no fun without a good soap opera, I imagine.

"The character of a condition of human existance"
- something with conditioning power influences people. Influencing people is the character of a condition of a human existance.
See the circular logic happenng here? Eh? Eh?

Human condition, however, is NOT human nature: if humans left Earth, they wouldn't become non-humans straight off just because they leave conditions that are traditionally associated with humans.
The problem with human nature is its impossibility in defining it, because that would require us to not be it first - be apart from it.
Who we are is NOT what we are.
Thr quest to define humanity tends to lead to the creation of a divinity (Absolute Perfection) - this idea just idealizes and defines superhumanness. For obvious reasons, this is a pretty suspicious way of defining humanness.

Yes, it takes me all of three hours just to get these six pages. I suck.

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12 131415161718
19 2021222324 25
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios