episthomology

an anecdote

2007-12-07T01:52:00.000-07:00

For those of you whom I haven't already made read this; This is an anecdote I came up with for my honours thesis project about state-building & imperialism in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I thought it might be a good way to side-step all the political science jargon for those of you who who don't find that stuff particularly appealing. Enjoy

An Anecdote

An unnamed shopkeeper sits at a shopping stall in a nondescript marketplace. The shopkeeper is the pride of the whole city; people come from far and wide to purchase his beautiful & ornate rugs. One day as the shopkeeper sits in his stall, a man who doesn’t really fit in walks up to him, takes off his hat and gives a nod to the man that looks like he means well, but his nod looks more like a bow that a Kung Fu fighter would give to their Sensei in the Karate Kid. “Wax-on Wax-off” the shopkeeper thinks to himself. He asks the man how he may be of service, to which the man responds he will be of service to him. The man claims he comes on behalf of a wealthy benefactor who represents a distant community. He further mentions that he is at the market to tell the man he is indeed very lucky, because he will receive free insurance for his shopping stall, in order to protect him against theft of his ornate—and expensive—rugs. The shopkeeper is perplexed, and thanks the man profusely but asks him why he should receive the help. The man points out that the wealthy donor he represents is upset because the rugs stolen from the poor shopkeeper’s stall are being shipped to the donor’s own community where they are being sold for cheaper than the rugs being sold by the wealthy donor, therefore the man MUST accept his help. Therefore, in order to help the poor shopkeeper keep his rugs from being stolen he will help provide him insurance that will also nicely ensure that his rugs don’t ‘undercut’ the donor’s competition. Needless to say, the shopkeeper is still confused but he assumes the gentleman means well and agrees to accept his help. The gentleman is ecstatic that he can be of service, so he puts his fingers in his mouth and lets out a huge whistle. Next thing you know, 15 burly men in black shirts that read “Ultra-Modern Security” show up carrying boxes labelled “Surveillance System.” The shopkeeper is alarmed and asks the man what is going on, to which the man says “Oh well if you’re going to bring your shop up to snuff and ensure your goods aren’t stolen then you need to make sure you have surveillance systems set up, with video cameras and all the other bells and whistles!” The shopkeeper looks perplexed as the men rush around screwing video cameras into the posts of his stall, and run cables that one can’t trip over because they need to be climbed over. When it’s all said and done, the man takes the power bar filled up till the point where it looks like it’s going to cause a fire, and he looks for a wall outlet to plug it into. Now the man’s confused, he looks at the shopkeeper and he asks him where the power outlets are. The shopkeeper points out that he doesn’t have any and that over the 300 years his family has been making ornate rugs, they’ve never needed them. The insurance man starts thinking to himself how he might possibly find a way to run some power lines into the market and it crosses his mind to ask “well if you don’t have outlets, do you at least have security guards you can call if you see someone stealing something?” The shopkeeper furrows his eyebrows and looks at the man like he’s crazy. “No, I don’t, my brothers and I take turns watching the shop, and while we have the odd robbery, it’s never put us out of business.” Now the insurance man is furrowing his eyebrows like the shopkeeper’s crazy. The man looks at the shopkeeper and says “My friend, you’re either going to have to build power lines, hire security guards, or go out of business, because there’s no way you can stay in business without these security mechanisms.” The gentlemanly-outsider walks off in a huff, leaving the stall wired to the gills, and the shopkeeper peeking over the wreckage of cords and cameras installed by the insurance man whose intentions were good, but who just didn’t understand.

Play it Backwards

2007-07-21T22:13:00.000-06:00

Maybe if you play it backwards it will play songs of angels instead of devils
Give you something to believe in instead of reasons to despair
You didn't do the crime, so don't bother doing the time
In prisons of cerebral wrought-iron bars under guilt-stricken lock-and-key

Spin the record backwards and start to believe in nihilistic positivities
They didn't come for you, they came to ask for change
To ask for initiatives on shifting values and a better place to live
Get in it for the feeling and principle, not the money

Tie Me Down and Make Me Believe

2007-07-21T21:25:00.000-06:00

God Bless the person who starts fires that never stop burning the insides of peoples' minds with guilty thoughts of sideways practices and sad thoughts of things never justified on themselves but practical in a sick way for blistering grey matter and permanently etching realities with screwdrivers, creating scars which never go away even though they prophesize the changes everyone wants but no one wants to make sitting there like technicolor dreams more firm in conviction than energy persistantly thumping against the wall of sad life's conscience like a heart under the floorboards of an empty room in sanity's bleeding stone-cold dark corners just beyond the reach of everything ever wished for a better place, even though warning shots fired remind pilgrims that never-starting/ending problems start/end with naive and misplaced concepts of virtue, civility and humanity discarded in the burnt minds of tortured-but-lethargic souls that lie on concrete with ears to the ground, not bothering to hear the crash of the street over preposterous ideology sung by angels and politicos tied down, gagged with blinders not necessary for gazes that never wander from tubes spewing those technicolor dreams of a world thats better and worse in thought but worse and more ideal in reality, where do we start? How about here?

2006-12-15T02:39:00.000-07:00

Breathe in the scent
Make them a part of you
Try to pry them apart
Rip them to shreds

Savour the moment
You can't deconstruct
It only fades
When it wants to

You don't control desire
It controls you

How To Be in Ten Places at Once

2006-12-08T18:47:00.000-07:00

You'll never find that person
The superlative being
Who is in ten places at once ;
How can they be in a room and not
All at the same time?
The faint floral aroma that lingers
Shows you how they live;
Not in place to place,
But in a stream of melting bouquets ;
A being who's a trail, and never leaves
where they once were

Untitled

2006-10-09T22:03:00.000-06:00

Sweet shaking misery
Poor pendulum of the heart
Swings tempting cruel fate
Convulsively further and closer
To that which it wants

Deadly twisting pain
Precipitated dull ache
This life of cloak and dagger
Hideous stratagems and planned deceit
Robs the pure, and scorches the innocent

Naivete carries the sorrowful burden of vice
Charged with stoic temperament
The price put on the head of virtue
Is higher than any good man can afford

Untitled

2006-09-25T23:09:00.000-06:00

If there was no way to understand
Would the world still have a face?
Hewn limbs with nothing to gesture,
Eyes torn out in useless torment

Conversations with trees and lamp posts
Become sole interests for disenchanted me
If only there was some way to figure out
How to have a face, just so I could see

Life is not worth living, if it only involves ones self
But what about those who have no choice
How do we sew on limbs, and animate faces
Bringing foresight to a blinded world

Rousseau Paper

2006-04-13T13:37:00.000-06:00

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract is a work that isn’t without its contradictions, and the use of the word “freedom” in this work is no exception to the rule. I will use this essay to carefully look at a few quotations from Rousseau’s text and try and construct an idea of the meaning of freedom at that particular moment in the text. This interpretation of Rousseau’s idea of freedom might in some cases contradict earlier and later uses of the word; however, I will try my best to offer a comprehensive explanation and analysis of what he means at this point. First I will look at Rousseau’s declaration that “man is born free, everywhere he is in chains” (239). After that I will look at his idea that “a slave loses everything in his chains, even the desire of escaping them” (240). Finally I will look at Rousseau’s argument that “what man acquires in the civil state [is] moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty” (246). I will explain what I think the meaning of these quotations is, and attempt to draw a connection between the three of them afterwards. After that I will evaluate the correctness of Rousseau’s claims given what I think he is trying to say. I think Rousseau is right in about his theory of freedom at this point in the text, but his theory is more effective when applied to our current society, than it is when applied to his own. I want to emphasize that this paper is as much about discovering what Rousseau is talking about, as it is actually about evaluating it, so I will go into detail in both cases.

The first quote is “man is born free, everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 239). Rousseau is reaching back to his 2^nd Discourse and the idea that when man enters into a social atmosphere he develops an identity which is dependent on others for its value. At birth, man is at the closest he comes to what he is like in nature. Although he is physically dependent on his caregiver, man is free from the conventions of civil society that move him to define himself relative to others. Rousseau is arguing that the current way that society is organized is preventing people from being free, because they are restricted by themselves. As I will get to in a minute, Rousseau says people are slaves to their own impulsive behaviour, not unlike being addicted to a drug. It must society that creates this addiction, because as Rousseau points out, this reliance doesn’t exist in nature. People convince themselves that the freedom to choose how to live their life is what constitutes an independent being; however, Rousseau is arguing that people are mistaken in the view of this type of life as free, because people are internally chained. Society enslaves itself in the belief that it is free.

The second quote is “a slave loses everything in his chains, even the desire of escaping them” (Rousseau 240). I think there are two important points in this quotation that help establish an idea of freedom at this point in the text. First, Rousseau is establishing the shackles as something that internally prevents man from being free as opposed to externally restricting him. It is the person who restricts themselves, preventing them from being free, and society that puts them in this position. Second, when someone defines themselves relative to others, they are [to borrow a phrase from Louis Althusser] reproducing the necessary pre-conditions of their own enslavement. Rousseau is pointing out that not only are people enslaving themselves, but their own enslavement is actually making it more difficult for them to be liberated. I think there are some resounding similarities to Marx in Rousseau’s argument; however, Rousseau is only arguing that the chains imprisoning man are psychological dependence, and not meant to suit the interests of a particular class. So far the purpose of the first quote is to emphasize the lack of freedom in the liberal theory of freedom, and to further deconstruct their theory by arguing the individual’s social placement robs them of their desire to be free. Rousseau is setting up the deconstruction of current society in an attempt to offer a viable alternative—his view of a free man as being one who has “moral liberty” (246).

The third quote which argues that “what man acquires in the civil state [is] moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty” (Rousseau 246). In this quote Rousseau is setting up the alternative to humanity’s current enslavement. In order to unpack the meaning from the quote, it is important to first get a sense of what Rousseau means by “moral liberty.” I think that Rousseau thinks of moral liberty as being less a matter of having the freedom to do and get whatever you want—which you are free to do in the natural world—and more along the lines of being internally free of restrictions so you can direct your actions towards the common beliefs that you hold. Rousseau associates the liberal belief of freedom of choice with the idea that that type of society’s “mere impulse of appetite” binds it to a life of slavery; whereas his society’s “obedience to laws that it prescribes to is liberty” (246). I think there is a striking similarity here to the Greek idea of dikaiosune where people are free when they are in control of their inner-self, and thus free to act according to their beliefs.

Rousseau has effectively set up his definition of freedom in this part of the text as a person being free of inner restrictions that impede their decisions. When these restrictions are removed, I think Rousseau believes that man will be ready to live by the laws and values that are most beneficial to the society. The individual interests that were characteristic of shackled man are replaced by common concerns for the well-being of society. Now that I have set up what I think Rousseau’s definition of freedom at this point is, I will now discuss whether or not I think it is correct.

I think that as far as Rousseau goes with his definition of freedom in this part, he is right. People seem to over-emphasize the freedom to choose how to live their life as being the fundamental definition of it. I don’t think that Rousseau’s definition is necessarily saying individual interest is unacceptable, rather it is just ensuring that people are cleared of the internal restrictions that prevent people from choosing what is most representative of their own true values. The external ability to exercise freedom needs to be backed by a lack of internal restrictions. For example, if a drug addict is completely ruled by their need for a fix, they could be considered free to feed that addiction, but as a person internally they are ruled by that addiction and as such are not free to choose whether or not to feed it. People often believe they are free where they are not, and will argue to maintain that illusion of freedom, but the fact of the matter is that they are not.

On the other hand, I don’t think that just because people at present are potentially chained within our system, that they are necessarily incapable of existing in it without the chains. Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Rousseau’s political system does have room for a private sphere of individual interests—like Laura mentioned in her presentation—but it isn’t as large enough to house the varied needs of society. At the same time, if you can have more individual interest in society without the enslavement that Rousseau talks about, then I think it is better to live in a liberal society. This begs the question, “why is more freedom better?” More freedom is better—and necessary—because people like to live out their lives as they choose, and feel enslaved by someone dictating how to live their life more than is necessary for its proper running. Not that freedom is a prerequisite for society to function, but in a case where people are choosing between two types of societies, the one with more freedom is more beneficial

Rousseau makes an excellent point with his assertion that society can both enslave people and maintain that enslavement. The emphasis on the need for internal moral liberty is integral to ensuring external ability to exercise freedom; however, Rousseau’s description of slavery doesn’t mean that the only alternative to current society is his. The problem with Rousseau’s society is that its private sphere isn’t large enough to house the varied interests of the population, and the belief that everyone can achieve consensus is too idealistic. If we can emphasize the importance of this idea of freedom inside our current society, then I think we are in our best position to flourish.

Gracias a la Vida [Violeta Parra]

2006-03-22T00:58:00.000-07:00

Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto.Me dio dos luceros, y cuando los abro,Perfecto distingo lo negro del blanco,Y en el alto cielo su fondo estrellado,Y en las multitudes al hombre que yo amo.
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto.Me ha dado el oído que, en todo su ancho,Graba noche y día grillos y canariosMartillos, turbinas, ladridos, chubascos,Y la voz tan tierna de mi bien amado.

Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto,Me ha dado el sonido y abecedario.Con él las palabras que pienso y declaro,"madre, amigo hermano" y luz alumbrandola ruta del alma del que estoy amando.

Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto.Me ha dado la marcha de mis pies cansados.Con ellos anduve ciudades y charcos,Playas y desiertos, montañas y llanos,Y la casa tuya, tu calle y tu patio.

Gracias a la vida que me ha dado tantoMe dio el corazón, que agita su marco.Cuando miro el fruto del cerebro humano,Cuando miro al bueno tan lejos del malo.Cuando miro el fondo de tus ojos claros. Gracias a la vida que me ha dado tanto.Me ha dado la risa, me ha dado el llanto.Así yo distingo dicha de quebranto,Todos materiales que forman mi canto,Y el canto de ustedes que es es mismo canto.

Traducción

Thanks to life, which has given me so muchIt has given me two eyes, and when I open themI clearly distinguish black from whiteAnd in the high sky, its starry depths,And from the crowds, the man that I love.

Thanks to life, which has given me so muchIt has given me hearing, which in all its breadthDay and night records crickets and canaries,Hammers, turbines, barking, dark clouds,And the tender voice of my beloved one.

Thanks to life, which has given me so muchIt has given me sound and the alphabetAnd with it the words to think and speakMother, friend, brother, and the light that brightensThe path of the soul of my loved one.

Thanks to life, which has given me so muchIt has kept my tired feet walkingWith them I walked through cities and puddles,Beaches and deserts, mountains and plainsAnd your house, your street and your courtyard.

Thanks to life, which has given me so muchIt gave me my heart, which shakes its frameWhen I look at the fruit of the human brainWhen I look at good ones so far from bad onesWhen I look at the bottom of your light-color eyes. Thanks to life, which has given me so muchIt has given me laughter and it has given me tearsThus I distinguish between joy and pain,They are all elements of my song and of your song, which is all one and the same.

Where's my head, God?

2006-02-13T20:54:00.000-07:00

Nod your head, gaze intently
stare deep into a mind you can't see.
Search for answers, consequently
try to be who you shouldn't be.

Lose who you are, you try to pretend
Searching for what you cannot find
Misplacing identity to make a friend
Tell yourself "God, I've lost my mind"

Cherry Blossom Rain

2006-01-22T15:46:00.000-07:00

Weeping branches reach serenely
Towards grey twisted skies.
Man from nature, thin grain separates
Time controlled in the mind

As grey yields to blue
the calm of blossoms is overtaken
Tears as soft and beautiful as knowledge lost
Faint spectres dance between pink rain
thinking of sunshine and time's forgotten pace.

Fire Water

2006-01-22T15:38:00.000-07:00

Set yourself on fire
Watch as passion's flames erupt into a corona of emotions
When the blaze is over, little is left but ashes and embarrassment
The flaming glory is little more than a smouldering pile of debris

Fall backwards into a pool
Feel its cool liquidity move through your fingers
Try and grasp at meaning while immersed in a sea of confusion
Realize that in a pool of uniformity all meaning is alike

Let neither soft embers turn meaning to vapour
Nor let flames succumb to uniform meaninglessness
Fill a kettle and boil meaning in heated passion
Or extinguish wild blazes of passion with cool reason
Control your inner elements, become master and mix fire and water

The Power of Persuasion

2006-01-15T22:22:00.000-07:00

I've been confronted many times over the last couple of days about what are the true factors that determine what make up human beings. I've been drawn into the inevitable reason vs. passion void, until I stumbled across an idea I've just come up with right now. Man is made by rhetoric.

After thinking long and hard about the sort of Greek rational approach and the people who seem to think of man as a monster moved by passion, I sort of thought that both seem to have important factors. As a staunch Freudian I believed that passion is important, but that man can go nowhere without a reasoning faculty. I then thought about the constructivist sort of idea that how man works is whatever view he ascribes to at any given moment.

Motivation and the human condition is actually moved not solely by reason or passion, but by an interplay between the two [which may seem worn out] but in a sense that they both connect at a sort of idea of being persuaded into thinking in a certain way.

Reason: No matter how passionate someone may be when making a decision there's always a faint glimmer of reason (correct or incorrect) in every decision they make whether someone would like to admit it or not. When presented with a thought on how something should be, people will to some degree evaluate it rationally to see whether it is worthwile believing in, because even the insane believe in the absurd because to them IT MAKES SENSE. To persuade yourself or another to believe in a particular view, you have to in some way shape or form appeal to their sense of reason or rationale.

Passion: At the same time when appealing to the rationale of an individual, every attempt at winning over the belief of yourself comes with some sort of longing to believe in a particular view. This half of persuasion appeals to the passionate side of an individual. As much as people believe in something because of its rationale, being a person of your conviction implies that you want to think a particular way.

Coming Together: So in the end when you deal with things like, humanity being motivated by whatever makes most sense, or humanity's "brutish" (sorry reading Hobbes) animalistic motivations, its really a cross-over of those reasonable and passionate faculties that merge to a certain extent at the desire for something to make sense, and be persuaded to believe in a certain way. It's, I think, the reason why when Aristotle talked about man and the community, he said we were the best of animals in one, and the worst of animals outside of them.

*rife with Freud, I will draw more connections when I have time

Divinity [Carl Cornelius Harnett]

2006-01-06T23:03:00.000-07:00

I have met a Goddess,
Majestic beauty she.
How can I now a mortal man,
Retain my sanity
Or stem the impulse of my mind
That urges me
To stare in awe,
Or to her call, to make
Of me a God
That we may share loves
Mating draw
In our divinity?

Real Fantasy

2005-12-13T17:27:00.000-07:00

The phantom draw of the finger along your arm
is always more vivid than the sweaty touch of hand to skin.
always drawing the shiver in your spine
The mind captured and owned by the one you once loved is free
to embellish on the sensual carress that once was.

Life is more real in the thoughts of what you had
than in the experiences of what surrounds you
Flow of time and thought and intensity of touch are
subject only to the outer limits of the wildest fantasy.

The best life is lived standing still
and looking at everything passing by, collecting thought for fantasy.
Although the mind may be the master of its domain
it owes its inspiration for touch to the real experiences
of the material world.
Because intense fantasy is fueled by stark reality.

The Equation of Love

2005-12-12T23:35:00.000-07:00

When infatuation ensues,

time is a multiple of the flood of passion,
intersected by instantaneous schisms in flow
sorrow is directly related to the distance of love
importance, a product of the opposing forces
creating an equilibrium of desire and intensity

l <--> t + d + i

Sorry Everybody

2005-12-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

Hey Everybody,

Just wanted to apologize for the woefully long blog entries for the last couple months. I've developed a bad habit of throwing my english essays on here for those adventurous enough to read them (so far only Jules has and I love her for it :)). Even in English when we talked about the blog phenomenon, the guest professor who is the head of the Canadian Cultural Studies Assoc. said that you need to follow form in order to be considered a member of a genre, and apparently one of the staples of a blog is short entries, for which I am guilty as charged. Guess Dr. Rakk that means that Im a social outlier :)

I'll try to throw some Tom original material up here in the near future, and for those who still come by I truly am grateful ;)

Regards, Tom

Domination & The Cinnamon Peeler

2005-12-12T22:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~haddock/poems/cinnamon.html

Michael Ondaatje’s “The Cinnamon Peeler” looks at the nature and characteristics of domination and how possession relates to people. Ondaatje’s poem provides a description of how people conventionally look at domination, but in the semi-periphery there is an interpretation that allows the reader to potentially look at possession in a new light. Edward Said’s article “Jane Austen and Empire” provides brief and limited glimpses into the spatial nature of a meaning of a text; however, Said’s definition of spatial relations doesn’t quite encompass the nature of spatial relations in “The Cinnamon Peeler”, but provides an excellent basis from which someone can build up Ondaatje’s meaning. Said provides an excellent basis for reinterpreting Ondaatje’s poem to shed more light on a new meaning in it. If Said’s idea of spatial understanding of meaning is broadened to look at content within a text, Ondaatje’s problem of the Cinnamon Peeler’s wife enjoying domination can actually be reconciled through the realization that Ondaatje doesn’t dismiss possession as a whole; rather, through deeper examination of the spatial aspects of the poem, we can come to think of it as being transformed into something worth believing in.

Edward Said’s “Jane Austen and Empire” only talks about spatial relations of meaning in regards to how closely a meaning relates to the centrality of a work. Said argues that if you include a spatial understanding of a work alongside a temporal understanding of a work, you can more broadly understand meanings that may exist in the periphery or semi-periphery of a text. Said’s problem, however, is that he doesn’t elaborate much on how spatial understandings of a text can work in more than just that one way. A spatial understanding of meaning in a text is a very broad term that if further explored can yield priceless insight into other texts—including Ondaatje’s poem “The Cinnamon Peeler.”

When you first read “The Cinnamon Peeler,” you can’t help but be overcome by a sense of confusion at the fact, ‘if it is supposedly a post-colonial work, then why does the Cinnamon Peeler’s wife enjoy domination?’ The answer to this problem lies in a spatial understanding of Ondaatje’s poem. When you first read the poem, you think of domination as a simple sort of ‘x owns y’ mentality, which is the normal sense of the concept. The Cinnamon Peeler leaves his marked scent on his wife so “[she] could never walk through markets without the profession of [his] fingers floating over [her]” (Ondaatje). The way that Ondaatje uses scent here is as a border, it marks off what belongs to whom. Scent is actually used in this case to show an imperfect way of looking at the nature of possession when it comes to relationships between people. By equating possession with the most basic of human experiences—smell—Ondaatje sets up our normal view of possession as being something on par with lowly bodily functions that we even share in common with other animals, in fact because animals have more acute senses of smell, it could be hinted that they understand the primal sense of ownership better than humans do. The spatial look at a relationship between the two lovers actually proves to be critical of how we normally look at domination and possession. Space is taken as a border being a form of confinement; borders entail a lack of space which imprisons those inside it.

Ondaatje goes on to describe “when we swam once I touched you in the water and our bodies remained free, you could hold me and be blind of smell” (Ondaatje). In washing off the primal way of identifying the relationship between the lovers they are free to transcend the notion that the husband owns the wife. The wife doesn’t actually enjoy being possessed by the husband, she enjoys the infatuation of her husband and that she has a certain element of allure to him. She loves the fact that despite the view that he owns her, she has control over him, even if in a basic sexual way. Even the normal view of ‘x owns y’ is not as simple as normally thought, because despite the fact that the dominant owns the person, they do so because they are drawn to the person by desire. On an even higher level, the wife most enjoys the times when she is able to move beyond the simple animal ways of understanding relationships and exist in a mutual need for love. People transcend the animal human nature to understand humanity as a sort of mutual need in relationships. It isn’t enough just to own a person and expect love from them, Ondaatje knows that in setting up these sensory barriers, those possessed detest their condition and the possessor doesn’t receive the fullest form of love from them. In looking at domination from the commonplace view of it, not receiving affection is like being “wounded without the pleasure of a scar” (Ondaatje). Ondaatje is emphasizing that mutual interchange of affection is the best way that a relationship can function and make both individuals happiest.
Ondaatje also pokes holes in the traditional conception of domination in the sense that it requires dishonest means of attaining control. The Cinnamon Peeler “buried [his] hands in Saffron, disguised them over smoking tar, helped the honey gatherers” (Ondaatje). People need to disguise their true self and intentions in order to tip-toe around those they are taking advantage of. Ondaatje is essentially arguing that in order to set up your own borders in a land that isn’t yours it is necessary to deceive a country’s “keen nosed mother and rough brothers” (Ondaatje). Ondaatje also describes how “here on the upper thigh at this smooth pasture neighbour to your hair or the crease that cuts your back. This ankle” (Ondaatje). This shows how the normal view of domination only possesses on the grounds of one small facet of the whole that the dominant desires (Ondaatje). With the help of Said’s spatial concept, Ondaatje is able to point out that the common definition of ownership greedily occupies an entirety just to enjoy the one thing that they desire most. In a sense, powers like Britain would control the complete affairs of their colonies for things as simple as having sole rights to the trading of sugar and spices—including cinnamon. Ondaatje is pointing to this as being an incredible form of waste because complete domination prevents the whole of society from appreciating the finer qualities of something. “ It’s akin to stealing a fine painting like the Mona Lisa and locking it up in a closet away from the world, so that one individual can claim right to it, and enjoy it whenever they feel like it, with minimal effort.Ondaatje’s poem—with the help of Said’s essay—can help shed light on domination. The poem show how the normal view of domination is something present in the most basic form of animals, and doesn’t encapsulate the entire experience of humanity. Ondaatje also shows that basic forms of possession equate one small aspect that they enjoy with the possession as a whole and can only be garnered through dishonest means. Ondaatje reminds people that when looking at domination, the subject needs to remind the master more often “I am the cinnamon peeler’s wife. Smell Me” (Ondaatje).

How Freud Changes Interpretation of Literature

2005-11-18T00:51:00.001-07:00

Thomas Kearns

Sigmund Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams challenges and alters the common conception of meaning and its presence in literary texts. The fundamental similarity between dreams and texts is that they both “hold meaning and therefore are interpretable” (Freud 128). Freud differentiates between the conscious meaning of dreams, their manifest content, and the unconscious meaning of dreams, representative of unknown desires. Like Freud’s conception of dreams, texts possess conscious and unconscious meaning; however, the difference lies in the origin of texts—more importantly the state in which creation of texts takes place. Because writing takes place in the realm of waking life, the censor-mechanism of the mind is more in control of the flow of unconscious thought and there is more of a balance between conscious and unconscious thought creation. A balance between conscious and unconscious thought creates a bipolar form of meaning within a text divided along the battle lines of intention. Freud’s work on dream interpretation changes the form of meaning in texts to separate the conscious, intentional meaning inserted into a work from the unconscious desire driven meaning that ‘sneaks’ into a work.

The first half of meaning of work is the half that an author intends to insert into creation. The conscious mind plays next to no role in the realm of dreams, because it is used primarily to interact with waking life. Also, aside from blocking harmful thought content from coming to realization in the dream world, the censor-mechanism does little and as a result of the lack of input of the conscious and limited role of the censor-mechanism, the dream world becomes a ‘playground’ for unconscious desires. On the other hand, thought and creation that takes place in waking life has much more input from the conscious mind and as well unconscious meaning is restricted by the censor-mechanism to protect the more aware conscious mind. The restriction put in place by the censor-mechanism divides the meaning of thought and texts into more even proportions, as opposed to that of dream thought where unconscious thought and desire is master. The reason textual meaning is divided evenly with unconscious meaning as opposed to being ruled by the conscious mind is because the sheer size of the input provided by the unconscious mind is impossible to come even remotely close to silencing. Unlike meaning present in dreams, there is a fairly important message present in a text that an author has consciously placed there. Freud’s conscious mind is a socially aware entity that concerns itself with the affairs of the world, and because the intentional message—the most often aware meaning to the reader—is created by the conscious mind, the majority of intentional meaning in a text tends to be about either the social nature of people [like discourse on human nature] or an introspective evaluation of the self and how that results in one’s placement in society. The intentional meaning of a text is found not only because it is more readily seen in the surface structure of the text, but also because the conscious mind normally wishes to find the intended meaning over the unintended meaning. The conscious mind is afraid of admitting it holds unconscious desires because acting in it believes that acting in one’s own interests is selfish and it does not want to think negatively of itself. People find the conscious meaning of a work because it is intentionally placed ahead of unconscious meaning and because the mind more actively searches for it.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s The Little Prince is a prime example of a text with a fairly clear-cut intentional allegorical meaning that analyzes an individual’s definition of what is worthy of taking seriously. The Little Prince asks the narrator, “is the war between sheep and flowers not important? Not more serious and more important than the sums of red-faced gentlemen?” (33). Saint-Exupéry shows his concern for the world and its obsession with what he views as often trivial matters, and the ignorance it shows towards matters that ought to be considered more important. Saint-Exupéry, in the act of writing, intentionally added a critique here of the criteria people use to judge what is important and worth worrying about in the world. The work shows a concern for the well-being of society, and a conscientious attempt to re-evaluate the roles of individuals with an eye to improve society. Saint-Exupéry’s mind is able to subdue the unconscious desires enough to put forth a meaning that is interpreted by the reader for its social value, not necessarily for the value of its primitive unconscious desire for something. The presence of an intentional imparting of meaning into a work is what sets interpretation of literature apart from analysis and interpretation of dream content. In a dream there is little more of a presence of the conscious mind than the creation of the manifest content of dreams, with the unconscious determining the bulk of the meaning of a dream. On the other hand, in the interpretation of a literary text, although the unconscious desires—which I will talk about soon—do insert meaning into a text, when a reader analyzes a text they still find the intentional surface meaning in the work, which in the case of The Little Prince is the critique of humanity’s judgement of serious matters and its view of the social implications of acting in such a way. Even negative insights into the human psyche on the part of conscious and intentional meaning of a text can be viewed as an attempt to shed more light on the nature of humanity and provide an avenue for improvement.

The other half of meaning in a text is the unintentional meaning that sneaks into a work unknown to an author. The unintentional meaning of a work represents Freud’s unconscious desires that an author wishes to fulfill in creating a text. In literature the unintentional, but not necessarily accidental, meaning of a work is infused into a work in the process of creation of the intentional meaning of a work. Freud believes that unconscious desires are normally of a sexual nature, but I believe that interpretation isn’t as susceptible to the same influences of the unconscious mind as dreams are because of the more aware presence of the conscious mind. The censor-mechanism tends to block the unconscious mind during the conscious creation of literature. Not only is the presence of unconscious influence reduced, but the most harmful aspects of it are weeded out. Dreams are different in that they are a vehicle of meaning that resides only within the self and are only meant to be interpreted by the self. Literature is one of the most externalized modes of conveying meaning and the censor-mechanism is well aware of the repercussions that are present in allowing free flow of unconscious desires. Once again, the unconscious is so powerful it is impossible to completely shut out the role of the unconscious mind even in the most externalized form of conveying meaning, so unconscious meaning sneaks through but more often in the form of less primitive desires. Childish desires for something or wishes to deny the existence of a reality are examples of less serious desires that may be present in the unintentional meaning of a text. If intentional meaning of a text is normally comprised of a social concept, then the unintentional meaning of a book can often be viewed as relatively self-centred.

Unconscious meaning in The Little Prince exists behind some of the same quotes that are the epitome of the conscious meaning that Saint-Exupéry wished to instil in the work. Coming back to the quotation about the war between sheep and flowers and the nature of its seriousness, I mentioned before that Saint-Exupéry intended to offer a better understanding of society and its errors in judgement. Also present in the same quote is an almost childish over-idealized wish that the world might either be or become a better place than the mind might want to admit is realistically possible. In the process of writing The Little Prince, Saint-Exupéry forges a social understanding of the seriousness of the world, and the inherent errors behind its structure for interpreting. The book’s questioning of social structure not only works to bring to light and correct error, but at the same time reflects an inner desire of the author to live in a society better than may potentially be possible. Unconscious wishing for a better world may explain why idealism is such a force in literature. A common view is that idealism—and its often accompanying counterpart, over-emphasis—is often used as a conscientious tool to convey an intended point; however, nuanced points usually suffice in making the intended point of the work. Nuanced meaning is still picked out through systematic analysis of works and very often the engaging of a reader through the search for meaning works much better than over-emphasis to make a point. Freud’s presence does not mean the death of idealism as a tool for conveying meaning, it just means that it is also potentially a signal of the unconscious desire for something that is more idealistic than is realistically possible to achieve.

Because the unintentional meaning of a work is rarely known to the creator of a literary text, the reader is normally the first to actually discover the unintentional meaning of a text. Wilhelm Dilthey argues this when he says “the final goal of the hermeneutic procedure s to understand the author better than he understood himself” (260). One might infer from this, unconscious creation denotes that an author knows little about the true meaning of their work because it is unconscious and therefore not knowable by the author without analyzing their own thought content. I believe rather, an author knows about half of what there is to know about a work, which is the amount that they intentionally add to a work in an effort to share some wisdom with the world. The other half of the meaning of a work is meant to be shared with the author by the readers who discover the unconscious and unintentional meaning that has managed to creep into a work. Many people are made uncomfortable by the idea that the meaning of their thought can be known better by another person than they themselves know, but what I see developing from a Freudian method of literary interpretation is a more interactive relationship between an author, a reader and a text. The author helps the reader gain a better understanding of the social nature of people, readers help an author gain a better understanding of themself and a text provides a medium by which to facilitate the exchange of meaning between individuals.

When he is talking about the discovery and its role in life, the Little Prince “a little wistfully adds ‘Straight ahead of oneself, one cannot go very far.’” (18). It is from this quote that I realized the nature of the application of Freud to interpretation. The act of discovering the meaning behind unconscious wishes present in a book is not so much about discovering what you don’t want to know about yourself, as so much as it is getting to know yourself and others better. The Little Prince shows that although it may not always be as pleasant to experience the truth of unconscious meaning, the idea that we’re not as idealistic as we think we are, but that we can take pleasure in the knowledge that we have a better understanding of who we are afterwards. A more complete understanding of the nature of the self moves us closer to a more complete understanding of what it is we are trying to grasp. The whole point of interpreting something is to garner a better understanding of it, and Freud opens up a whole new world of meaning for us to explore, about ourselves and others, a world that our mind tries to hide from us. Freud’s theory also changes the role of reading slightly from figuring out the point of a text, to familiarizing yourself with a person’s train of thought. Deriving the true precursor to intentional thought in a work gives you a more intimate understanding of how an author’s mind works, and sheds light on the individual characteristics that make up who it is they are. Reading changes from a god-subject imparting of wisdom to a mutual exchange of information in light of discovering what exists beneath the surface of a text.

Freud’s psychoanalytic approach helps us to see the other half of the meaning present in a text that people like Schleiermacher and traditional theorists missed. Freud’s The interpretation of Dreams helps us to see not only the intended meaning intricately placed into a text by an author, usually reflecting social understandings of the world, and a general wish to improve upon its state, but also the unintended meaning present in a work, a self-centered but not necessarily ill natured desire to see the world as better than it may realistically be. While Freud’s dream analysis may over-emphasize the role of the unconscious mind in determining the meaning of a dream, in the literary world, if a writer can instil a positive intended message in a work, and a community can pick out the same positive meaning afterwards, then the adding on of an attempt to better understand our unconscious wishes will leave us off wiser than before.

Know a Work by the Unconscious Happenings of the Mind

2005-11-06T15:34:00.000-07:00

Sigmund Freud’s [The] Interpretation of Dreams lays out the nature of meaning and interpretation of the mind and its desires through the analysis of dream content. Freud argues that thought derives primarily from the wants, needs and desires of the unconscious mind which subsequently gets filtered through a mental censor mechanism which alters and removes potentially self-harmful content. Subsequently, most thought content is unable to be understood in its original true form and all thought—including self-originating thought—requires examination and interpretation to discover its true meaning. The meaning present in thought tends to manifest itself in the ‘physical’ content of dreams, which can be interpreted in order to discover the desires of the unconscious mind.
Freud makes his arguments by logical scientific examination of more obscure concepts of the mind that are very difficult to completely apply the label of objective scientific analysis to. Freud’s focus on “scientific inquiry relies on an assumption that in scientific inquiry, generation of ideas can produce both rational aspects and irrational consequences of creation, and that a very large part of thought falls into the irrational spectrum of scientific inquiry” (Bucknell). I think Freud believed that despite the fact that the full label of scientific inquiry couldn’t be applied to his psychoanalytic paradigm, that the important factor is that his theory rigorously searches for rational explanations to irrational thought processes. Freud justifies his reasoning by appealing to the fact that the purely rational nature of the scientific analytical structure may not completely encompass the irrational—and to a very large extent chaotic—nature of the relationship between the mind and meaning of its thought content.
Freud views the mind as being comprised at its most basic level of two parts, the unconscious and conscious. The unconscious acts in its selfish desire for self gratification and the conscious acts out of a sense of social nobility. Freud believes that the unconscious will stop at nothing to satisfy its own desires, and as a result a mechanism exists in order to put a check on the overwhelming power of the unconscious mind. Dream thought originates from the unconscious, which because it always acts to self-gratify means that the origin of all dreams is the wish to fulfill some sort of desire. The censor mechanism normally deems the majority of the desires of the unconscious as something that will harm the well-being of the conscious and the person as a whole. So when latent dream content moves from the unconscious to the conscious during dream formation the mind will distort the desires of the unconscious present in dream thought to hide the negative aspects. The conscious mind fears anything that will harm its image of its personal positive regard which is the main reason why the censor mechanism acts to distort the thought content of dreams through two major ways.
The censor mechanism of the mind acts to preserve the mental well-being of the individual and subsequently blocks out or alters the majority of dream thought coming from the unconscious to be socially approvable to the conscious mind. The unconscious mind is a large and mysterious faculty which contributes a very large amount of information—Freud argues that the dream thought would far outsize the manifest content—to the formation of dreams. Most dream thought gets condensed down into a minimum amount of manifest content which means that much of the true meaning of dream thought is lost and needs to be found again through interpretation of dream content. During the act of manipulating and removing of information, the emphasis of the original meaning of dream thought very often gets distorted by a shift to something less important [or completely unimportant] to the dream as a whole. Very often this can lead to the forming of absurd dreams because minute details get overemphasized over important events.
Freudian dream interpretation changes the world of interpretation, because thought is no longer a free flow of ideas, in which an author is a master of the meaning infused into literature. All thought flow is subject to the censorship of the mind itself, which means that in most cases the author won’t be able to actually recognize the true meaning of a text without finding a way to interpret his own thought. The responsibility—as Dilthey suggests—shifts from the author to create and bestow meaning on a reader, to the reader endeavouring to understand the meaning of an author’s thought better than they themselves understand it (262). Although the thought that someone has the ability to know a person better than they know themselves can be a little disconcerting, as a whole [despite Freud’s redefinition of the mind] people are a lot closer to knowing the true meaning of their thoughts, the process by which to discover the meaning in thought has just been redefined.
Hélène Cixous’s essay “Writing Blind” describes thought when “in passing they brush by us, they whisper in our ears, knocking at the doors of our senses…they wake in us thoughts never yet formed” (146). Cixous redefines thought as a fleeting involuntary experience that without interpretation does not reveal its true deeper meaning—thought isn’t thought until it is interpreted. Although the shift from voluntary mastery and creation of thought in the conscious mind to partial involuntary experience of unconscious thought means that there is less control over thought content, it moves thought generation from a finite playground, to an ever larger faculty for thought generation. I believe that although Freud’s theory wrests thought from the conscious control of the individual, it gives people more wealth of information to create meaning by than just relying on the voluntary remembering of content. Individuals now have all experience by which to create meaning—even experiences long forgotten. Little has changed in the sense that as always meaning needs to be interpreted, it’s just not always knowingly created.

Know a Work Through the Essence of Being

2005-10-29T15:06:00.000-06:00

Martin Heidegger’s “[T]he Origin of the Work of Art” argues that the source of artists and artwork is the concept of art itself. Artists and the functional thingly qualities of artwork are grounded in the earthly realm, but through the friction between the unconcealing of the worldly realm of ideas and the concealing nature of the earthly realm, the truth or essence of a work [and subsequently the essence of art itself] emerges. For Heidegger the fundamental question of interpretation and art is the question of what it is—what is its essence—and how does it relate to the world around it.
Heidegger goes about making his argument by tearing the concept of art down to its very foundations and rebuilding it in a way better suited to conveying his point. Heidegger shows how deep his redefinition goes, by virtue of the fact that he creates new words to define his concepts, because even the common lexical understanding proves inadequate in describing his ideas. Heidegger makes his point by working on the most basic level and drawing out the complexities that are present in every facet of understanding—even the fundamental understanding of the essence of being.
Heidegger believes people, things, and matter are defined by the functional role that they play in-the-world, not by a set of values or qualities that they possess. Objects are what they are because of their function and their function is measured by their ability to perform their functional role. Humanity’s ultimate functional role in society is explaining the essence of things. Because of this functional role, interpretation gets wrapped into the essence of being for humanity. Consequently, a great number of the actions of humanity—especially the creation of art—act as means of explaining the functional essence of the world and humanity itself.
The functional qualities of objects are what ground them within Heidegger’s earthly realm of form and matter. Humanity progresses by identifying and elaborating on the thingly qualities of objects, and relating them to the essence of their being. Simple things are identified and functionally interpreted in relatively straightforward means, however, more complex cases—in the case of artwork—have multiple or infinitely many qualities that contribute to the essence of the form of being they describe. When dasein moves humanity to explore the essence of artwork, a world of ideas and concepts is opened up in a work of art. However, because things do not possess the innate ability to express and understand being they are not free to reveal anything about the nature of their essence. Dasein moves humanity to seek worlds among the things of the earthly realm, while the worldly realm is concealed by the lack of unconcealing of thingly beings. Essentially dasein creates a rift between things and humanity, while at the same time motivating people to bridge the gap. A tension or what Heidegger calls strife develops between Humanity’s attempts to unconceal the essence of beings, and a thing’s inability to reveal functional details of it’s the essence of its being. It is in this strife that the truth of the essence of being develops.
The mere presence of strife between concealment and unconcealment of essential qualities denotes the presence of some sort of opposing force. If you were to blindfold someone and have a sword battle take place in their presence, despite the inability to see what is happening, the blindfolded person’s mere association with dasein leads them to understand from the sound generated that there is in fact conflict going on and more specifically that it is the clashing of swords. In this same manner, dasein leads people to decipher truth present in the strife created between the binary opposing forces of concealment and unconcealment.“And Lot’s wife, of course, was told not to look back… [b]ut she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human” (Vonnegut 22). I think this quotation from Slaughterhouse Five captures the essence and purpose of art. Dasein is the integral part that moves humanity in the universe. Without it humanity would lose the ability to question and learn about the world around it, without dasein humanity would be nothing more than an animal. In describing Lot’s wife Vonnegut gives a powerful example of the extent to which dasein is wrapped up in our being. Lot’s wife is so curious to grasp the worldly ideas of her own earthly realm, that despite calls not to question and the knowledge that she would be turned into a pillar of salt, she looked back anyhow. The last few lines show that it is this questioning of the worldly ideas that contribute to humanity, which entails that art plays an incredibly important role in defining us as human beings. Fortunately for most being wrapped up in art doesn’t turn us to salt, although for many I am sure it would make no difference.

Know a work by the person behind it

2005-10-26T22:50:00.000-06:00

Freidrich Schleiermacher’s “General Hermeneutics” sets out to identify the factors that determine the course of interpretation. Schleiermacher sees interpretation as something both created by and facilitated through the interplay of rhetoric and psychological operators. By the general hermeneutic paradigm the totality of both language and psychology combine together in varying degrees to create an interpretation of a text. As a result of this combination, interpretation is reachable by the masses and meaning is relative to the interpretation made by an individual. Schleiermacher sets to humanize the act of interpretation, moving hermeneutics away from its theological foundations and more into the realm of philosophy.
By moving hermeneutics away from the theological search for ‘the answer,’ and towards the philosophical search for ‘an answer,’ Schleiermacher shifts the source of interpretation for his essay away from a divine source and towards a reliance on logic for his backing. Shifting from divine inspiration to logic as the source of his argument helps back up his assertions because the theoretical structure that he lays out is being tested in the very text he is explaining it in, which lends credence to the argument as a whole. The theological to philosophical shift also opens up hermeneutics to the masses, which backs up Schleiermacher’s argument that interpretation is holistically affected by the totality of language, because—as Schleiermacher points out—when the population interprets something it draws on the public knowledge of language and psychology and in turn affect those operators as well. Every person who reads “General Hermeneutics” [or any other text] and develops a slightly different interpretation of it proves Schleiermacher’s assertion that varying interpretations are the result of different experiences and varying understandings of language and psychology as a whole creates varied interpretations of a text. Just the fact that people are able to bring up diverse interpretations of a text versus nothing but varying levels of the same understanding of a text proves Schleiermacher’s assertion.
Schleiermacher’s essay takes the holistic approach to defining modern hermeneutics, placing emphasis on the importance of totality in interpretation. Rhetoric and Psychology are the two primary means by which an individual interprets a text. The holistic approach is a very intelligent and thoughtful way of looking at hermeneutics, because it takes all different angles into account when looking interpreting a text. Lexical understanding of a text, according to Schleiermacher, provides an objective means of interpreting a text because the only subjective/psychological traces present in lexical interpretation are those that in the past helped to define the word or concept itself, combined with the potential for the person to slightly alter the meaning of a linguistic concept for future use.
Schleiermacher argues that speech is both the ‘vehicle’ for and means by which thought progresses, which helps to integrate the subjective individual psychological experiences of someone with their objective rhetorical understanding of language. The integration of objective lexical understanding and subjective psychological experience helps to facilitate the interplay between the two forms and move interpretation forward. Like a wheel with rhetorical understanding and psychological experiences at opposite ends, the circular interplay of the combined factors propels the ‘wheel’ forward which is the act of interpretation, the end destination being the meaning, and hermeneutics being the ‘physics manual’ that explained the forces present to move the wheel forward.
One criticism of Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical thesis is that because interpretation exists relative to the totality of psychology and rhetoric, that there cannot be a pure linguistic definition of anything, because the interpretation of something will always be relative to the individual experiences and knowledge of speech of individuals. This doesn’t mean that there couldn’t exist a pure definition of something, it just means that an absolute description of something couldn’t exist within the grasp of individual interpretation. Even under the previously popular theological definition of hermeneutics a pure definition was always out of reach of even the elite who interpreted the scriptures. That said Schleiermacher’s ultimate goal isn’t necessarily to arrive at a pure definition of anything, but rather to always edge closer to a more precise definition or interpretation for something that could perhaps have one true definition, such as the word of God.
One way of solving the inherent problem of higher spiritual thought would be potentially to allow a separate third hermeneutical operator for spiritual thought that allows for a higher order understanding of the world. Such a factor could in some cases--for those who have the ability to recognize and utilize it--provide a means by which for people to achieve pure definition or meaning of something, while at the same time still explaining things from the human perspective. In order to have a truly holistic approach, Schleiermacher’s model would need to recognize that there is perhaps a means to achieve a pure understanding of a concept, as opposed to narrowing it down to the finite human interplay between rhetorical understanding and psychological experiences, because even a total understanding and total knowledge of psychological experience would fall short of the infinite amount of knowledge needed for a pure definition of something, given Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical operators.

Tell me who I am

2005-10-14T20:07:00.000-06:00

My Lord, I've never bothered to stop and really contemplate the nature of thought and how exactly we derive meaning from things. I've always believed that thought is something that just happens, that everything that you say is subject only to your ability to spew it out. It never occured to me that thought is perhaps subject to censorship by our own selves because there are things about ourselves that we wish not to know.

I've just finished reading Freud's interpretation of dreams and I can't say I wasn't greatly distressed by its implications, mainly that:

1)All thought originating from the mind is subject to the censorship of the mind itself, in the interest of its own "well-being"

2)Consequently, there is a very large part of ourselves that we do not know, mainly the unconscious desires that we hold.

3)All literature as a result--and subsequently this included--contains elements of ourselves that we are not aware of.

Well needless to say, the idea that the job of readers is to know the author better than they know theirselves is somewhat disconcerting to me, until I read an essay by a wonderful French-Algerian writer named Helene Cixous (I know Im missing the accents, Im sorry) that suggests that its not that thought exists beyond the realm of our understanding, its just that you need to learn to tune your mind into its whisperings.

The unconscious versus the conscious is veritable to putting a proton on top of a beach ball, which really relativizes the content of conscious thought, but that at the same time, if the unconscious mind is the seat of all thought, through which it flows, then its almost more comforting to think that our thought isn't shackled by the manacles of memory and the weak fears of the conscious mind. If man is the God of his literary world, then the absolute definition of control that was thought to be present in the conscious is merely shifted to the ever large unconscious mind, and that all we must do to master the process of generation of meaning is to be able to hear the whisperings behind the door of the censored unconscious.

Maybe in the end, we can in fact [much to the chagrin of Wilhelm Dilthey] know ourselves better than those who analyze and interpret us.

Trying to Fix What isn't Broken

2005-08-21T23:53:00.000-06:00

A sculptor takes a block of stone and starts chipping away at the rough edges
As features gradually emerge from the cubical stone a meaning develops in the work
Looking on in admiration of man and his accomplishments the artist notices a blemish
Cracks appear in the surface of man's colossal creation as its beauty is destroyed

Upset at the wrecking of a masterpiece the artist moves to cover up the cracks with plaster
Little does he notice he is covering up light emanating from within the masterpiece
As the population's shallow definition of beauty gets covered up the statue begins to weep
The true meaning that it aimed to share, its beauty in imperfection has yet again been covered

The Converging World

2005-08-13T22:34:00.000-06:00

Im a firm believer in the concept that everyone is merely just a gear in the grand machine that is being. The nature of God leads me to believe that if he is absolute then he can be the only absolute thing in existence, otherwise the alternate absolute concept or being becomes God. After thinking for a bit and writing a poem [which subsequently has been deleted], I realized that everyone is a finite being which is the sum of the infinite parts. Quickly finding myself at odds with myself over the fact that the very things I believe to be relative to others are in and of themselves absolute.

Well needless to say I was bloody confused about how something could be absolute, relative to everything else. Then--as it always seems to-- it just came to me. Similar to the idea of Gestalt Psychology [, but on a far far deeper level,] the world can be absolute relative to the rest of the world in that the meaning is greater than the sum of the parts. People themselves are finite beings contributing to the overarching meaning of the world, in which existence sits. The absolute nature of people, the sum of their infinite parts is where God exists, inside of everyone, in essence the meaning of everyone's lives adds up to more than an absolute total--God. The sheer simplicity of adding up infinite parts to get a concept further on in an unending stream of meaning made so much yet so little sense to me. And then the concept clicked again, the idea of adding up absolute things to get something more absolute than absolute just didnt make sense! Awesome it just confirms my previous ideas that not everything can logically develop from logic itself, and that trying to apply logic to the concept of existence made no sense because logic owes its existence to existence itself.

It really moved me to think that everyone can literally be absolute in and of themselves, while still existing relative to something greater than the absolute existing outside of the concept logic itself. Its really beautiful, positve and humbling at the same time to think that someone can be so important to the universe while still maintaining humble roots as a cog in the wheel of a grander concept. Its things like this that make the world worthwile :)

Meaning in the Abyss

2005-08-03T22:38:00.000-06:00

Darkness surrounds luminescent worlds suspended above the concrete floor of the universe
As the light of stars extends only to certain lengths, the superfluous beings move silently between worlds
Light moves between blinding auras and the inky blackness of the inner soul, white light sears the eyes of the translucent beings as they are plunged back into the abyss free to see the worlds of nothingness in between the common conception of meaning.

One thing is for sure, everytime any transluscent enters the homely light of the globe, the eye is always drawn upwards in a serene angelic manner, losing track of the world right in front of their eyes.
As the inevitable plunges back into the abyss, the transluscent miss the world outside of the light because they are too busy looking back on the light of past.

Life as a Matter of Fact vs. Possibility

2005-08-03T15:27:00.000-06:00

God bless my good friend Barrett Pashak for getting me into the whole thought of the absolute nature of life, because it just seems to spawn new and exciting concepts in my mind that never cease to amaze me and change my outlook on life :)

While thinking throughout the day [something that seems to encompass any free time that I have] I've come to think about the nature of people and how they seem to be so "matter of fact" when thinking about stuff in the world. Life for the majority of people is built up on assumptions that are made about the world around them, assuming that something should be one way just because it is or because it makes sense. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me when I operate under these faulty premises is how constantly stuff appears to be illogical. So true to myself I started thinking about it, and realized that logic seems to be something that is held up as something that is more absolute than anything in the world, even God. More people are likely to question the existence of God himself [whom is supposed to be absolute!] than question the logic inherent behind the proof itself. Living life as a matter of fact presumes the importance of logic over all and sets it up as an infallible force that precedes God himself, because God couldn't possibly exist without a damn good explanation that can't be disproven.

Well, least to say this sounds illogical at best to think that God can't exist without the presence of logic itself, because by this standard all it would take is a ball to fall up when it should fall down for no good reason to disprove the existence of a higher power. So what is the remedy to this problem? why to recognize the imperfections of logic of course! :D

The key to explanation exists in realizing that there can't possibly be an explanation to everything, and not everything is supposed to make sense, because if everything made sense then explanation would be infallible and man would be god because the characteristics he possessed would be absolute.

Some things just arent meant to make sense or be explained by the fragile finite human mind, and therefore its pretty much fruitless to try and explain absolute concepts with finite tools; explanation is merely a finite means of trying to make ourselves God. Life is accepting that not everything makes sense, some stuff just is

Tear in the Fabric

2005-07-21T20:10:00.000-06:00

Broken motion in jagged-warped time, while blood rushes to the face
Leaves rustling as ears are tuned to every whisper of sound
Despite the fact that life is inaudible through the crashing waves of the ocean
Time stops and reason disappears behind the flares of passion

Moments never end when you want them to, the second hand is paralyzed with fear
Pristine moments give to chaotic-formation; butterflies are all that is left of the world we knew
Sirens wail and saliva flies blinding the eyes of truth, leaving only animosity
Blood flows from broken veins, once a crown of shame, transformed into a red badge of rage

Past rage subsides and the crown returns to the head of the regal
Justification completely disappears behind a wall of regret constructed to protect what is left
One thing is clear, chaos has taught the elite what it is not
There is a tear in the fabric of life, and meaning is leaking in

Clenched Soul [Pablo Neruda]

2005-07-20T10:46:00.000-06:00

We have lost even this twilight.
No one saw us this evening hand in handwhile the blue night dropped on the world.
I have seen from my windowthe fiesta of sunset in the distant mountain tops.
Sometimes a piece of sunburned like a coin in my hand.
I remembered you with my soul clenched in that sadness of mine that you know.

Where were you then?Who else was there?Saying what?
Why will the whole of love come on me suddenlywhen I am sad and feel you are far away?
The book fell that always closed at twilightand my blue sweater rolled like a hurt dog at my feet.
Always, always you recede through the evenings toward the twilight erasing statues.

Philosophy of Existence pt. 2 - the "why"

2005-07-19T11:36:00.000-06:00

Now that I've offered my "how" explanation on existence, the deeper and I think much more fun point comes through, which is the "why" of existence [among other things.]

People always search for an explanation as to why they exist, and why particular things happen in a particular way to them, and the best explanation that is offered unfortunately is the ethereal (pun intended) favourite about how God works in mysterious ways. The problem with asking this question--other than the fact that it can't be answered-- is that it makes the deeper meaning in life that everyone searches for, the raison d'etre, relative to everything else which robs the intended meaning of its deeper order qualities.

Concept of the Self

As a good friend of mine pointed out to me the other day, people are overly concerned with asking themselves [, and seeking an answer to] why they exist as they do; what is the deeper meaning of their life, what is the purpose that they serve in a complex world. When asking themselves this question people single themselves out from the world around them and take away the connections inherent in them to others. Instead of basing their importance on their relationship to everyone else, they instead base their importance on their achievements, and search for a reason that isn't present because it exists in their relationship to others, not in themselves.

When contextualizing importance of an individual in their relationship to others, as opposed to in themselves, it shows the beautiful truth that everyone is important in an infinite number of ways to everything else in the world, as opposed to being singularly important to oneself and existence as a whole.

At the same time, meaning of existence--as opposed to explanation of existence--takes on a new dynamic, because instead of everything existing for itself, it exists for everything else.

Lots of people have brought up the point, "well, how can you have a concept of the self, when the meaning exists in connections between things?" which is nicely answered by the fact that the self doesn't possess a concept of itself, through which meaning is derived... rather the meaning of self is explained through the process of knowing oneself. You are who you are not because you possess a set of qualities, but because you identify yourself with a set of qualities that is defined by yourself. [read philosophy of beauty to get an idea of what i mean about this if you're confused]

Existence as a Whole

This is a beautiful way of describing why individuals are important, but what about describing existence as a whole, explaining it, figuring out why we're here, why people are important to existence itself. The answer to this question lies in the whole concept of asking why we are here anyways. Searching for an explanation for why life is the way it is, is akin to asking an elephant to give you the meaning of love. Before anyone starts getting freaked out, read on. The whole point about asking an elephant the meaning of love is that a finite being [like say an elephant], of limited intelligence couldn't possibly fathom the infinite concept of something like love, a concept that doesn't have to obey silly finite rules, like the concept of reason. Because infinite concepts need not follow finite rules like reason it is physically impossible and just short of pointless at this point in the explanation to bother asking questions.

The key to understanding the meaning of life is to realize that it "is." The point of life is to live, and couldn't possibly be anything otherwise. The nice thing about life having such a broad meaning is just the same as meaning existing in connections, it gives life the opportunity to taking on a multitude of meanings, with an infinite number of possibilities as to what life means.

The point of life could be to have fun, find someone you love, enrich yourself, help the poor, corrupt others, whatever floats your boat... the point of life is... life. No questions asked or needed

cheers everyone!

Creep [Radiohead]

2005-07-15T10:28:00.000-06:00

pure genius

When you were here before, couldn't look you in the eye
You're just like an angel, your skin makes me cry
You float like a featherIn a beautiful world
I wish I was special so very special

But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong here

I don't care if it hurts, I wanna have control
I want a perfect body, I want a perfect soul
I want you to notice, when I'm not around
You're so very special, I wish I was special

But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong here, ohhh ohhhh
She's running out again...She's running out, she runs, runs, runs, runs....
she runs....

Whatever makes you happy
Whatever you need
You're so very special, I wish I was special
But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong hereI don't belong here

War on insert abstract concept here

2005-07-08T00:34:00.000-06:00

Today's terrorist attacks on London have spurred me [among others] to start contemplating the whole concept of terrorism and how to defeat it.

Source of Terrorism

Terrorism is a mentality that is developed out of violence and certain social conditions generated by social conditions. One thing I've noticed is that the source of terrorism in this world isn't Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda for that matter; despite the fact that they generate it, it is actually bred by discontent with injustices committed against social groups, in this case being perceived injustices against arabs and other muslims. Although Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda elite provide fuel for the fire, their cause would be lost without the people committing the acts, and they aren't spurred by his words alone. Foreign powers set up bases in the middle east against the wishes of the masses which despite serving a strategic purpose in the interests of the American Gov't are outweighed by the ill thoughts of the masses. Furthermore, terrorism is perpetuated by fulfilling the prophecies of the group that is under fire. Once again, despite the fact that it may be in the best interests of Iraqis to have a free and just society, it is a view justified in the eyes of Americans, not Iraqis. Foreign occupation of the country angries the blood of the masses and further perpetuates the terrorism that the move was aimed at stopping

War on an abstract concept

As well its almost counterintuitive to believe that an organized structure like a government can successfully battle a loosely organized group that has no specific target that will bring down the entire concept. Unfortunately when it comes to declaring war on an abstract concept, you can't hit terrorism in the heart and expect it to fall over and die of its wounds, because just as George W. Bush pointed out... Terrorists are heartless. It is impossible to declare a physical war on an abstract mental concept. To declare war on terrorism is as absurd as declaring war on love, freedom, hate, racism, sexism, honour, valour, the list goes on. It is impossible to defeat physically, something over time that can be created in the mind of a recruit in less than 5 seconds.

Solution Forthcoming

Philosophy of Existence pt. 1 - the "how"

2005-07-05T23:54:00.000-06:00

Background

Descartes noticed--as did the matrix-- that there is no way to know for sure that what you see around you actually exists, like the famous line "have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real, that you couldn't tell whether you were asleep or awake?"

Knowledge can be divided into 2 different types, a priori knowledge that you arrive at by pure thought and a posteriori knowledge which is accumulated through experiences external to you [via the senses]. A posteriori knowledge of the world cannot be trusted, because there's nothing to say that Im not dreaming that Im just typing this out as opposed to dreaming that Im typing.

Those who know me, know that I think that this is just a paranoid fear, and wanted to provide a less fear laden explanation as to how we know we exist... Enter the movie and my man Brunner.

The Foundation

Descartes' approach of throwing everything that we know out the window, and proving what we know beyond a reasonable doubt is an impossible feat, and at best a waste of time;because, unfortunately almost nothing can be absolutely certain and therefore the vast majority of the world around us will go untrusted and unexplained.

Descartes was on the right track with the "I think, therefore I am" but the order is wrong here, because it partially presupposes thought over existence--you don't exist as a result of thinking, thinking exists as a result of, well existing. As a result, emphasis on proof of existence should rest on 'being' as opposed to 'thinking.' starting off from just flat out knowing 'I am,' I figured that my existence 'is' so I need to find a way to connect myself to the world.

Further thought led me to the ingenius philosopher Constantin Brunner [ed. www.constantinbrunner.info] and how I thought that he classified how everything interacts with oneself and subsequently how one would know about the world or for that matter that it existed. Brunner classifies mystical interaction into three categories: We can feel, know and will the world around us, and to complete all three is to experience true mysticism

Feeling and Art

Art is an absolutely ingenious part of proving that the world around us exists, because when you create art, you are portraying the inner working of oneself in a material manner external to yourself. A loose connection is created with the external world when you manage to express yourself with art. However, it is not enough to just 'throw out' a proof of your own existence to the world, you must allow yourself to be moved and changed by the world around you, and then you have a connection of feeling between oneself and the world around you.

Knowing and Philosophy

Now that the world around oneself is tangible because it can be felt, it is necessary to figure out how exactly you know this. Order in this case is important, because you can only know yourself in yourself, to know the world around you, you need to be able to feel its presence, which is a problem with Descartes, because he starts off trying to know something before he can trust that he can feel it. When you know the world, you can see the connections that have begun to be built between oneself and everything else in the universe. When you know that you and the world around you exists, you realize that everything exists relative to everything else in the world, and that when something affects one thing or one person, it reverberates throughout the connections of the world itself.

Knowledge provides you with the ability to see more than just the simple connections between oneself and your expression, it provides you the global ability to recognize that the world 'is' and affects everything.

Willing and Mysticism/Love

Feeling the world around you and knowing your relationship in it culminates in a will to make the world a better place, and it is from this willing that you truly impact the world around you, because you are not only expressing yourself to the world, but also changing the world in monolithic proportions. The fiery love and desire to change the world completes the connections between oneself and the world around you and although it provides proof and justification for believing that the world exists, it negates the need for proving the world exists, because everything just ‘is.’

Pragmatism > Dogmatism

2005-06-28T12:44:00.000-06:00

I love how in this day and age that there is such a shift towards operating by a set of canonical set of virtues, and that people define themselves by said set. One thing I've noticed is that people rarely are what they believe to be [especially the religious types]. Definition of oneself cannot be accurate when defining yourself by a certain set of static values, especially when life is such a dynamic place where character is shaped by environmental stimuli. The one thing that remains fairly constant in humanity is its unending reliance on common sense and pragmatism to help define who they are, and where they place themselves in the world.

Although personal ideology is defined by the pragmatic and idealistic endeavours of a person, it is enough to define a person by the pragmatic side of them because it presupposes their dynamic set of virtues, and changes in accordance with environmental stimuli presented to reason

Philosophy of Beauty

2005-06-23T21:47:00.000-06:00

Beauty is yet another one of those blanket definitions aptly attached to things with little or no understanding as to the nature of it. Like love, beauty is something that can be appreciated without understanding;however, unlike Einstein's definition of mystery being the source of arts and science--and as a result beauty--I tend to believe that true beauty exists in understanding the mysterious.

It's almost counterintuitive to believe that beauty can exist so much in the mysterious, because mystery implies a lack of understanding, or a lack of desire to understand something. Before the unruly mobs come knocking at my door protesting about my belief in a lack of beauty present in the mysterious, please hear me out.

1)beauty can't be defined in the individual qualities that an object possesses, because there is no one single thing in the universe that is regarded as beautiful by everything/everybody. Beauty instead lies in the connection between the beholder and the "holder" not present in the qualities of the holder.

2)beauty lies in one's ability to notice and appreciate details and qualities present in a person or thing. Like the colour of skin, the look to the left when laughing, the slightly off centre stance, by placing beauty in the connection between things, a certain level of freedom is given to contextualize the definition of an individual facet, while at the same time being able to provide a broad structure by which it operates

A Kite is a Victim [Leonard Cohen]

2005-06-22T22:54:00.000-06:00

A kite is a victim you are sure of.
You love it because it pulls
gentle enough to call you master, strong enough to call you fool;
because it lives like a desperate trained falcon in the high sweet air
and you can always haul it down to tame it in your drawer.

A kite is a fish you have already caught in a pool where no fish come,
so you play him carefully and long, and hope he won't give up, or the wind die down.
A kite is the last poem you've written, so you give it to the wind, but you don't let it go
until someone finds you something else to do.

A kite is a contract of glory that must be made with the sun, so you make friends with the field the river and the wind, then you pray the whole cold night before, under the travelling cordless moon, to make you worthy and lyric and pure.

Philosophy of Love

2005-06-22T22:16:00.000-06:00

Of special concern to me in my daily thoughts has been the world's relationship to the concept of love, because in my thinking, love is something that has always eluded explanation for me. I always thought that the way that people define love in their intuitive sort of relationship sense doesn't really make any sense, and as a result, love gets a sort of mysterious aura to it. Not to debate the complexities and mysteries present in the grand concept, i have at least set out to help define the aspect that applies to common life and its relationships.

1. Think, Think, Think I have about why people call love a crazy thing when it falters, why people claim that love has failed; then I realized when I thought of the common saying "the love's just not there" that it all makes sense.

2. The problem with the intuitive definition of love is that it is viewed as a black or white, single facet that is either posessed or not [even if it is built or deteriorated over time.]

3. Love is something that is a sum of the parts put in by all members of any given relationship. Person (1) contributes Love (1) and Person (2) contributes Love (2) to Add up to Love (3), which is the warm fuzzy feeling that we get when we are in a relationship, but if either Person (1) or Person (2) or both cease to contribute then Love (3) ceases to exist and "the love just isn't there"

Now dispensed with the commonsensical scientific pleasantries, I'll get to the 'meat' of Love...

Love like Ondaatje's "Cinnamon Peeler" [nb. its right below if you haven't read it,] and Leonard Cohen's definition of poetry in "A Kyte is a Victim" is something that is more multifaceted than most give it credit for. Love, like poetry exists in a fine balance between two parts of a relationship. A kite wouldn't fly with out a person guiding it, and a kite flier would just be a man without a kite. One person can care for another, and can generate some love [love (1) or love (2)], but the beauty of true love cannot and doesn't exist without the reciprocal relationship generated between aggregate forces, love it seems exists--ironically if anything--as a tension between two "opposing forces."

The Cinnamon Peeler [Michael Ondaatje]

2005-06-22T21:12:00.000-06:00

If I were a cinnamon peeler
I would ride your bed and
leave the yellow bark dust
on your pillow.

Your breasts and shoulders
would reekyou could never walk
through markets
without the profession of my fingers
floating over you. The blind would
stumble certain of whom they approached
though you might bathe
under rain gutters, monsoon.

Here on the upper thig
hat this smooth pasture
neighbor to your hair
or the crease that cuts your back. This ankle.
You will be known among strangers
as the cinnamon peeler's wife.

I could hardly glance at youbefore marriage
never touch you-- your keen nosed mother, your rough brothers.
I buried my handsin saffron,
disguised themover smoking tar,
helped the honey gatherers...

When we swam onceI touched you in water
and our bodies remained free,you could hold me and be blind of smell.
You climbed the bank and said

this is how you touch other women
the grasscutter's wife, the lime burner's daughter.
And you searched your arms
for the missing perfume.

and knew

what good is it
to be the lime burner's daughter
left with no trace
as if not spoken to in an act of love
as if wounded without the pleasure of scar.
You touchedyour belly to my hands
in the dry air and said
I am the cinnamon peeler's wife. Smell me.

Philosophy of All

2005-06-22T19:55:00.000-06:00

Man, ever since I finished school, I've developed an insufferable need to find a grand philosophical concept that overarches everything in life; virtue, love, religion, and life in general couldn't exist in such harmony without some sort of grand theme or relationship. I've been reading up on a philosopher named Constantin Brunner and Im loving how everything can sort of fit together with a little elaboration on his stuff.

Everything [according to Brunner and common sensically] that exists has some sort of relationship or potential relationship with everything else in the universe. A little intuition with this matter leads to believe that the world must exist as a complex set of relationships of oneself relative to others. My life is determined by my relationship to my mommy (Hi Maria!), brothers, sisters, friends, coworkers, and that guy that sits out on the street staring at me every morning. Therefore the only absolute thing that can exist is the grand concept of the relationship of everything to everything else...

TO BE CONT'D

First of Many

2005-06-22T19:25:00.000-06:00

Hey everyone,

I have finally devoted myself to one method of communicating my thoughts :P If you're remotely interested, feel free to check me out every so often to see my thoughts on stuff, and leave comments on what you think (unless they're hateful, cause then I'll just delete them, but knowing my friends you'll be all good) anyhow, have fun and TTYS All

~Thom

episthomology

an anecdote

Play it Backwards

Tie Me Down and Make Me Believe

How To Be in Ten Places at Once

Untitled

Untitled

Rousseau Paper

Gracias a la Vida [Violeta Parra]

Where's my head, God?

Cherry Blossom Rain

Fire Water

The Power of Persuasion

Divinity [Carl Cornelius Harnett]

Real Fantasy

The Equation of Love

Sorry Everybody

Domination & The Cinnamon Peeler

How Freud Changes Interpretation of Literature

Know a Work by the Unconscious Happenings of the Mind

Know a Work Through the Essence of Being

Know a work by the person behind it

Tell me who I am

Trying to Fix What isn't Broken

The Converging World

Meaning in the Abyss

Life as a Matter of Fact vs. Possibility

Tear in the Fabric

Clenched Soul [Pablo Neruda]

Philosophy of Existence pt. 2 - the "why"

Creep [Radiohead]

War on *insert abstract concept here*

Philosophy of Existence pt. 1 - the "how"

Pragmatism > Dogmatism

Philosophy of Beauty

A Kite is a Victim [Leonard Cohen]

Philosophy of Love

The Cinnamon Peeler [Michael Ondaatje]

Philosophy of All

First of Many

War on insert abstract concept here