|
omnium gatherum, n. : a collection of many different, often unsorted, ideas or items.
Links
|
Saturday - June 02, 2007Fundamentals, Walden and dead fishThese last few months I've been thinking about
society - rather, societies -- and specifically, American society (though I
haven't excluded other countries or, for that matter, American regional
communities.) The crux of my debate has been whether or not to reject it (or
them) completely. Or, to somehow strike a compromise.. somehow. (Quick
digression: I have admittedly been enamoured of the idea of living in a rural
community, precisely because it places a much greater emphasis on the
contribution of the individual; that it makes the individual an essential piece
of the framework of a place; that it somehow frees people to become and discover
their true selves (though I understand the limitations, ie in rural communities,
there is often great slowness to accept change, both on a larger social scale
and on a collective-judgement-of-individual level (even this has caveats,
depending on the community) And also, it depends on how you want to define the
individual, something I've been grappling with too -- in this context, and,
sadly, most all contexts, it seems to be the notion that one's life is for the
most part historically judged in the context of other people's opinions) Though,
getting back to the urban-rural bit, it's humourous to me, this dichotomy -- it
further reinforces the subjectivity of truth, and the need for individual
existentialism, in a Buddhist sort of way -- that the city, like the country,
can set the individual free. (Which means what about the suburbs -- that they
are the vast wasteland of sheep stuck in
limbo?)
Anyway, I believe this afternoon that I reached the conclusion to opt-in -- albeit with reservations. And I'm trying to figure out how to build in an escape clause (Kate, it's called "I quit" -ed.) so that I know that I will never be stuck. There is nothing more I hate than having to rationalize my stuckness. I've done it way too often (thank you HKIS Discp. Com for the trap door) Anyway. The reason for all this deliberation has largely been motivated by a desire to, as honest and as true as I can be to myself, make a major decision in the course of my life. (I still have some concern -- hence all these reservations -- aww hell, how much personal choice on a fundamental level is there really. There isn't a goddamn lick. GET OVER IT ALREADY) But it's been a thought experiment that I've conducted pretty seriously (ie. we are ignoring the fact that I've spent the past few months attempting to become a homeowner in a very specific place, ie Brooklyn, and to a large extent herein is where the questions that dare not ask for names regarding individual choice come to bear) And I feel, despite my flip-floppiness, that this decision to opt-in will ultimately prove to be beneficial -- for the time being, at least. (I've made the choice to not cut out the back-and-forth.. ok, well I cut out some of it.. to provide a sense of the combat that occurs in my brain pretty much all day, around every idea. Tips of icebergs, flashes of fins.) {"Fill up your obit column space, chillun," God bemusedly thunders.} Turning to the vast bleak expanse of irony and vacuity that awaits me.. (oh shush, I thought you'd gotten over your cynicism -ed.) No, seriously. It's the 1800's-westward expansion era, I'm 50 miles west of St. Louis, and I'm alone in a wagon full of supplies, and facing a sunset. I made the decision to leave that gateway, and apparently there is a new life full of riches ahead of me. But I'm so bewildered by the concept of the empty horizon and, just looking at the numbers, I have how many miles to go? that I'm struggling with even the reins, though I knew how to use them before. Right, so, point. Now I face an even bigger question: Where do I fit in this society? .. and the tougher question to answer.. Shall I let the culture define my place? (I'm obviously a bit loath of this idea.) Or is that too dead fish of me? Oh god, these questions, who am I RATIONALIZATIONS ok, i have to stop for now. goodnight. (redux) Ho, oxen! Giiyaah. (general aside note: always hit read more. a lot of cut material ends up down there, though perhaps not tonight. i always have to put something in that box, though, in order to publish.) Saturday - April 14, 2007..speaking louder than wordsI demand arguing on behalf of the primacy of
thought:
THOUGHT THOUGHT THOUGHT THOUGHT THOUGHT Action is subject to the judgment of rules I loathe. Tuesday - March 13, 2007HoursWhat am I doing with all this nostalgia? This
reminiscence.. am I trying to draw a line in my history so that I can start
writing about it, to distance myself from it, to package it because I don't know
what else to do with it and everyone else is telling me to move forward? Am I
trying, somehow, to glean lessons -- or simply to frame my own narrative? How
shall that narrative be defined? Yes, it seems, given what I've just written
(can I blame the current culture?) that I'm crafting a novel. Isn't that what a
resume is? Here, I present the resume of my life, my curriculum vitae -- vitae
-- vital, vitality, life, my life's lessons.
They don't fit on a page. I'm not actually working on my resume. I'm reminiscing. I am digging my heels in the ground and trying to do things at my pace; in an attempt to honor the past, and thus, the future. ... Tuesday - February 13, 2007W(o-a)nderingWhy are there no female Christopher
Hitchens?
It's apparently about to snow in Wichita. It's funny how one can adjust to make a home out of nowheremotels. (something I've thought about for awhile now, but haven't written out loud.) Was feeling impertinent earlier. Then, revolutionary. Then, conciliatory. Now: tired. Goodnight from a booming Nashtown. Wednesday - January 31, 2007Immediacy as proximationBeen revisiting a thing I've been thinking deeply
about, wrestling with, reflecting on the essence of human experience in the last
few years or so, with specific regard to how one reconciles thought with action.
Tonight it takes the form of how one interacts with another. as far as: when one has great love, admiration, respect, in all its platonic and/or romantic forms, how does one properly translate the deep feeling into words, or, more importantly, action? I happened across a photograph taken recently of me with an arm around a friend, and it struck me in a way I can't figure out -- and I wondered about how I express my brain (or get too wary of the way it gets translated.) Frankly, I loathe the discrepancy between my thought and my action.. another time for that hashing-out. Again, simple thoughts. If only I had a brain stenographer! Thursday - July 13, 2006Friday - June 23, 2006Trotting globallyOr, as it seems,
galloping.
Indeed, I was in Italy last week. !! As I said in the office Tuesday morning... "36 hours ago I was floating in the Adriatic Sea. Now I am in Midtown in an office." Anyway. My slight snippet of a point tonight.. I am the worst kind of closet romantic you will ever meet. Also, slightly relatedly, I frequently tell myself I was born in the wrong era. I wanted to go to Venice, but part of my not going was motivated by the fact that there are so many flipping tourists, and not elegant tourists but ugly loud ill dressed obnoxious ones teeming through the canals (or so my imagination believes...) that I almost don't want to go, as it would spoil in my mind the last and greatest place of romance alive in the world. OK, admittedly I've watched too many period pieces, like Wings of the Dove, but. I believe in that elegance. I have this sensibility of Europe; when I lived in Paris, I only spoke in French, even with my roommate, so that no one could peg us as American. As Henry James wrote, "I am too American myself, and lack juices." So when I'm in Europe, everyone thinks I'm German and that is alright. I dress not in US attire; I observe. I speak in hushed tones if I'm speaking at all in English, and it's lovely. (Except if the people I'm with don't speak great ____. ) I made this resolution many years ago to never travel to a European or South American country without having at least a passable knowledge of the language. (Not to discriminate, but it's a lot easier to learn Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese vs. Mandarin. Although Arabic is fairly easy..) Anyway. I'm still digesting my trip; I haven't had time to really reflect, though, as I've had to hit the ground running. I'm really happy, however, and enjoying the pace of things, and what is happening in my life. I feel like a lot of burdens have been eased, and I'm finally growing into myself... Also, Happy 60th birthday to my wonderful of all wonders, my father. His selflessness and generosity of spirit ground me every day, and make me proud to know him. But, bedtime for me, more to come (will be in Nashville next week before going to California, so will have time to write and reflect..) Arrivederci, ciao -- Monday - April 24, 2006Am tentatively beginning musings on what's next If I wasn't so tired, I would spend all night thinking intensely about what I've been sketchily, peripherally thinking about all afternoon... Am I an artist? Could that be my profession? Can I keep doing this? What do I do next? Do I go to grad school? They may sound like simple questions, but they are resonating profoundly, these echoes in my brain, and, to borrow, in my heart. As I said before, flashes of fins above the water. But, am too tired to really delve. Will be taking it up in the coming weeks, if not with myself than with el blogorandomandslightlytipsyqueries. Goodnight.. Thursday - February 16, 2006Neil asks..."When you were young, and on your
own,
how did it feel to be alone?" It felt damn good. But -- and this is a but that demands qualification; I was walking tonight, walking, and thinking. This warm southern breeze reminded me of things. Things, specific things, perhaps tomorrow I will rewrite and elucidate. But, my revelation, in the most brief form -- college takes place at night. It is where you lay your head, or make your bed, and must or ought to lay in it... So, sorry to do this, but to depart on a breeze, because bed is calling, I will postpone with these two things: S/FJ: "and these posts are simply flashes of fins above the water," and, N/Y: "don't let it bring you down; it's only castles burning." Someone please demand me to rewrite this and explain myself. Cheers, then i guess, to shifty southern breezes. PS. "Driven from Distraction" -- new read, courtesy of mom -- I really ought heed its advice, huh.. Oh, and also..... Sunday - January 01, 2006CivilizationI've mentioned this before, and it's something I've
been thinking about for awhile. Other people have argued and written about it,
rightfully so, but there is something I'd like to say. Prepare yourself, this is
a bit long.
Earlier this afternoon, I walked with my dog, whose renewed license from the state of New York just arrived in the mail yesterday, and who is currently receiving medication from an animal hospital for an ear infection, down to the Starbucks a few blocks away, to pick up the Sunday paper and get some coffee. I walked down a street that was for the most part clean, minus some leftover silly string from last night's festivities. The street was paved. Cars -- themselves regulated for safety standards -- passed down the avenue in the direction they were meant to be going, stopping when there was a red light, staying mostly under 30 miles an hour. I passed mailboxes, trees, storefronts. I walked the three blocks in safety; not once did it occur to me that some violence or threat would befall me. I returned to my house safely, washed dishes with clean water that came out of a tap, and proceeded to sit on the couch and read the main news section of the Times. I turned on the lights as it got darker, and the lights, minus one bulb, were all working fine. The newspaper I held, purchased with certifiable currency, at a store that offers free health care to its employees, was not written by the government, or any other actors. So, I read the news section. And by the time I got to page A10, I had to stop to write this. What makes this country so remarkable is the longevity of its civilization. And of course, the order I described is, sadly, not uniform throughout the city, state, and country I inhabit; but nonetheless, there is an expectation in our culture that this should be the norm, and on average, it exists in this country. This is remarkable. If you look at the rest of the world, this sense of civility largely does not exist. ... So I turn to this article about Guatemalan gangs to make a point. "Even in peace, governments across Central America have said violence remains the principal threat to stability. Here, as in neighboring Honduras and El Salvador, the violence comes with many of the trademarks of the cold war: rape, torture and extrajudicial kidnappings and killings. And now, as they did then, human rights investigators have raised concerns about a clandestine "social cleansing campaign," led by rogue police officers and vigilante mobs. This latest cycle of violence began five years ago, when street gangs with roots in Los Angeles - especially the Mara 18 and the Mara Salvatruchas, known as MS-13 - began to spread across Central America and southern Mexico, creating the same kind of havoc in poor neighborhoods here as they once did in places like Compton and Watts. Then in the past year, men and boys suspected of being members of street gangs began to disappear in much the same way people suspected of being guerrillas did during the 1980's: abducted from busy streets or ambushed in their beds, and forced into unmarked cars with tinted windows and no license plates. Almost none of the kidnapped turn up alive. Some never turn up at all. When they do, they are often not found in one piece. Beyond the attacks against gang members and youths suspected of being gang members, international human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have expressed concern about a disproportionate increase in the killing of women. The Guatemalan Human Rights Ombudsman reported that from 2002 to 2004, killings of women increased by almost 57 percent, while the killings of men increased 21 percent. Adriana Beltran of the Washington Office on Latin America said many of the killings were committed with unusual cruelty, involving the kind of rape and mutilations that occurred during this country's armed conflict. "On June 16, they found a head in a bucket right there," said Elubia Velásquez, pointing toward a tortilla shop while walking along the main street of La Esperanza. "The hands were found near a light pole where you met me this morning. And farther down that way, under the bridge at Búcaro, they found the body." Ms. Velásquez, born and reared in La Esperanza, said the neighborhood was once terrorized by the Mara 18. She said the gang members demanded so-called war taxes from all the merchants, bus drivers and delivery crews and killed several people who refused to pay. The gang members, she said, had also raped dozens of girls, robbed countless homes and turned schoolchildren into drug addicts. ... In a crime-plagued neighborhood called El Mezquital, people said some of the killing had brought relief. Guadalupe del Carmen Alvarado, a resident there, said that after gang members had killed a couple of merchants and bus drivers who had refused to pay war taxes, the other merchants and bus drivers pooled their money to hire gunmen to "eliminate the gangs." "We don't like to see bad things happen, but to be sincere, when they started to kill the gang members, I gave thanks to God," Ms. Alvarado said. "The gangs are like living with a lion, and we know if we don't kill it, it is going to eat us." Ms. Velásquez acknowledged that "the gangs made a lot of enemies" in El Mezquital. But she said she worried that innocent youths had fallen victim in the fighting. "Now it's not only gang members who are disappearing," Ms. Velásquez said. "Now they are taking teenagers who don't have a single tattoo. Being young and poor in neighborhoods like this one has become a crime." On Oct. 13, three neighborhood teenagers, who residents said were not involved in gangs, were abducted by three men wearing ski masks as the youths played soccer in front of their houses. The victims' bodies were found the next day dumped along a small road about an hour away. The authorities said the youths appeared to have been strangled. All three were found with their hands and feet tied. Their relatives said the bodies showed signs of torture. Among them was Ms. Morales's 15-year-old grandson, José Arnoldo Arecis. "They say a tree that is no good should be cut down," Ms. Morales said, sobbing. "But only God has the right to cut down a man. What is happening here is a sin."" I have read, and, when I am able to not tangibly grasp the concept that others are being physically and mentally terrorized -- indeed, given the safety of the world I inhabit, it is difficult to imagine unless you're hit over the head with explicit descriptions, images, or whatnot -- I have found myself lapsing into sympathy for the arguments that torture is sometimes necessary to preserve the greater good. I could write that I am sympathetic to that idea from the comfort of my warm, clean, well-appointed living room, in my lovely home, on my safe, well-lit street, in my happy neighborhood, in my orderly (for the most part) city. I may have known emotional terror, but not anything of the sort experienced by, say, the women living in Darfur. Most people of this world look to America -- and actively try to come here -- here first, then Canada and Western Europe and Australia -- because we have been a beacon, nay the paramountcy of civility, opportunity, and, of course, the four freedoms: "In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world." When we as a nation perpetuate the violence, the propaganda, the torture, the economic enslavement, the pollution, the corruption, the terror -- either actively or through passive implicit condoning -- under the guise of the idea that it prevents that from happening here at home -- is the highest, most horrible evil ever committed. The hypocrisy is one thing. But the inevitably of erosion is the greater threat. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Forgive us our trespasses. Sunday - December 25, 2005Merry Chrismukkah, indeed.From Politics:
"The underlying purpose of the new crowd seems altogether different. Being inclusive is not what they have in mind. On the contrary. It looks to me like what they want to do is to slice off those of their fellow citizens who don't meet their standards for admission to the "Judeo-Christian Tradition" -- e.g., those who have an "aversion to religion," by which they presumably mean an aversion to organized religion and/or religious dogma -- and then to read these citizens out of American society. As a Judeo-Christian who has an aversion to religion, and who is an American as good as or better than any mousse-haired, Bible-touting, apartheid-promoting evangelist on any UHF television station you can name, I must protest. Where is it written that if you don't like religion you are somehow disqualified from being a legitimate American? What was Mark Twain, a Russian? When did it become un-American to have opinions about the origin and meaning of the universe that come from sources other than the body of dogma of organizations approved by the federal government as certifiably Judeo-Christian? If it is American to believe that God ordered Tribe X to abjure pork, or that he caused Leader Y to be born to a virgin, why is it suddenly un-American to doubt that the prime mover of this unimaginably vast universe of quintillions of solar systems would be likely to be obsessed with questions involving the dietary and biosexual behavior of a few thousand bipeds inhabiting a small part of a speck of dust orbiting a third-rate star in an obscure spiral arm of one of millions of more or less identical galaxies? What is so terrible about being averse to religion?!? (Diarist suddenly pitches violently backward in chair and disappears from view, a la John Belushi.)" Also, from the chapter introduction, quoting Robert Ingersoll: "We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans, and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass your hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stare miracles. We want this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years." Amen. Sunday - December 04, 2005Will.Can you ever, fundamentally, quantify your life?
Your relationships? Your beliefs? Your values? Your
loves.
One, of numerous things, I'm pondering tonight. Sunday - November 27, 2005Overwhelmed by the MagnitudeDiscussion in my
head:
Re: James Bamford's article on The Rendon Group: So, how the hell are we supposed to know what is the truth and what is opinion? Truth must then be a fluid thing. "Simply one's last mood," as Oscar says. Yes, Kate, it always has been like this. And it will be like this in the future -- information is power over everything. It's just becoming more pervasive, because things have been sped up so drastically. [Update, 11/30: The Rendon group is apparently not an isolated case. See LATimes frontpager on the Lincoln Group.] [jesus. h. christ. -ed. amen, brother. -k. ] [Update 12/1: This shit is bananas. Even "fiction" is serving political purposes. Although this time it's big pharma who is behind it.] "The hypothesis, which seems to me the most
fertile, is that news and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly
distinguished.The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of
truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each
other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act. Only at those points,
where social conditions take recognizable and measurable shape, do the body of
truth and the body of news coincide. That is a comparatively small part of the
whole field of human interest."
- From Chapter 24, "News, Truth, and a
Conclusion."
Note to self: re-read Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion. That book is true. (Internet readers can find it here.) "The bewildering variety of our impressions, even after they have been censored in all kinds of ways, tends to force us to adopt the greater economy of the allegory. So great is the multitude of things that we cannot keep them vividly in mind. Usually, then, we name them, and let the name stand for the whole impression. But a name is porous. Old meanings slip out and new ones slip in, and the attempt to retain the full meaning of the name is almost as fatiguing as trying to recall the original impressions. Yet names are a poor currency for thought. They are too empty, too abstract, too inhuman. And so we begin to see the name through some personal stereotype, to read into it, finally to see in it the incarnation of some human quality. ...When public affairs are popularized in speeches, headlines, plays, moving pictures, cartoons, novels, statues or paintings, their transformation into a human interest requires first abstraction from the original, and then animation of what has been abstracted. We cannot be much interested in, or much moved by, the things we do not see. Of public affairs each of us sees very little, and therefore, they remain dull and unappetizing, until somebody, with the makings of an artist, has translated them into a moving picture. Thus the abstraction, imposed upon our knowledge of reality by all the limitations of our access and of our prejudices, is compensated. Not being omnipresent and omniscient we cannot see much of what we have to think and talk about. Being flesh and blood we will not feed on words and names and gray theory. Being artists of a sort we paint pictures, stage dramas and draw cartoons out of the abstractions. Or, if possible, we find gifted men who can
visualize for us. For people are not all endowed to the same degree with the
pictorial faculty."
-From Chapter 11, "The Enlisting of Interest", 1922.
1922!!
Friday - November 11, 2005Feminine and Other IsmsWritten 11/5/05...slightly edited today.
[You should probably finish your thoughts
before posting... -ed.]
I’m reading The Feminine Mystique. I should have read it awhile ago, but I was busy, and that Phyllis Schlafly bit in the New Yorker last week outraged me sufficiently to make me run to the bookstore and begin reading. I’ve a lot to say, but to start, I wanted to point out this little snippet from Chapter 1, because it’s something I’ve seen surfacing in recent years in cultural critiques about our Millennial Generation and the quality of contemporary life; it reverberates in a very eerie way. “On the contrary, new neuroses are
being seen among women--and problems as yet unnamed as neuroses--which Freud and
his followers did not predict, with physical symptoms, anxieties, and defense
mechanisms equal to those caused by sexual repression. And strange new problems
are being reported in the growing generations of children whose mothers were
always there, driving them around, helping them with their homework--an
inability to endure pain or discipline or pursue any self-sustained goal of any
sort, a devastating boredom with life. Educators are increasingly uneasy about
the dependence, the lack of self-reliance, of the boys and girls who are
entering college today. "We fight a continual battle to make our students assume
manhood," said a Columbia dean.
A White House conference was held on the physical and muscular deterioration of American children: were they being over-nurtured? Sociologists noted the astounding organization of suburban children's lives: the lessons, parties, entertainments, play and study groups organized for them. A suburban housewife in Portland, Oregon, wondered why the children "need" Brownies and Boy Scouts out here. "This is not the slums. The kids out here have the great outdoors. I think people are so bored. they organize the children, and then try to hook ever' one else on it. And the poor kids have no time left just to lie on their beds and daydream." [Friedan's arguments about feminism -- and my concurrence with her -- led me to think about this, next: - the editor.] This seems intrinsically related to my belief in affirmative action; the idea that you can only get ahead and make money as a black man by pursuing athletics or a rap career or drug dealer; well, if everyone was given the same access and opportunities from the get go, if everyone was nurtured and encouraged and were allowed to discover themselves and for themselves what they believed in and were passionate about, and could exist in a community that supported and reinforced such self-knowledge; then society as a whole would benefit. Women were told that they weren’t interested in anything outside the home; this mystique became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Black men today (although, happily, I think things are changing – increasingly I’ve been seeing much more media coverage depicting a strong upper-middle class of college-educated black men; note movies Guess Who?, Beauty Shop, the success of Everybody Hates Chris (which, as Nancy Franklin pointed out the other week, ""Chris” is seen as a potential crossover hit—meaning that it would be UPN’s first black-oriented show to draw a significant number of white viewers.”), and numerous TV commercials (always a good sign that the times are changing, because ad agencies have some pretty sophisticated market analysis at their disposal – they wouldn’t run ads for a fictional market share; and hasn’t this been rapped about, as well?) are told the only way to make a buck is through athletics… Anyway, back to the point, sort of... Elle Woods as post modernist third waver? Gwen Stefani? I think all this media has always been self-perpetuating, in a way – MoDo’s new book cites statistics which reflect this, that despite all evidence to the contrary, women are still perceived to be aggressors, etc. This will never change, in any culture, in any time. There will always be something in these fundamental views, be they liberal, conservative, “Man Show” or “Femme-nazi” that appeals to certain types or groups of people. It is in direct relation to people’s upbringing, emotional experience, their nurture and their nature. If you think about it, humans only experience life in three positions, with some slight variation (including yoga); thus, the choices will continue to be sit, lay down, or stand up. The triumvirate of the modern experience, ne c’est pas? Wednesday - October 05, 2005The silliest train of thoughts todayI think my big problem with philosophy is that
every time I read philosophical texts, the arguments just seem obvious. Is that
presumptuous of me? I mean, I can't get into Kant, but. Is it more about the
love for structuring an argument -- the objectivity, the science, the individual
building blocks of the foundation? It's also what I find irritating about the
law sometimes. There is no place for passion. It is cold and dry and hard, and
generally anathema to adjectives. And it is often so contradictory to my own
sense of values -- but I appreciate its neutrality (well, when a law itself is
neutral. (Thinking of constitutional amendments against gay marriage...)And a
passionless law is, ultimately, better; and I guess you can get passionate and
subjective precisely because it is so objective.
Bloody idiot, this is what has made
America America, the rule of law above everything else. And this is the
fundamental point of everything con law. Are you actually going to post this?
-ed.) It seems similar to standards for grading
these new SAT essays -- how can you objectively define what is good and bad?
(Isn't that one of the central questions
of philosophy? -ed.) Because someone follows the
structure of what an essay is meant to look like? Topic sentence, body
paragraphs, supporting points? That is so dry and banal! Maybe that is, in and
of itself, why some people like it -- because it is not messy. Hm. True.
(This whole schpiel stems from this summary of
The Ethics of
Fiction, by the
way.)
Perhaps it all comes down to the left brain/right brain divide; or, Science and Art. (Digression...It's also the difference between ethics and morals. I've always believed myself to be an ethical, and not a moral person -- I find morality too subject to religion -- but I'm thinking now that in fact it's quite different from that. I am prone to passion; perhaps I hold up ethics as my ideal, my more balanced version of myself (that is not prone to -pulsiveness, im and com) when in practice I rely on my own version of morality to define things.) (Oh, qualify that, you silly quack. -ed. Yes, yes, later. Maybe.) Anyway, philosophy, generally -- it is either so obvious or so abstract that it loses its value. Same thing with a lot of theories I've read recently; I also feel this way about the NYT op-ed page. (The two are not related.) It's like, uhm....duhh. Some of the things I read (when was this, a few months ago maybe? What the hell topic was it -- it all seemed like this, even the highest forms --- ohhh I know what it was! It was the consulting industry and organizational management. Ah ha.) seemed to me just out there to explain it to the idiots; it is a self-sustaining concept/industry. Everyone creates their own hierarchies, the insiders and pundits and whatnot, as though they were on top of the most extraordinary breakthrough about, say, how to eat a cheeseburger -- and then they can get paid an exorbitantly large amount of money and then laugh and skip as they run to the bank. Also like human resources. It's trying to make a science out of what should be blatantly obvious. (Am I becoming a liberal libertarian?) It's like when you are on an airplane and they tell you how to fasten a seatbelt -- the airlines have to do it to be inclusive and cover their asses, but come on! If you can't figure it out on your own, you should get your head smacked against the seatback in front of you. You know, I've never read Wittgenstein, but I think I might agree with his later conclusions. (Thank you Wikipedia.) I was listening to stories about the new Nobel laureates for...was it physics yesterday? And the reporter was describing their theories and research, which is pretty abstract (well at least this one guy's is -- the other two's experiments with atoms seemed incredibly...pertinent? That's not the right word, but.) And so much of science is specific, little tiny nano things; I guess one can differentiate between one's work and one's life -- philosophically speaking. But that intense focusing on the minutia! For lifetimes! On these tiny little differentiations of particles! Like linguistics! I mean, it's all fundamentally language! Stop running yourself crazy into the ground with this stuff! Interact with the world! Go dance around to jungle boogie or something! (Is that completely antithetical to my reverence for intellectualism and seriousness? Am I saying "I mean, study, yes, but you've got to give it a break sometime, dudes" -- well, whatever. To each his or her own -- study what you will, who am I to assign values to others' work.) Point was, when do you draw the line of relevance? Again, science and art. When does life begin. Oh, circles, circles. (Chuckle.) The Venn Diagram comes round and round again. Sunday - August 07, 2005Naipaul, and Jacobs, and, andGreat article/interview in the NY Times Book Review
today about Naipaul.
I don't agree with a lot of his comments, but Donadio, in talking with him about his books that deal with Islam, succinctly summarized the questions Naipaul was posing in his writing, and they are questions that are prescient and profound, questions I've been trying to study and respond to but have only come up with barely half an answer. I'm sharing those questions, just because they are brilliant concepts to deconstruct and reflect upon. "The books raise but don't necessarily answer deep and vexing questions: Is secularism a precondition of tolerance? Does one necessarily have to abandon one's individual cultural and religious identity to become part of the West? Why do people willingly choose lives that restrict their intellectual freedom? What becomes of modern societies founded on Islam, whose strictest aherents long for a return to the time of Muhammad?" Also, started and finished this book by Jane Jacobs today, Dark Age Ahead. I've long wanted to read The Death and Life of Great American Cities, because I find urban re/development studies absolutely fascinating, as well as its related fields of architectural planning, ex/sub-urban sprawl growth, etal. This book has inspired me to actually purchase and read it. (Note, another plug for On Paradise Drive, David Brooks' book, now in paperback. Also, it also reminded me of a fascinating article from the March 14th, 2004 edition of The New Yorker about mall culture entitled "The Terrazo Jungle", written by Malcolm Gladwell, which is so worth your time.) I witnessed and followed with great fascination the Plan of Nashville and related projects like The Gulch when I was in Tennessee, and long to see their implementation. I think urban redevelopment is one of the few jobs I would wholeheartedly enjoy. Anyway, Jacobs. She is arguing about cultural decline, from a perspective that I have long shared but seldom written of. This is one of the best books I've read (although slightly disjointed) that is an appeal to Democratic values and arguments (which I hear none of anymore). But bottom line, it is fascinating. It reminded me of my need to finish reading Guns, Germs, and Steel. Go, read this book of hers. Speaking of cultural criticism, I've also gotten about 65 pages into Craig Seligman's book Sontag & Kael, Opposites Attract Me, and I've fallen in love. After she passed away, I read quite a bit about Sontag and her ideas (I remember very vividly reading a piece of hers from about 4 years ago on the NYT Op-Ed page, and being utterly blown away by her) and started investigating her work. I've not had the time up to now to get into those works of hers I bought, but I will certainly make time for her now, as I, while reading this book, find myself identifying more and more with her life, perspective, and thought process. Plus, her prose is orgasmically gorgeous. The idea of packing every sentence with a new idea, something she perpetually strove for, is something I desire to achieve on such a fundamental level, in both my writing and my painting. Signing off now, but also note Donadio's piece on the triumph of Non-fiction over the novel. More on this later, need to re-read it and then will discuss. I've got a four long flights ahead of me in the next week (going to Colorado), so I will read and write on the plane. Cheers. Tuesday - August 02, 2005Thoughts in townHow do you not write what you
know?
How do you separate fiction, imagined plot lines or characters, from the realm of your existence, and yet still imbue your characters with life? How is it that writing is so different from art? Is it true? I don’t necessarily paint what I know; but yet, I love the nuance of language, of precise description, and with paint, I neither can nor want to intimate that kind of precision in my work. Is it a question of maturity? Do you have to get over yourself in order to truly create, on a genius level? Or does genius simply reflect a highly nuanced intellect and world view, or selflessness? Is that what I hope to do – blend the mood of my writing, my thought and experience with the formal qualities of paint? This has been my existential dilemna this summer. And, alas, I believe it shall continue through the coming seasons. But, my attempt at poignancy today: comes from sitting in front of the New York Public Library gardens, being surrounded by the hustle of the street, and thinking of how profound, almost much more so than the silence and the rage of the ocean I’ve experienced this summer, it is to find a moment of quiet in the middle of the city. Benches and tables on the street facilitate this. They enable reflection, publicly. Does that happen elsewhere, besides on a city bench? Also, buses. For some inexplicable reason. Post script: gorgeous phrase of the day: “Beauty – Old yet ever new – Eternal Voice and Inward word.” Hm. To ponder in a garden. Thursday - January 27, 2005Bangladesh and Militant IslamThere was an
article
in the NYT Magazine this past Sunday about Bangladesh, and the rise of militant
Islam throughout the country. It's frightening but good. It was reported by
Eliza Griswold, author of an incredibly enlightening piece this summer in the
New Yorker about the Waziristan region in Pakistan and the presence and spread
of Taliban-like groups in the area (which borders Afghanistan.) Give it a read.
Once again, (I have discussed
this before) it points out that the spread of
madrasas (which inculcate kids with this militant, aberrant form of Islam) is
due to the massive amount of funding supplied by Saudi Arabia (and Libya.) One
of the things that I hope Condoleezza will take up in her role as head of the
State Department is to find a way to crack down on this funding. It is
essentially terrorist-financing, if you think about it.
Thursday - January 27, 2005Sex Slavery and World IssuesNicholas
Kristof has written a series of poignant,
heartbreaking, and important articles about sex slavery for the New York Times.
He focuses on Cambodia as his example, although sex trafficking is an
international abuse. He argues in his
most recent
column that this has become the new slavery, and
I couldn't agree with him more. I'm glad he is raising the awareness of this
issue, something that doesn't get talked about except (in my experience) in
Women's Studies departments on university campuses. The UN has a number of
programs and have highlighted it for awhile, but "women's issues" normally get
pushed out of the spotlight when you put a bunch of old men in a room who are
way more interested in discussions of nuclear proliferation, war, and blowing
stuff up. That's not an inditement of the UN, it's more of a general complaint
about the way the world works.
In other news, the man who started the Grameen Bank, Muhaamad Yunus, is coming to give a lecture tomorrow, and I'm very excited about it. Grameen Bank was the first micro-lending operation, one which has since spread like wildfire throughout the world -- it loans small amounts of money to people (mostly women, and mostly in underdeveloped and poor countries, although micro-lending has been implemented in the US) to help them start businesses, or buy certain things -- it's been ridiculously successful. I think it's one of the best ideas to come out of the past century. In a somewhat related note, there was a NYT article awhile ago about Jeffrey Sachs, who has an idea which, if it worked, could have equally as huge an impact on the world. When I have some more time, I'll post more links to the various articles I mentioned as well as information about Grameen and other projects like it. Thursday - January 13, 2005MiscellanySome interesting
things.
Mahmood Mamdani's reviews in Foreign Affairs of Gilles Kepel's and Olivier Roy's new books on Political Islam. Maureen Dowd today, citing numbers and studies: "As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. "The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands. A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise." More on this later, although read on for the Schwartz article Dowd mentions. It's fascinating. In the meantime, Howard Dean for DNC Chairman! If the Democrats choose anyone else, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. And brain. A Frist run for presidency in '08 worries me. |
