"Sometimes, when I think of all the time I have spent not learning to do things ..." W. Faulkner, Sanctuary, Random House (1958), p. 118.

Living is learning. Simple, isn't it? Simple, except in real life where one is expected to perform & when one is caught up in desires or expectations (like rewards for our performance).
Still, when you think of all the time you have spent not learning to do things ... you think of all the time your life was barely different from that of a dog. Waiting to get your bone. Learning is not training. It is discovering things as yet undiscovered with the help of an infinite amount of discoveries made before yours, by others but also by yourself.
That is what makes learning different from performing; learning is its own reward. It enables more learning, better discoveries, going boldly where no one has ever gone before. What´s the use? No use, just more learning. Learning is where risk & reward, effort & expectation bend together into one self-sufficient little knot. Not for benefit of one´s self, not even to benefit others let alone mankind.
The issue of senselessness without after-life, one of Kant´s arguments, can remain an issue only if purpose requires a self as ultimate subject. Learning requires a self but only as coincidental substrate. It doesn´t require the self to get fulfillment of its own efforts; it does not deal reward for merit, it merely wants learning to continue & to knowledge to progress. Learning is a self-fulfilling prophecy. With poetic licence - all learning lives on in further learning.
Obviously, when reality kicks in, things are not that simple. The self is not selfless, like anything else it wants to resist annihilation. But that is a prime area of learning - not only as a phenomenon to be studied but also as a reality check on ourselves. Can we be more than creatures that merely live to continue a certain particular kind of living?

Whilst writing this I was listening to Luz Casal, Best of Luz Casal.

22:51 Gepost door Guido Nius in Muziek | Permalink | Commentaren (0) | Tags: faulkner, self, learning, tones |  Facebook |


As I lay dying

"I can remember how when I was young I believed death to be a phenomenon of the body; now I know it to be merely a function of the mind - and that of the minds of the ones who suffer the bereavement. The nihilists say it is the end; the fundamentalists, the beginning; when in reality it is no more than a single tenant or family moving out of a tenement or a town." William Faulkner, The best of Faulkner, The Reprint Society of London (1955), p. 23.

I'll let you in on a little secret: I believe in an after-life. Weird, ain't it? It takes a lot of imagination to picture an agnostic believer in the after-life. Luckily, I'm here to help you out a bit, & William is here to help me out a bit.
It isn't quite true that I believe in an after-life. First, I'm not big on believing in anything. Second, & here's the crux, I don't think there is evidence to support the common idea that the mind goes when the bodily functions give way. The reasons for holding this idea are very good reasons indeed. It is better to see the mind as a function of the brain than to see it as a function of God - knows what. Not so much because it is closer to the truth - although it most certainly is - but because any explanation based on what we cannot know does not do any explaining but inevitably leads to coercion from a happy few.
Still, having good reasons to hold something true does not make it true - I do have very good reasons for holding that the left will find itself again but none of these reasons will make it so. We're born quite mindlessly - a few even live their entire life completely mindlessly so the least one can say is that having a brain isn't necessarily a sign of having a mind (this point the educated will see as behavioristic in nature, as always the educated are right but this is not the place where I will attempt to defend the obvious). If having a brain isn't quite sufficient for having a mind (the educated may here find comfort in the fact an ape has a brain as well) something else has to enter into the mind equation - if so, we'd do well to postpone our judgment on whether having a brain is at all necessary until such time as we have gathered a little bit more info on the something else.
People have held for a long time - some unfortunate ones still do - that there has to be some outside authority for them to feel well. But only the mindlessly devout have lacked the imagination to see that, at the very least, this outside authority did not suffice. As we all know now: what was held to be necessary was purely a coincidental form of the mental need to be sheltered as member of a group of people. So too it could go with the brain and the mind. No doubt mind requires something with brain-like capacities but - depending on what it is we find to be necessary for mind - this something could be a tad surprising.
I drank in the meantime - as the more perspicacious no doubt already noted - quite some alcohol so I will allow myself to cut to the chase. Mind is eminently a social thing, to have a mind requires one to be a social animal of some sort. The common idea of brain-mind identity is rather unavoidable because a brain of some sort is functionally required to be a social animal for all we know. But mind is not in the first instance related to such a brain. It is rather related to it only in the second instance, via intermediary of verbalized social interaction that is itself most probably directly predicated to brains in the individuals that make up the society in the first place.
Hence the after-life. One can only hope you did not forget the Faulkner quote whilst reading the, as per usual verbose, verbiage above. When body, & thus brain, are not necessary to the mind; the decomposition of body & brain can't in itself cause the demise of the mind. If we then use the term 'death' related to persons or selves it does not stand for an end (nor would it stand for some kind of beginning) but for a transition. Instead of a mind that can, for reasons of ease of reference, be associated to a body one passes to a mind that does its persisting in its necessary context of social interaction. Like somebody that moved out of your sphere of friends - because of argument, because she has moved, because it was too difficult to keep bothering about his desires, ... - it is out of sight but it is unavoidably forever in your mind. Whenever your mind experiences this loss is when the mind, that has been thought lost, manifests itself again.
The term that applies to this kind of disembodied after-life is 'resonate' and a metaphor could be that of a social symphony in which individual minds can be heard as individual themes. Neither the theme can exist without a symphony - nor the symphony without this theme. It is not at all like the after-life of the religious fanatics because what is preserved is one's self without redemption & without judgment whatever; whatever you were will persist in the measure that you were worth remembering by other minds. The family leaving without having made any impression will be like anything perishing without ever being seen.
I have to say: if any of you takes this embryonic thought & makes it your own - know that you will be eternally damned.



Whilst writing this I was listening to Thelonious Monk, It's Monk's Time, Sony Music 2003.

18:58 Gepost door Guido Nius in Muziek | Permalink | Commentaren (0) | Tags: tones, faulkner, imagination, self |  Facebook |