05-03-10

The Elder Statesman - Act One

"CHARLES: Your words seem to come
From very far away. Yet very near. You are changing me
And I am changing you.

MONICA: Already
How much of me is you?

CHARLES: And how much of me is you?
I'm not the same person as a moment ago.
What do the word mean now - I and you?"

T.S. Eliot, The Elder Statesman, Faber and Faber, 1969, p. 13 ;-)


Yes, I love my wife too.

People want to understand. We want to capture the meaning and then vivisect it - & trace each and every detail until it is well and truly known. Until it can be recited and reproduced ad infinitum. The preference is for natural numbers over rational ones & for rational numbers of real ones. The real numbers may not outnumber but clearly outperform the complex numbers as regards the popular vote. The same is with the discrete versus the continuous. If we can split in two halves we will; but anything will be preferred over the messy reality of there being an infinite number of ways for us to look at a single thing. And we prefer the linear over the non-linear as well; things come in well identifiable singles, if at all possible, we will go to the most extreme of extremes to avoid having to consider what happens as a whole that can't be reduced to constituent parts.

The 'whole' is for our everyday understanding a big, glaring hole.

I hate that.

I like to say that what takes effort is probably not worth the effort.

My bad, I guess. My loss as well. If you count in number of hits, at least.

The worst of it you'll get if one questions the identity of people's personality and the hard and fast truth of being born as an atomic spirit into a growing body. If we do it, we get stared at: "For sure, you don't imply that this I is something, continuously in flux & merely a function of its environment (more specifically its linguistic context)!" It is precisely what I imply, what Eliot implies, what Pirandello implies and what can't but be the consequence of what can't but be right in contemporary philosophy.

"But what about guilt? If the person is no longer a trustable unit of accountability, it is impossible to attribute guilt." It would be impossible and it is impossible to 'guilt' somebody in the absolute way that people want to make other people guilty (and - which is the same - themselves potentially innocent). Sin is impossible but workable as a concept within the limits of the over-all fogginess of all other concepts,'person' included. Original sin is definitely out. Original sin would apply to those just born, & to those not capable of language. It doesn't apply - because it cannot hold. Before feeling yourself as a self there was no self and no guilt, original or otherwise.

One should not underestimate the power that religions have in presenting a linear & a discrete & a natural picture of atomic spirits that can be wrong or right, that can be saved or doomed. This is serious business even if, by nature, somewhat fuzzy. This cannot be. The most you can do is have your you influence another I - thát is what we get as an after-life: not even so much as 'being remembered' but merely having caused something for the good of what comes after. This is also enough for Kant's sense of morality because it is enough to want to cause something good.

I am sorry to have focused on the negative, with a quote that so clearly opens doors to the positive. But the easy way out of that is to tell you to reread the quote - and I hope you have somebody like that - and if you haven't, it is the easiest thing to get (because it may be very difficult to get many friends, or to become popular but it's a matter of the smallest difficulty to talk to somebody, & be transformed, & transform at the same time - just let go of your own individuality - and in any case the merest fact of you feeling like an individual is only the consequence of others having talked to you and breathed life in you - you were created not by God but by everybody that has taken the time to nurture you).

I will never ever get softer than that ;-)


Whilst writing this I was listening to BOENOX, 'STUDIO' (will be a hard one to find but one well worth the effort)

19:52 Gepost door Guido Nius in Liefde | Permalink | Commentaren (0) | Tags: t s eliot, identity, optimism, tones, learning |  Facebook |

24-01-10

It was full of phonies

"It was full of phonies. And mean guys. You never saw so many mean guys in your life. For instande, if you were having a bull session in somebody's room, and somebody wanted to come in, nobody'd let them in if they were some dopey, pimply guy. Everybody was always locking their door whens somebody wanted to come in." J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye, p. 174, Penguin Books, 1958.

"(..) And besides (..)"

"How would you know you weren't being a phoney? The trouble is, you wouldn't." ibid. p. 179.


Digression!

I'm too old for it now. I guess I grew out of it. Or thought I grew out of it. But did I? Apparently not or I wouldn't be quoting it. No, ít grew out of me maybe. Forgot it, or suppressed it. Maybe I was a phoney all along and these quotes the kind of thing a phoney sympathizes with. In order to shield himself in his own thoughts: from being a phoney. Yeah, maybe I forgot it - moved on without the need to look back on the times where people were constantly locking their doors. Cliques. Moved on to locking my doors. People are awful. My clique is small. Is there a small too small for it to be a clique? My clique doesn't include awful people - Is my opinion. I don't lock my door so much as I disincentivize awful people to come in.

No, I'm not a phoney. I may be dopey. Or pimply. Or unintelligible. Or inaudible but not phoney. My clique isn't a clique. Everybody can come in. Nobody wants to though it being so unexclusive and all.

The thing is: you do kinda know. You know because you're not saving lives. At least you are not thinking you're saving lives. Just running around trying to mind your own business. Better: trying not to make to much business out of your own business. Not out of humility or anything either. Just so strange people are not attracted to makin' it into some kind of club. No you're not a phoney if you don't like clubs and if you're able to ask yourself the question: "How do I know I really don't like clubs?"

The other thing is: it's easy to become a phoney. Dopey people become phoneys all the time. Pimply people too. & People that are told they can't be understood. It's so easy to become a phoney. 'Cause you always wanted to get in that bloody door. And that's why they kept on locking it on ya. Coz you always wanted to come in uninvited & all. You see: that kinda seals it as so very depressing. I always wanted to come in and I still want to get in. Even if I know I'm uninvited. Not welcome and that nobody, really nobody, wants to listen to me.

It's easy to become a phoney. More than half of the internet is dedicated to creating a second chance for dopey people to become phonies. It's called social networking & it's dedicated to creating the opportunity to lock virtual doors. People are really good as it too - especially those that were phonies to start with. They really rock at all this social networking stuff. They really do. They can let you know their doors are locked; even if you didn't much care to come in ;-) 

But I still like people. I do. I'm a cultural optimist. Always was. Even with all of these phonies and all, people are likeable if given a chance. Even the phonies. It's just we don't give a lot of chances. We can't really - not enough time to socially network with all of them. So we have to pick our phonies and our dopeys and stuff. We're getting better at it. Lots better. The internet helps. Makes it easier to find our own room, to have a bull session in or something. Easier also to go from one room to the next, & not carrying the label of the rooms you've been in. That certainly helps a lot. Maybe as an optimist one could say: maybe it helps enough to get rid of labels alltogether (at least in the non-amusing sense of cliques and clubs).


Whilst writing this I was listening to Richard Galliano, Luz Negra.

 

15:11 Gepost door Guido Nius in Liefde | Permalink | Commentaren (0) | Tags: identity, salinger, optimism, friendship, competition |  Facebook |

20-11-09

L'élan vital

"Le mécanisme reprochera donc avec raison au finalisme son caractère anthropomorphique. Mais il ne s'aperçoit pas qu'il procède lui-même selon cette méthode, en la tronquant simplement. Sans doute il a fait table rase de la fin poursuivie ou du modèle idéal. Mais il veut, lui aussi, que la nature ait travaillé comme l'ouvrier humain, en assemblant des parties. (..)", H. Bergson, L'évolution créatrice, p. 90, Quadrige, Grands Texts, 1941.

(amateuristic English translation below)


Going hard-core again. I apologize to those unwilling to dive deeply.

It's a 'slippery slope'-mission which I'm about to embark upon. Nobody will be willing to wave the mechanistic flag but many will be willing to put anything - even remotely - Bergsonian out with this garbage of extraterrestrial, supernatural, or, extrasensory entities, or, beings, or causes. But, much worse than that (& here stoppeth the usual disclaimers because these religious bastards just won't socially darwinize themselves into oblivion rapidly enough): the nut crew will be all too happy to claim anything, as far as there is something claimable.

It's a thin line where the friends are trying to push you to the nether side & enemies are trying to pull you into their camp. But enough apologies for crimes uncommitted, byt myself at least:

There's something rotten in neo-Darwinism. Hence there's something wrong with the currently established logico-materialistic consensus. Something that doesn't - at the present moment at least - should really bother us too much given the many billions that still believe the crap in which their less educated parents believed. But still, it is something that at least gives an argument to the advocates of "there just has to be a certain 'something' or other" thereby protracting the agony of getting rid of all that bull-shit (not that you're personally very bothered by this agony, you being one that has the luxury of reading philosophically type thingies on the internet but just watch the news and you'll see how literal the agony is in what's commonly referred to as a South-East portion of the world). And, eventually (but I'll leave that unexplored, it's a popular theme for the advocates of the nut crew anyway) it'll do real damage also to us (on second thought: I do think it already does damage by the work ethics that are inspired by the amassing of 'stuff' - but see further).

"What's wrong then?", you ask.

"Read the bloody quote!", I say.

OK, that was uncalled for. Let me take an unexpected example: the gene. What's a gene? Can we individuate genes? Take one, turn it around and examine whether it's selfish, or, less ambitiously, yellow? No, and that's why there is a problem with them (no, you're not getting any more disclaimers - so if you go off and imagine I' saying what I'm not saying: have fun in the looney bin, there are a few rather decent works of Michelangelo I'm told): conceptually they work but on closer inspection ... there is nothing to inspect. DNA, yes and bits and pieces of DNA that when handled in certain ways tend to have a certain range of effects but nothing quite as simple as we're led to believe by the common noun term that has been coined to refer to ... well, what?, what exactly?

It's atomism & holism. It's integers & reals. It's Wittgenstein A & Wittgenstein B. It's Quine. Them things simply do not exist! Subatomic particles don't exist; at least not if it is a criterion for the identity of them that they aren't also waves - and what could be further from particleness than waveness as undoubtedly many concluded before I concluded it.

Back to the drawing board then ...... Or not! Because that's it in the end, as much as we are drawn to drawing it out, preferably in minute specific detail; we can't 'wrap our heads around it'. There is indeed 'something' that resists being captured. No spirit - no essence - no 'Sein' & certainly no ... (hint: the first dot is in capitals). Something, you know, that is true but that resists being proven. Dunno really - but something in the order of such an improvably true something. Nothing mystical, maybe that was a flaw of Bergson himself, I also don't know, because it is something with which we are able to calculate. Indeed, this something will create new stuff, and that new stuff will get exposed to the existing stuff and out of that confrontation some stuff will prevail and other stuff will be lost (not material stuff of course - but stuff made out of those materials and nothing else). And so forth. And so on. Etcetera. Etc. Darwin.

Not the kind of stuff you can hope for. Not at all stuff that will come to your rescue & certainly not stuff that will listen to what you're not saying.

But maybe this is something that can be said of our stuff: that it is the type of stuff that'll make sure that we have to do an effort not to end well.

Energy/Entropy comes to mind. What is entropy?

(I'm starting to sound like Wittgenstein; sorry, I'll cut it out)

What I wanted to say when I started saying something here & wound up saying what is above: it's not a mystical thing that we need, even if Bergson (& I - with less good excuses I have to admit, more than a century on) could only give it a mystical name - something 'vital'. But it ís vital because it does bring hope without the 'Trojan' virus that is so exceedingly well adapted to our discrete thoughts.

It brings hope because, looking back, we see its impetus is in the direction of better adaptation, the direction of improvement. If energy comes from suns, plants always tend to evolve to trees. It can take forever & maybe even literally (never happen - I mean): but trees will never evolve away from the sun. Animals'll tend to intelligence, and intelligent animals to socialization and social animals to interaction & interaction with some luck to language and language to justice.

Oversimplified, I know, but you get the gist and the gist is everything I can convey - decadence is a logical impossibility - i.e. everything labeled like that has something we should identify and cherish. Or (strictly for later use) - from one thing always two.

One of the next times: Kant's argument for the after-life & a new type of after-life - kidding you not.


"Mechanistic thought will, rightly, attack final causes for its antropomorphic character. But it doesn't recognize that it proceeds following this same method, simply by leaving out a final cause. Without any doubt it makes tabula rasa with the objective sought after or with ideal models. But it wants, it as well, that nature works like the human worker, putting together piece parts."


Whilst wirting this I was listening to Valentin Silvestrov, Metamusik and Postludium, ECM New Series.

19:27 Gepost door Guido Nius in Muziek | Permalink | Commentaren (0) | Tags: bergson, scientism, dynamics, mind-mind dualism, identity |  Facebook |