Skip to main content

“Throwness” into many worlds

Stepping off an airplane we throw ourselves into completely different worlds. Like when we are born, except that when travelling we have a choice. It can be a shock to the system, forcing us to constantly adapt — to different temperatures, people, and ways of life.

Throwing myself from the small-town world of Hickory, North Carolina, via the buzz of New York, into the fast-paced mountain-view winter world of Vancouver for three weeks; directly into the hot humid horse-cart raw world of Nicaragua for three weeks; then back home to be whooshed into the world of family and close friends, where I’ve now been for three weeks… has led my mind down a rabbit hole of thought about the many worlds in which we dwell.

Heidegger writes about the situation of “thrownness” in which we find ourselves — born into a world that is always already there. Whether we like it or not, since the moment of conception we are growing into particular ways of relating to each other and particular ways of interpreting the things that surround us. Our essence, our identity, is inseparable from the matrix of relationships that comprise the many worlds we are absorbed in — even if we don’t know it.

“My Scene”, by Aussie hip hop artist Seth Sentry, made me think about the worlds within worlds within worlds within worlds in which we (by choice or default) have our being:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnGYgWU_ieA[/youtube]

What’s my scene? At this very moment, my scene is this:

Well, that’s the scene from my new balcony… talk about urban living! Inside the house is a little paradise, but more about that some other time.

My present task, now back in Oz, is to re-create my world to be the one in which I want to live. Some things have been easy to re-adjust to, like good coffee, hot showers, and putting toilet paper down the toilet (instead of a basket next to you). Other things are more difficult… noticing spider webs before you are covered them for example.

I’ve thrown myself into a mix of old and new: old and new jobs, old and new friends, a new room in a new location filled with my old furniture & belongings, a new wardrobe filled with new clothes from the 50s, 60s & 70s – from Nancy Sutton, a socialite who recently passed away at 94.

http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/designer-wear-under-hammer/

It’s been fun. And to top it off this weekend I’m throwing myself into a world of sailing and sunshine in Jervis Bay. Now that’s my kind of scene! Yep – it’s good to be back in the Land of Oz 🙂

PROTECT IP / SOPA Act Breaks the Internet

On Jan 24th the US senate will vote on the PROTECT IP / SOPA Act:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGEUhCfQ464[/youtube]

Today, on the Jan 18th, my site will join hundreds/thousands of sites in a blackout strike from 8am-8pm to encourage people to sign the petition against such censoring of the internet.

There’s different petitions for people from different places if you scroll down on this website:

http://americancensorship.org/

New Moon Wishes on Xmas Eve

Have you ever not known what to wish for? Last night, the 24th of December 2011, was a new moon. Making wishes on a new moon is a tradition for me that started with two friends in Sydney right before we travelled to South America. We wrote a list of dreams, looked up at the stars and asked the universe to bring them to us. Everything on our list came true, well, almost.

Apparently on a new moon, or as a new moon grows to a full moon, the universe’s energy is the best for making wishes. It seems even more significant to make these wishes on an evening that so many people are celebrating the Winter/Summer Solstice (depending where you are) and the religious and cultural traditions adjoined to it.

Yet for a brief moment last night I couldn’t think what to wish for. I asked myself why? I concluded it might be due to a resent mellow acceptance of The Universe. She has more power than I. She is the player, I but a pawn.

If I can slit my wrist on a table after teaching zumba, be in the front seat of a car when it crashes, and fall from a scooter going down a straight road with no bumps, I can hurt myself anywhere. Each were part my choices – the places I had put myself – and part chance – the randomness of each accident. The thing is, if I can come out of the above three accidents with a few scratches but no permanent damage, I have a lot to be thankful for.

We have agency over but a few things in our lives. We have choice, but all our choices are limited to the cards we are dealt. We can’t chose where we are born. Our bodies and minds are constantly being reshaped by our surroundings. I’m not saying we live in a deterministic universe, nor an in-deterministic one. It seems clear to me we live in a universe that is some kind of mix of the two. Understanding this dialogic between determinism and in-determinism helps, in a round-about way, when it comes to making wishes.

Last night I could have been at home in Sydney celebrating Christmas with my family. Instead I did it through Skype. This was my choice. It was a choice made only a few days before my flight, and only because of certain changes in my environment.  Namely, I missed out on a scholarship I was counting on to continue my PhD research in 2012. I decided to delay Sydney’s rental market and take my friend up on her offer to stay with her for a month in Vancouver: take some time to think, to figure out if missing out on the scholarship was a door closing, or if it were pointing to some other order of priorities.

All the signs point that this is the right decision. On the day I should have been on a plane I ate lunch with my supervisor from Sydney, who happened to be passing through Van. Now I have January to work hard on my thesis, and let the snowy mountains heal the year’s wounds.

In the end the wishes I put to the universe couldn’t have been more generic:

  • safety
  • health
  • love
  • success
  • peace
  • clarity

 

 

So, even if you can’t think of specific wishes, light a candle and make some generic ones like these… Wish them on tonight’s new(ish) moon, and HAVE A HAPPY CHRISTMAS!!! 

Chemistry, Timing & Ted’s Colour Criteria

What’s the difference between a “modernist love” and a “romantic love”? Is it only fools who fall for the latter? Is one more destined for failure? Let me illustrate with episodes 1 and 2 from season 7 of How I Met Your Mother – which is what inspired this line of thought…

Ted compares two girls he is dating on a colour chart – ranking them on five criteria:

  1. Level of Attractiveness
  2. Intellectual stimulation
  3. Emotional connection
  4. Compatibility of life goals
  5. Whether or not she reached for the cheque

In the end (predictably… as this show is becoming) Ted realizes that none of this is what really matters.

“That,” Ted points to Barney (who has been sitting in the same diner seat for 9-hours waiting for his love), “That is what I want. The way Barney feels about Nora. I want that feeling again. I don’t want to be choosing between two girls — I want to be completely head-over-heels with one.

I think it’s when a while has passed since we’ve experienced “that” feeling, we try to define, compare, compromise and select, based on various criteria. It’s only when you feel “it” again, that business-like negotiations reveal their fickleness. When you fall in love, there are no negotiations. When you’re in love, the decision has already been made.

About a month ago in Storytelling class we spent an hour looking at the “Social Construction of Love”. That is, questioning how our ideas on love are formed.

Gergen and Gergen (in “What is this thing called love? Emotional scenarios in historical perspective.” Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1995, 5, 221-237) explored the evolution of our romantic scripts. They identified ‘two opposing discourses of love that inform our enactment and narration of courtship: romantic love and modernist love:

  • Romantic love is an intense, spiritual passion that reason cannot touch, that emanates from the lover’s innermost depths, and whose ultimate goal is unity with the beloved.
  • Modernist love is practical and sceptical, rational and self-analytical. It emphasizes the exchange value and performatives qualities of relationships. Compatible with a culture of consumerism… ” (Baddeley and Singer 2007: 188)

In HIMYM we saw Ted looking for “modernist love”, and in the end he returns to his “romantic love”. I don’t think any amount of analysis can pinpoint what causes the romantic love. If you’ve ever been truly in love, you know it. There is a distinct feeling. There are no questions.

Yet my questions continue: what causes a person to fall in love? Is love, as suggested in a previous episode of HIMYM, a function of chemistry and timing?

And this brings me to yet another question: what causes chemistry?

Is, in full circle, chemistry a result of some kind of combination of Ted’s colour chart criteria? How are chemistry and timing related? The number of times I’ve experienced chemistry when the timing is all wrong makes me think there’s a negative correlation between the two. ie the worse the timing, the better the chemistry. Or have I just been unlucky? To what extent should one go to change the latter when they find the former?

One of my favourite descriptions of “How do you know when you are in love?” comes from the movie On Gods & Men:

“There is something inside you that comes alive. The presence of someone. It is irrepressible and makes your heart beat faster, usually. It’s an attraction, a desire. It is very beautiful. No use asking too many questions. It just happens. Things are as usual, then suddenly, happiness arrives or the hope of it. It’s lots of things. But you are in turmoil. Great turmoil. Especially the first time”.

That’s what I want. But maybe I’m just a fool 🙂

Social Construction of Wealth and Happiness

Wealth isn’t only socially constructed. Neither is poverty. Are wealth and poverty only about stuff? How about being wealthy or poor in time? Or in spirit? Pleasure? Love? Friendship? Does the pursuit of wealth in purely monetary terms cause us more problems than the benefits it brings?

George Carlin on Stuff to start it off:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac[/youtube]

There are many ways to view the world, each built up by a one’s social environment and upbringing. The social construction of childhood:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01xYdGsisf8[/youtube]

‘The world’s most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain, small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status.’ [2]

What do you think of this statement? Is poverty only relational, or are there some absolutes in an availability of resources sense?

The intro to The Gods Must Be Crazy demonstrates colossally different worldviews:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66pTPWg_wUw[/youtube]

‘We are inclined to think of hunters and gatherers as poor because they don’t have anything; perhaps better to think of them for that reason as free.’[4]

Sidelining the danger of falling into “Noble Savage” idealizations/criticisms (ie recognizing that hunger & gatherer lifestyles have their problems too, and moving on), let us talk briefly about the contrast between common Western lifestyles (40-hour work weeks, sitting on computers) and a couple of alternative lifeways.

‘Hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and, rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society.’[4]

So… what is affluence/wealth?

According to Sahlins, an  ‘affluent society is one in which all the people’s material wants are easily satisfied.’

It is interesting to contrast our “Galbraithean” way of life (‘wants are great’ + ‘means are limited’) with the “Zen road to affluence” whereby people can enjoy an ‘unparalleled material plenty – with a low standard of living.’ [1]

Today’s growth/market/consumer-based economy is based on a ‘perpetual disparity’ with ‘unlimited wants’ and ‘insufficient means’. No matter how much “stuff” we accumulate, we always want more. Do you think even the most “wealthy” people in our world today are affluent? How many hours do they work? Are they happy?

In some cultures, value is about ‘freedom of movement.’ [3]

Social construction of wealth and happiness: does wealth make us happy?

This order of happiness ‘is not a result to be attained through action, but a fact to be realized through knowledge. The sphere of action is to express it, not to gain it.’ [5] More on happiness: https://julietbennett.com/2011/11/06/life-is-a-game-alan-watts-happiness/

I guess there are many different ways to be in the world, and different paths to wealth, health, love and happiness… kinda like there are many ways of interpreting the dots below…

[6]



 

[1] Marshall David Sahlins, ‘Chapter One: The Original Affluent Society’, Stone Age Economics (New York: Aldine, 1972). p, 2.

[2] Ibid. p. 35.

[3] Ibid. p. 12.

[4] Ibid. p. 14.

[5] Alan Watts, The Meaning of Happiness: The Quest for Freedom of the Spirit in Modern Psychology and the Wisdom of the East (London: Village Press, 1968). p. iv.

[6] Hiebert, Paul G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews : An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Social Constructions of Beauty

Anata wa chisai atama!” You have a small head! — a compliment in Japan. So much to the extent that some Japanese wear a five-pound Small-Face-Make-Belt around the head while sleeping. Apparently it helps your head shrink over time. A good example of the role of society in constructing one’s idea of beauty.

Behind “beauty”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAnRQncZ_uk[/youtube]

Ok, so beauty isn’t only an idea constructed by society. It’s hard to dispute that Victoria’s Secret models are beautiful.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3oQP61aUIA[/youtube]

But… would they have been beautiful in the 50s?

A (very) brief, limited and generalized history of beauty:

  • 16th Century – flat chest, 13-inch waist
  • 17th Century – large bust and hips, white complexion
  • 19th century – tiny waist, full hips and bust
  • 1920s – slender legs and hips, small bust
  • 1940s & 50s – hourglass shape
  • 1960s – lean, youthful body with long hair
  • 1970s – thin, tan
  • 1980s – slim but muscular, toned
  • 1990s – heroin chic
  • 2000s – thin bodies with large breasts

What are some of the differences between a Marilyn Monroe & a Kate Moss?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZRs__rmYMc[/youtube]

Following that song, it is interesting to consider how society constructs our ideas about wealth? And love, which I will post on soon…

How do our stories about beauty, wealth and love impact our experience of happiness?

 

 

Poking Fun at Society’s Stories

Today I’m looking at the Social Construction of Reality. How does society construct our reality? Comedians do a good job at pointing it out…

George Carlin: The American Dream

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q[/youtube]

Chris Rock: Can White People Say Nigger?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0[/youtube]

Eddie Izzard: Do you have a flag?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k[/youtube]

 

 

 

Philosophy and Poetics: Aristotle

‘All human beings by nature desire knowledge.’ Opening sentence of his book Metaphysics. For Aristotle, it is the desire for knowledge at root of what it is to be human. Aristotle wrote on Ethics, Politics, Poetics, Physics and Metaphysics. This gives you a funny introduction, but by no means gives a good overview of his work.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm0Uq08xXhY[/youtube]

In the study of narrative, which is one of the key topics of my research, it is Aristotle who, the deconstruction and analysis of the components of narrative is often credited. These are my notes from Poetics[1]. It’s only a short book, so it may be better to read it for yourself… but to give you a taster, here are some of the terms and ideas about which Aristotle writes…

Tekne = craft, skill or art. Aristotle defines tekne as a ‘productive capacity informed by an understanding of its intrinsic rationale.’ ‘For Aristotle, the evolution of human culture is in large part the evolution of tekhne.’ Tekne includes:

  1. necessities
  2. recreational arts – improve quality of human life
  3. philosophy – sense of wonder

Poets must project themselves into the emotions of others. It requires nature talent or even a touch of insanity. Metaphor – require the ability to perceive similarities – something natural gift that can’t be taught. Aristotle analyses tragedy, and in particular the Homeric poems.

Some key terms and ideas:

  • Plot – ordered sequence of events;  the ‘imitation of the action’; Stories have a beginning, middle and end; an ordered structure with ‘connected series of events: one thing follows on another as a necessary consequence’; a self-contained series of events ie closure ‘at both ends, and connected in between.’
  • Actions – performed by agents
  • Agents – with necessary ‘moral and intellectual characteristics’, ‘expressed in what they do and say’
  • From this we deduce character and reasoningare constituent parts
    • Character is ‘that in respect of which we say that the agent is of a certain kind’
    • Reasoning is ‘the speech which the agents use to argue a case or put forward an opinion’
  • Reasoning comes from two factors: whether I am honest, and how I interpret the situation.
  • Rhythm – diction and lyric poetry ‘Rhythmical language is tragedy’s medium; it is a means to tragedy’s end, that end being the imitation of an action.’
  • Spectacle – everything visible on stage
  • Language is there to help realize the plot’s potential, and in that sense is subordinate and secondary.’
  • Praxis – ‘suffering (pathos) is “an action [praxis] that involves destruction or pain” (52b11f)

Furthermore:

  • imitation of action- action is an imitation of agents – reasoning – ability to ‘say what is implicit in a situation and appropriate to it
  • character – ‘is the kind of thing which discloses the nature of a choice’: goodness; appropriateness; likeness; consistency. ‘since tragedy is an imitation of people better than we are, one should imitate good portrait-painters. In rendering the individual form, they paint people as they are, but make them better-looking.’ Eg ‘Homer portrayed Achilles as both a good man and a paradigm of obstinacy.’
  • reasoning refers to the means by which people argue that something is or is not the case, or put forward some universal proposition’
  • diction’ = ‘verbal expression’ song and spectacle
  • ‘Well-being and ill-being reside in action, and the goal of life is an activity, not a quality.’
  • Hamartia ‘includes errors made in ignorance or through misjudgement; but it will also include moral errors of a kind which do not imply wickedness’

Success/failure of stories:

  • Astonishment – ability to evoke fear or pity
  • ‘purification’ or katharsis
  • correct magnitude. Eg ‘it is not enough to juxtapose prosperity and misery; the change from one to another must be the result of a sequence of necessarily connected events.’
  • Completeness: ‘a whole is that which has a beginning, a middle and an end. A beginning is that which itself does not follow necessarily form anything else, but some second thing naturally exists or occurs after it. Conversely, an end is that which does itself naturally follow from something else, ether necessarily or in general, but there is nothing else after it. A middle is that which itself comes after something else, and some other thing comes after it.’
  • Magnitude ‘they should have a certain length, and this should be such as can readily be held in memory’
  • Unity
  • Determinate structure – ‘the plot, as the imitation of an action, should imitate a single, unified action – and also one that is a whole.’ ‘if the presence or absence of something has no discernible effect, it is not a part of the whole.
  • Universality – ‘poetry tends to express universals, and history particulars
  • visualising the action
  • complication and resolution

There are simple plots and complex plots – the later which has a reversal or recognition

  • Recognition (anagnorisis) is ‘a change from ignorance to knowledge’ (52a29-31)
  • Reversal (peripeteia) is an  ‘overturn of expectation’ – ‘change to the opposite in the actions being performed’ (52a22f) – not just a change in fortune, but involves an astonishing inversion of the expected outcome of some action – but not at the cost of a necessary or probably connection’
  • the best kinds of recognition arise out of a reversal
  • Both ‘reveal that the situation in which character has been acting was misinterpreted’ pxxx

The best kinds of tragic plot have two variables in the change:

  • the direction of the change;
  • the moral status of the person (who is ideally someone in between being exceptionally virtuous and exceptionally wicked.)

Anthropology and history of poetry

  • Origins: ‘imitation comes naturally to human beings from childhood… this is the reason why people take delight in seeing images; what happens is that as they view them they come to understand and work out what each thing is (e.g. ‘This is so-an-so’).48b4
  • Homer – composed well and made his imitations dramatic = Iliad and Odyssey
  • Comedy – ‘the laughable is an error or disgrace that does not involve pain or destruction.’
  • Epic – ‘differ in length, since tragedy tries so far as possible to keep within a single day… whereas epic is unrestricted in time.’

Best kinds:

  • First introduction
  • First deduction ‘pity has to do with the undeserving sufferer, fear with the person like us’
  • Second introduction ‘sufferings arise within close relationships, e.g. brother kills brother… or is on the verge of killing…’ ‘people acting in full knowledge and awareness’ / or ‘terrible deed in ignorance and only then to recognize the close connection’ as in Sophocles’ Oedipus
  • Performing action ‘performing the action is second; but it is better if the action is performed in ignorance and followed by a recognition’ p23
  • Second deduction

Why the disappearance of epics and tragedy?

In the Introduction to Aristotle’s Poetics, Malcolm Heath says that  ‘once the optimum form of anything has been achieved, further development of it is by definition is impossible thereafter, there can only be (at best) a proliferation of different instances of that optimum form… [recognising that] social and institutional factors, as well as individual incompetence, may inhibit the continued realization of the optimum form’ (51b35-52a1, 53a33-5) pxvi.

In other words once something is perfected (be it a movie/story genre, an art form, a business, a relationship, maybe even an state or empire) there is no where to go, and hence the “optimum form” changes and new genres/empires rise.

 


[1] Aristotle and Malcolm Heath, Poetics (London ; New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1996).

Life is a Game: Alan Watts & Happiness

I have noticed that in times I’m feeling down, reading or listening to Alan Watts makes me happy again. Why? His deep bellowing laugh and sense of humour? Maybe that’s part of it. But really it’s his philosophy, it just “clicks” with me. It makes me feel good. Life is a game, says Watts.  When I hear his words the dramas of my ego disappear into the cosmic drama I’m a playing. I remember that everything I know and think, is just a question of how I am looking at it.

In his book The Meaning of Happiness, Watts recaps the two most common types of books on happiness:

  1. those that tell us how to become happy by changing our circumstances
  2. those that tell us how to become happy by changing ourselves

His book falls into neither of these two categories:  ‘it is possible in a certain sense to become happy without doing anything about it.[1] Watts explains that he sees happiness as ‘not a result to be attained through action, but a fact to be realized through knowledge. The sphere of action is to express it, not to gain it.[2]

Happiness, says Watts, starts with total acceptance: a ‘yes-saying to everything that we experience, the unreserved acceptance of what we are, of what we feel and know at this and every moment.’ [3]

It is only when you seek it that you lose it... Like your shadow, the more you chase it, the more it runs away. [4]

Life and happiness is ‘unusually complicated because in fact it is unusually simple; its solution lies so close to us and is so self-evident that we have the greatest difficulty in seeing it, and we must complicate it in order to bring it into focus and be able to discuss it at all. This may seem a terrible paradox, but it is said that a paradox is only a truth standing on its head to attract attention… Nothing could be more obvious and self-evident than a man’s own face; but oddly enough he cannot see it at all unless he introduces the complication of a mirror, which shows it to him reversed. The image he sees is his face and yet it is not his face, and this is a form of paradox.’ [5]

In The Nature of Consciousness Watts explains that in his philosophy ‘there is no difference between the physical and the spiritual. These are absolutely out-of-date categories. It’s all process; it isn’t ‘stuff’ on the one hand and ‘form’ on the other. It’s just pattern— life is pattern. It is a dance of energy. And so I will never invoke spooky knowledge. That is, that I’ve had a private revelation or that I have sensory vibrations going on a plane which you don’t have. Everything is standing right out in the open, it’s just a question of how you look at it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29atSZKbmS4[/youtube]

We are expressions of The Transcendent playing a game of hide and seek with Itself:

‘You have seen that the universe is at root a magical illusion and a fabulous game, and that there is no separate “you” to get something out of it, as if life were a bank to be robbed. The only real “you” is the one that comes and goes, manifests and withdraws itself eternally in and as every conscious being. For “you” is the universe looking at itself from billions of points of view, points that come and go so that the vision is forever new.’ [6]

 

As in this symbolic representation of John Wheeler’s “Participatory Universe”, we see ourselves as the reflexive eye that has emerged within life’s story, and looks back at where it has come from. So… if you’re feeling down, remember:
Accept your self, just as you are.
Accept the world, just as it is.
See the connections.
Live. Die. Hide. Seek.
Don’t chase happiness, express it.
Life is a game, have fun with it.
Participate. Play.

[1] Alan Watts, The Meaning of Happiness: The Quest for Freedom of the Spirit in Modern Psychology and the Wisdom of the East (London: Village Press, 1968). p. xi.
[2] The Meaning of Happiness. p. iv.
[3] The Meaning of Happiness. p. vi.
[4] The Meaning of Happiness. p. xxi.
[5] The Meaning of Happiness. p. xxiii.

[6] Alan Watts, The Book : On the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are (London: Jonathan Cape, 1969). p. 118.