Number One: Try to (walking quickly) be.
Number Two: Count to ten, smile, count to ten.
Number Three: Big shoes.
Number Four: Washing big shoes.
Number Five: Buying things and spending money.
Number Six: Counting things.
Number Seven: Inventing facial expressions.
Number Eight: Parking.
Number Nine: Fixing things.
Number Ten: Writing letters.
Number Eleven: Studying maps, inventing street names.
Number Twelve: Scraping the garden.
Number Thirteen: Putting the garden in the house.
Number Fourteen: Pointy things.
Number 15: Bumpy things.
Number Sixteen: Broken things.
Number Seventeen: Finding the bank.
Number Eighteen: Finding the window.
Number Nineteen: Writing a book.
Number Twenty: Finding the book.
Number Twenty-one: Little houses.
Number Twenty-two: Counting the houses.
Number Twenty-three: Drinking things.
Number Twenty-four: Watching other things.
Number Twenty-five: Putting houses next to bumpy things.
Number Twenty-six: Shaking things next to other things.
-D. Byrne, "The Knee Plays"
Sunday, 29 June 2008
Friday, 27 June 2008
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
EXCERCISE:
1. Consider an object or event.
2. Determine its limits.
3. Determine the limits more precisely.
4. Repeat, until further precision is impossible.
2. Determine its limits.
3. Determine the limits more precisely.
4. Repeat, until further precision is impossible.
Monday, 23 June 2008
the vatican is having a conference to mark the 150th anniversary of darwin's origin of species
this is funny. please help me find more. the vatican has no blog.
Philoctetes
Philoctetes: The Multidisciplinary Study of Imagination
from their website...
Philoctetes is a mythological character from the Greek tragedy by Sophocles, a warrior who was on his way to the Trojan War when a serpent bit him. The smell of his wound was so noxious that he was left on the island of Lemnos and ostracized by his countrymen. When the war started, Cassandra, the seer, said that without the bow of Heracles, which is only possessed by Philoctetes and which he inherited from his father, the war could not be won. Many believe that it's the Trojan Horse that is the key to winning the war, but actually it's the bow of Heracles.
So the Argives have to humbly go back to Philoctetes and ask him to rejoin them. At first he says no. From all the pain that you have given me, even if I could regain my glory, I reject you, even if it's at the cost of my own redemption. Even at the cost of reconstituting my own existence. Eventually, there is a deus ex machina that comes in to relieve him of the burden of this decision, and so the Argives regain the bow and eventually go on to win the war.
The Philoctetes myth reappears in a book by Edmund Wilson called The Wound and the Bow: Seven Studies in Literature. Wilson modernizes the story, tying the wound to psychic trauma and the bow to the healing power of insight. And so the creative personality is the one who uses art as a way of transcending trauma. The artist chooses the road of insight over that of pathology.
Philoctetes the master archer had led them on in seven ships with fifty oarsmen aboard each, superbly skilled with the bow in lethal combat. But their captain lay on an island, racked with pain, on Lemnos' holy shores where the armies had marooned him, agonized by his wound, the bite of a deadly water-viper. There he writhed in pain but soon, encamped by the ships, the Argives would recall Philoctetes, their great king.
From Homer: The Illiad. Translated by Robert Fagles. p. 122
from their website...
Philoctetes is a mythological character from the Greek tragedy by Sophocles, a warrior who was on his way to the Trojan War when a serpent bit him. The smell of his wound was so noxious that he was left on the island of Lemnos and ostracized by his countrymen. When the war started, Cassandra, the seer, said that without the bow of Heracles, which is only possessed by Philoctetes and which he inherited from his father, the war could not be won. Many believe that it's the Trojan Horse that is the key to winning the war, but actually it's the bow of Heracles.
So the Argives have to humbly go back to Philoctetes and ask him to rejoin them. At first he says no. From all the pain that you have given me, even if I could regain my glory, I reject you, even if it's at the cost of my own redemption. Even at the cost of reconstituting my own existence. Eventually, there is a deus ex machina that comes in to relieve him of the burden of this decision, and so the Argives regain the bow and eventually go on to win the war.
The Philoctetes myth reappears in a book by Edmund Wilson called The Wound and the Bow: Seven Studies in Literature. Wilson modernizes the story, tying the wound to psychic trauma and the bow to the healing power of insight. And so the creative personality is the one who uses art as a way of transcending trauma. The artist chooses the road of insight over that of pathology.
Philoctetes the master archer had led them on in seven ships with fifty oarsmen aboard each, superbly skilled with the bow in lethal combat. But their captain lay on an island, racked with pain, on Lemnos' holy shores where the armies had marooned him, agonized by his wound, the bite of a deadly water-viper. There he writhed in pain but soon, encamped by the ships, the Argives would recall Philoctetes, their great king.
From Homer: The Illiad. Translated by Robert Fagles. p. 122
Sunday, 22 June 2008
No Bird Flies Too High except for
No bird flies to high if he flies with his own wings. --William Blake
some of hp's answers
I've been thinking a lot about the solipsism problem that might result from a belief in interpretative indeterminacy. Meaning, if all is interpretation -- and that too is an interpretation, as Nietzsche says -- how do I ever hear another(/an Other)'s voice? Or, more exactly, how do I ever KNOW I'm hearing another's voice?
I find theories of misunderstanding to hold some compromise between radical solipsism and a too-easy relationship with the Other. Meaning, if I can have my expectations foiled (or "pulled up short" in Gadamer's terms), then (presumably) I'm not alone in a self-projected universe. However, I could know I've misunderstood someone without knowing whether I have now understood them correctly. Meaning, all experiences of misunderstanding might be (MIGHT be) preludes to further misunderstandings/experiences of being pulled up short. I find that position somewhat "comforting" -- even if it's not ideal for some.
As for, why study, create interpretations, etc.? -- B/c it's delightful! I like other people's creations, so I also like my own. I find having new thoughts/perspectives really enjoyable. Moreimportantly, I find the discovery of really new pointsof view to be (at least, temporarily) liberating. I feel less intellectually claustrophobic/trapped if I realize I can think about the world in a radically different way today than I did yesterday. My hunger for academic research is largely an addiction to this experience, and I prefer books published by Oxford University Press to internet sites on theology largely (and maybe even exclusively!) b/c those books (said "responsible academic scholarship") give me more ideas, more clearly articulated, more fully couched in larger, relevant academic debates. They hold forth greater promise of giving me new ideas that don't seem like mere self affirming self-projections or cultural projections. (In other words, I find really "outlandish" non-scholarly claims {e.g., about art history or theology} to be not very surprising/outlandish -- instead, they seem to unconsciously re-articulate the cultural assumptions that I'm trying to "transcend" {or, at least, "relativize"} through my studies of different times and places. Put simply, if a 21st cent. person tries to think about God in a new way, that person tends to reproduce, in an only slightly altered form, common ways of thinking about God today. But if I look at the way a 14th cent. Italian thought about God in a rigorous theological argument, I often find assumptions there that I don't presently hold. Ergo, bingo! A new outlook!)
Does that make sense?
I find theories of misunderstanding to hold some compromise between radical solipsism and a too-easy relationship with the Other. Meaning, if I can have my expectations foiled (or "pulled up short" in Gadamer's terms), then (presumably) I'm not alone in a self-projected universe. However, I could know I've misunderstood someone without knowing whether I have now understood them correctly. Meaning, all experiences of misunderstanding might be (MIGHT be) preludes to further misunderstandings/experiences of being pulled up short. I find that position somewhat "comforting" -- even if it's not ideal for some.
As for, why study, create interpretations, etc.? -- B/c it's delightful! I like other people's creations, so I also like my own. I find having new thoughts/perspectives really enjoyable. Moreimportantly, I find the discovery of really new pointsof view to be (at least, temporarily) liberating. I feel less intellectually claustrophobic/trapped if I realize I can think about the world in a radically different way today than I did yesterday. My hunger for academic research is largely an addiction to this experience, and I prefer books published by Oxford University Press to internet sites on theology largely (and maybe even exclusively!) b/c those books (said "responsible academic scholarship") give me more ideas, more clearly articulated, more fully couched in larger, relevant academic debates. They hold forth greater promise of giving me new ideas that don't seem like mere self affirming self-projections or cultural projections. (In other words, I find really "outlandish" non-scholarly claims {e.g., about art history or theology} to be not very surprising/outlandish -- instead, they seem to unconsciously re-articulate the cultural assumptions that I'm trying to "transcend" {or, at least, "relativize"} through my studies of different times and places. Put simply, if a 21st cent. person tries to think about God in a new way, that person tends to reproduce, in an only slightly altered form, common ways of thinking about God today. But if I look at the way a 14th cent. Italian thought about God in a rigorous theological argument, I often find assumptions there that I don't presently hold. Ergo, bingo! A new outlook!)
Does that make sense?
some of hp's questions:
My main question these days: What's a healthy/productive/responsible way for a radical skeptic to live (esp. w/ regards to religion)? Preliminary answer: I'm toying with the idea of approaching the life as a theater (cf. Shakespeare's "All the world's a stage"), in which we play our parts robustly, even if, in some real sense, "insincerely" and without any assurance that our performance is legitimate....f course, when people here that I approach life as a theater/work of art, they worry that I'm not taking life seriously enough. However, I would say those people don't know me very well and more to the point don't know how seriously I take art. A theatrical approach to life doesn't give me the license to hurt people b/c it might make a good "scene." Instead, it mainly helps by getting me to do 2 things: 1) To take every action as seriously as I would take the actions of my characters were I composing a novel; and 2) To let me act "earnestly" (or at least passionately) even if I lack an inner, "sincere" feeling of good intentions/attitudes/etc.
and later on...
While I may be accused, at first glance, of being "fake," I would defend my actions in the following way: 1) Is being fake really so bad in and of itself? Isn't it mainly bad when it is self-serving (brown-nosing to get a job, acting smart to get people's attention, etc.)? On the contrary, my performance is largely solicitous towards others (e.g., my daughter my students, et al).
2) Isn't my desire to do the things I want to do to help others (despite my inner cynicism, or at least confusion about what I "really" feel/want) a sign that I actually do feel a certain positive way? In other words, while I may lack the inner convictions to motivate my actions, isn't my conviction to act as though I have the convictions itself an important, telling conviction? Put in F&Z terms, isn't the desire to want to live well a sign that it's not too late to live well (or, at least, to attempt it with full passion)? Put in awkward religious terms, isn't one's desire to overcome a past of guilt and sin despite feelings of inadequacy to accomplish that overcoming itself already a sign that something has helped you (start to) overcome it?
and later on...
While I may be accused, at first glance, of being "fake," I would defend my actions in the following way: 1) Is being fake really so bad in and of itself? Isn't it mainly bad when it is self-serving (brown-nosing to get a job, acting smart to get people's attention, etc.)? On the contrary, my performance is largely solicitous towards others (e.g., my daughter my students, et al).
2) Isn't my desire to do the things I want to do to help others (despite my inner cynicism, or at least confusion about what I "really" feel/want) a sign that I actually do feel a certain positive way? In other words, while I may lack the inner convictions to motivate my actions, isn't my conviction to act as though I have the convictions itself an important, telling conviction? Put in F&Z terms, isn't the desire to want to live well a sign that it's not too late to live well (or, at least, to attempt it with full passion)? Put in awkward religious terms, isn't one's desire to overcome a past of guilt and sin despite feelings of inadequacy to accomplish that overcoming itself already a sign that something has helped you (start to) overcome it?
GUERILLA GARDENING. it's all happening.
ILLICIT CULTIVATION. "It is now a growing arsenal for anyone interested in the war against the neglect of public space and has become a meeting place for guerilla gardeners around the world." Fight the filth with forms and flowers.
1. HERE
2. This city will bloom.
3. Herbal-terrorism (Ka-Bloom!!)
1. HERE
2. This city will bloom.
3. Herbal-terrorism (Ka-Bloom!!)
outdated?
Of all these myths, none is more firmly anchored in masculine hearts than that of the feminine "mystery." It has numerous advantages. And first of all it permits and easy explanation of all that appears inexplicable; to man who "does not understand" a woman is happy to substitude an objective resistance for a subjective deficiency of mind; instead of admitting his ignorance, he perceives the presence of a "mystery" outside himself: an alibi, indeed, that flatters laziness and vanity at once. A heart smitten with love thus avoids many disappointments: if the loved one's behavior is capricious, her remarks stupid, then the mystery serves to excuse all. And finally, thanks again to the mystery, that negative relation is perpetuate which seemed to Kierkegaard infinitely preferable to positive possession; in the compnay of a living enigma man remains alone -- alone with his dreams, his hopes, his fears, his love, his vanity. This subjective game, which can go all the way from vice to mystical ecstacy, is for many a more attractive experience than an authentic relation with a human being. What foundations exist for such a profitable illusion?-----Simone de Beavouir, The Second Sex, p. 289
ontology
Going to start categorizing everything i do as:
HIGH BROW, LOW BROW, MIDDLE BROW, no BROW or n/a:
such as, this evening i watched: HIGH FIDELITY (midbrow: Sonic Death Monkey, Kathleen Turner Overdrive, Barry Jive, and the Uptown Five) Try it with me to get a meta-sense of all your pretentious friends! Then later I watched Foucault and Chomsky translated debates on youtube.com THUS high brow.
Where this type of categorization will lead me I know not.
HIGH BROW, LOW BROW, MIDDLE BROW, no BROW or n/a:
such as, this evening i watched: HIGH FIDELITY (midbrow: Sonic Death Monkey, Kathleen Turner Overdrive, Barry Jive, and the Uptown Five) Try it with me to get a meta-sense of all your pretentious friends! Then later I watched Foucault and Chomsky translated debates on youtube.com THUS high brow.
Where this type of categorization will lead me I know not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
