An Overview on Polarity: Namely Happiness and Suffering
"The Pain then is part of the Happiness Now."
and likewise
"The Suffering Now is part of the Happiness Then."
The other night in McMurran 213 we discussed this concept of happiness and suffering/pleasure and pain, and how the two are fundamentally, if not inexorably interwoven. By this point, it should be no wonderous discovery to any college student that these two polarities are binary oppositions, that is, they revolve around one another, in fact, in essence, create one another.
The idea began jumping out at me during high school and solidified after about a year or so into college. One side of emotion cannot exist without the other. Beyond emotion, I might add, NO aspect of anything cannot exist without it's diametrical opposite. This genre of thought pervades Taoism and other eastern philosophies, especially exemplified in the yin-yang:
"Being and non-being produce each other./Difficulty and ease bring about each other/Long and short delimit each other./High and low rest on each other./Sound and voice harmoinze each other./Front and back follow each other." (2.6-11.)
Looking at it from a more empirical level, an infinite amount of polarities exist throughout the universe: male and female, cause and effect, subject/object, the concrete and the abstract, good and evil, etc. Each side is interdependent and constitutive of it's opposite. But what is the purpose of this polarity principle?
Guy Merchie, in his book The Seven Mysteries of Life, holds that polarities feed off one another mutually. In reference to the quote from In the Shadow Lands, Guy Merchie states,
"one should think of adversity as a kind of growth hormone at the opposite pole from, yet absolutely essential to, spiritual development" (484).
Together, these dualities create a whole. And more interestingly, perhaps the universe uses these vacillations between antipodes as a way of cosmological communication. It is our trials and tribulations that help define our triumphs, and our triumphs that stand to define our hardships, but we should not necessarily connote them as good and evil. They are two aspects of the same ultimate whole that fosters change and transformation. They create life.
Another quote to let float around your skull:
"In the process of life, all things must be severed outright."
^rapper/poet DoseOne on umbilical chords...
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Matthew Dunlap - Victory
I really like to keep track of what I am listening to while I write. What I am hearing sets my mood of my discussion. When I post I will use a header listing what played when I started to at least capture the initial feel.
[Listening to -|> Fuck Buttons - Okay, Let's Talk About Magic]
Now, victory. I am currently reading James P. Carse's Finite and Infinite Games, which is about viewing life in the paradigm of the games we play with other people. In this, the finite games are the contests we are in during our daily life, be it in business or in the bedroom. To win a game we must convince the audience of the game that we are victors. But to quote Carse:
[Listening to -|> Fuck Buttons - Okay, Let's Talk About Magic]
Now, victory. I am currently reading James P. Carse's Finite and Infinite Games, which is about viewing life in the paradigm of the games we play with other people. In this, the finite games are the contests we are in during our daily life, be it in business or in the bedroom. To win a game we must convince the audience of the game that we are victors. But to quote Carse:
"As with all finite play, an acute contradiction quickly develops at the heart of this attempt. As finite players we will note enter the game with sufficient desire to win unless we are ourselves convinced by the very audience we intend to convince. That is, unless we believe we actually are the losers the audience sees us to be, we will not have the necessary desire to win. The more negatively we assess ourselves, the more we strive to reverse the negative judgment of others. The outcome brings the contradiction to perfection: by proving to the audience they were wrong, we prove to ourselves the audience was right."I found this to be a very interesting view on the desire to "win" at anything. Carse believes in infinite games, ones in which the only goal is to keep the game alive, and that infinite players also play finite games, but do so playfully. I am still unsure if I see his infinite games as actually existing or just the attempt to achieve another victory, that in the game of who has mastered games. What I am sure of is that whether infinite games exist or not, I will always be searching for their existence, because to exist purely in an endless cycle of competition is not a life to lead.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Mike Zang - Eustace Inside the Belly of the Beast
I noticed a recurrent theme within Eustace's journey into the dragon's lair. A theme that pervades myth throughout the age - that is the concept of transformation. In most instances, this transformation occurs on a concrete physical level in order to better illstrate and more clearly portray how the character has undergone some significant evolution. Joseph Campbell, in The Man With 1,000 Faces, dubs this literary phenomena diving into the "belly of the whale" (90).
"The idea that the passage of the magical threshold is a transit into a sphere of rebirth is symbolized in the worldwide womb image of the belly of the whale. The hero, instead of conquering or conciliating the power of the threshold, is swallowed into the unknown, and would appear to have died" (90).
This citation conflates several critical aspects of Lewis's myth. It appears pervasively throughout the Chronicles. Here we have this notion of the "Unknown," (Faerie) a space void of "traditional" rationality, into which the focused character pioneers. In Eustace's case, he mistakenly trudges into a deep, dark valley and finds the cave of a dragon.
"The temple interior, the belly of the whale, and the heavenly land beyond, above, and below the confines of the world, are one and the same. That is why the approaches and entrances to temples are flanked and defended by colossal gargoyles: dragons, lions, devil-slayers. . ." (92).
Thus the dragon, in this sense, "dragonifies" (I mean personify, really) Eustace's ugly stubbornness and cruelty. His entrance into the cave, and the subsequent transformation into a dragon depicts an overexaggerated form of his actual self. The process as a whole however, his later encounter with Aslan, reveals the true motive of self-annihilation, which Eustace accomplishes. Therefore, with the escape from the cave and the reverse transmutation back into human form, Eustace overcomes the obstacle that was himself, his personal identity.
"The hero goes inward, to be born again" (91).
Thereafter, we witness a change in mood for Eustace. Although he retains his whiny propensity, his attitude towards the "fantasy" world and their values drastically alters because of his venture into the belly of the beast. This is a highly symbolic act and can be observed through other stories such as the Bibical tales of Joseph in the Well, the Entombment of Christ, and Jonah and the Whale. Each inward event leads to a personal, heroic metamorphosis of shedding previous "skin" and achieveing rebirth.
What other events occur throughout the Chronicles of Narnia that embody this common mythical theme? What sort of metamorphosis do they represent?
"The idea that the passage of the magical threshold is a transit into a sphere of rebirth is symbolized in the worldwide womb image of the belly of the whale. The hero, instead of conquering or conciliating the power of the threshold, is swallowed into the unknown, and would appear to have died" (90).
This citation conflates several critical aspects of Lewis's myth. It appears pervasively throughout the Chronicles. Here we have this notion of the "Unknown," (Faerie) a space void of "traditional" rationality, into which the focused character pioneers. In Eustace's case, he mistakenly trudges into a deep, dark valley and finds the cave of a dragon.
"The temple interior, the belly of the whale, and the heavenly land beyond, above, and below the confines of the world, are one and the same. That is why the approaches and entrances to temples are flanked and defended by colossal gargoyles: dragons, lions, devil-slayers. . ." (92).
Thus the dragon, in this sense, "dragonifies" (I mean personify, really) Eustace's ugly stubbornness and cruelty. His entrance into the cave, and the subsequent transformation into a dragon depicts an overexaggerated form of his actual self. The process as a whole however, his later encounter with Aslan, reveals the true motive of self-annihilation, which Eustace accomplishes. Therefore, with the escape from the cave and the reverse transmutation back into human form, Eustace overcomes the obstacle that was himself, his personal identity.
"The hero goes inward, to be born again" (91).
Thereafter, we witness a change in mood for Eustace. Although he retains his whiny propensity, his attitude towards the "fantasy" world and their values drastically alters because of his venture into the belly of the beast. This is a highly symbolic act and can be observed through other stories such as the Bibical tales of Joseph in the Well, the Entombment of Christ, and Jonah and the Whale. Each inward event leads to a personal, heroic metamorphosis of shedding previous "skin" and achieveing rebirth.
What other events occur throughout the Chronicles of Narnia that embody this common mythical theme? What sort of metamorphosis do they represent?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Nicole McLellan - Genesis in "The Magician's Nephew"
While reading “The Magician’s Nephew”, I couldn’t help but notice that certain parts of the book had some resemblance to the book of Genesis. It can’t be paralleled exactly with Genesis, but then again, from what we’ve learned so far about Lewis’ writing style, I don’t think he meant it to. However, I still find the resemblance interesting. For example, in the book, Digory is tempted by Jadis to eat an apple from the Tree of Youth, which would make him immortal. In Genesis 2:9, God plants two trees in the Garden of Eden; one is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the other is the tree of life. In Genesis 3, the serpent tempts Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of life. Still, the idea of being tempted to eat fruit from a tree that is forbidden in order to acquire some sort of personal and supernatural benefit can be seen in both the book of Genesis and “The Magician’s Nephew”. Also, in Genesis 1:30, as well as in Genesis 2:7, there is mention of the breath of life given by God to the living creatures, as well as to Adam. This is similar to the breath of life that Aslan gives the living creatures at the creation of Narnia. It’s also interesting to note that the book of Genesis and “The Magician’s Nephew” are both chronologically the first books in a series of books. Although relatively simple, I find these similarities intriguing, and I’m curious to see if there are more within the next six books of the series.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Mike Zang - Myth Became Fact
Conduits Between Concrete and Abstract
I felt very relieved after reading Myth Became Fact because what had been a gestating abstraction for several years (with some clumsy attempts at articulation) finally presented itself to me in a well-put, eloquent form. I love finding ideas of mine imbedded in the texts of renown authors! I'm sure I'm no exception.
In this essay Lewis discusses the near impossibility of partaking in experience and understanding it simultemporally. He claims that "In the enjoyment of great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction," (2) and earlier he states, "This is our dilemma -- either to taste and not to know or know and not to taste. . . The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter reality, the less we can think" (2). Ah yes! How bittersweet!
So, plainly, we remain forever stuck between the poles of concreteness and abstraction. Myth is the partial solution according to Lewis. But what other conduits exist that escort us to the subliminal threshold? What existential practices merge the physical and abstract worlds smooth enough for us to experience up-close and understand at-a-distance concurrently?
This conundrum always brings the Buddhist concept of kensho to mind. Kensho, like myth, allows the human mind to perceive the physical world in a state so lucid it penetrates into the abstract truth simultaneously, culminating in temporary enlightenment. Here, the concrete and abstract conflate. An interface develops with Gestaltic subtleties that promote "the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts." What we experience here is beyond a collapse of tangible and intangible. Kensho, unlike satori, entails momentary Buddhahood, somewhat similar to the description that Lewis provides about reading myth.
Of course there are fundamental disparaties between C.S. Lewis and Zen Buddhism, but I think the conceptual connection is quite apparent. Both approaches offer an abstract and concrete understanding of experience in unison.
Some other notably similar concepts throughout American culture are self-actualization/oceanic feelings (humanistic psychology), flow (pragmatism), and innumerable accounts of hallucinogen-induced individuals. What other avenues expose the "true nature" of reality? Have you had any particularly appealing experiences with the ones I've mentioned? What was it like?
I felt very relieved after reading Myth Became Fact because what had been a gestating abstraction for several years (with some clumsy attempts at articulation) finally presented itself to me in a well-put, eloquent form. I love finding ideas of mine imbedded in the texts of renown authors! I'm sure I'm no exception.
In this essay Lewis discusses the near impossibility of partaking in experience and understanding it simultemporally. He claims that "In the enjoyment of great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction," (2) and earlier he states, "This is our dilemma -- either to taste and not to know or know and not to taste. . . The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter reality, the less we can think" (2). Ah yes! How bittersweet!
So, plainly, we remain forever stuck between the poles of concreteness and abstraction. Myth is the partial solution according to Lewis. But what other conduits exist that escort us to the subliminal threshold? What existential practices merge the physical and abstract worlds smooth enough for us to experience up-close and understand at-a-distance concurrently?
This conundrum always brings the Buddhist concept of kensho to mind. Kensho, like myth, allows the human mind to perceive the physical world in a state so lucid it penetrates into the abstract truth simultaneously, culminating in temporary enlightenment. Here, the concrete and abstract conflate. An interface develops with Gestaltic subtleties that promote "the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts." What we experience here is beyond a collapse of tangible and intangible. Kensho, unlike satori, entails momentary Buddhahood, somewhat similar to the description that Lewis provides about reading myth.
Of course there are fundamental disparaties between C.S. Lewis and Zen Buddhism, but I think the conceptual connection is quite apparent. Both approaches offer an abstract and concrete understanding of experience in unison.
Some other notably similar concepts throughout American culture are self-actualization/oceanic feelings (humanistic psychology), flow (pragmatism), and innumerable accounts of hallucinogen-induced individuals. What other avenues expose the "true nature" of reality? Have you had any particularly appealing experiences with the ones I've mentioned? What was it like?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Mike Zang - Let's talk anthropology!
Oh Nebulous Rationality!
So in El Hadidi's ANTH 330 Health and Healing, a major underlying topic of contention is the arbitrary line between what society deems rational and irrational. And the more we discuss these "irrational mental disorders" in that class, the more I can apply C.S. Lewis's open-ended account of rationality.
Since reading Fischer's article on narration, I have become progressively aware of it's pertinance to my current studies in anthropology. Fischer's argument for an anti-rational paradigm flushes the cultural dichotomy between rational and irrational that individuals help creating and perpetuating. He terms the antipodes as "rational-world paradigm" and "narrative paradigm". Each side maintains its own idea of how to employ good reasoning, "those elements that provide warrants for adhering to advice fostered by any form of communication that can be considered rhetorical" (3).
Well then, as much as we as Westerners like to glorify our premeditated, super-honed and logistical acts of rationale, we must step eons back and understand what cultural anthropology has to say. In America, those who subscribe to a rational-world paradigm conspicuously and inconspicously demand for a certain way to comprehend the world, and subsequently construct a formalized set of ways to think and act based upon such assumptions. These pervasive notions however do not stem from some objective, extrinsic, Platonic archetype of What is Rational. Rather, they have been culturally constructed, thus making our condemnations of the more "irrational" perspectives (i.e. narrative paradigmers) completely illegitmate, founded upon an inexistent foundation. Scientific's supposed objectivism through empirism should not be jettisoned entirely, but as a "rational" culture we must really recognize that what we deem "irrational" may be curtailing the endless spectrum of thoughts and emotions that are possible within the human palette.
But although this culturally relative approach often degrades the inherent uniqueness of all myths, I find it equally important to adopt the phenomenological aspect of experience and understand that each person or groups interpretation of the immanent world is truly REAL and has a valid place in humanity. In other words, just because ideas of rationality vary across cultures does not suggest that they are all frauds. No! What anthropology and phenomenology seek to disperse is the simple "to each his/her own" adage. What is real within Lewis's myths is truly REAL to those who subscribe to it; that good reasoning and ideology is totally legit. However, it is when one myth (Western rationale in this case) begins discriminating and drawing arbitrary lines between what is rational versus irrational, then we have a problem.
The subjects in our anthro texts, in my opinion, are only suffering from "irrational mental disorders" of manic depression/biploarism because the analytic, rational-world doctors and psychologists command it.
I leave you with a reflection-worthy quote:
"The mind is its own place, and in itself/ Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." -John Milton's Paradise Lost
So in El Hadidi's ANTH 330 Health and Healing, a major underlying topic of contention is the arbitrary line between what society deems rational and irrational. And the more we discuss these "irrational mental disorders" in that class, the more I can apply C.S. Lewis's open-ended account of rationality.
Since reading Fischer's article on narration, I have become progressively aware of it's pertinance to my current studies in anthropology. Fischer's argument for an anti-rational paradigm flushes the cultural dichotomy between rational and irrational that individuals help creating and perpetuating. He terms the antipodes as "rational-world paradigm" and "narrative paradigm". Each side maintains its own idea of how to employ good reasoning, "those elements that provide warrants for adhering to advice fostered by any form of communication that can be considered rhetorical" (3).
Well then, as much as we as Westerners like to glorify our premeditated, super-honed and logistical acts of rationale, we must step eons back and understand what cultural anthropology has to say. In America, those who subscribe to a rational-world paradigm conspicuously and inconspicously demand for a certain way to comprehend the world, and subsequently construct a formalized set of ways to think and act based upon such assumptions. These pervasive notions however do not stem from some objective, extrinsic, Platonic archetype of What is Rational. Rather, they have been culturally constructed, thus making our condemnations of the more "irrational" perspectives (i.e. narrative paradigmers) completely illegitmate, founded upon an inexistent foundation. Scientific's supposed objectivism through empirism should not be jettisoned entirely, but as a "rational" culture we must really recognize that what we deem "irrational" may be curtailing the endless spectrum of thoughts and emotions that are possible within the human palette.
But although this culturally relative approach often degrades the inherent uniqueness of all myths, I find it equally important to adopt the phenomenological aspect of experience and understand that each person or groups interpretation of the immanent world is truly REAL and has a valid place in humanity. In other words, just because ideas of rationality vary across cultures does not suggest that they are all frauds. No! What anthropology and phenomenology seek to disperse is the simple "to each his/her own" adage. What is real within Lewis's myths is truly REAL to those who subscribe to it; that good reasoning and ideology is totally legit. However, it is when one myth (Western rationale in this case) begins discriminating and drawing arbitrary lines between what is rational versus irrational, then we have a problem.
The subjects in our anthro texts, in my opinion, are only suffering from "irrational mental disorders" of manic depression/biploarism because the analytic, rational-world doctors and psychologists command it.
I leave you with a reflection-worthy quote:
"The mind is its own place, and in itself/ Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." -John Milton's Paradise Lost
Monday, February 11, 2008
Matthew Dunlap - On Stories
In C.S. Lewis's On Stories one passage struck me very hard: “To that extent the book [The Wind in The Willows] is a specimen of the most scandalous escapism: it paints a happiness under incompatible conditions- the sort of freedom we can have only in childhood and the sort we can have only in maturity- and conceals the contradiction by the further pretence that the characters are not human at all.” Lewis goes on to state that one might think this book would disrupt our daily lives, but that instead it “strengthens our relish for real life. This excursion into the preposterous sends us back with renewed pleasure to the actual.” (14) Upon reading the first part of this passage, I was instantly struck with its relevance to my current situation as a college student. Due to good fortune I do not have to work to sustain my college experience. But much of it is unreal. I am no longer a child, but lacking what feels to be the necessary component for adulthood. At times it feels like I am just lazy, but to get a job would not alleviate problems. I don’t need things that badly.
Even with the similarities, there is still a difference. In The Wind in The Willows the characters all experience life in the same way, this freedom does not make them different from those around them. The conclusion I have reached is that while I may not really feel a part of a group, I should enjoy this freedom while it lasts, because at any moment it might disappear. And when it does, maybe the excursion I have had will strengthen my enjoyment of the actual as well.
Even with the similarities, there is still a difference. In The Wind in The Willows the characters all experience life in the same way, this freedom does not make them different from those around them. The conclusion I have reached is that while I may not really feel a part of a group, I should enjoy this freedom while it lasts, because at any moment it might disappear. And when it does, maybe the excursion I have had will strengthen my enjoyment of the actual as well.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Chrissy Jaeger- The Four Loves
As I was reading The Four Loves of C.S. Lewis I began to realize that the introduction to this book was pivotal and possibly the most important part of the entire book. C.S. Lewis tells us essentially that our nearness to God comes in two manners: in our likeness to him (given to us freely and completely and does not actually change our nearness to him, even though it originally gives us an immediate nearness to him). Then there is our nearness by approach. This does change through life.
Our likeness of him is what we can see through our passionate (non-lust) love for another. If it is self-less and joyful and all of those it makes us near to God only in our likeness to Him, but not in approach. We falsely believe that because we are being more like God we are becoming more near to Him. My question is how can we become more like him during our life if he is not building it out in us as we get closer to Him and we are changed in our likeness as we see Him better and approach Him?
Our likeness of him is what we can see through our passionate (non-lust) love for another. If it is self-less and joyful and all of those it makes us near to God only in our likeness to Him, but not in approach. We falsely believe that because we are being more like God we are becoming more near to Him. My question is how can we become more like him during our life if he is not building it out in us as we get closer to Him and we are changed in our likeness as we see Him better and approach Him?
Chrissy Jaeger - Ethics of Elfland
The essay written by Chesterton on the “Ethics of Elfland” started off slow but as I finished the essay I found myself amazed at the new way I viewed life. As Chesterton started I struggled with his fanatical belief in Elfland over the reality of this world. In fact I was truly bothered by his notion of taking repetition as weird- not fact. I was thinking that just because you imagine something that doesn’t make it happen. But, then I understood what he was saying, and it blew my mind. First, to understand and believe in Elfland is to believe and understand our world better. It is the myth that displays reality in a way we could not have experienced it otherwise. So, Elfland is more real because it sheds more truth.
Also in his idea of repetition not being fact, or law I realized Chesterton wants us to see that Elfland is so great because they realize it could be different. This is the possibility of anything being anything. Chesterton goes further to say that possibly the reason why there is repetition in this world is simply because God never gets tired of the same thing over and over- like a child. But, things could be different, they could be changed if God decided. So, we should appreciate what things are because it could be something different, and that is exactly what myth and Elfland help us to appreciate.
Also in his idea of repetition not being fact, or law I realized Chesterton wants us to see that Elfland is so great because they realize it could be different. This is the possibility of anything being anything. Chesterton goes further to say that possibly the reason why there is repetition in this world is simply because God never gets tired of the same thing over and over- like a child. But, things could be different, they could be changed if God decided. So, we should appreciate what things are because it could be something different, and that is exactly what myth and Elfland help us to appreciate.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Power of Tradition ~~~ Gina Emerson
The Power of Tradition
The second week of class presented more discussions on what is real and the power of myth. The conversation turned to “What is normal” and are there certain things that should not be believed in order to maintain normalcy. This is such a broad topic –– the term normal means many different things to many different people, so who is the person that determines what true normalcy consists of? I feel this is an independent choice not meant for anybody else to determine for us.
We discussed the myth in more detail and compared the world of Faerie to the world as we know it. During our discussion I could not help but to think of the movie “Hook”. Robin Williams plays the grown up version of Peter Pan. He has become quite the hard-working, cut-throat lawyer that is much too busy to enjoy his wife, who is the granddaughter of Wendy, or his children. Captain Hook kidnaps his children and Peter is forced to return to Neverland where he is reunited with Tinkerbell. He has to try to remember his youth so that he can return as Peter Pan again. Of course with the help of Tinkerbell and the Lost Boys he does remember his youth and is able to save his children and once again battle Captain Hook. Now this tale may be a little unbelievable; however, the point of it is tremendous.
To continue on from where I left off last week; what is real? I think this question is irrelevant. When we loose sight of the things that matter the most to us, unfortunately it takes a near tragedy to open our eyes and realize what has been in front of us the whole time. Story-telling is one of richest ways of realizing the most amazing truths about our lives –– what should matter most are those things we cannot replace. Possessions are replaceable ––– your family and the traditions you have created are not.
The second week of class presented more discussions on what is real and the power of myth. The conversation turned to “What is normal” and are there certain things that should not be believed in order to maintain normalcy. This is such a broad topic –– the term normal means many different things to many different people, so who is the person that determines what true normalcy consists of? I feel this is an independent choice not meant for anybody else to determine for us.
We discussed the myth in more detail and compared the world of Faerie to the world as we know it. During our discussion I could not help but to think of the movie “Hook”. Robin Williams plays the grown up version of Peter Pan. He has become quite the hard-working, cut-throat lawyer that is much too busy to enjoy his wife, who is the granddaughter of Wendy, or his children. Captain Hook kidnaps his children and Peter is forced to return to Neverland where he is reunited with Tinkerbell. He has to try to remember his youth so that he can return as Peter Pan again. Of course with the help of Tinkerbell and the Lost Boys he does remember his youth and is able to save his children and once again battle Captain Hook. Now this tale may be a little unbelievable; however, the point of it is tremendous.
To continue on from where I left off last week; what is real? I think this question is irrelevant. When we loose sight of the things that matter the most to us, unfortunately it takes a near tragedy to open our eyes and realize what has been in front of us the whole time. Story-telling is one of richest ways of realizing the most amazing truths about our lives –– what should matter most are those things we cannot replace. Possessions are replaceable ––– your family and the traditions you have created are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
