Showing posts with label beauty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beauty. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Discussion: Damasio and Scarry

DESCARTES' ERROR
We had a good discussion tonight about this text.  I think most people enjoyed it and found it contained much to think about.  The discussion ranged over many different - but interconnected - topics. We spent alot of time discussing the concept of free will and trying to define free will vs personal responsibility, how does upbringing, brain damage, substance or other abuse etc affect this.  We had a good discussion on the value judgments made about brain issues vs other issues.  If you have cancer or diabetes or a broken leg there is usually no blame to the person, no negative judgments of their character, no blame whereas with many mental illnesses, we are uncomfortable with this, we may blame them for their illness, for their lack of "willpower".  A few people in the class deal with people with mental illnesses through their work, two through social services and one through the prison system and it was good to hear their perspective on these issues.

We also discussed sick cultures and what Damasio might have been referring to in the 1990s when it spoke about sick sectors of American culture.  One aspect might have been violence, video games, issues with sexuality etc.  Damasio didn't really elaborate on what he had in mind when he included the comment in his book.

We spoke a little about the effects of civilization on humankind and whether we are progressing (continuing to evolve) or whether we are just cycling through variations in human nature.

I didn't take alot of notes as I was guiding the discussion but I thought there was so much scope in this book, especially coming as it does after we've worked our way through the centuries of thinkers who have been wondering about the various roles of passion and reason, our place in the world.



ON BEAUTY AND BEING JUST - by Elaine Scarry
Roberta was scheduled to lead the discussion and had sent out a detailed list of questions she wanted us to consider and how she wanted us to consider them.  Unfortunately she didn't make it to the class and so Stephen led the discussion on the areas of the book he wanted to explore.  This is the 1st year that the book has been included in the GLS curriculum and everyone found it challenging.  It's a deceptively thin book, looks very pretty with its smooth cover, thick coloured end papers and textured paper.  I think that most people, especially after having read the very scientific Descartes' Error, were looking forward to a book discussing beauty and its role in human existence.  This book didn't really do this adequately for most of us.  It was interesting but since none of us have a background in aesthetics or have done any reading in it (except maybe Stephen?) we had trouble with the conceptual level Scarry was writing from.

PART II
Scarry says Beauty was banished from academic world for 2 decades.  Political critique was based on:

  1. distracts us from important stuff like suffering, "wrong social arrangements"
  2. when we make beauty an object of sustained regard, our act is destructive to the object
It's not that beauty wasn't appreciated but rather that it wasn't considered a good enough reason by itself to value something academically.  The class didn't agree with a) Scarry's statement or b) that her reasons for this valid.  The 3 in the class who had just finished an undergraduate degree did say that they found that universities or faculties tended to become very entrenched on a specific way to do things and all the other ways are denigrated each time a new "fad" comes along - which is not to say that new fads are adopted frequently or easily but rather that academic thinking tends to be quite prescriptive and proscriptive in how their field of study should be studied, discussed and written about.

Our view of beauty may be changing based on changes in the world such as ability to reproduce much beauty much more easily.  When you can find images of great works of art on the Internet or buy a decent quality reproduction of art you've seen in any museum shop, it's not as rare as it used to be.

Steve brought up the Pidgin Restaurant in Vancouver's Eastside and the protests against it, protesting against gentrification.  He said this fits in with what Scarry said: that the wealthy diners will be gazing out at the suffering poor and this could be harmful to them (destructive); and the beauty of the restaurant and the food may distract society from the 'wrong social arrangements'.  The whole argument seems a stretch to me but again, I probably have to think about it a bit more.

"No detailed argument or description is ever brought forward to justify this generalization, yet the generalization has worked to silence conversations about beauty.  If this critique or the other critiques against beauty were crisply formulated as edicts or treatises with sustained arguments and examples, the incoherence would be more starkly visible and the influence correspondingly diminished.  They exist instead as semi-articulate but deeply held convictions that - like snow in a winter sky that keeps materializing in the air yet never falls or accumulates on the ground - make their daily way into otherwise essays, articles, exams, conversations.  Suddenly out of the blue, someone begins to speak about the way a poet is reifying the hillside or painting or flower she seems to be so carefully regarding.

Stephen said that the Heisenberg principle, interpreted to mean that the gaze of a viewer affects the observed object, was adopted by the humanities to say that people's gazes whether this is the male gaze harming a female or whatever, have an effect on what they are observing and that this effect likely is not benign or is actually harmful - at the very least there is an effect.
Elaine Scarry would have spent much time in university environments that constrained value judgments of what is beautiful by wanting to apply notions of patriarchy, prejudice etc

We then moved on to discussions of 'lateral disregard' and how Scarry proposed that when we put our notice to something beautiful, we bring less attention to other related objects.  This can lead to problems with over-specialization or fixations about things we admire, find beautiful.  This concept carried more weight that some of Scarry's other arguments or propositions.

It was interesting to consider Scarry's references to Simone Weil who was "always deeply somatic: what happens, happens to our body." pg 111 Damasio would, I think, agree with this.

The essentialist who believes beauty remains constant over the centuries and the historicist or social constructionist who believes that even the deepest structures of the soul are susceptible to cultural shaping have no need, when confronting the present puzzle, to quarrel with one another.  For either our responses to beauty endure unaltered over centuries, or our responses to beauty are alterable, culturally shaped.  And if they are subject to our willful alteration, then we are at liberty to make of beauty what we wish.  pg 74
Kant is an essentialist and Hume is a historicist, Hume felt that rights and wrongs change over time, according to conditions, externals.  I don't think there is an intrinsic beauty or rather, I think that beauty is very much affected by the viewer (their background, culture, experience, education, mood etc).  I think there are some qualities that humans tend to find beautiful such as symmetry etc but the range of things we find beautiful is so wide and varied and the effect beautiful things have on us is also so varied that I can't conceive of beauty being constant.

The discussion made me consider about beauty from the perspective of non-humans.  It seems a very human concept and while animals can be interested in many things in all my observations of them I can't think of any time I've thought they noticed or had a any notion of beauty.  This thought seems to lead me straight to next week's text which is "The Animal that Therefore I am" which I'm looking forward to reading.



Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Love is a Stranger by Rumi

Rumi, Live Is a Stranger, Transl. by Kabir Helminski, Shambhala Publications, Boston & London 2000



Rumi was also a 13th century writer (30 September 1207 – 17 December 1273).  He was a Sufi mystic, born in Persia but in what is now Tajikistan, Afganistan.


I’d read a few of Rumi’s poems before but didn’t know anything about him.  Like everything else I’m reading this term, there is so much more I want to know about that time period: what was going on everywhere else at the time, more about sufiism, more about Persia and Afganistan at the time, more about Islam.  Rumi’s poetry reminded me of Sappho – maybe because both wrote so passionately about love and the beloved.  It’s hard for me to analyze and dissect these poems – their strength for me lies in the emotions I feel when reading them, in the power of the words - and so I want to save certain pieces I loved, so I can come back and savour them later.  I can see this being a book I’ll want to come back to and read in the future.

Rumi speaks often of love as being as a unifying force, of two souls combining. 
In I AM NOT (on page 56) he says:
I have put duality away
And seen the two worlds as one.

THE RUINS OF MY HEART (page 49)
[…]
My soul spills into yours and is blended
Because my soul has absorbed your fragrance,
I cherish it.

Every drop of blood I spill
informs the earth,
“I merge with my Beloved when I participate in love.”
[…]

He often includes imagery of wine and drunkenness, perhaps to show how love intoxicates the lover, how love infuses you and affects your thoughts, body and reason.  Many of his poems mention his beloved, Shamsi Tabriz.  At the end of  SWEEP THE DUST OFF THE SEA, on page 34

The Sun of Tabriz keeps me
drunk and languishing in this state

THE INNER GARMENT OF LOVE (pg 69)
[…]
Be drunk with love,
for love is all that exists.
Where is intimacy found
If not in the give and take of love.

Love for Rumi seems to be his way through the world, to spirituality, to fulfillment.  It’s not all sweetness & light and angels singing.  Many of his poems mention fire, burning, conflict, suffering, piercing.

DIDN’T I SAY? (Pg 22)
[…]
Didn’t I say, “They will waylay you and make you cold,
I am the fire and your warm desire.”
[…]


EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION (pg 41)
[…]
Those glances of love were arrows,
piercing and killing all reason
[…]
Hundreds of thousands of full moons
Are dedicated to the all night fever of His love
[…]
All perceptions are riding on lame donkeys,
While He is an arrow travelling through space.
[…]

In SONG OF THE REED (pg 50)
[…]
I want a heart torn open with longing
to share the pain of this love.
[…]
It is the fire of love that inspires the flute.
It is the ferment of love that completes the wine.
[…]

THE INNER GARMENT OF LOVE (pg 69)
[…]
If they ask what Love is,
Say: the sacrifice of will.
If you have not left your will behind,
You have no will at all.
[…]
Between the mirror and the heart
Is this single difference:
The heart conceals secrets,
While the mirror does not.

Rumi contrasts love and reason in some of his poems with reason proving the lesser faculty.

THE PULL OF LOVE (pg 31)
 […]
Though reason is learned and has its honours,
It pawned its cap and robe for a cup of love.
[…]

He describes reason as something very black and white, cold, demanding - not as a quality that brings purpose, depth and joy to life.

LOVE IS RECKLESS (pg 53)
Love is reckless; not reason.
Reason seeks a profit.
Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed.

Yet, in the midst of suffering,
Love proceeds like a millstone
Hard surfaced and straightforward.

Having died to self-interest,
She risks everything and asks for nothing.
Love gambles away every gift God bestows.
[…]
Religion seeks grace and favour,
But those who gamble these away are God’s favourites,
For they neither put God to the test
Nor knock at the door of gain and loss.

LOVE IS A STRANGER (pg 18)
[…]
Reason, do not envy my mouth.
[…]
 whether you have raised a flag or a pen,
the night is gone and day has arrived,
and the sleeper shall see what he has dreamed.

He seems to suggest that reason tries to control love, to control the body and the person.  I’m not sure where Rumi thinks reason lives.  One of his line talks about covering “my reason, my head and my feet” suggesting Rumi doesn’t associate reason with the brain, certainly not with the heart as Mencius did.

WHAT A MAN CAN SAY (pg 28)
In the name of friendship
Don’t repeat to my Beloved
All that I said last night,
Out of my mind;
But if, by God, she hears it,
She’ll understand what a man can say
In the dark, loud or quiet, rough or soft,
When reason is not at home.
[…]

THE HOUSE OF LOVE (pg 67)
[…]
But you build up thought
like a massive wooden door.
Set fire to the wood.
Silence the noise of the heart.
Hold your harmful tongue.


While Rumi seems to fully support Love, this doesn’t apply to all passions (greed, envy etc).

EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION (pg 42)
[…]
If night never came, people would waste themselves
Pursuing all that they desire.
They would give their own bodies to be consumed
For the sake of their desires and greed,
But night appears, a treasure of Mercy,
To save them from desires for a short while.
[…]

When it comes to love though, moderation does not seem to be what Rumi recommends.

EMPTY THE GLASS OF YOUR DESIRE (pg 74)
Join yourself to friends
And know the joy of the soul.
Enter the neighbourhood of ruin
With those who drink to the dregs.

Empty the glass of your desire
So that you won’t be disgraced.
Stop looking for something out there
And begin seeing within.
[…]
When the earth is this wide,
Why are you asleep in a prison?
Think of nothing but the source of thought.
Feed the soul; let the body fast.

Love is not without its suffering but for Rumi even this has purpose. Love and spirituality are joined together in Rumi’s poetry.  For Rumi, Love seems to be transcendent and his words make you feel that even if it hurts and changes and doesn’t give you a “fairytale” ending, Love is a path worth pursuing because of its transcendent power:

THE GUEST HOUSE (pg 44)
[…]
Whatever sorrow takes away or causes the heart to shed,
it puts something better in its place –
especially for one who is certain
that sorrow is the servant of the intuitive.
[…]

WHEN A MAN AND WOMAN BECOME ONE (pg 55)
[…]
The garden of love is green without limit
and yields many fruits other than sorrow or joy.

TO TAKE A STEP WITHOUT FEET (pg 59)
This is love: to fly towards  a secret sky,
To cause a hundred veils to fall each moment.
[…]

LOVE IS A STRANGER (pg 18)
[…]
Love is a stranger with a strange language
[…]

ON THE DEATHBED (pg 23)
[…]
On this path, Love is the emerald,
the beautiful green that wards off dragons.
 […]

A WORLD WITH NO BOUNDARIES (pg 61)
With every breath the sound
Of love surrounds us,
And we are bound for the depths
Of space, without distraction.

We’ve been in orbit before
And know the angels there.
Let’s go there again, Master,
For that is our land.
[…]
out beyond duality
we have a home, and it is Majesty
[…]


These following lines don’t really demonstrate anything related to reason or passion but they are just phrases that I liked and wanted to remember.

ELEGY FOR SANA’I (pg 68)
[…]
he valued the whole world at a single barleycorn.
[…]


WORDS OF ALI WHEN HE REFUSED TO KILL AN OPPONENT WHO SPAT IN HIS FACE (pg 82)
[…]
I am not chaff but a mountain of patience.
[…]

EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION (pg 43)
[…] the eyes of the wise see to the end […]

Saturday, September 15, 2012

DISCUSSION Plato's Symposium and Sappho's poems and fragments


We had our 2nd class yesterday and discussed Plato’s Symposium and Sappho’s poems and fragments.  Though Plato’s book was all about Eros (love and desire) and contained no less than 7 separate speeches about Eros, the few poems and scraps of Sappho's poetry that have survived make you FEEL passion, love, desire.  The dominant motif of Plato’s work was Reason and the dominant motif in all Sappho’s words is PASSION.

Roberta led the discussion on Sappho.  Prior to the class and leading right up to the class, she had tweeted fragments from Sappho which was a fun way to read some fragments and think about them individually. We had a round table session where we each read a fragment and tried to be aware of what our immediate sensation was after hearing Sappho’s words.  Everyone seemed to have enjoyed her poetry.  When we got into a later discussion about what some of the fragments might have meant, it became bogged down for me in discussions of how literally to interpret the following 2 fragments:

and for you I make an offering
of a white goat

(which sounded to me like something Leonard Cohen might have written)

Sweet mother, I can no longer work the loom.
Slender Aphrodite has made me fall in love with a boy.”


This is one of those situations where the words themselves are enough for me without analyzing it too closely but at the same time, it would be interesting to find out more about that time, what the rites would have been to worship Aphrodite, gender roles, people's relationships with the gods they worshipped – not to flesh out the poem itself but just to delve into a world I know nothing about.


It was very interesting to read Plato’s Symposium on Eros the same week we read Sappho’s work.  Someone mentioned that several speakers in the Symposium note that Eros is a neglected god whom no one has written about but Plato does not mention Sappho, a Greek poet from 2 centuries earlier who would certainly have been known in Athens in Plato’s (and Socrates’) time.  The two texts were such distinct examples of Passion vs Reason with the additional irony that Plato’s logical discussions were on the subject of Eros: Love or Desire, yet compared to Sappho, his work lacked passion.

Byron led the discussion on the Symposium.  There were several interesting themes in this work which we had a chance to discuss.
One was a brief discussion of Plato’s Theory of Forms:
There exist out there in the universe forms for everything that are the perfect versions – people may get a glimpse of these perfect forms and then once you’ve seen it you’ll never be satisfied with the imperfect forms i.e.: love is not just sexual satisfaction, it’s also a beautiful ideal.

I wasn’t aware of this theory before and don’t really have a good understanding of the concept – again something I would like to read more about when I get the chance.

We discussed the idea that what we see is not necessarily what really is – you have to work at things as they are not necessarily what they 1st appear.  This, in my limited understanding of Socrates, seems to sum up his method: to challenge the other person on what they think they know and by questioning them and discussing their ideas, show them that their understanding is imperfect BUT help them towards a better understanding through the discussion.

We also discussed one of the recurrent themes: duality.  The speeches contained many examples where things were mentioned and categorized into 2 opposing categories:

Heavenly Aphrodite/Common Aphrodite
Young/old
Good love/vulgar love
Wisdom/Ignorance
Health/Disease
Lover/Beloved
Male/Female

Sappho by contrast did not seem to use duality in her work.  It's more centered on the person, the connection, the passion, the natural world around her.

Socrates speech was interesting as Diotima brings in the idea of a spectrum – that extremes aren’t the entire story – many people fall in the middle (the “enlightened” people?)

202a – Diotima (Haven’t you realized that there is something between wisdom and ignorance?)
It’s having right opinions without being able to give reasons for having them” –

There are also some devastating characterizations in Plato's speeches:
204a  “The problem with the ignorant person is precisely that, despite not being good or intelligent, he regards himself as satisfactory.”


We also discussed the question of whether we should be concerned about the intention or the act.  Several speakers in the Symposium had touched on this, most notably Pausanias.  This issue is still debated to this day.  I remember seeing “Oleanna” a play by David Mamet which contrasts an interaction between a professor and a young female student from each of their viewpoints and suggests that judgment of an action or of someone's words depends more on how it is perceived than on how it was intended by the speaker.
The question of intention also comes up in the murder trials where the intent has a huge impact on the punishment: 1st degree murder vs manslaughter.  Similarly with state-sanctioned killing: war, self-defense, terrorism etc.

Byron asked “How strange is it that Socrates stands still for extended lengths of time, presumably lost in thought? What would happen today if someone did this? Is this lost in thought or some form of dissociation?”  The answers brought up the theory of the bicameral mind again and how we define mental illness.  For me this brings us back to Diotoma’s spectrum.  Every time I hear about a new mental illness being defined and making it into  the latest edition of the “Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", I can’t help but think that all of us could find ourselves somewhere on many of these spectra, that we are just defining variations on normal human conditions.

We ended our discussion by talking about immortality.  During Socrates’ speech the purpose of life seemed to be immortality and this is achieved through 'reproduction in beauty', suggesting that we should be pursuing truth, beauty, good and that the path to this was through philosophy.  We spoke about the ways of trying to achieve immortality, each containing some kind of flaw:
  • procreational (via children) - the problem was that over time your line could die out, or even if it didn’t, who would remember you generations down ?  In modern scientific terms however, your genetic material would survive.
  • reputational – either through history (figures such as Alexander the Great) or through surviving written works such as philosophy or literature, or works of art.  The question then becomes how well do you want to be remembered to consider you have achieved immortality: 
  1. just your name, 
  2. your work without your name (such as an anonymous creator of some Etruscan vase in a museum somewhere), 
  3. having future generations know your work but nothing about you, such as Lucretius (coming up in a couple of weeks), to know about you but mainly misinformation such as Richard III, maligned by Shakespeare and known by today’s world as a hunchback, tyrant and murderer of children.  This is very topical today as archaeologists excavate on Grey Friars Street in Leicester, hoping to find the lost grave of Richard the III.
For me immortality would be best achieved by creating something that retained its significance and power centuries later, such as Sappho did.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Sappho's "POEMS and FRAGMENTS"






(Sappho’s poems and fragments, Transl. Stanley Lombardo, Hackett, 2002)

These poems and fragments were completely new to me.  I had heard the name Sappho before and knew the adjective 'sapphic' but knew nothing of the person or her work.  This was a fascinating story and body of work to be made aware of.  It was amazing to see how powerful and evocative these fragments are – and the effect they have had on many people over the centuries, especially women in the 20th century.  I was fascinated to read about how many of the fragments were discovered between 1897-1937, almost 3000 years after she wrote them, preserved because they had been written on potsherds and on scraps of papyrus or parchment that were discovered in ancient middens in Egypt.  It was also intriguing how several pieces have come down to us only through being quoted by later writers.

These poems and fragments are full of passion.  Amazing to see that this endures over the centuries and with only scraps of words surviving, still so powerful and moving in a culture and time so far removed from when they were written:


Come to me again now, release me
from my agony, fulfill all
that my heart desires, and fight for me,
fight at my side, Goddess


Look at him, just like a god,
that man sitting across from you,
whoever he is,
listening to your
close, sweet voice,
your irresistible laughter

And Oh yes,
It sets my heart racing –
one glance at you
and I can’t get any words out,
my voice cracks,
a thin flame runs under my skin,
my eyes go blind,
my ears ring,
a cold sweat pours down my body,
I tremble all over,
turn paler than grass.
Look at me
Just a shade from the dead


do not crush my spirit with anguish



There are so few words in these poems yet they exude passion.
Where the words aren’t passionate, they are so evocative, often bittersweet, and with compelling descriptions of the world around her, the island of Lesbos.

Sweet mother, I can no longer work the loom.
Slender Aphrodite has made me fall in love with a boy.

You have forgotten me,
or you love someone else more.

“…
but I love delicacy, and love has won for me
the light of the sun, the sunlight’s beauty

“…
drove your chariot pulled by sparrows
swift and beautiful
over the black earth, their wings a blur
as they streaked down from heaven
…”

I do not expect my fingers
to graze the sky

 "...
as at sunset, the rose-fingered moon
outshines all stars, spreading her light
over the salt sea, the flowering fields,

and the glimmering dew falls, roses
bloom amid delicate starflowers
chervil and sweet clover
.."


Though this poetry does not contain much of Reason, there are some references about moral concerns and how to live life.

He who is beautiful is beautiful only when seen,
But he who is good will be beautiful at once.

But if you are my friend,
Go to a younger woman’s bed;
For I will not endure an affair
In which I am older than the man.”


I enjoyed the introduction to this edition, by Pamela Gordon and when I have time, I’d love to read more about the time as well as about the women who have been drawn to Sappho and her poems.  They remind me of the women in the 19th and early 20th century who weren’t content to live a conventional life but found ways to travel and live a life they preferred, away from society.  
Amazingly brave.

Passion wins through in these poems, leaving Reason the realm of Athenian intellectuals.