Jan
31
The Second Coming
William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Comment:
1. The repetition of “turning” disorients us, and it is difficult to know at first whether the gyre is a spiral, or the motion is more or less spherical. Again, it seems like we’re “turning and turning,” until the falcon and falconer suddenly appear, and perhaps we are turned around completely at this point. We know the falcon brings forth the idea of Christ Himself (cf. Hopkins’ “The Windhover”). In Herbert’s “Easter Wings,” a brief glance at the form recalls the “gyres,” and while the poem explicitly mentions “larks,” there is also “imp,” a term from falconry where feathers are grafted onto a trained bird [need to check whether the term was used this way exactly in Herbert's time. Anyone have an OED?].
The more conventional point, made in the “Easter 1916″ commentary, is that the falcon is spiraling out of control precisely because of the will of the falconer. He has let it go ever higher and higher, continue a path both started, to the point where communication falls apart.
From motion, we arrive at “things” falling apart, and with the “center” not holding, two things are “loosed:” anarchy and “the blood-dimmed tide.” Note the structure of the poem: the first stanza is one sentence. After that, there are four other sentences, the third of five total – the center – being “The Second Coming!” and the final one being a question. The “revelation” is in the revolution. “Loosed” is the Greek “luo,” “to loose” ["luo" isn't the infinitive, I know] – it is how slaves would be freed. That same “luo” is in the word “analysis:” it is no stretch to say the mind conceives “mere anarchy,” and that motion destroys bodies of all sorts. There can be no proper rituals, no recognition of good in-and-of itself, in a world dominated by fear and the lust for power.
2. “Passionate intensity” results in “troubles,” but for Aristotle “sight” was the sense most removed from “touch.” “Things” are absent in the second stanza. “Revelation” is followed by “the Second Coming” and then “The Second Coming!” – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’s triune nature are realized here, with a dark twist: it is precisely “Spiritus Mundi” that is the end of a world. From Nietzsche:
The dogmatists’ philosophy was, let us hope, only a promise across millennia – as astrology was in still earlier times when perhaps more work, money, acuteness, and patience were lavished in its service than for any real science so far: to astrology and its “supra-terrestrial” claims we owe the grand style of architecture in Asia and Egypt. It seems that all great things first have to bestride the earth in monstrous and frightening masks in order to inscribe themselves in the hearts of humanity with eternal demands: dogmatic philosophy was such a mask; for example, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia and Platonism in Europe.
- from the Preface to Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann
The end of the world is the replacement of one Idea by another. The “beast” is the Sphinx, who destroys merely by asking questions. The “gaze blank and pitiless” tells us that many answers will not suffice, and time is growing short. Light burns: it will separate the darkness no matter what. And yet – we close with two sorts of darkness, “shadows of indignant desert birds” and the speaker’s vision collapsing. Two things have been “loosed:” there are falcons everywhere, whose motion may be forced but are not out of control. And it is possible to see enough.
The “indignant desert birds” may be a trap: there’s never a point where one can be convinced civilization is completely gone, perhaps, even if it is completely gone. “Stony sleep” tells us that the inanimate – the dead – have risen and are indeed going to fight the living. In the midst of dead fighting the living, past vs. future, it is not clear who we are, where we fit in. Rationality now depends on visions, and only after a course has been completed can we look back, judge, and see for ourselves what happened. The Second Coming is what happens after cataclysm, the reestablishment most certainly not worth the cost of descent into the abyss.
Jan
29
Ah, the joys of libel…
Filed Under academia, personal | 6 Comments
…let’s play how many problems can you spot with this:
However, a more intricate criticism is offered by the followers of Leo Strauss, who also believe in a hermeneutics of culture, and often echo many of Adorno’s criticisms of accessibility and art. Their critique rests on the anti-capitalist nature of Adorno’s orientation, arguing that while mass culture may consist of bread and circuses, these are essential for social function and their removal or reduction in importance as “useful lies” would threaten the continued operation of the market and society, as well as higher philosophical truth…
- from Wikipedia, “Theodor W. Adorno” 10:10 pm EST on 1/29/09
One major problem with the Internet is that it is run by 12 year olds. They’re smart 12 year olds, but they’re still 12. The idea of “mass culture” alone being a lie doesn’t make any sense at all. I mean, there’s a reason why the “noble lie” is called “noble” – it preserves something higher that all may not fully apprehend immediately.
The other thing that just makes absolutely no sense is “mass culture” being composed of “bread and circuses.” I mean, for all the complaints about US imperialism, it ain’t Rome. I don’t think there was any plan in the White House to create “American Idol” or the Super Bowl. In Rome, bloody violent spectacle was part of convincing people that Empire is a good thing. Straussian critiques of contemporary culture are a bit more subtle than that: Michael Platt, following Allan Bloom, once argued that you could see the devolution of mores regarding marriage in dancing. Nearly every dance, including the waltz, started out as a scandal. Then for a few centuries, some became things couples did, or things that performed a social function for a community. Now, one goes to clubs, does some blow, and gyrates in place alone. You can argue with Dr. Platt, sure, but I don’t think there’s any declaring of “mass culture” as “bread and circuses” or “useful lies.”
I don’t usually take time out to correct nonsense like this, but I’ll say this: if you point me to an article that actually says the things the Wikipedia article claims above, I’ll show you an article written less by a Straussian than by an idiot.
Jan
27
Politics 101: 5 essentials for changing minds
Filed Under politics | 13 Comments
Alright, I’m writing this, and then I’m off the computer for a while. I need to get a lot done.
A few of you who are actively involved in politics have asked me [Note: I have no idea why. I guess I sound good?] what you can do beyond the usual, i.e. envelope-stuffing, going door-to-door to talk about your candidate, asking for donations, etc. You’ve rightly noted that none of that matters if people have already made up their mind against your party’s “brand,” and that getting people involved in local matters involves getting rid of some stereotypes they have about national politics. You’ve also said that you want something you can do on an everyday level that doesn’t make people feel like they’re being pushed to do something, but rather convinces them and gets them to convince others.
My own thought, from watching people behave over the years and seeing that play out in a number of ways, including online, is that the art of talking to someone so as to keep them willingly engaged has been lost. We don’t want open minds that we persuade gently over time – we want automatons that nod in agreement and respond to quick and dirty marketing practices. Get the right “pitch,” people open their wallet and volunteer, and voila: politics is easy!
So this list is for those of us looking not just to practice politics, but practice it in a more satisfying way. You can’t really lose if you engage people the way outlined below. In fact, you might find yourself nominated for office because of the respect you’ll cultivate:
1. Minds don’t change because you say the same thing over and over again loudly, and certainly don’t change because you think you win some arguments.
This sounds utterly counterintuitive, given how much stock we place in “winning” arguments and that idiotic notion of speech/essay writing you get from high school (say X in the beginning, say X again in the middle, say X yet again at the end). The reason why we feel hurt when we “lose” an argument is that our pride was injured, not because we were doing anything that might actually involve rationality. And those of you who’ve read any of my commentaries on anything know that any author or filmmaker or musician or artist worth his salt makes every element count for something distinct, that unity is never forced.
The best way to approach observation 1 is to ask yourself this: How do you feel being bullied or being constantly whined to?
2. “Facts” matter less than “values,” and the most important thing about “values” is that people see where you come from and you see where they come from.
It is a point of contention in my field whether there is such a thing as a “fact/value” distinction, but it is useful for lists like these. You can quote all the articles you want about how the free market produces wealth, but if someone believes they aren’t getting their fair share, and only government action will get them what is just, then your argument is sunk.
Conservatives consistently fail online to tell their story, complete with their own mistakes and failings, and tell it well. That lack of personality is devastating for a movement trying to get organized: no one is going to listen to a disembodied voice no matter how correct it may be when they can listen to themselves speak.
I’ve said “sharing” matters: if you can get someone to open up about their experiences to you, that goes an exceptionally long way. People love to be heard: one reason why they get nutty is that acting like a nutcase means you can get a clique that accepts your quirks far more easily.
3. Authority ultimately resides in knowledge – at the very least, you need to seem knowledgeable.
Too often I see people go about this the wrong way, trying to get something they sort of read or listened to looked at by more, so it makes them seem more concerned with history or policy or whatnot.
The way you display knowledge properly is by using it in appropriate circumstances. You don’t just declare “wow, everyone should read Jefferson now” and then start quoting Jefferson over the phone when asked about lunch, sending speeches via e-mail to your coworkers, telling your girlfriend all about Monticello when she asks about what movie you’d like to go to.
A really good way to see if you’re learning a little bit every day and using it correctly is to look at the questions you ask of others. If you don’t ask anything or ask things that put people on the spot, you’re probably an idiot or a bully. If you have asked a few things and people were really gracious and open in responding, then you’re implicitly using knowledge a better way: it actually takes a lot of knowledge to ask good questions.
4. Making people happy – creating a “hey, this is kinda fun” type atmosphere – goes a long, long way.
Aristotle says that education must involve pain. The thing is that adulthood is all about accepting some pain for a greater benefit: we get used to the pain. We get used to working with others who are pained. We learn and we find something satisfying and maybe even something that heals.
I suspect that one thing conservatives miss when talking about President Obama is how happy his campaign made some people feel. Conservatives tend to deride this, but think about it this way: do you want to feel dour and like everything is going to hell all the time? Tone matters – perhaps an immediate relief from pain can’t be promised, but nothing makes people happier than hearing “hey, we’re in this together.”
5. Your best arguments have already been made: you don’t need to be the one talking all the time.
Thoughtful, interesting coverage and analysis exists on nearly any issue from any political viewpoint you can conceive. Just go to http://www.aldaily.com and look at the sidebar – for conservatives and libertarians, there’s National Review, First Things, The New Criterion, The Weekly Standard, Reason and a million more publications sitting around, neglected by many.
The key is to get people reading that stuff as you’re going about your business, because that’s not only fewer discussions you have to make, but there’s a “multiplier effect:” people take the info they glean from there and spread it around. It seems strange to suggest that a political activist should be a magazine salesman, but consider that investment in a candidate is short-term. If you lose the election, all that money goes away with the loss, and all the campaigning dissolves in the public mind. It is true that a base is formed that can be activated again when the next election comes, but the opportunity to grow the base is gone until the next election.
Ideas have a life of their own if they’re not drowned out. It makes a lot of sense for a political activist to be more forward with ideas than they are now. After all, for all the “get involved” talk of the party, all that matters is what happens at the voting booth, and who ran in the first place. Both of those events are less contingent on a “ground strategy” than what people think and how motivated they are in the first place. The best political organization in a free society is the least active.
Jan
26
My head is all over the place today…
Filed Under personal | Leave a Comment
…so I thought I’d update with what’s going on here.
Right now, rereading Book 1 of Xenophon’s Memorabilia, which has 4 books total. I am playing with the idea that each book corresponds with a cardinal virtue – the order they might be in is moderation, wisdom, courage, justice.
The trick is to get this thesis to stick for book 1 at least, even though I can see huge problems with books 2 and 4 already. In book 2, Socrates talks to his own relatives and his friends about what they can do to better their lives. They do lack wisdom in book 2, but I’ve written on nearly every section of that book at this point, and I can safely say the main thing lacking is any concept of what fraternal love means. Book 4 seems to be dedicated to Socrates’ teaching exclusively, which would make it about “wisdom” more or less. But the central teaching of Book 4 is something like “the lawful is just,” and anyway, we’re talking about Socrates here. All of the Memorabilia concerns wisdom.
Book 3 is definitely dedicated to courage and its limits. When the limits of courage arise, they are connected with “shame,” which is something an honor-lover would most certainly fear.
You might ask why all this dithering about a thesis that won’t hold up. The issue is that writing on every single line of the Memorabilia like I would a poem doesn’t just get tiring – I’ve done that for nearly all that I’ve written so far. It also tends to get out of control when there’s stuff you don’t know. I have pages upon pages I haven’t typed up in which I’m guessing at what certain lines could mean.
A rough thesis keeps me focused. It’s pretty much “prove this, don’t prove this.” And there are solid indications that book 1 reduces to the issue of moderation vs. madness. Inasmuch as wisdom is a “lust for knowledge,” it is a kind of madness, yet one that establishes a sort of moderation.
Jan
25
Sensation (1st draft)
Filed Under poetry | 3 Comments
The books lie everywhere.
Some open, some shut with marks within,
and some simply closed, as if human touch
were forgotten.
A mind is sensed. It could be if
all pages were read up to the point indicated
we could reconstruct something.
A personality would emerge,
one sitting atop a mountain, waiting
for the traveler to ask, or one
within a cloister, surrounded by structure
all looking the same.
We trust the most silent, impalpable voices.