[lit-ideas] that and this
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 22:11:24 -0600
Lawrence writes: "I suspect Mike Geary has read more of Emerson than I have
– my loss."
I doubt it. I tend not to read much literary criticism and commentary
since they often contradict my prejudices and I have neither the interest
nor the energy to go read the actual works -- for what? just to mount a
defense of my prejudices? They don't need any defense, they're prejudices
for Christsake. Philosophy's not so too awfully different. Except for
logic, philosophy seems to be the perfect field of study for me. Since the
beginning of time and creativity, no one has ever put forward a philosophy
that was falsifiable (as they love to say in the sciences). In short,
whatever I assert is undeniably assertable, and if assertable then, real in
the assertion. Just as one of Saul Bellows' characters said (in Gravity's
Rainbow ?) when challenged to give a rhyme for "month" responded with:
"Onth. Onth rhymes with month." There's no such word, they said. "Ah,
but you're wrong," Bellows' man bellowed. "In the assertion: onth rhymes
with "month", onth is the subject of the sentence, and as we all know, the
subject of a sentence is a noun and all nouns are words, ergo, "onth" is a
word and it rhymes with month. Now that's my kind of philosophy. But
that's Literature, not Philosophy you object. Alas, you're so literal.
Philosophy is just plotless literature. Both are about ignorance and
wonder, the only difference between Literature and Philosophy is that
Literature has a lot more wiggle room. Both are trying to find out what
the hell's going on with us. Now it's been my experience that you can
usually avoid being nailed down a lot easier when arguing Lit Crit than
arguing philosophy because some philosophers seem to actually be trying to
make sense of what they're saying. There are no such straight- jackets in
literature. An example from philosophy: pick out the most cogent of the
following: (1) I think ...in a manner of speaking. (2) I think I am
therefore I think . (3) I think I think I am. (4) I think I am,
therefore I think I am. (5) I think I am not therefore I am. (6) I am
therefore I think I am. (7) I think not, therefore... (8) I am I
before I am knowing I think. (9) I am thinking that I am thinking that I
think. Etc., etc., etc.
I've always like Literature and Philosophy because both have always seemed
so wondrously frivolous and unfalsifiable and yet so urgently near to my
own existence. Although ideas are often argued with passion, none of it
matters --- except in the challenge to one's own little cosmos. Existence
doesn't seem to give a shit what we think. Often I wish I were far, far
more read into philosophy, but I know I'll never be . Occasionally I'll
stick my toes into some inviting waters and thrill to the confusion and
challenge of it. To me it's fun, even when most of the arguments leave me
out in left field. Life is fun. I would never have believed that being 71
can be so damn much fun. Let me be hopelessly, totally, completely wrong,
I don't care. I'm jubilant in my error. All I want is to get as many
Existence kisses as I can before I go where no thinking goes...therefore
...
Other related posts:
