Books and Keeping Track of What I Read

So, in the last few months, I've read more fiction on a weekly basis than I think I ever have in my entire life. Who has time for fiction when academia is hounding you to read painfully boring stuff--and I mean wanting to spoon out my eyeballs and burn them so I have an excuse as to why I can't read, cause they couldn't have possibly published all those academic articles in braille right?

Any who, thanks to an American postmodern fiction class I took, I've finally had the chance to read stuff classified as academic that expanded on my thinking about certain things. The class was like a book club for academic nerds. I certainly was able to re-examine theories I came across previously through novels like Jazz by Toni Morrison, Neuromancer by William Gibson, Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston,  The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven  by Sherman Alexie, and Maus by Art Spiegelman (which I haven't touched since third grade).These are books I would not have touched otherwise and was glad I forced myself into a situation where I had to. Being able to think about things like identity formation and becoming,and the role of history, culture, environment etc., in all of this, through works of fiction of the most truthful sort, is a nice alternative to all theory all the time, which is at times the blandest way to encounter knowledge. Needless to say, I've enjoyed my time in the world of fiction almost as much as I enjoy my time watching thought-provoking anime/Japanese animated shows/movies. I now desire to communicate my findings in the world of theory in similar ways--except maybe in graphic novel form, and no not the academic ones that are actually paper tranquilizers with pictures.

It's been a while since I've read these books but the ideas communicated still pop up from time to time. I wonder how effective it would be to take notes from these novels, like I would my academic texts...Would I be academizing an artform and thus rendering it boring? Who knows, but I've gotta keep better track of what I read sand my mind isn't the most reliable place at the moment.

Oh yeah, so a friend of mine lent me a few books I consumed rather quickly and would like to incorporate into my understanding of love/ loving practice, becoming, and the place of violence in all of this. I'm still grappling with the necessity of violence in the process of becoming and rethinking what this means. The books are Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents by Octavia Butler. As with the previously mentioned novels and authors--except Spiegelman--I have never read any of her work but have always heard about how amazing she is and have now seen for myself. I enjoyed Parable of the Sower more (I don't know, it just seemed more impactful in its messaging) because it made me revisit my wanderings in attempting to understand alchemy--read The Alchemist  by Paulo Coelho a while back among other brief texts about alchemy and everything. Now I just have to revisit and synthesize everything in an attempt to come to my own understanding of all of this complicated stuff! But who has time for that? I've gotta learn some new learning software for a class I'm teaching in a few weeks!

For now I'll take what I can get. I kinda wish I had more friends who read cool books they could loan me, or at least had a suggestion or two. I really don't have time to but if it's juicy, I'll make time dammit! I mean fiction of course, and am beginning to favor postmodern styles more and more, which includes graphic novels too! Reminds me to include The Eternal Smile  by Gene Luen Yang  in my attempted synthesis. Good stuff.

So yeah, any suggestions for what to read that is related to anything mentioned here or elsewhere in this bloggy-blog is welcome. No guarantees I'll read it, but will try if you really want me to. I also wish I could discuss these books with someone and not just internet paper...

Oh well, until next time...  

Why? Being wrong about something so volatile

I just finished reading Jazz by Toni Morrison and before talking to others and getting a clearer interpretation of it, I could not hold my tongue in disgust about the path some of the characters had taken towards growth and becoming. One of the major juxtapositions in this book (in my mind anyway) has to do with violence and love. I have always had trouble believing that from violent acts comes the potential for more loving acts, making violence a necessity in order for the emergence of love to be a possibility. Sure I've seen it happen. Non-violent movements are a testament to this idea.

 I cannot ignore the fact that from violence, lives and souls have been desecrated, destroyed, and brutalized by such senselessness. Sure, philosophers that discuss the movement of civilization toward 'rationality'(and the Enlightenment as a testament of that) say that such senselessness was necessary in order for us to be where we are today. But was/is is really necessary that Others be devastated by atrocities of the Dominant in order for the possibility of agency and subjectivity to arise? Did person/group a have to die or experience such violent acts in order for person/group b to become their subjective selves?Or for the possibility of others in group a to become their subjective selves? Should it really be considered that such things were done out of love? Or that love emerges from this?

Of course being on the receiving end of such acts has not helped with the trouble I've had and perhaps refusal in accepting this to be the case.

However, thanks to a friend another view of the violence/love juxtaposition is apparent (and I really need to read this book again). That of giving birth. Which brings forth the argument that what goes on with the characters of the book that took the needlessly violent route was meant as a cautionary tale. Considering one's becoming, instead, as the act of giving birth is one that conjoins the violence and pain brought on by the act and the emergence of love that results. Presumably the creation of this new life that is being given birth to is/was also an act of love.

I'll admit, it's difficult to see the emergence of agency/self-hood/subjectivity in this way; viewing a violent yet beautiful act, in such a positive light (which is easy enough to imagine having given birth) when the violent aspect is something one has been subjected to from external dominating forces (did that make any sense?). Maybe because my journey has been a painful one, filled with violence at times (as I'm certain Jazz points out  about its characters). The work of striving toward self-hood, toward the use of agency, toward becoming a subjective being is difficult because of this historical pain and violence. Overcoming this is also painful, and efforts to do so can and often are misguided and misinterpret what it means to overcome (something Jazz also points out rather well).

This is one of the many things I am trying to figure out on this journey. Having encountered such a powerful piece has shown me that I have a lot to learn about what I am trying to do for myself. Growth, understanding, becoming who I am meant to be without needlessly bring harm to others, all the while trying to become infused with love so I can act in loving ways, it's a tough task that can seem vague at times given the directions I've gone and continue to go. I cannot seem to get away from the fact that it's going to be painful and perhaps violent, but if I imagine this as part of the process of giving birth...well it will take a while for this point of view to become my own given my experiences, but I'm willing to learn, whatever that may mean. It's not the first time I've been wrong about how I understand something...

Until next time

Theorizing love and "we are one"

***The following is from a message I wrote to a friend with whom I am discussing the book The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm. I want to incorporate some of the ideas in this book into my research. Still figuring that out... Additions have been made to the original as continued pondering.***

The Holy Trinity and the meaning surrounding it...

Firstly,

Though we are familiar with biblical notions of the holy trinity being father son and holy ghost, there are other interpretations of this as well. For instance, there's father, mother, and child and body, mind, and spirit/soul. 

With each of these conceptions, I think about the role--or at least the potential for love to unify these entities which are often taken to be separate. 

This leads to my second thought,

When thinking about the notion that we are one, I think that this is the case because of the strong belief that we are God's creation. As such everything has an essence of God within, making us not that different from the people and things around us. We are all connected because of this. Understanding love to a fuller extent than we currently do should help us realize this connection and respond meaningfully to it. 

I think we do this on varying scales when we create through singing or making music, writing, doing art, playing (certain) sports.  I find that Catholicism and Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism through the practice of chanting are attempts at foraging this connection within ourselves with the intention of broadcasting this striving to other forces--all of which are inherently God-like. If we thought of ourselves as elements of God...hmmm...I just wonder about that. How would we act? Hopefully better... 

For now, we often think of ourselves and the components that make us who we are--mind, body, and spirit--as separate. Additionally, our characteristics are compartmentalized to the point where it can be difficult to think of the ways in which they are in fact unified within us. For instance, our positive and negative, masculine and feminine attributes, are often thought of as separate and often that one of each of these should be removed, ignored or simply eliminated.

The mistake in doing this is failure to recognize the value in each of these attributes and that these are what make us whole. The same goes for the connection between mind, body, and soul--as educated people we often are taught to neglect body and soul in favor of the mind, when it is important to view these facets of ourselves as valued and integral to our continued growth. Failure to do so creates the sense that something is missing and the longing to connect by accessing other faulty channels. 

What I continue to struggle with is accepting and making possible the unity between the positive and negative aspects of myself. I want so badly to do away with the negative side that plagues my being. I do not think it is good for me or others. It is difficult to imagine how this aspect and peacefully coincide with the other elements of myself. How can I think of my relationship with this brooding negative self differently than just being bad? I do want to be open to love yet cannot imagine how this can be done when so much negativity resides within...

In any case, our interaction with others is also affected by this paradigm of separation. We compartmentalize and thus marginalize and ignore others allowing for the potential to mistreat them to remain ever present. Fully actualized love allows us to think differently about this faulty separateness by demanding that we instead understand and perhaps embrace the other. This is the way toward loving one another. But we must be able to do this for ourselves as well.

By becoming competent in our understanding and practice of love for ourselves, we can then be able to comfortably practice with others effectively. It takes understanding, repetition, and practice--all of which takes time.

What do you think about all of this? 

Going on this journey of discovery, acceptance, and betterment is going to be difficult but it's about time I gave it an earnest try. It's still too easy to fall back on old ways of thought though...

Recommended reading:

The Art of Loving
Strength to Love
All About Love: New Visions

Well, until next time...