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...
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
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
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
Monday, December 5, 2011
Reviewing/Revising(?) the "Relationships" post
After reading The Art of Loving (again with that book? I know, I know) I realized part of what I was trying to articulate with my post on relationships (in which clarity is a major issue). This articulation is prefaced by a question asked by Fromm:
"is the social structure of western civilization," and the "spirit resulting from it...conducive to the development of love?"
I would replace civilization with society, but other than that, when considering the love described by Fromm and bell hooks posited on a previous post, this question applies to the functioning of relationships as well. When considering, as Fromm does, that the social structures of western society are rooted in capitalism, and all the characteristics implied (I'll get to that in a second), it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the way western society functions, and the ideas, values, norms, and beliefs that stem from it, which are instilled in its people, is incompatible to the development, let alone imagining of love or the relationships that can result from it.
What characteristics of a society rooted in capitalism do I mean?
For one, consumption. I've observed love to be a major act of consumption, not just of things but of one another which lends itself to another characteristic, ownership. As I mentioned in my first take on relationships, we do all sorts of things to make ourselves worthy of consumption, which alienates us from ourselves (alienation is another characteristic). We've been trained to live a life where we are complacent with alienation from ourselves and others, from the work we end up doing, so its easy for many of us to do so in many situations, even relationships. It is as if knowing ourselves and being sure of ourselves is less important when it comes to establishing a relationship. At the same time we are highly individualistic and self-centered; taught to believe that we should live for the moment, which amounts to living for ourselves. While teamwork is prized, it is hardly a training ground for the sense of communalism needed to relate well and for a sustained amount of time with Others. Indeed I think "teamwork" is an activity that is conjoined in alienation when the goal is the production of some thing or another--getting the job done. Contradictory they may be, but we function with characteristics like these pretty well.
All we learn about love and relationships it seems is from areas steeped in consumerism, especially the media. Love is this prize to be won in the form of an individual. We want to be accepted for who and what we are without understanding who or what that is too clearly ourselves. Love is that thing to be put on a shelf with the rest of our possessions, to be controlled and shaped just how we want it to be, forgetting, that we are dealing with another person the whole time.
It is difficult to imagine transcending the very social structures we live in, especially when we know the negative sanctions hurled our way for even trying. Yet questing for the love that transcends ourselves, and perhaps, begins with ourselves (which isn't selfish by any means) requires thinking and acting outside of the box.
This has led me to books like The Art of Loving, which gives the point of view of love being viewed as an art form to be understood and practiced meaningfully. I've decided that this practice begins with me before I can be confident and competent with doing the same for others (I'm sure my Mate would appreciate that). This is a slow and difficult process (especially in confronting my roots as an individual), but worth engaging in so I can better understand where I am coming from and where I want to go to: a place or at least a state of being structured by care, respect, responsibility, knowledge, and supported by commitment, trust, and open honest communication.
Next up for reading on this topic:
Strength to Love MLK jr.(need to finish)
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community MLK jr
Pedagogy of the Heart Paulo Freire
Communion bell hooks (maybe)
other suggestions?
general feedback?
Until next time...
"is the social structure of western civilization," and the "spirit resulting from it...conducive to the development of love?"
I would replace civilization with society, but other than that, when considering the love described by Fromm and bell hooks posited on a previous post, this question applies to the functioning of relationships as well. When considering, as Fromm does, that the social structures of western society are rooted in capitalism, and all the characteristics implied (I'll get to that in a second), it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the way western society functions, and the ideas, values, norms, and beliefs that stem from it, which are instilled in its people, is incompatible to the development, let alone imagining of love or the relationships that can result from it.
What characteristics of a society rooted in capitalism do I mean?
For one, consumption. I've observed love to be a major act of consumption, not just of things but of one another which lends itself to another characteristic, ownership. As I mentioned in my first take on relationships, we do all sorts of things to make ourselves worthy of consumption, which alienates us from ourselves (alienation is another characteristic). We've been trained to live a life where we are complacent with alienation from ourselves and others, from the work we end up doing, so its easy for many of us to do so in many situations, even relationships. It is as if knowing ourselves and being sure of ourselves is less important when it comes to establishing a relationship. At the same time we are highly individualistic and self-centered; taught to believe that we should live for the moment, which amounts to living for ourselves. While teamwork is prized, it is hardly a training ground for the sense of communalism needed to relate well and for a sustained amount of time with Others. Indeed I think "teamwork" is an activity that is conjoined in alienation when the goal is the production of some thing or another--getting the job done. Contradictory they may be, but we function with characteristics like these pretty well.
All we learn about love and relationships it seems is from areas steeped in consumerism, especially the media. Love is this prize to be won in the form of an individual. We want to be accepted for who and what we are without understanding who or what that is too clearly ourselves. Love is that thing to be put on a shelf with the rest of our possessions, to be controlled and shaped just how we want it to be, forgetting, that we are dealing with another person the whole time.
It is difficult to imagine transcending the very social structures we live in, especially when we know the negative sanctions hurled our way for even trying. Yet questing for the love that transcends ourselves, and perhaps, begins with ourselves (which isn't selfish by any means) requires thinking and acting outside of the box.
This has led me to books like The Art of Loving, which gives the point of view of love being viewed as an art form to be understood and practiced meaningfully. I've decided that this practice begins with me before I can be confident and competent with doing the same for others (I'm sure my Mate would appreciate that). This is a slow and difficult process (especially in confronting my roots as an individual), but worth engaging in so I can better understand where I am coming from and where I want to go to: a place or at least a state of being structured by care, respect, responsibility, knowledge, and supported by commitment, trust, and open honest communication.
Next up for reading on this topic:
Strength to Love MLK jr.(need to finish)
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community MLK jr
Pedagogy of the Heart Paulo Freire
Communion bell hooks (maybe)
other suggestions?
general feedback?
Until next time...
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
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
Recommended reading:
The Art of Loving
Strength to Love
All About Love: New Visions
Well, until next time...
Monday, August 8, 2011
Books
I'll be brief. Today was a good day. My Little One was happy for most of the day.
I didn't get much work done today, but the exciting thing was that the books I've been jonesin' for came into the library today. Finally! Now, if I only had the discipline to read them and the other stack of library books I've got before school starts. Only in an awesomely awesome world where I am the most disciplined reader ever. Still, gotta love those books! Every time a book request comes in it's like Christmas!
Until next time...
I didn't get much work done today, but the exciting thing was that the books I've been jonesin' for came into the library today. Finally! Now, if I only had the discipline to read them and the other stack of library books I've got before school starts. Only in an awesomely awesome world where I am the most disciplined reader ever. Still, gotta love those books! Every time a book request comes in it's like Christmas!
Until next time...
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Ways of Seeing and Understanding
In a few of my posts, I've made references to little and great understanding. This post is an attempt at rectifying the mistake of not explaining what any of this means. My thoughts on this subject are derived from "Provoked by Astonishment: Seeing and Understanding in Inquiry" by Allan Neilsen in the book Provoked by Art: Theorizing Arts-informed Research and edited volume. Related thoughts will likely refer to The Eternal Smile by Derek Kirk Kim and Gene Luen Yang. I hope this ramble is accessible to everyone even though it's origins come from my encounters with academia...
When it comes to thinking about how things are understood and how this understanding is communicated, in American academia and culture in general, understanding is done in a way that leaves little room for alternatives. For example, when I teach my four-year-old to do something, from that point on, unless told otherwise, that is the only way it can be done. Adults, I've observed, are the same way it seems; closed to alternatives once one way of understanding something has been communicated.
I find this way of being to be quite oppressive, especially when it comes to expressing myself or attempting to express knowledge in general. There is more than one way to know and understand. Why should I be punished because I do not do it exactly your way (and by your I mean the status-quo--the way of doing and being considered to be mainstream)?
Well, thank goodness I am not the only one who feels this way. Books have been written challenging and--for me--presenting differing ways to look at and understand things that have offered a bit of hope and happiness for me as a continual learner. This was especially the case after reading A.Neilsen's "Provoked by Astonishment...". This piece emphasizes the importance of being open to astonishment since it "creates opportunity for insight and understanding by disrupting the busyness and unmindfulness of everyday existence" (56). By being open to the unexpected we are also open to all sorts of possibilities when it comes to knowing and understanding something, we are able to break free of stifling conventions. Which brings me to "little" and "great" understanding.
The state of "Little Understanding" is one that consists of the "constricted awareness and discriminatory thinking" that is a part of standardized modes of doing and being. Additionally, this state is mandated by thoughts of how things should or ought to be and apprehensions of what could be and are thus limiting and restrictive (56-57).
The state of "Great Understanding" is one that consists of being in "a contemplative state that allows us to be in the moment, to be knocked to the ground in astonishment, to see with new eyes" (57).
This brings me to observe a theme I found in D.K.Kim & G.L.Yang's The Eternal Smile. First off I highly recommend this book 'cause it's awesome! Apologies for the spoiler but--and maybe those of you who have read this saw other things--I found the theme of this piece (yes I know it's three stories) to be that of ways of seeing. For these three stories this was presented via fantasy and its role in allowing the characters in each tale to see or maybe examine their lives--summed up well in the third story "Urgent Request" when proposing that fantasy is not simply a means of escape but a way in which one can see (so cool!). I see certain tales of fantasy like this much of the time and am often astonished by the messages and their relation to real-life. Sometimes I think people tell stories for this very reason. No wonder I like stuff like FMA so much!
Ahem...back to the rest of the post...
Despite the attractiveness of states of Great Understanding, valuing the importance of both states is necessary (although sometimes I do wonder). This means not forsaking one for the other but being able to "preserve and transcend" states of Little Understanding as a means of becoming "whole"(57). This is important to understanding which requires being "in the moment" and being able to "apprehend experience holistically," and to "connect" (58).This is what I want my travels in academia and life in general to be about.
I couldn't be happier to have stumbled across this nugget of understanding and can hope that along my journey I am able to attain states of Great Understanding while not treating Little Understanding as a nemesis of sorts. I hope reading the books mentioned in this post will be as helpful to you as it has been for me. Please feel free to add, challenge, expand, or whatever about this topic. Any related book, movie or show suggestions would also be nice!
Recommended reading:
American Born Chinese
Level Up
Three Day Road
Days of War, Nights of Love
Until next time...
When it comes to thinking about how things are understood and how this understanding is communicated, in American academia and culture in general, understanding is done in a way that leaves little room for alternatives. For example, when I teach my four-year-old to do something, from that point on, unless told otherwise, that is the only way it can be done. Adults, I've observed, are the same way it seems; closed to alternatives once one way of understanding something has been communicated.
I find this way of being to be quite oppressive, especially when it comes to expressing myself or attempting to express knowledge in general. There is more than one way to know and understand. Why should I be punished because I do not do it exactly your way (and by your I mean the status-quo--the way of doing and being considered to be mainstream)?
Well, thank goodness I am not the only one who feels this way. Books have been written challenging and--for me--presenting differing ways to look at and understand things that have offered a bit of hope and happiness for me as a continual learner. This was especially the case after reading A.Neilsen's "Provoked by Astonishment...". This piece emphasizes the importance of being open to astonishment since it "creates opportunity for insight and understanding by disrupting the busyness and unmindfulness of everyday existence" (56). By being open to the unexpected we are also open to all sorts of possibilities when it comes to knowing and understanding something, we are able to break free of stifling conventions. Which brings me to "little" and "great" understanding.
The state of "Little Understanding" is one that consists of the "constricted awareness and discriminatory thinking" that is a part of standardized modes of doing and being. Additionally, this state is mandated by thoughts of how things should or ought to be and apprehensions of what could be and are thus limiting and restrictive (56-57).
The state of "Great Understanding" is one that consists of being in "a contemplative state that allows us to be in the moment, to be knocked to the ground in astonishment, to see with new eyes" (57).
This brings me to observe a theme I found in D.K.Kim & G.L.Yang's The Eternal Smile. First off I highly recommend this book 'cause it's awesome! Apologies for the spoiler but--and maybe those of you who have read this saw other things--I found the theme of this piece (yes I know it's three stories) to be that of ways of seeing. For these three stories this was presented via fantasy and its role in allowing the characters in each tale to see or maybe examine their lives--summed up well in the third story "Urgent Request" when proposing that fantasy is not simply a means of escape but a way in which one can see (so cool!). I see certain tales of fantasy like this much of the time and am often astonished by the messages and their relation to real-life. Sometimes I think people tell stories for this very reason. No wonder I like stuff like FMA so much!
Ahem...back to the rest of the post...
Despite the attractiveness of states of Great Understanding, valuing the importance of both states is necessary (although sometimes I do wonder). This means not forsaking one for the other but being able to "preserve and transcend" states of Little Understanding as a means of becoming "whole"(57). This is important to understanding which requires being "in the moment" and being able to "apprehend experience holistically," and to "connect" (58).This is what I want my travels in academia and life in general to be about.
I couldn't be happier to have stumbled across this nugget of understanding and can hope that along my journey I am able to attain states of Great Understanding while not treating Little Understanding as a nemesis of sorts. I hope reading the books mentioned in this post will be as helpful to you as it has been for me. Please feel free to add, challenge, expand, or whatever about this topic. Any related book, movie or show suggestions would also be nice!
Recommended reading:
American Born Chinese
Level Up
Three Day Road
Days of War, Nights of Love
Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)