posted
I love poetry because I love discovering my own thoughts in someone else's words.
quote:A learned man came to me once. He said, "I know the way, -- come." And I was overjoyed at this. Together we hastened. Soon, too soon, were we Where my eyes were useless, And I knew not the ways of my feet. I clung to the hand of my friend; But at last he cried, "I am lost."
quote:"Truth," said a traveller, "Is a rock, a mighty fortress; "Often have I been to it, "Even to its highest tower, "From whence the world looks black."
"Truth," said a traveller, "Is a breath, a wind, "A shadow, a phantom; "Long have I pursued it, "But never have I touched "The hem of its garment."
And I believed the second traveller; For truth was to me A breath, a wind, A shadow, a phantom, And never had I touched The hem of its garment.
I love Stephen Crane. This second poem doesn't express my thoughts like the first one does, but I absolutely love his style.
*derails own thread* I dislike the modern style of poetry, and I'm sure part of that comes from editing the literary magazine in high school. It's one thing to have bad rhymes, but the endless whining with uncertain punctuation that passed itself as poetry soured me to the genre. However, when I read Stephen Crane, and Eliot, and cummings, and Hughes, I remember how that style became popularized in the first place. Great stuff.</derail>
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The wayfarer Perceiving the pathway to truth Was struck with astonishment. It was thickly grown with weeds. "Ha," he said, "I see that none has passed here "In a long time." Later he saw that each weed Was a singular knife. "Well," he mumbled at last, "Doubtless there are other roads."
That's what I look for in poetry and in prose-- that sharp little moment of illumination or suprise.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
At some point, at some point, the preparation and learning must be put to use. At some point, the information-gathering must reach the critical mass for action.
But at some point, you have to act. Questioning thoroughly is very important, but the purpose of questioning is either confirm the world as it is or tear it down and rebuild a new one. Those who only question and never reach a conclusion are, at best, perhaps providing for someone else to act upon.
It's the difference between being active and passive. Only taking information from the world and never returning action to it is ultimately onanistic.
Take a stand, and claim your place. -------
Maybe that's why there are so many liberals in academia? Because academia is about providing thoughts for other people to take action. Research for someone else to use, theory for other people to think about, teaching so that the people actually act have the background to do so wisely. There is definitely value in that, but it's a dependent position. Perhaps those who feel the need to act do not see academia as a way to do that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is exactly the semester-long argument I had with my department advisors. They couldn't understand what value there was in lowbrow pursuits like actually making films, and I couldn't understand how they could see any use in only talking about films without any practical application.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually really torn about this. I talked in the other thread about my visit to SMU and ultimate rejection of English Lit as a career. I also started grad school in Rhetoric last January, and I couldn't do it. I can tell you the exact day when I rethought everything - our professor was talking about the effects of rhetorical theory on the widespread tradition of teaching composition. Basically, the theorists have rejected the way writing is taught for thirty years now, but no one is listening to them. There are so many academic areas where the only people who read the research are other people in the same theoretical field. It DOESN'T go out to the general public. I raised my hand and asked why we do research then, and one of the students said, "To keep our jobs?" and the professor looked sheepish. That was the day. If it is inevitable that I must lead an onanistic, selfish existence, I at least refuse to pretend otherwise, and I had darn-well be better paid.
---
Incidentally, I'm still searching for a career that's idealistic, effective, and fun. It's why I work for a non-profit. The best I've done or seen so far is being a missionary, but that couldn't last. My hero is Claudia Therese, who managed to be both highly theoretical and ultimately do one of the jobs that REALLY matter.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry - haven't found it yet. My current job is fairly close: I work for an organization that definitely does some good, I have a variety of things to do so while I get bored sometimes, there's other things to work on, I am not living in poverty, and the people I work with are great, even if we don't have a lot in common interest wise.
So, it's idealistic and effective. It is not, however, all that much fun. Two out of the three is not bad, but it could be better.
Anyone have ideas on how how to get all three?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we can rationalize why there are more liberals in academia without insulting someone.
EDIT: But since Universities are the major centre of Academia and that younger people generally have more liberal ideas than their older counterparts I think the effect of so many ideas coming together year after year forces many professors to see things in the same way as the majority of the students.
posted
And I like the poetry as poetry, I think it's very beautiful, but I do not like the messages- it's the same with Flannery O'Connor's short stories, it just doesn't mesh with the way I think...
quote: Maybe that's why there are so many liberals in academia? Because academia is about providing thoughts for other people to take action. Research for someone else to use, theory for other people to think about, teaching so that the people actually act have the background to do so wisely. There is definitely value in that, but it's a dependent position. Perhaps those who feel the need to act do not see academia as a way to do that.
When you paint 'academia' with such a broad brush, you are not making your case. All science--which is represented by academia, not by religion--rests on whether or not there is evidence for a particular belief. While, of course, there is lots of theory going around in academia, this theory in such fields as medicine, engineering, psychology, physics, etc. usually at least has some evidence to back it up. That is, evidence from the real world that that theory 'works'.
The ideal for academia, for scientists, is that you change your ideas to fit the results that occur in the real world. Certainly, this is not always the case, but it is the ideal and many scientists do try to hew to this standard.
Certainly there are some people in academia who live completely in the world of ideas and do not concern themselves with the real world, however, just because you as a fine arts person deal totally with them, don't forget about the rest of the university.
As for acting on their ideas, there are many examples of academia who walk the world promoting their ideas. We on this forum, for instance, are very familiar with the infamous Peter Singer.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm.... I have never heard of this person before, but I like the poems. More poems should make points like that. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Questioning thoroughly is very important, but the purpose of questioning is either confirm the world as it is or tear it down and rebuild a new one.
This is what I don't agree with. You are assuming that the questioner already knows the answer, in which case, it's not a genuine question. You question because the question presents itself, that is, when you open the space for it, and that's a big deal. The right question presenting itself is like seeing a unicorn, and that's it's own reward.
quote: Those who only question and never reach a conclusion are, at best, perhaps providing for someone else to act upon.
I don't know. I still think the work of men is in the questioning and understanding, the looking, the seeing and the saying.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you do. I don't agree. I think that's the preparation and should always continue, but staying in school forever and never acting is staying a child.
To constantly learn but never use that knowledge to build is ultimately very self-centered.
posted
" I still think the work of men [if you are rich] is in the questioning and understanding, the looking, the seeing and the saying. [otherwise it's just survival, I can't help but wonder what someone in Somalia would say...]"
posted
Then maybe the somalians have an excuse for not questioning, but I don't know if Americans are similarly blessed.
Kat doesn't see that the questioning, pointing, looking, seeing and saying has it's own rewards for society. I don't think it's child's work. I think it's the most important work there is. I also think that it explains why most good writers and artists are older rather than younger.
Singer is a man who lives philosophy, even if you don't agree with him. This is serious for him, and that's why he gives that huge chunk of salary to charity.
posted
Don't say what I don't see. Irami, you know me. How can you believe that I consider intellectual exploration to be unrewarding in itself?
Beyond the sheer fun of it, I do think its important. But it isn't an end in itself. Learning is fabulous, and fun, and joyful, but it's all taking. If you don't give anything back, if you don't act on that knowledge and build something with it, then it's very self-centered.
-------
If there were a repository somewhere that contained all the knowledge anyone ever learned - kind of like a Library of Congress that could measure and read all human minds - and when that library filled to a certain point, Shangrai-Lai would ensue, then constantly learning but never acting wouldn't be selfish. But the cycle turns, and earth renews itself every generation, and there is no magic store.
Knowledge for its own sake with no need to build something with it is a pleasure for its own sake. It's great fun, but it's no more moral than 75 years of playing Tetris.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Beyond the sheer fun of it, I do think its important. But it isn't an end in itself. Learning is fabulous, and fun, and joyful, but it's all taking. If you don't give anything back, if you don't act on that knowledge and build something with it, then it's very self-centered.
Maybe if you talking about information, facts and figures, I agree. But questioning those other pesky questions of justice and piety and courage and responsibility, I don't think it's a matter of play or selfish indulgence. It's the task, and I think if more people stopped inventing and turned to the task, there would be fewer people in jail, in bad relationships, and in bad jobs.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But academics who write and teach and compile information and research do many things for society. Every day, new ideas are being created and new things discovered. Those ideas spill over into the arts, into medical research, into other scientific research, into modern phiosophical ideas into new ideas about history...
Although academics are not necessarily building solid things they are laying the foundations on which things are built. They are not selfish, they are merely doing what do they do best.
Can you imagine an America without the liberal philosophers like Locke who spent their lives thinking and writing about something that didn't exist but now does in the form of one of the worlds oldest liberal democracies?
posted
So thinking about these things "persuadeth men to do good"?
That may be, but even there your value comes from the improved relationships and lives. It has value because what they do, they would do better.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:liberal philosophers like Locke who spent their lives thinking and writing
Writing is doing something - it is building something. It takes action, as every person who started NaNo and didn't finish can attest.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not even that. Good art doesn't necessarily make good people. But all that research that seems irrelevent has a thousand uses aside from being used to teach young enquiring minds.
Without John Locke's ideas, America would not exist as it does today. John Locke never activly picked up his pitchfork but he wrote down his ideas and other people read them, liked them, and decided to do some drastic changing.
EDIT: Academics are writing too. Most Univeristy professors have to publish something once a year, many are accomplished authors of many works. No academic sits down and thinks but never writes.
posted
Yeah, cause you know, 'cause you know, so many of the books in NaNo were more than just selfish indulgence. That's finishing a book for the sake of finishing a book. There is very little holy about that.
The message is one of devotion, and that's precious, but devoting your self to a bad novel sounds a little misguided. It's like running a marathon or eating horseradish, it's fine in the way of seasoning, but there is something odd about making a meal out of it. ______
For the record, I think that on many levels, the publishing requirments kills thought. There is an inappropriate push for invention, and the work of philosophy is not invention. It's uncovering what is already there. Inventing or imposing often distracts, and elevating inventing or imposing to the highest good is even worse.
posted
But the research that this person do will make the other persons creation or discovery possible. It's like Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Without Brahe taking those endless notes on the position of the stars (a seemingly useless self-indulgent hobby), Kepler would have never discovered the eliptic nature of the orbits of the planets.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, if a NaNo novel contained even the slightest bit of wisdom, it has built more than all the lofty thoughts possible that never leave a person's head.
quote:Without Brahe taking those endless notes on the position of the stars (a seemingly useless self-indulgent hobby), Kepler would have never discovered the eliptic nature of the orbits of the planets.
I agree, which is why researching and passing it along is important. If Brahe never wrote it down where could Kepler could get to it, then it would have been self-indulgent.
quote: I think that's the preparation and should always continue, but staying in school forever and never acting is staying a child.
I'm confused. Do you think that people who question things on a secular basis never come to any conclusions? Even if a person isn't positive that their conclusion is accurate most people who actively engage in thinking and questioning form opinions about things. And then they act on their beliefs. Many a person who believes that fulfillment in life can only come through human ends acts on that belief and does indeed find fulfillment in human ends. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but if you're saying that people who don't come to religious conclusions somehow don't apply what they believe to their lives, then I think you're very mistaken.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that she's saying that thought without works at least somehwere in ones life is self-indulgent. Similar to "Faith without works is dead."
posted
Amancer, I'm not. This has wandered a little bit from the original.
From the original, then I do think that someone who leads without taking responsibility for where that road is headed is irresponsible and not to be trusted.
For instance, the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq could be (and was) couched in some nicely idealistic terms, but those ideals are not enough. It needed to have produced greater good on ground to be justified, and those who created the situation need to stick with it through the end to avoid being irresponsible.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's ironic, you look at Iraq and see that the problem was the deeds. I look at Iraq and see that it was lead by impoverished thought.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, the problem is that the President acted badly.
And where do you think this action sprang from? I think it's because he didn't take time to
quote:But questioning those other pesky questions of justice and piety and courage and responsibility, I don't think it's a matter of play or selfish indulgence. It's the task, and I think if more people stopped inventing and turned to the task, there would be fewer people in jail, in bad relationships, and in bad jobs.
and better foreign policy. I'm not talking about a poverty in facts or information, but poor attention to thinking.
This is the problem with invention. The guy thought that he could turn Iraq into Texas without thinking about what it is to be an Iraqi. Maybe if he had thought about that a little more, he would have been led to question and learn that nearly 50 percent of Iraqi people marry their first cousins. What sense does that make? Well, maybe there isn't a lot of free-floating loyalty to the state. Maybe if he had thought about that, he wouldn't have thought that they would welcome us with roses.
Look, you blame the action, without knowledge of actor's intention and attention, and I think that's a little bit hollow.
quote: I agree, which is why researching and passing it along is important. If Brahe never wrote it down where could Kepler could get to it, then it would have been self-indulgent.
But academics do this- they write down what they think and make speeches and give classes and share their information. How then, is their work useless?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's why thinking and learning are important - because of their effects on actions. They still need action to justify them.
I think I'm okay with that. I am a little worried that I comes with a burden of proof. As in, in order to be virtuous, you have to be tested.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't, if it has an effect on people. That effect is still one step removed, though, so maybe those that want to be close to the action don't go into academics.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm thinking that often those who want to be close to the action are the exact people who shouldn't be the ones who are close to the action.
I just think it's something we should think about, is all. ______
As an aside. I have to tell you, it seems, and this is an educated conjecture, cats who worry about effects and actions are quick to ban and jail, as if they were the only options which address the problem. This isn't about you, it's more about a comportment, disposition in the world. It's true for the right and the left and every effect driven person inbetween.
I think it's the difference between living in your head and living in the world. Living in your head is much more fun, but in the world people can and do get irrevocably hurt because of others. It takes broad sight, wisdom, and stomach of steel to see and feel the too, too solid hurts and allow short-term pain for a greater good.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm financially stable, independent, with great credit, fantastic health, perfect teeth, a good group of friends, and another good-sized group of fans whose life I've helped by bring thought to speech.
I'm always flummoxed when people say that I don't live in the real world. Does saving money and thinking before I act constitute being on Mars?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
