Reading Bizz' blog and knowing that Shade is not a real person than everything that I thought to be obvious goes out the window by default.
There was however a syllogism on page twenty one in the poem that interested me and added on to Bizz' discovery. "other men die; but I am not another; therefore I'll not die."
It is an amazing thought that just because Shade is not a real person does that mean that he is not real. It is also interesting to think about the fact that writing gave Shade life, but aslo a life without death at least in the sense of death we are accustomed to. This brought me to the statement farther down the page that made me question the meaning of life. "Life is a message scribbled in the dark. Anonymous." This statement makes me think that life does have meaning. But we can neither know what or who is creating the meaning or see that meaning. I have one more question to challenge what it is we know is obviously true. If Shade is not a real person, well not real in the sense that we can not physically touch him like other human beings, then how has this poem seem so powerful? If we think of the book as system them we should find the starting point and the connection between the points in the system. I have a feeling that Shade and Kinbote both have a point real or not real. A system seems to be life that is wrote on that cave wall in the dark.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Painfully obvious
For my list of five things that are painfully obvious in "Pale Fire" I will focus on the character Dr. Charles Kinbote's role.
1. He has recently move in across from the poet John Shade.
2. He has a deep admiration for Shade (to the point where he would spy on him through his window) and believes him to be superior to other human beings.
3. He dislikes the conception of marriage, esp. between John and Sybil.
4. He felt the their relationship was on a deeper level than good chums. "Our close friendship was on that higher, exclusively intellectual level where one can rest from emotional troubles, not share them."
5. Kinbote and Shades relationship was misunderstood by the public. Also Kinbote's demeanor seemed to be disliked by a large portion of the population.
It almost seems, with Kinbote's often reference to Shade and their relationship in the commentary, that Kinbote wanted to be Shade. The obvious statements bring up the question did Kinbote know Shade on the third level?
1. He has recently move in across from the poet John Shade.
2. He has a deep admiration for Shade (to the point where he would spy on him through his window) and believes him to be superior to other human beings.
3. He dislikes the conception of marriage, esp. between John and Sybil.
4. He felt the their relationship was on a deeper level than good chums. "Our close friendship was on that higher, exclusively intellectual level where one can rest from emotional troubles, not share them."
5. Kinbote and Shades relationship was misunderstood by the public. Also Kinbote's demeanor seemed to be disliked by a large portion of the population.
It almost seems, with Kinbote's often reference to Shade and their relationship in the commentary, that Kinbote wanted to be Shade. The obvious statements bring up the question did Kinbote know Shade on the third level?
Monday, October 17, 2011
Valazquez painting and relatedness
I choose the passage on page 15 in the first paragraph to summarize the importance of the Valazquez painting. It goes as follows:
"These three 'observing' functions come together in a point exterior to the picture: that is, an ideal point in relation to what is represented, but a perfectly real one too, since it is also the starting-point that makes the representation possible. Within that reality itself, it cannot not be invisible. And yet, that reality is projected within the picture - projected and diffracted in three forms which correspond to the three functions of the ideal and real point."
Foucault goes on explaining who the three functions are which consist of the painter, mirror and observer. This immediately brought me back to the Borges story about the circular moons that Dustin told to us. The reality or the picture that we are looking at is similar to the reality with the three wizards in "Circular Moons." The statement Within the reality itself, it cannot not be invisible. This states that the ideal point is invisible to the objects in the reality of the painting, just like the wizards were invisible to each others reality. This is a great example of Ferdinand de Saussure's structuralism theory of signifier and signifie relationship. All three functions have their own order. To the left is the artist which is a sign of the Valazquez and concept of an artist which is the signifie. To the right is the stranger which is struct by the subject and signifies confusion since we can not be sure of his intentions. And then their is the mirror which purpose is to reflect the subject. The three functions have an accidental relationship with each other, with out even knowing it, through their function towards the subject, just like Borges story. The real point which is the relation between the three functions helps come into question the ideal point, which is the subject of the painting itself (King Philip IV and his wife) which is invisible in the reality of the painting.
The subject is a starting point to a system that involves all three of the 'observing' functions. The system connects the observer in the doorway who imposes an opening that brings light into the system. This light effects the subject that in-turn effects how the artist views the subject. The adaptation of the artist function changes the image in the mirror. The subject can see the mirror image of the representation of themselves and transform the system to change completely. All parts of the system itself can effect the point real or imaginary without even knowing it. And even though each objects purpose is arbitrary to the other there is still a relatedness between the three.
"These three 'observing' functions come together in a point exterior to the picture: that is, an ideal point in relation to what is represented, but a perfectly real one too, since it is also the starting-point that makes the representation possible. Within that reality itself, it cannot not be invisible. And yet, that reality is projected within the picture - projected and diffracted in three forms which correspond to the three functions of the ideal and real point."
Foucault goes on explaining who the three functions are which consist of the painter, mirror and observer. This immediately brought me back to the Borges story about the circular moons that Dustin told to us. The reality or the picture that we are looking at is similar to the reality with the three wizards in "Circular Moons." The statement Within the reality itself, it cannot not be invisible. This states that the ideal point is invisible to the objects in the reality of the painting, just like the wizards were invisible to each others reality. This is a great example of Ferdinand de Saussure's structuralism theory of signifier and signifie relationship. All three functions have their own order. To the left is the artist which is a sign of the Valazquez and concept of an artist which is the signifie. To the right is the stranger which is struct by the subject and signifies confusion since we can not be sure of his intentions. And then their is the mirror which purpose is to reflect the subject. The three functions have an accidental relationship with each other, with out even knowing it, through their function towards the subject, just like Borges story. The real point which is the relation between the three functions helps come into question the ideal point, which is the subject of the painting itself (King Philip IV and his wife) which is invisible in the reality of the painting.
The subject is a starting point to a system that involves all three of the 'observing' functions. The system connects the observer in the doorway who imposes an opening that brings light into the system. This light effects the subject that in-turn effects how the artist views the subject. The adaptation of the artist function changes the image in the mirror. The subject can see the mirror image of the representation of themselves and transform the system to change completely. All parts of the system itself can effect the point real or imaginary without even knowing it. And even though each objects purpose is arbitrary to the other there is still a relatedness between the three.
Monday, October 10, 2011
E. O. Wilson
At Edward O. Wilson's speech he stated two questions that he is trying to answer. The first is Where do we come from? and the second is What are we? He said that we are now or getting very close to acquiring enough information to answer these bold questions through support of what we confidently know about the real world.
A solution to these questions he said was drawing on our consciousness. He said that our consciousness deals with memory and how it piles on stories that happened, didn't or future stories. Our minds then pick and choose from these to make up our consciousness. He said that in order for progress in answering the questions above we have to make ethics, which uses our conscious to answer moral questions, work with science. He tied it all together by saying we have to use science to understand matter and ethics to understand history of human theology and moral solutions. "Until we understand our surroundings we can not begin to answer the problems of how to live in that surrounding."
Wilson's ideals pertain to what we are learning in class especially when it comes to Ibsens' "Enemy of the People."
Ibsen seemed to deal with people as scientific matter to answer the two hard questions. He tied his study of human beings together with the ethics of past moral questions. It was Wilson's answer to why human beings refuse to believe in evolution that really sparked a connection to "Enemy of the People." He stated that because humans are tribal and they believe in individual level selection leads to act to their own benefit. He said that "humans can not survive without allegiance to a group." This lead me to think about Dr. Stockman's view of groups at the end and his final words -- "that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone."
I am not comparing Wilson with the Stockman character because Wilson understood human nature for what it is and didn't compare the public that didn't believe in evolution to vermin. But Wilson's idea to except evolution you have to leave behind stable society does relate to "Enemy of the people."
A solution to these questions he said was drawing on our consciousness. He said that our consciousness deals with memory and how it piles on stories that happened, didn't or future stories. Our minds then pick and choose from these to make up our consciousness. He said that in order for progress in answering the questions above we have to make ethics, which uses our conscious to answer moral questions, work with science. He tied it all together by saying we have to use science to understand matter and ethics to understand history of human theology and moral solutions. "Until we understand our surroundings we can not begin to answer the problems of how to live in that surrounding."
Wilson's ideals pertain to what we are learning in class especially when it comes to Ibsens' "Enemy of the People."
Ibsen seemed to deal with people as scientific matter to answer the two hard questions. He tied his study of human beings together with the ethics of past moral questions. It was Wilson's answer to why human beings refuse to believe in evolution that really sparked a connection to "Enemy of the People." He stated that because humans are tribal and they believe in individual level selection leads to act to their own benefit. He said that "humans can not survive without allegiance to a group." This lead me to think about Dr. Stockman's view of groups at the end and his final words -- "that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone."
I am not comparing Wilson with the Stockman character because Wilson understood human nature for what it is and didn't compare the public that didn't believe in evolution to vermin. But Wilson's idea to except evolution you have to leave behind stable society does relate to "Enemy of the people."
Hedda Gabler and the Connections of people
In class you told us to look back on the biographers tale when doing our presentation. I went back to page 273 and the page before it. These pages talked about how a taxonomist, a statistician and a dramatist connected things and people. But it was the entire last paragraph on page 273 that got me thinking about Ibsens interpersonal connection with "Hedda Gabler." -- it states "There was also the question, beyond the shoebox, of the three fictive fragments of biography, where the biographer had quite deliberately woven his own lies and inventions into the dense texture of collected facts.... I had to insert facts about myself, and not only dry facts, but my feelings, and now my interpretations. I have somehow been made to write my own story, to write in very different ways."
I thought to look up brief biographies of Ibsen especially during the time when he wrote "Hedda Gabler." I found one site (Van Laan) that gave a short description of his life before 1890 when he wrote the play. It stated a quote that he wrote in a poem
I thought to look up brief biographies of Ibsen especially during the time when he wrote "Hedda Gabler." I found one site (Van Laan) that gave a short description of his life before 1890 when he wrote the play. It stated a quote that he wrote in a poem
"To live – is to war with trolls / In the holds of the heart and mind." This seems to be a metaphor for his own trolls or demons. In 1891 Ibsen returned to Norway after being gone for a couple of decades. The biography stated that he felt like a stranger in the foreign countries. He aslo was going through a rough time with his wife and looked for companionship with younger women. He seemed to like to live through their youth and new ideas.
For me Ibsen's personal life connected with the plays that he wrote, especially in the case of Hedda Gabler. He seems to portray a little of himself in Hedda and her personality of wanting to stay at home in a place of control while she lives adventure through others experiences like Heddas relationship with Lovborg.
This play is very popular and has been interpreted in many ways. Ibsen though seems to write the play as if he were just stating fact. Ibsen is a very realistic writer and even though he makes many interconnections between all his plays they are all complexly different from one another. He seems to observe things in life and just connect them together. It is amazing how much we can learn about the bigger picture by connecting small details beside the point.
Reference
“Ibsen A brief life” by Thomas Van Laan Rutgers University, Emeritus
http://www.ibsensociety.liu.edu/life2.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)