Home
Every day astonished-- simply to exist

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> User Info
> Bridge of Light
> previous 20 entries

Links

some of my narrative posts
Made to be broken
Champagne Lacan
dogwalk Vincennes
Summer Yoga
wild berries
painting again
raining spiders

Advertisement

December 15th, 2009


10:32 am - hermetic consciousness
from a Google Wave with [info]peramble

"A totally enclosed consciousness will die or become purely mechanical-- like a rotating pulsar or a vibrating quartz. To become a mind, a brain needs a body and a world to explore."

(Leave a comment)

November 23rd, 2009


07:34 pm - Bedrock Thoughts
Hahaha... my sister just sent me back some life-advice I'd sent her in 2002! This was before Gmail existed, so I sent it from my Yahoo account, which has been deleted long since due to inactivity, resulting in the loss of my only copy.

It was strange to reread these thoughts, and to think about which parts I might write differently today (probably the last sentence). Here is the entire thing, then, for your reading pleasure...


* * * * *


Here is some explanation of my “bedrock” thoughts, which I shared with you over the phone. It's a bit long, read it or not as you wish! Love, Ulysses

Anyway, I call them bedrock because we often try to construct towers of illusion to distance ourselves from these seemingly distasteful truths. We proceed to live in our tower, and never bother to explore the vastness of existence. So the first step towards freedom, towards mobility, is to climb off our tower of illusion, to step onto the bedrock, to fully live by the following truth: Human existence is one of absolute poverty, utter solitude and certain death; we live in a world that is totally impermanent and ultimately meaningless.

This seems like a pretty depressing statement, and yet it doesn’t have to be. It expresses the bare truth, and it is always reassuring to touch the bare truth—like seeing a person without his mask or makeup, like weeping rather than keeping the sadness suppressed, like drinking fresh water rather than chemical soda, like walking on bare earth or beach rather than linoleum flooring. Each time we give up an artificial illusion of how life should be, to embrace the reality of how it actually is, we find that reality is not that bad after all, that accepting it is cheaper and requires less effort than maintaining our illusions. No, more than that; we discover a new richness we never suspected existed!

So for me, these four qualities (poverty, solitude, impermanence, emptiness) delineate the bedrock on which we must stand to live an authentic life.

First; We are utterly poor; and yet by embracing this fact (and only by embracing this fact), we can become immeasurably rich. Second; We are alone and only death is certain; and yet by embracing this (and only by embracing this), we find the potential for authentic relationship, not to mention a greater appreciation of the value of every moment. Third; All is impermanent and unpredictable; and yet by embracing this fact, we can come to see life as an engaging, ever-emerging narrative of interconnections. Fourth; things and life have no inherent meaning; reason is thus useless in dealing with existential problems; and yet by embracing this, we can come to a new way of relating with the world—through dancing with matter.

To explain in more detail: What does it mean to be utterly poor? I don’t mean we should try to be poor. I mean, try or not, we are poor, it is our basic condition. We don’t own anything definitively. We might own our toothbrush, but it can be taken away from us, or be lost, or wear out. We might buy a vacation house near the sea, and then only use it for a few days a year—in which case, though we certainly “own” it in a legal sense, we don’t actually get much use out of it. We might own a thousand precious leather-bound books which we never read because they are written in Russian; a Stradivarius violin we don’t know how to play…and so on. We would be astonished when one day a friend arrives and suddenly plucks a Russian book off the shelf and reads a passage, or picks up the Strad to play a few measures. Because he knows a bit of Russian, or took some violin lessons, he has managed to enter instantaneously into a more intimate relationship with our possessions than we could ever enjoy. So, let’s remember: there is no possession but in interaction. Instead of desiring to possess, we should desire to learn to better interact.

And of course, we can’t take it with us. We obviously can’t take our accumulated “treasures” with us when we die, but we can’t take even take them to work in the morning. We may own a wardrobe full of expensive clothes, but we can only wear one shirt at a time—to wear all our shirts at the same time buttoned one on top of the next would only make us look bloated, grotesque, like the Michelin Man. We might own the fork in our hand, but we have to set it down to pick up the knife, and eventually set down the knife as well, to pick up the glass of water. If we refused to let go of the fork, the knife and the glass, the napkin, our cellphone and wallet while eating, we would end up with a big mess, and lots of food in our lap! All because we didn’t want to accept the rule of poverty and simplicity—which is that we can hold onto only one thing at a time, we can only do one thing at a time. To try to hold on to several things, or to do even two things at once, produces only farcical failure. When we give up trying to own more and more things, when we give up the idea of possession, then suddenly we seem to own everything! It’s like being in a library. No single user “owns” the books, and yet we have hundreds of thousands of books that we can read and enjoy. No user owns the tree-lined park, or the public pool, or the sidewalk café, and yet we can enjoy these when we want. Walking through the streets of Paris, especially when the sun is out, we feel a sense of immeasurable wealth. We own none of it and yet the entire city is ours.

Furthermore, though we have nothing, we have enough. Just by being alive—we have the most incredible of gifts. Think of all the great men and women of history—Napoleon, or Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, Queen Elizabeth—even they, even they, can’t enjoy the sweetness of this next breath we are about to take. We are supported by the earth with every step we take, we are warmed by the sun, we are nourished by every breath of air, and that is enough! We have pretty much the same organic substrate as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, the founding emperor of China and so on. We have the potential to do what they did as well. Nothing holds us back except ourselves!

When we embrace material poverty, we find an organic sufficiency and an incredible-- a colossal-- fortune in inner potential and possibility. A similar thing can happen with people. When we stop fixating on certain individuals, suddenly, all individuals are beautiful (not “pretty” beautiful, but beautiful in their rugged, basic quality), and contact with all people becomes interesting; even getting yelled at by a drunk in the street becomes interesting, like being in a film.

For we are fundamentally alone. We are born and will die alone. We feel joy and pain alone. When we feel “lonesome” we might call up a friend. We get together and have a pleasant time, laughing and drinking tea. And then our friend leaves and, strangely, we feel empty, lonely again. We wish we could be joined to our friend, joined at the hip like Siamese twins, or maybe just at an arm for better mobility—but then we realize how grotesque this image is. It would be a nightmare trying to move together, to climb stairs, to shower and to put on clothes, joined to someone like this.

We have to accept that we are alone, to accept that that no matter how much we “love” someone, we would never want to be glued to them. That their fundamental liberty, and their unpredictability (we don’t know when they will come and go) are part of their fundamental beauty. Solitude can have a sweet quality to it; and in any case Solitude is absolutely necessary for any creative work to take place, for meditation, for getting closer to God. Solitude offers us a true opportunity to renew ourselves, but not if we spend the entire time fidgeting anxiously and craving company. When we accept we are alone, when we stand up on our own, we gain a certain reassuring authority, a stability and strength that others find attractive. Ironically, it is when we’ve decided to fully flourish alone, that others start approaching us with curiosity, because they are intrigued, sensing that we have somehow connected ourselves to a primordial source.

As for impermanence. Everything is in flux. We want to try to freeze the moment, relive it, but it goes as soon as it comes. We cannot definitively understand anything, because all is constantly changing. Every person or thing is part of a net, part of a process. But we can come to see our existence, all the people and objects and places we come across, as being part of a vibrant narrative, like an action film or a detective mystery.

Finally, emptiness. This is my way of saying that things have no meaning in and of themselves—Buddhism has another use for the word emptiness, so I should probably choose another “unoccupied” word, but for now… You would never pick an apple off a tree and ask, “What does this apple mean? What is the meaning of this apple?” You would simply eat the apple, or throw it, or put it in a basket, or feed it into a juicer. It has no inherent “meaning”. Of course, we could “lend” a temporary meaning to an apple by using it as the prop in a narrative. The apple might come to symbolize nourishment, or original sin, or illustrate biological reproduction, or serve as a decorative object, it could be the apple of discord, the apple of one’s eye. We could stick little labels onto the apple, but underneath the sticky paper, remains that same apple, with no inherent meaning.

Similarly, life itself has no meaning. We could manufacture one with our language and imagination, but it would be, to some extent, arbitrary. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to construct meaning, but it does mean that we should give up the illusion that there could be a definitive meaning. It would be misguided to say, for example, “once I figure out what life means, I can really start living it.” Instead of trying to create meaning or understanding or an ideal solution, it would be better to dance with matter, and in so doing, create paintings, songs, stories, healing, whatever—and to dance with people and so create friendships.

Dancing is a wonderful metaphor. People will dance for hours, moving this way and that, leaping up, spinning around, gyrating this, shaking that. What are they doing exactly? What is the meaning? What are they trying to explain? Actually, there is no meaning, it is simply exhilarating. They are doing it for the love of it, exploring different gestures, different rhythms. This is what we can do—dance with matter. Only when we fully embrace the bankruptcy of conceptual thought, the ultimate meaninglessness and emptiness of the world, can we begin to create with a fresh eye, a fresh mind.

(3 comments | Leave a comment)

November 17th, 2009


03:15 pm - meditation, the Red Book
Meditation involves paying attention to attention; being aware of awareness; sensing sensation.

It does not involve, however, thinking about thinking, which would more properly be called philosophy or cognitive science.

Philosophy and cognitive science are important pursuits in their own right, but not to be confused with meditation.

I've always thought of my philosophizing as a kind of obsession, a desire to project categories upon the chaos which surrounds me, and in doing so, obtain some semblance of security and familiarity. In philosophical mode I toy around with concepts; I create new ones, refine them, winnow them down, see how they relate to what I experience.

In meditative mode, I suspend all concepts, and apprehend the world in a more direct way-- surfing on naked energies. As a most obvious entry into this other way of being, I suspend the use of words-- this is why Zen arts like archery or the tea ceremony are conducted in silence.

* * * * *

I bought Carl Jung's The Red Book not necessarily intending to read the text.

The Village Voice Bookstore called me saying "Your order has arrived... you'll probably want to come with a wheelbarrow to pick it up."

I ended up going with a small suitcase with wheels. And was glad I did!


Anyway, it's not the content of the text that is important. Rather, The Red Book offers a record of a psychoanalytic modality, the one that worked for Jung.

I wouldn't expect to get transformative insights just by reading transcripts of sessions of somebody else's psychoanalysis. The only way to get that insight would be to undergo psychoanalysis myself.

That said, after much reflection, I don't intend to undergo traditional psychoanalysis myself. Not for the time being at least. It's going to be one of those roads not taken, mostly because of the huge financial outlay it would require.


Jung encouraged everyone to "Create your own Red Book..." I take this literally: get out the pens and inks and create your own illuminated manuscript, your own sacred object. That would be a better modality for me.

It's interesting to note that Jung's individuation process including building a stone tower with his hands, creating stone sculptures, drawing mandalas, and painting and writing the myths of the Red Book. Traditional psychoanalysis ("Talk therapy") alone could not get him where he needed to go.


* * * * *



* * * * *

So many of my LiveJournal friends have left the site.... I am thinking of shifting my blog to another host as well. Anyone have any advice for me who has made a similar move?



(8 comments | Leave a comment)

October 14th, 2009


01:51 pm - love and be free
So many religions teach "obey and believe" that the few teaching "love and be free" are seen as radical and dangerous.

If you think you can obey and believe your way to enlightenment, be my guest!

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

September 6th, 2009


03:11 pm - The Blue Star
I'm posting this for a friend.

 The Blue Star
 
"Show me the place," he said.
I removed my shirt and pointed
to a tiny star above my heart.
He leaned and listened. I could feel
his breath falling lightly, flattening
the hairs on my chest. He turned
me around, and his hands gently 
plied my shoulder blades and then rose
to knead the twin columns forming 
my neck. "You are an athelete?"
"No," I said, "I'm a working man."
"And you make?" he said. "I make
the glare for light bulbs." "Yes, 
where would we be without them?"
"In the dark." I heard the starched
dress of the nurse behind me,
and then together they helped me
lie face up on his table, where blind
and helpless I thought of all
the men and women who had surrendered
and how little good it had done them.
The nurse took my right wrist
in her strong hands, and I 
saw the doctor lean toward me,
a tiny chrome knife glinting in
one hand and tweezers in the other.
I could feel nothing, and then he said
proudly, "I have it!" and held up
the perfect little blue star, no
longer me and now bloodless. "And do
you know what we have under it?"
"No," I said. "Another perfect star."
I closed my eyes, but the lights
still swam before me in a sea
of golden fire. "What does it mean?"
"Mean?" he said, dabbing the place
with something cool and liquid,
and all the lights were blinking on
and off, or perhaps my eyes were
opening and closing. "Mean?" he said,
"It could mean this is who you are."
 
-- Philip Levine
 

(Leave a comment)

August 28th, 2009


10:57 pm - Push Hands
The king of all training techniques in Tai Chi is tuishou (Push Hands).

This is a game that is actually quite easy to explain. We stand facing each other. I place the back of my wrist against yours. When you push, I recede. When I push, you recede. All the while we maintain contact, stay within given boundaries, and refrain from falling.

You're probably thinking, "I push, you give; you push, I give. What's so hard about that?"

Well, with most people it happens more like this: 1. I push. 2. You realize I'm pushing. 3. You recede.

The game is to eliminate that gap, so that pushing and receding happen simultaneously.

If you think this through to its logical end, it means you have to be able to anticipate my movements perfectly, which entails, to some degree, your knowing my intentions at every moment.

It's this "knowing the opponent's intentions-- staying present and alert to them-- at every moment" part that takes a lifetime to develop and turns someone into a Tai Chi master.

And the game is a little more subtle than it might first appear:

For example, for most of us, it's more obvious to think, "when I push, you must recede." And it's less obvious to think of the equally effective obverse, "when I recede, you must push."

Yes, equally effective, for in Push Hands, the Yin way is just as powerful as the Yang.

In Push Hands, I can push you, but I can also recede on you. And when I fall back, creating an empty space, you must rush in to fill it, like air rushing in to fill a vacuum.

In combat, this translates as drawing back to incite your opponent to overextend and lose his balance (or to overextend and deliver his arm into your immobilizing hold; or to overextend and expose his torso to a damaging strike.) Drawing back by exactly the right distance, at exactly the right moment, is the tricky part. It is what the deft torero does, melting aside at the last moment against a charging bull.

You're probably wondering, how could such a simple training technique as Push Hands be so powerful? Well... "easy to say, hard to do."

...

So I was thinking of all this because I just had an Alexander Technique session with a friend. And at one point, he had a hand on each side of my pelvis and with just the slightest fingertip pressure was moving my pelvis back and forth, testing its mobility, and I think he was surprised by its reactivity, because he suddenly decided to explore its entire range of movement, and started tilting it left and right, up and down, forward and back, as if he were test-driving a space-ship with the floating, gyroscopic steering wheel he held in his hands-- only it was my pelvis, and as I was of course still connected to it, this involved constant kinesthetic accomodations on my part.

This is one of the reasons Alexander Technique is so fun: it's pleasantly surprising for the brain to come into tactile contact with intelligent matter. It's uncanny to handle an object that seems to anticipate your intentions, that moves where you want it to before you actually move it. Indeed, I know of nothing as interesting to manipulate as a motile, human, skeletal-muscular structure. And, as in the game of Push Hands, it's just as interesting to be the handler as it is to be the handlee.












Tags:

(3 comments | Leave a comment)

January 29th, 2009


11:48 pm - postcards on Alexander Technique and Taoism
These are notes to myself, but I thought some people might be interested. They are what I've learned taking a series of weekly Alexander Technique lessons starting about a year ago. After an interruption, I'm getting ready to take up lessons again.

The one thing you do actively do in AT (Alexander Technique) is inhibit. You inhibit misuse so that the primary control can reëstablish.

Unless you have had AT lessons, you would not really understand what I mean by Primary Control. But I'll just add the following "explanation": primary control is how the inner animal coördinates the movement of the head, neck and back together. An AT teacher shows you (creates a situation whereby you see) how you are misusing yourself in terms of primary control, which eventually increases your chances of reëncountering healthy primary control. (My AT teacher did this for me, in any case.)

There is a parallel to be made with a good meditation teacher. He or she increases your chances of encountering meditation.

 
I don't know if there's an official word for it, since I am new to AT, but if primary control involves head, neck and back, I like to think of secondary control as involving the back and the pelvis. 

I like the feeling of releasing simultaneously into the zones of primary and secondary control. I surrender my hold over my backbone and let the vertebral column elongate into the two control zones. It feels as if my backbone has been cooped up all day and then I take it out of its binds and let it unwind to its full length in a hot bath. Sometimes I "surrender" like that hundreds of times a day. To learn Alexander Technique is to develop this reflex.

AT inhibition can be approached as a meditative activity, like Zen archery. As such, its constant practice does lead to flow states. The genius of AT is that it establishes the primary control as a meditative mandala, a focal point, just as Zen meditators are sometimes guided to focus on their breath. Yes, I practice AT while chopping vegetables or scrubbing the kitchen floor. And need I mention that I practice AT while practicing Taichi?

One activity during which I have a harder time practicing AT is piano-playing, because piano-playing is so darned complicated I tend to forget about primary control.

.....


Thibault told me how he was unsure whether he'd be able to discipline himself to meditate daily.

I explained my effortless approach to meditation: instead of forcing myself to meditate, I merely make it a point to notice whenever I've just fallen into a natural state of meditation. This happens many times a day, though sometimes lasting just seconds.

Somewhere in the back of my head, I do think, "yes, my task now lies in prolonging these seconds-long period of mindfulness." But I don't want to get into the mindset where meditation becomes an obligation.

("love your neighbor," Christ enjoins us. But we all know we cannot love by fiat. We do not love by willing ourselves to love. Nor can we stop loving by an act of will. If we could there would be much fewer cases of unrequited love.)

I was explaining my practice of Taichi, and my mother said, "Yin and Yang, ooh, what deep, cryptic concepts."
"No," I answered, "Yin and Yang are not mystical like that. They are just the same thing as saying weak and strong, or tense and relaxed."

For example, Taichi blocking movements typically require yin shoulders and yang wrists: that just means that the shoulders are relaxed and the wrists simultaneously tense. Yin shoulders allows the weight of the body to be transmitted as force all the way through the body's elastic structure to its final point of application-- the wrist!

So, don't think of Yin and Yang as mystical concepts. If there is any mystical concept in Taoism at all, it wouldn't be Yin or Yang, but rather Tao, the Way.

The Way of any art, the way to release an arrow or parry an attack-- is ineffable. The way can be shown and felt, but not described.

We can read a thousand instruction manuals, but they are all ultimately inert words until you have a living experience of what they describe. And once you've had that experience, what is described becomes superfluous.

So instruction manuals are more like postcards for those who've already been there. And that's why Taoists sages preferred to write poetry.

But there's something to be said for postcards, even if they are ultimately unsatisfying.


(6 comments | Leave a comment)

January 23rd, 2009


01:16 pm - The Art of Learning
It's been a while since I've updated here. I got a "nudge" from [info]prettypoet43  so I thought I'd write a few lines about what I've been up to. 

First, I have been sketching at the Louvre. About twice or three times a week. I walk to the museum, flash my "Friends of the Louvre" card at the ticket collectors, and after walking around in the galleries, plant myself in front of a statue-- marble or bronze. There's always a moment of panic when I think, "this sculpture is so intricate, how will I ever manage to capture it?" But if I ease into it, within minutes I am in a flow state. I note my start and end times, and it usually works out to between 30 and 50 minutes. It's a wonderful way to start the day.

Sometimes I draw for just 20 minutes; sometimes I make a clumsy error of proportion and break off the session in disgust. But I always reassure myself, "the important thing is to practice regularly, even if it's just 20 minutes. I shouldn't expect to see progress from day to day, but rather from month to month."

And indeed, that's what has happened. I've made a lot of progress in six months of sketching.

Here is one sketch I've made last week. 







Another art I've taken up is Taichi. While I've learned and practiced yoga from video tapes and books, Taichi is impossible to learn without a teacher because the movements are so complex-- your spine and your four limbs are each doing their own thing in space at a precise rhythm while your weight shifts from foot to foot.

There's a saying that, "when the student is ready, a teacher will appear." And that's what happened to me. I recently made a new friend at a painting exhibition-- Arnaud. He also draws and paints a lot, and said he'd be interested in joining me for a sketching session at the Louvre.

It also turns out he's also a martial arts champion. I've been studying privately with him and in group classes with his master, a Chinese man who studied the Zhao-Bao form of Taichi in the Chinese village where this form emerged.

What I find fascinating in Taichi practice is the management of yin and yang; an attack might involve totally soft shoulders and, simultaneously, iron wrists. You might throw a forceful punch and then suddenly let the fist fall away. At the very crest of its power, the yang punch melts away into emptiness, so that if your opponent tries to grab your wrist, he'll find himself clutching empty air, or at best, your inert arm, with which he would be unable to exert any leverage on you. 

This inner rhythm of fullness alternating with emptiness is quite delightful. 

We train either in the Luxembourg gardens or in a gymnasium on the Seine, and when I come out of 90 minutes of meditative movement, Paris just seems so much more intensively beautiful.

I guess my favorite thing to do is to learn things, and as I learn Taichi, and drawing, and continue with my studies of music and singing, there is a synergistic effect between all these different practices. It's not surprising that this should be the case; drawing, Taichi and music all involve refining gestures in conjunction with opening up one's perception.

It would not be terribly useful for me to elaborate about these learning synergies; the best way would be experience it for yourself by studying kinesthetic arts from a few friendly masters.

I will say that two influences that triggered this orgy of learning are lessons I've been taking in the Alexander Technique, and the book "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkins, a world champion in chess AND in Taichi.

The drawback is that I have very little time left to write blog posts!

But then again, this blog has served its original purpose. I started it to write about two key areas of interest: the mind-body science of learning, and spirituality. I've found in my various activities a satisfying union of the two domains.

I'm just speaking for myself here, but I've found that my rituals of drawing, Taichi and music, have made me much more aware of the sacredness of existence than any religious sermon or dharma talk ever has. And that rather than just creating theories about the mind and learning, it's much more fun to apply these theories directly to learning fun skills.

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

June 30th, 2008


12:48 am - I see. Why would I need dogma?
This is a quote from André Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality:

... it is probably no coincidence that mystics have so often gotten into trouble with their churches, when they had churches. Al-Hallaj was burned alive: Meister Eckehart and Fénelon were condemned by the pope.... These are not mere misunderstandings. The French Jesuit Henri-Marie Cardinal de Lubac said as much in his preface to a voluminous anthology of writings entitled The Mysticism of Mystics. A mystic, he wrote, is the very opposite of a prophet: "The prophet receives and transmits the word of God to which he adheres through faith; the mystic is sensitive to an inner light that exempts him from believing. The two are incompatible." This is because, as de Lubac said, "mysticism eats away at myth, and eventually the mystic can do without it; he tosses it away like an empty shell, while remaining indulgent toward those who still need it." What church or revealed religion could admit this?...

Far from being an oxymoron, the notion of atheistic mysticism-- or, as Father de Lubac puts it, mystical atheism-- then becomes self-evident, both as a concept and as a historically observed phenomenon, admittedly more so in the East than in the West. "In its final state of realization," our Jesuit priest went on, "natural mysticism would be naturalistic and verge opon 'pure mysticism'; no longer recognizing any object [I would say: any transcendent object], it could be described as the hypostatized mystical intuition: what appears to us as the profoundest form of atheism." Why not? Leibniz, in a letter written in 1695, had already pointed out that the writings of mystics contained "extremely bold passages..., almost verging on atheism." More radically, Alexander Kojève in his Reasoned History of Pagan Philosophy went so far as to suggest that "all authentic Mysticisms are in fact more or less atheistic." Though extreme, the express something important, namely... that religion and spirituality are two different things. Even the mystical experience, in which both can culminate, dissuades us from conflating the two.

Nietzsche summed it up famously when he wrote, "I am a mystic and believe in nothing." This is not as self-contradictory as it may seem. Mystics are defined are a certain type of experience, comprising self-evidence, plenitude, simplicity, eternity... All this leaves very little room for belief.

They see. Why would they need dogma?
Everything is present. Why would they need hope?
They live in eternity. Why would they need to wait for it?
They are already saved. Why would they need a religion?

Whether they are believers are not, mystics are those who no longer lack God. But is a God who is no longer lacking still God?

(2 comments | Leave a comment)

May 15th, 2008


10:48 am - starting anew from the body
I wanted to link to this essay by David Abram, Earth in Eclipse.

He criticizes the Platonic notion that reality is "elsewhere": that what we experience as the world is but a shadow of a purer form in an ideal realm.

This kind of thinking pervades, for example, monotheistic religions which teach that true existence, the eternal existence of one's soul, happens in a divine realm "elsewhere", not on earth in any case. Earth is just the placement exam.

It's kind of ironic, but material reductionists, who see themselves as the rational opposites of irrational religious types, are also led into a kind of Platonism, in which reality is "elsewhere"-- and "ultimate" explanations are to be found at the scale of invisible quarks, quanta, DNA.

Let's articulate a more holistic vision of things, in which reality is here and now, taking place at many different space-time scales. This is one of the starting points of phenomenology.

Here's one quote I liked from the post, in which Abrams describes the harmful effects of spending too much time in front of an electronic screen:

How much violence has been done, in the latter half of the twentieth century, by planting our children in front of the television! How many imaginations have been immobilized, how much sensorial curiosity and intercorporeal affinity has been stunted by our easy substitution of the television screen, with its eye-catching enticements, for the palpable presence of another person ready to accompany us on adventurous explorations of our mysterious locale? The screen of the computer, too, requires us to immobilize our gaze, and to place our other senses, along with our muscles, out of play. It isolates and engages only a narrow slice of a child's sensorium, inviting her to set aside the full-bodied world that she shares with the fiery sun and the swooping birds. We should be properly cautious, then, regarding all the new education initiatives aimed at "placing computers in every classroom." We should be profoundly skeptical about every exhortation by so-called experts to bring our children "on-line" as rapidly as possible in order to ensure their readiness and eventual competitiveness in the new "information economy." There is of course nothing wrong with the computer, nor with the astonishing realms now so rapidly being opened for us by the wondrous capability of our computers -- as long as we bring to these new realms both the curiosity and the restraint, the creativity and ethical savvy that grow out of our full-bodied encounters with others in the thick of the earthly sensuous.  But if we plug our kids into the computer as soon as they are able to walk, we short-circuit the very process by which they could acquire such creativity and such restraint.

(2 comments | Leave a comment)

May 11th, 2008


10:56 am - words inscribed on the flesh
This week's Internet reading brings two visions of radical self-discipline.

First, Polish memory researcher Piotr Wozniak has cut himself off from almost all social interaction, to conduct a decades-long learning experiment on himself, at the heart of which is a computer flashcard program he invented called Supermemo.

By the mid-'90s, with SuperMemo growing more and more popular, Wozniak felt that his ability to rationally control his life was slipping away. "There were 80 phone calls per day to handle. There was no time for learning, no time for programming, no time for sleep," he recalls. In 1994, he disappeared for two weeks, leaving no information about where he was. The next year he was gone for 100 days. Each year, he has increased his time away. He doesn't own a phone. He ignores his email for months at a time. And though he holds a PhD and has published in academic journals, he never attends conferences or scientific meetings. Instead, Wozniak has ridden SuperMemo into uncharted regions of self-experimentation. In 1999, he started making a detailed record of his hours of sleep, and now he's working to correlate that data with his daily performance on study repetitions...

Wozniak's days are blocked into distinct periods: a creative period, a reading and studying period, an exercise period, an eating period, a resting period, and then a second creative period. He doesn't get up at a regular hour and is passionate against alarm clocks. If excitement over his research leads him to work into the night, he simply shifts to sleeping in the day. When he sits down for a session of incremental reading, he attends to whatever automatically appears on his computer screen, stopping the instant his mind begins to drift or his comprehension falls too low and then moving on to the next item in the queue. SuperMemo graphs a distribution of priorities that he can adjust as he goes. When he encounters a passage that he thinks he'll need to remember, he marks it; then it goes into a pattern of spaced repetition, and the information it contains will stay in his brain indefinitely."Once you get the snippets you need," Wozniak says, "your books disappear. They gradually evaporate. They have been translated into knowledge."
And here is an account of the work of occult/paranormal writer Charles Fort, (with thanks to Light Reading for the link) another similarly obsessed man who also gave himself over to a self-developed, idiosyncratic knowledge acquisition system.

In May 1911, the New York Public Library HAD been reopened in its new Beaux-Arts marble temple at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street. Now diligently working on his next project, Charles Fort walked to the library every morning, five days a week. He trudged up the flank of white polished steps, took a seat at one of the wide oak desks in the reading room beneath the gilt and coffered ceiling, removed his coat and slid it carefully over the back of his chair.

He read meteorology, natural history, shipping reports and science journals, squinting through his glasses as he turned page after page. With some regularity, he turned to the sheet of paper on the table and scratched a pencil note of some neglected phenomenon. All his notes were written on various grades of pulpy paper that were then ripped against a ruler into small rectangles. Some slips were torn from old correspondence; some were thin onion skin. Each piece was about 1½ by 2½ inches. Fort's handwriting was on a severe diagonal, lower left to upper right, tightly capturing the essence of each report with abbreviations. When he needed extra room for his pencil scrawl, a slip was torn long, then folded to match the dimensions of the other notes. An extremely elaborate note might require an entire sheet of paper, pleated and fixed with a paper clip so it ended up the same size. He managed to assemble 40,000 notes, by his own estimate, deliberately seeking information of the widest possible diversity: 'astronomy, sociology, psychology, deep-sea diving, navigation, surveying, volcanoes, religion, sexes, earthworms'.

In this way the entire world could be reduced to a row of 1½ by 2½ inch scraps, then stored away in Fort's pigeonholes that edged the walls of his apartment. After lunch, he walked home from the library and sorted his precious phenomena by date, then cross-referenced them with a second set of slips organised in broad categories. In the afternoon, he sat at the table and wrote.


Somehow, these two visions of discipline, of shutting out the world in order to give oneself over to a learning system one has devised, reminded me of the Officer in Kafka's Penal Colony, who was so proud of his sentencing machine that he straps himself into it as an act of faith. This sentencing machine works by literally inscribing words into a victim's flesh. Here is an earlier scene in the story, when the Officer is explaining the machine to the narrator of the story.

“Do you understand the process? The Harrow is starting to write. When it’s finished with the first part of the script on the man’s back, the layer of cotton wool rolls and turns the body slowly onto its side to give the Harrow a new area. Meanwhile those parts lacerated by the inscription are lying on the cotton wool which, because it has been specially treated, immediately stops the bleeding and prepares the script for a further deepening. Here, as the body continues to rotate, prongs on the edge of the Harrow then pull the cotton wool from the wounds, throw it into the pit, and the Harrow goes to work again. In this way it keeps making the inscription deeper for twelve hours. For the first six hours the condemned man goes on living almost as before. He suffers nothing but pain. After two hours, the felt is removed, for at that point the man has no more energy for screaming. Here at the head of the Bed warm rice pudding is put in this electrically heated bowl. From this the man, if he feels like it, can help himself to what he can lap up with his tongue. No one passes up this opportunity. I don’t know of a single one, and I have had a lot of experience. He first loses his pleasure in eating around the sixth hour. I usually kneel down at this point and observe the phenomenon. The man rarely swallows the last bit. He turns it around in his mouth and spits it into the pit. When he does that, I have to lean aside or else he’ll get me in the face. But how quiet the man becomes around the sixth hour! The most stupid of them begin to understand. It starts around the eyes and spreads out from there. A look that could tempt one to lie down under the Harrow. Nothing else happens. The man simply begins to decipher the inscription. He purses his lips, as if he is listening. You’ve seen that it’s not easy to figure out the inscription with your eyes, but our man deciphers it with his wounds. True, it takes a lot of work. It requires six hours to complete. But then the Harrow spits him right out and throws him into the pit, where he splashes down into the bloody water and cotton wool. Then the judgment is over, and we, the Soldier and I, quickly bury him.”


Now, Kafka's story can partially* be read as a metaphor for literature itself. For once you've read his stories, their images are seared into your brain forever. Who could forget Gregor Samsa, helplessly upended on his beetle-back, with his bug legs wriggling in the air? Or the sullen, emaciated hunger artist in his cage? Or the harrowing machine of the Penal Colony?

And this brings up an issue I have with the Supermemo program, as well as with Charle's Fort's pigeon-hole files. Flashcards are not the royal road to learning!

Sensuous experiences, vivid images, outlandish stories: we remember these much more readily than we do fact-fragments apportioned onto notecards. Text-based notecards don't take into account the natural dispensation of the brain to working holisticaly, with maps, narratives, and networks of relationships. There are so many things worth learning-- like violin playing or taichi-- that could never be captured in flashcards. Both Wozniak and Fort are obsessed with accumulating facts, but for me, the more important part of learning is in refining the gesture.

Also, too much isolation runs the risk of narrowing our thinking. Without the surprises and prickly challenges of collaboration and debate, most of us can't resist falling into a kind of epistemological arrogance, of seeking confirmation for our set ideas, rather than truly extending our thinking.

Finally, one of my personal heroes was also obsessed with memory, and spent years of his life making expeditions into his memory. His work, In Search of Lost Time, makes for great reading and offers an example of how the same obsession can be channeled into a radically beautiful form.




*I say partially because like all great works of art that capture the mystery of existence, Kafka's stories invite multiple readings, becoming a kind of mirror for the reader.

(7 comments | Leave a comment)

April 29th, 2008


05:27 pm - handwriting, Darjeeling Limited, Skins
[info]peramble asks me, "why do you write?"

Well, writing is a bit like breathing for me. Even when I'm lying in the bath or chopping carrots for soup, I'll hear this crystalline voice in my mind, composing sentences, narrating. So the question has never been whether I'll write or not, but rather, what I will write.

While the Internet is great for writing, publishing and discussing short posts, it is, for me anyway, not a great tool for working on long forms. When I'm writing on a computer, it's just too tempting to wander off, exploring forest trails of blog posts and random articles, rather than staying in place building my little structure. So more and more I'm thinking of radically curtailing my use of the computer. If Shakespeare and Proust constructed such magnificent oeuvres with pen and paper, surely the same tools can serve my more modest project.

Also, I find that handwriting imposes a certain discipline on writing. On a computer I write in fits and starts, using the backspace button to unsay what I've just said. When I write by hand, I spend more energy thinking about what to say before saying it, so that I'm not constantly correcting myself. Because computer paragraphs are elastic, I am tempted to hover back and insert elaborations here and there. With handwriting, there is more of a forward drive; my attention is more whole, less fragmented.

And there's something beautiful about handwriting; the tidy parallel furrows on A4 paper, the the bristly lines I scrawl on index cards in the quaking metro, the underlinings in soft red pencil (I am very exigent about soft red pencils and currently use a Magenta Derwent watercolour pencil). The feeling of shuffling a deck of index cards in the hand, their edges dust-stained and shaggy.

Sometimes I think, "I'll stop blogging," so as to have more time to concentrate on long forms, but I get a lot from reading your posts, and from our dialog.

For example, [info]catachrestic listed The Darjeeling Limited as one of his favorite films of 2007, so I went to see it last night with a friend. I think I was smiling or laughing through the entire film. Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Adrien Brody are so different, and yet totally convincing as brothers.

(skip these next few paragraphs if you don't want spoilers for The Darjeeling Limited)

When they first get settled in the train compartment, they each pull out some kind of pain medication (Francis has a cut and bruised face from a road accident; Peter has migraine headaches, presumably from wearing the prescription sunglasses of their deceased father; and Jack has existential angst). They each take their drug, and then, wordlessly, pass the drops and pills around, like bowls of salty snacks, so all three brothers can sample what each one is having. It's this kind of unspoken collusion, as well as the repetitive nature of their conflicts, that prove to us their personalities have been formed together.

There is so much more I could write about this film. But I'll just mention a few thoughts:

One of the running jokes of the film is that Francis always orders food for all of them, deciding what each person will eat. "Peter will have the cookies," Francis says to the waiter in the dining car. And when Peter protests, insisting on choosing his own dessert, what he ends up choosing anyway is... cookies.

At the end of their quest, when they've arrived at their mother's current humanitarian project at the foothills of the Himalayas, she gets them settled in a room, and, saying goodnight, announces to each of the brothers what he'll be having for breakfast the next day. It's a punchline moment straight out of physical comedy, because she uses exactly the same tone of voice, the same verbal formula, as Francis does each time he orders for his brothers.

That's when we understand that this habit started with her, that it was her misguided idea of mothering: making menu choices and other decisions for her sons. We can also reconstruct the past: when she went off on her humanitarian missions, the boys felt abandoned and Francis had to step into her shoes, taking up her bossy habit so they can be reminded of the motherly affection they long for. We also suddenly understand why the brothers have never learned to make their own  decisions, or to be affectionate, but instead wander from one lukewarm project to the next, from one failed relationship to the next.

(end of Darjeeling spoilers, beginning of Skins spoilers)



On [info]octoberxswimmer's recommendation, I've been watching Skins and am halfway through the second season. I've enjoyed the storytelling and the characters here as well. I don't have a receiving television, so I only watch TV series on DVD or on my computer. Often I'll watch a first season faithfully, but then become disappointed as the narrative formula shows through as the producers and writers strain to come up with a fresh episode.

I didn't want to sit through another scene, in 24, of "to hell with regulations, we have to torture this suspected terrorist now to get time-critical information"; or, in Prison Break 2, of "oh no! some random stranger has recognized the escaped convict as he is buying food or getting medical care!"

I couldn't stomach the prospect of yet another meandering Lost flashback.

I was also getting annoyed with the Desperate Housewives: the clumsy ditz, the icy perfectionist, and the self-centered sex kitten. I had the most sympathy for Lynette, the "working mother" but that wasn't enough to keep me watching.

Skins has sexy, sympathetic characters, and is funny and moving at the same time. The producers experiment with different narrative techniques. The first season closes with a surprisingly naturalistic musical number, when the entire cast sings Cat Stevens's Wild World. There are episodes of high camp-- such as when the group goes on a study tour in an ex-soviet republic (1:6), or when they put on a student production of "Osama, the Musical" (2:2). There's a midsummer's night dream which ends with lovemaking and sunrise on a beach (2:4); and a journey of transformation that draws on Greek Myths and Jungian psychology, and features shamanic initiations and tantric sex (2:6).

It's kind of sad, in a way. I continue to read a lot of books, but very few novels. I read a great many New Yorker articles but usually skip the short stories. It seems like I'll accept fiction in film, but not as easily in text, where my reading priority is now usually nonfiction. The last novel to really shake me was Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections.

I've always figured my long form writing project would fall into the genre of autobiographical essay, but this is a genre that poses its own problems, more psychological than anything; I am shy about revealing many of the details of my life, or those of my friends.

I would be curious to know if any of you think about the question, "what shall I write?" and how you go about responding.

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

April 28th, 2008


04:27 pm - What is theology?
I loved this quote from this interview of Marilynne Robinson.

It's a difficult thing to describe theology, what it means and how it disciplines thinking. Certainly, theology is the level at which the highest inquiry into meaning and ethics and beauty coincides with the largest-scale imagination of the nature of reality itself. Often, when I want to read something that is satisfying to me as theology, what I actually read is string theory, or something like that -- popularizations, inevitably, of scientific cosmologies -- because their description of the scale of things and the intrinsic, astonishing character of reality coincides very beautifully with the most ambitious theology. It is thinking at that scale, and it is thinking that is invested with meaning in a humanly evocative form. That's theology.

(Leave a comment)

April 26th, 2008


11:43 am - This post is a slowly closing door
Ask me a philosophical question and I will answer.

I'll keep revising this post until I have to log off. Then this post will be closed, at least temporarily.

edit: ok, I have to log off now. Feel free to add more comments, just don't expect me to answer immediately. cheers!

Here are some questions to get things rolling:

On free will.
  1. does free will exist?
  2. what is free will?
  3. if I had free will, how would I choose to spend my life, my day, this hour?


(56 comments | Leave a comment)

April 2nd, 2008


11:17 pm - to taste nirvana, turn off left brain
I've just watched Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor's excellent talk on "How it feels to have a stroke." (links to Youtube). It's a blow by blow account of her brain hemorrhage incident ten years ago that temporarily shut down her left brain hemisphere, which effectively plunged her into nirvana.

Here is a quote from the transcript:

When I awoke later that afternoon I was shocked to discover that I was still alive... Light burned my brain like wildfire and sounds were so loud and chaotic that I could not pick a voice out from the background noise... Because I could not identify the position of my body in space, I felt enormous and expansive, like a genie just liberated from her bottle. And my spirit soared free like a great whale gliding through the sea of silent euphoria. Harmonic. I remember thinking there's no way I would ever be able to squeeze the enormousness of myself back inside this tiny little body.

But I realized "But I'm still alive! I'm still alive and I have found Nirvana. And if I have found Nirvana and I'm still alive, then everyone who is alive can find Nirvana." ...

So who are we? We are the life force power of the universe, with manual dexterity and two cognitive minds. And we have the power to choose, moment by moment, who and how we want to be in the world. Right here right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere where we are -- I am -- the life force power of the universe, and the life force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form. At one with all that is. Or I can choose to step into the consciousness of my left hemisphere. where I become a single individual, a solid, separate from the flow, separate from you. I am Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, intellectual, neuroanatomist. These are the "we" inside of me.


I loved that bit I've put in bold print; its language made me think of a post I wrote in this blog three years ago which starts like this:

This moment is the full expression of the creative impulse behind the origin of the universe.

Where is my center? Under my skin and muscle I am an intricately articulated skeleton, able to move in space and time by an act of will. In the core of my bones I am marrow. But marrow is not my center.

Maybe 100 trillion living cells make up my body, each containing DNA, protein-synthesizing instructions in quaternary code. Each DNA molecule contains instructions for building 100,000 different proteins. Please don't ask me how I make my daily hemoglobin-- I'm just the spokesman for this vast enterprise.

My center is itself extruded from a place outside time and space. I am a projection from the timeless realm. And thus projected, I can shine the beam of my flashlight back into the ideal realm to contemplate mathematical truths and pure geometric forms.

 

edit: May 25, 2008, the New York Times has published an article about Dr. Taylor.


(2 comments | Leave a comment)

March 10th, 2008


10:59 am - hard poetry, fur-less cats, and parasites
Here's a quote from Sean O'Brien's article, "Read poetry: it's quite hard".

"Read poetry: it's quite hard," the poet Don Paterson crisply suggested. To do so requires us to claim that imaginative space, and to live with Keats's "uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts", rather than rush to conclude and summarise. Part of what Eliot called "the shock of poetry" lies in the fact that what it offers is often both instinctively recognisable and at the same time resistant to interpretation - a three-dimensional experience for the imagination, not a mere scanning of captions. And just as poetry's subject is life in all its manifestations, so it exacts from the reader an equal attention to the human gift of language - meaning, tone, overtone, music, pattern, memorability, the power to move and delight.

I like the concepts of imaginative space, of resistance to interpretation, and experience for the imagination. These concepts resonate with me because I have arrived at them independently, through mulling over my chronic question: "what shall I write?" I'm fascinated that someone else has thought of these concepts, too, and named them. That's proof enough that critical writing is not entirely useless.

That said, as Theophile Gautier puts it, "You do not become a critic until it has been completely established to your own satisfaction that you cannot be a poet." (Gautier also said, "The cat is a dilettante in fur.")

Anyone who thinks extensively about the process of art eventually comes up with fresh, and so somewhat idiosyncratic, concepts. I'm thinking of movement educator FM Alexander's notion of primary control; or Chess and Tai-chi champion Josh Waitzkin's making smaller circles. Here is Waitzkin explaining making smaller circles in a US Chess Federation interview:

The theme I call “making smaller circles” relates to incremental refinement of a technique or idea until the external manifestation is hardly visible, but the potency is profound. In the martial arts the way this works is to take a large movement, like a boxer’s jab, and to practice it until the correct body mechanics are not consciously considered, but they have a certain feeling. Once you have that feeling you can use it as a beacon and slowly condense the distance the fist travels. In time your body mechanics will get more and more potent and so less physical movement will be necessary. Ultimately a great fighter can do things that are nearly invisible to the untrained eye. There is nothing mystical here, just incremental refinement.

Actually, I was first struck by this idea when studying the chess games of Michael Adams. I had to play him in a closed tournament in New York City, and analyzing his games I began to notice that he often seemed to pay absolutely no heed to the center. Usually the first principle a young chess player learns is “Control the center!” And here was a world class GM ignoring it altogether! After many days of studying his games I began to understand that Adams was controlling the center with complete detachment. He had made the circles so small, you couldn’t see them ... but they were there. In fact, Adams often had complete central domination while seeming to ignore it altogether.

Over the years I have also developed many private concepts, of which I'll now share three: inner north star; theme or scene?; and performing hesitation. And they link up thus: when I write, I have to have an inner north star,  in the case of an essay, a theme; and in the case of a narrative, a scene. Otherwise I just end up performing hesitation.

Once I articulated this concept of performing hesitation, I began to see it everywhere, even outside the context of writing. In fact, I first derived this concept from the context of public speaking.

Here's how it happened:

I had just delivered a winning pitch (for a new animated series) to a few hundred industry professionals, and a colleague came up to congratulate me. Later, she would say, "you are so lucky to have had an American education. You were so confident up there."

I think she was rueful that her schooling at the hands of Irish Catholic nuns had taught her to be be self-effacing, to speak in a non-imposing (i.e. mousy) voice, and to constantly seek permission and approval.

But I wanted to say, "are you kidding?! my heart was pounding up there, I thought I was going to faint!"

Indeed, throughout my presentation, I felt fluttery fear. But I realized I had two possibilities: I could perform this fear: stammering a hundred miles an hour in a high-strung nasal voice, which, frankly, nobody wanted to hear, or: I could slow my breathing, slow my speech, and lower my voice, which might seem insincere, a put-on and an act, but which would be more enjoyable for everyone.

So I went with option two: assuming the image of confidence, projecting the "I know what I'm doing" and "we're all loving this, aren't we?" attitude. I even made a few spontaneous quips.

And they ate it up with a spoon!
I've extended this concept, and now think of all strong emotions as something I perform, kind of like a piano sonata. In particular, in the middle of gripping spirals of negative emotion, I'll ask myself, "now, why am I performing this?"

Have you seen the animated film Howl's Moving Castle? In this scene (links to Youtube) the wizard Howl throws a fit because Sophie has gone into his filthy bathroom and put it in order and as a result, he mixes up shampoo bottles and his blond hair turns red. A petty detail, but he is so vain he spirals into despair, and as he is a powerful wizard, the walls bulge and buckle, and rivulets of green slime start oozing out of his body, threatening to drown their sustaining magic hearth-fire. I loved this scene! It is a spectacular example of performing emotion.

A few times, in response to these posts of mine, I've had people say, "you inspire me." And I shake my head and think, "if they only knew..." If you only knew to what extent I often feel aimless, lost, hesitant, regretful-- how often I lapse into my Prufrock or Scott Fitzgerald: second act mode. But nobody wants to be made to wallow in such feelings, so I sweep them aside and focus on more inspiring facets of my life. I designate my inner north star, my drishti, with care.

For Deleuze and Guattari, creating new concepts is simply what a philosopher does. They came up with provocative  concepts like body-without-organs, desiring-production, and the rhizome.

What about you? If you have coined any concepts lately, please share!

Of course, concepts are not the whole deal; they repose upon-- are superimposed by imaginative projection onto-- the continuous sensuous substrate of our life. Here's one last quote from Gautier: "Critical lice are like body lice, which desert corpses to seek the living."

I'll pair this with a quote from Paul Cantor's review of the Lives of Others:
Donnersmarck develops a powerful image of the parasitism of the communist regime in East Germany. Everything that is valuable in this world, all that is vibrant and creative, all the emotional warmth and depth, is to be found in the lives of Dreyman and his artistic friends. The communist state can only sit back and passively observe all this—the lives of others. False to the core, the party officials feed like vampires on the life blood of the people under their rule.

(15 comments | Leave a comment)

March 8th, 2008


10:27 am - to no longer be myself
My brother got married Feb 17. I flew back to Taipei for the ceremony and the lavish dinner. It's always an amazing experience to go back and visit my parents, to be immersed in their diligent, frugal ethos, to reconnect with their spiritual values.

I took to sleeping early and rising early as they do, doing yoga in the morning, then sitting down to a breakfast of fresh fruit and wheat toast with peanut butter. They had no coffee machine, so all week I drank instant coffee, tearing open the 3-in-1 foil backs-- pre-blended with sugar and creamer-- and mixing it with water from their electric dispenser. It was cold and humid, so hot water became my default drink.

As I would be singing at the ceremony, in the days before the wedding, I'd sing every morning, going over the Fauré song (Notre Amour) phrase by phrase, recording myself on a digital camcorder, and then replaying each fragment instantly to hear my errors, and to observe and correct tensions in my neck or back that distorted my sound. It was slow and satisfying work. Over three days the song began to take form. A mere hour absorbed in this process was enough for me to realize that I was only scratching the surface of infinite possibilities, to lead me to Hippocrates's wistful conclusion, Ars longa, vita brevis.

The ceremony was beautiful, fresh roses everywhere, candles, the church choir singing in English, Mandarin and Taiwanese. It was cute: one song had as a refrain, "I kneel down before you," and they kept pronouncing the "k" and singing "Kuh-neel". Almost all of the congregation was native Chinese speaking, so I don't think many people noticed.

When the pastor asked my brother, "do you take this woman to be your wife, to have and to hold...?" and so on, he answered so emphatically, "Yuanyi!" that we all laughed. Yuanyi-- "I am willing!" The way he said it was like a game show contestant accepting a televised challenge (of the scorpion-eating, gauntlet-running kind), or a kung-fu prodigy accepting an imperial mandate.

The grand piano I played on had sat through too many humid winters and become waterlogged and half-mute; many of the keys didn't sound at all. So the iridescent harmonies of the Fauré song were cut down into something almost minimalist. Hopefully the charcoal sketch that came through-- even if wasn't the full oil painting-- was nevertheless elegant and suggestive.

After the ceremony, my focus switched. I looked up some old friends, and, over three days, made an oil painting.

One of the friends I looked up, Father Jerry, is a Jesuit Priest with whom I made an English-teaching television show many years ago. I showed up unannounced and he received me in his modest office with the small green sofa I remember from when I was a kid. For the first time we had a conversation about religion, and I told him about my theological and metaphysical inquiries of the past several years, documented in this very blog.

He was remarkably open-minded and present. He admitted that he disagreed with various Church doctrines, and spoke also about his Buddhist friends. "Many missionaries believe that conversion is the only option when faced with someone of another faith, but it has been our experience that dialog is more fruitful. Let's talk and then see what happens."

I was struck by that phrase: "It has been our experience." Our experience? I understood that he was speaking then as a representative of the Jesuit order, with its 473 years of memory; or maybe as a representative of the Catholic Church, which dates back almost 2,000 years to Peter. Or perhaps he was speaking as an agent of the eternal God, here in the temporal world. In any case, what a sense of empowerment! While I am entangled in my petty personal problems, fretting about next week's deadline or last week's slight, my friend's vision sweeps forward and back in centuries.

I had been thinking, rather sourly, of faith as a shackles, as a burden, as an impediment to authenticity, but here, I saw someone who was fully energized by faith, and not at all crimped by it. It's this same deep sense of conviction that enabled Matteo Ricci to spend decades in an utterly alien Imperial China, contributing immensely to cultural dialog by making the first Latin translation of the Confucian classics, for example, and the first Chinese translation of Euclid's Elements. (He also made the first map of the world in Chinese.)

"You could have become a Jesuit. You would have fit right in," my friend said.

"Yes, I think so too."


I saw many other friends in Taipei and Hong Kong, but this entry is already so long, I'll have to save those anecdotes for another post. I'll just mention that my friends kick ass! I saw so many amazing people...

I had lunch of fresh fig salad, braised vegetables and meat, and chocolate cake with P. the blue-eyed American who speaks fluent Chinese, is partner in a Taiwanese law firm, and runs triathalons in his spare time.

C, my globe-trotting, art-collecting high school pal who now runs her family's accessories business, had me over to her office for a five-course lunch prepared by their private chef. (crab-claws, marinated beef, braised tofu, veggies, strawberries, yum!)

With L we had a beautiful Italian dinner: fried calamari with creamy polenta, hand-cut parpadelle with veal ragu, and red wine. She told me about her annus mirabilis, in which she had her first baby, and raised a staggering billion dollars for her investment fund.

The night before I had lunch with A, my choreographer friend and long time collaborator, he'd just been honored with a prestigious achievement award from the Hong Kong government. He told me about innovative projects he's been doing, like choreographing for a blind dancer ("she puts her hands on my body to follow my movements; she has such a sensitive touch.") and doing dance therapy with psychiatric patients. My friend W, a butoh dancer, was also at lunch and we decided then and there to put on a performance in August.

I had dinner with P and walked his three dogs with him along the Hong Kong waterfront, and hung out at his place listening to Plain White T's Hey There Delilah again and again.

It was a beautiful trip. And now I'm back, sinking back into a slower rhythm. I get up and walk the dog and bake bread and play the piano.

Gaspard has been coming daily to see the dog and we cook up a storm together. I think of it as therapy for his intense angst, an indispensable complement to the pills he's been prescribed. For lunch yesterday we made grilled polenta with spicy marinara sauce, grilled zucchini and mushrooms, and a salad of rocket and toasted pine nuts. For dinner he fried sole in butter and garlic, and served it to me with grilled peppers, steamed broccoli and rice.

He'll still speak of suicide. But instead of getting hysterical and accusing him of trying to blackmail me emotionally, I take a more philosophical approach.

"To want to die, is to want to become another." I tell him.

I think he appreciates this, and he repeats this thoughtfully. "To want to die, is to want to no longer be myself."

(16 comments | Leave a comment)

February 16th, 2008


03:39 am - patterns
When Oliver Sacks is about to get a migraine, he hallucinates geometric patterns:

In my own migraine auras, I would sometimes see — vividly with closed eyes, more faintly and transparently if I kept my eyes open — tiny branching lines, like twigs, or geometrical structures covering the entire visual field: lattices, checkerboards, cobwebs, and honeycombs. Sometimes there were more elaborate patterns, like Turkish carpets or complex mosaics; sometimes I saw scrolls and spirals, swirls and eddies; sometimes three-dimensional shapes like tiny pine cones or sea urchins...

Much later still, when I first saw photographs of the Alhambra, with its intricate geometric mosaics, I started to wonder whether what I had taken to be a personal experience and resonance might in fact be part of a larger whole, whether certain basic forms of geometric art, going back for tens of thousands of years, might also reflect the external expression of universal experiences. Migraine-like patterns, so to speak, are seen not only in Islamic art, but in classical and medieval motifs, in Zapotec architecture, in the bark paintings of Aboriginal artists in Australia, in Acoma pottery, in Swazi basketry — in virtually every culture... Do the arabesques in our own minds, built into our own brain organization, provide us with our first intimations of geometry, of formal beauty?

Whether or not this is the case, there is an increasing feeling among neuroscientists that self-organizing activity in vast populations of visual neurons is a prerequisite of visual perception — that this is how seeing begins. Spontaneous self-organization is not restricted to living systems — one may see it equally in the formation of snow crystals, in the roilings and eddies of turbulent water, in certain oscillating chemical reactions. Here, too, self-organization can produce geometries and patterns in space and time, very similar to what one may see in a migraine aura. In this sense, the geometrical hallucinations of migraine allow us to experience in ourselves not only a universal of neural functioning, but a universal of nature itself.


I also see such patterns, and wrote in a post from 2006 (We tile the world with fractals, not pixels):

In other words, fractals are not just in the world, they are what the mind generates in its attempt to map the world. Because the mind generates patterns which it then projects onto the world, those patterns that the mind cannot generate will never be perceived in the world.


Edit: And here is Brian Boyd, writing in the American Scholar.
Humans uniquely inhabit “the cognitive niche.” We have an appetite for information, and especially for pattern, information that falls into meaningful arrays from which we can make rich inferences. We have uniquely long childhoods, and even beyond childhood we continue to play more than other species. Our predilection for the patterned cognitive play of art begins with what developmental psychologists call protoconversation, exchanges between infants and caregivers of rhythmic, responsive behavior, involving sound and movement, in playful patterns described as “more like a song than a sentence” and as “interactive multimedia performances.” Without being taught, children engage in music, dance, design, and, especially, pretend play....

Because the world swarms with patterns, animal minds evolved as pattern extractors, able to detect the information meaningful to their kind of organism in their kind of environment and therefore to predict and act accordingly. Pattern occurs at multiple levels, from the stable information of spatial conditions and physical processes to highly volatile information about individuals and their moods, actions, and intentions.


(Leave a comment)

January 10th, 2008


12:55 pm - the smell of her earlobes
Last Saturday I ended up at a Korean dinner party. There were about twelve of us in a warmly-lit Parisian flat with wood floors and plaster moldings. For someone who works in couture, the hostess was remarkably down-to-earth. She was calm and beautiful and wore no makeup. When she was cooking she'd put on a crisp, slate-colored cotton apron.

I sat there in amazement as more and more courses came out of her kitchen, served in flat baskets or ceramic dishes. There were maki rolls with pickled turnip, spinach and surimi; battered shrimp and tempura carrots; scrumptious fritters made with fresh-shucked oysters; braised ribs with chili and natto, which she served with steamed rice, salad greens, and white cabbage leaves; home-made kimchi; a traditional new year's soup of sliced rice cake and shredded omelet. We had plenty of Champagne and a noble bottle of Margaux, gold foil boxes of chocolates from la Maison du Chocolat and Jean-Paul Hévin. When on top of that she brought out a tray of pastries, I think there was a collective gasp or groan; none of us could eat any more.

It was the kind of dinner that takes a few days to prepare, like Babette's Feast. When I realize that I've landed in one of these dinners, I'm always amazed that anyone would be so generous with their time today.

Anyway, sitting next to me was a vivacious, rotund designer who was soon recounting her love life to me. I kept leaning in to smell her perfume, and she finally presented her earlobe for a good whiff.

"C'est quoi comme parfum?" I asked.
"Je ne sais plus... un parfum de Sisley..."

She explained that she had all three Sisley perfumes and rotated between them, so wasn't sure which one this was. She gave me a name I could try: Eau du Soir.

So yesterday when I passed by a perfume shop, I went in. I walked along the shelves of lacquer-finish cartons, until I came to the short row devoted to Sisley. I smelled the Eau du Soir, but realized immediately that, no, what she had on was rather Soir de Lune. The warmth of rose and the glow of patchouli made me think of her right away.

Here's what perfume blogger Victoria  has to say about Soir de Lune in her bois de jasmin review:
Dominique Ropion who created the fragrance for Sisley worked on the classical chypre theme, setting the radiant floral heart in the voluptuous duskiness of oakmoss and patchouli. Its smouldering form is shrouded in enough floral sweetness to temper the sensuality of spicy, woody notes...
The fresh top notes spill into layers of spices, interspersed with hints of rose that grow darker and richer as the fragrance dries down. The heart shimmers with floral nuances, exhibiting the chilly crispness of iris one moment and the honeyed sweetness of mimosa the next. The transition from floral opulence to woody darkness takes place in a harmonious manner, and when one finds oneself sinking into the raw silk warmth of the base, the sensation is nothing short of captivating.

I won't pretend that I experienced all that in the perfume, but I agree: it is captivating.

Notice how her encounter with the perfume is a narrative, with beginning, middle and end. The top note gives way to the heart, which unfolds into the base. Of course, this three-part narrative is just a perfume writer's convention; in reality we encounter the whole smell at once, much in the same way that Mozart conceived the whole work in one conceptual glance:

Mozart wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages. ~ Franz Niemetschek

I quote from the perfume review because it is mystical language. Those words work only with the addition of a skeleton key, which is the presence of the perfume itself: the juice. If you haven't actually smelled Soir de Lune yourself, the words I quote, while they make grammatical sense, are limited in their ability to evoke a response in you.

It's the same with mystical language in a spiritual context. Here is one of Naropa's songs (I've slightly reworked the translation by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche and Erik Pema Kunsang):
Seeing objects as external is a mistake;
Like a dream, they are empty of concreteness.

This mind, as well, is a mere movement of attention that has no self-nature,
a gust of wind, empty of identity, like space.

All things, like space, are equal.

'Mahamudra' is not some entity that can be shown.
the mind's suchness is itself the state of Mahamudra...

when you see and realize its nature,
All that appears and exists is Mahamudra,
The great all-encompassing Dharmakaya,
Naturally and without contriving, allowed simply to be,

This unimagined Dharmakaya,
Letting it be without seeking is the practice of meditation.

So there I was, holding this precious bottle of perfume, wondering if I should buy it. I liked the idea of possessing such an exquisite scent, but it would be a splurge, and this is a perfume meant for a woman, which I would not normally wear.

That said, I can think of one exquisite ritual in which I can incorporate this scent! ;-)

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

January 3rd, 2008


01:01 pm - growing tentacular feelers into the hive mind of humanity
A longtime LiveJournal friend, [info]nobody_, has recently shut down her blog, archiving her old posts behind a friends-only filter.

To respect her privacy, I shall now have to refrain from quoting from her insightful past posts. I think she wouldn't mind, though, if I mentioned that one of her reasons for stopping was that she wanted a more intimate, direct and warm form of communication than blogging. I totally sympathize with that desire.
Drinking a mug of hot wine with a friend, on the wood terrace of an Alpine chalet, after a morning of skiing on fresh powder-- that was delicious, compared to my sitting here now in front of my computer!
Sometimes I think I'll stop blogging, too. The time that it takes to post and to respond to comments-- wouldn't this time be better spent writing the chapters of a book? something more cohesive and ambitious?

If I keep blogging, though, it's because I love to read others' blogs. I keep adding new feeds to my Google Reader account, and scanning down the hundred+ items daily, I feel like my brain is growing tentacular feelers into the hive mind of humanity, taking its pulse.

I feel like I should at least give a little back to this collective energy.

So, here are a few interesting items:

An article on robot love and a documentary on sex dolls (not safe for work!) lead me to think about non-reciprocal love-obsessions based on pure imaginative projection.

A video of Esther Hicks channeling a spirit, Abraham, leads me to wonder about the ontological implications. Is "Abraham" also based on imaginative projection? Note that Abraham's message, and the phenomenon of channeling itself, is consonant with Schopenhauer's ontology; we are all emanations from one source, so there is no need to commit to a belief in Abraham as an independently existing being. In any case, Hicks is definitely in a trance state here, and speaks with impressive clarity and assuredness; she improvises syntactically complex sentences, opening and closing clauses with aplomb.

Speaking of improvisations, I shed a few tears listening to Aretha Franklin singing Nessun Dorma at the 1998 Grammy Awards. She filled in for an ailing Pavarotti who bailed out at the last minute, and had only ten minutes to rehearse the piece.

And here's some cheerful advice on writing, from an article by Kirsten Ogden.

With so much against us, we writers need routine to stay grounded. This sentiment is echoed in almost every book I’ve read on writing–and is echoed in every conversation with writers I admire. They get up. They sit in the chair. They write. They do it again. And again. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Even though I should’ve internalized this knowledge long ago, I was giddy when I came across This Year You Write Your Novel by Walter Mosley. Perhaps it was the title–yes! This is the year! Perhaps it was the day. Yes! It’s New Year’s Eve! I mean, I don’t even have an idea for a novel. Well, I do, but those are just ideas. Make those ideas into a novel, in a year? Wow! I’ll buy some of that! Even though I’d read it all before, I was genuinely invigorated reading the book with my cup of coffee outside the Coffee Bean; especially section one of the book, titled The general disciplines that every writer needs;” the first of which was to write every day. His reason for this rule: “getting the work done and reconnecting with your unconscious mind.” Yes. This is vital.


(11 comments | Leave a comment)

> previous 20 entries
> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com