Monday, September 04, 2006

The complacent plagarist

From where she lies she sees Venus rise.
.
.
.
Know Happiness.

-----

Estragon: (giving up again). Nothing to be done.
.
.
.
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.

-----

The Rue du Coq d'Or, Paris, seven in the morning. A succession of furious, choking yells from the street. Madame Monce, who kept the little hotel opposite mine, had come out onto the pavement to address a lodger on the third floor. Her bare feet were stuck onto sabots and her grey hair was streaming down.
.
.
.
Still, I can point to one or two things I have definitely learned by being hard up. I shall never again think that all tramps are drunken scoundrels, nor expect a beggar to be grateful when I give him a penny, nor be surprised if men out of work lack energy, nor subscribe to the Salvation Army, nor pawn my clothes, nor refuse a handbill, nor enjoy a meal at a smart restaurant. That is a beginning.

-----

1. In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into representation.

221. Emancipation from the material bases of inverted truth - this is what the self-emancipation of our epoch consists of. This "historical mission of installing truth in the world" cannot be accomplished either by the isolated individual, or by the atomized crowd subjected to manipulation, but now as ever by the class which is able to effect the dissolution of all classes by bringing all power into the dealienating form of realized democracy, the Council, in which pratical theory controls itself and sees its own action. This is possible only where individuals are "directly linked to universal history"; only where dialogue arms itself to make its own conditions victorious.

-----

Jewel and I come up from the field, following the path in single file. Although I am fifteen feet ahead of him, anyone watching us from the cottonhouse can see Jewel's frayed and broken straw hat a full head above my own.
.
.
.
It was for a fact, all shut up as pretty as a picture, and everytime a new record would come from the mail order and us setting in the winter, listening to it, I would think what a shame Darl couldn't be to enjoy it too. But it is better so for him. This world is not his world; this life his life.

"It's Cash and Jewel and Vardaman and Dewey Dell," pa says, kind of hangdog and proud too, with his teeth and all, even if he wouldn't look at us. "Meet Mrs Bundren," he says.

-----

The idea of eternal return is a mysterious one, and Nietzsche has often perplexed other philosophers with it: to think that everything recurs as we once experienced it, and that the reccurence itself recurs ad infinitum! What does this mad myth signify?
.
.
.
Tomas turned the key and switched on the ceiling light. Tereza saw two beds pushed together, one of them flanked by a bedside table and lamp. Up out of the lampshade, startled by the overhead light, flew a large nocturnal butterfly that began circling the room. The strains of the piano and violin rose up weakly from below.

-----

The unusual events described in this chronicle occurred in 194..., at Oran. Everyone agreed that, considering their somewhat extraordinary character, they were out of place there. For its ordinariness is what strikes one first about the town of Oran, which is merely a large French port on the Algerian coast, headquarters of the Prefect of a French 'Department'.
.
.
.
And, indeed, as he listened to the cries of joy rising from the town, Rieux remembered that such joy is always imperilled. He knew what those jubiliant crowds did not know but could have learned from books: that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks and book-shelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it roused up its rats again and sent them forth to die in a happy city.

-----

May I, monsieur, offer my services without running the risk of intruding?
.
.
.
The water's so cold! But let's not worry! It's too late now. It'll always be too late. Fortunately!

-----

As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. He was lying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly keep in position and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes.
.
.
.
They grew quieter and half unconsciously exchanged glances of complete agreement, having come to the conclusion that it would soon be time to find a good husband for her. And it was like a confirmation of their new dreams and excellent intentions that at the end of their journey their daughter sprang to her feet and stretched her young body.

-----

The Great Wall of China was finished off at its northernmost corner. From the southeast and the southwest it came up in two sections that finally converged there. This principle of piecemeal construction was also applied on a smaller scale by both of hte two great armies of labor, the eastern and western.
.
.
.
To set about establishing a fundamental defect here would mean undermining not only our consciences, but, what is far worse, our feet. And for that reason I shall not proceed any further at this stage with my inquiry into these questions.

-----

Aujourd'hui, maman est morte. Ou peut-être hier, je ne sais pas.
.
.
.
Pour que tout soit consommé, pour que je me sente moins seul, il me restait à souhaiter qu'il ait beaucoup de spectateurs le jour de mon exécution et qu'ils m'accueillent avec des cris de haine.

-----

In 1957, an earth-born object made by man was launched into the universe, where for some weeks it circled the earth according to the same laws of gravitation that swing and keep in motion the celestial bodies - the sun, the moon, and the stars. To be sure, the man-made satellite was no moon or star, no heavenly body which could follow it circling path for a time span that to us mortals, bound by earthly time, last from eternity to eternity. Yet, for a time in managed to stay in the skies; it dwelt and moved in the proximity of the heavenly bodies as thought it had been admitted tentatively to their sublime company.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For if no other test but the experience of being active, no other measure but the extent of sheer activity were to be applied to the various activities within the
vita activa, it might well be that thinking as such would surpass them all. Whoever has any experience in this matter will know how right Cato was when he said: Numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quan cum solus esset - "Never is he more active than when he does nothing, never is he less alone when he is by himself."

-----

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Words and phrases of a day - Sep 03

Upper hand; Tennyson; brew; oddities; start; perverse; officer; stupid; eh?; young; diesased; toenails; bile; degenerate; syndication; mean; suck it off the top; show; display; reports; Defense Ministry; News; speak; Truth; major offensive; scores; casualties; details; regular programming; hodge-podge; orphaned; contracted daddy; dream no one; commodity; tampon; lip gloss; dynamic colour; outlast; shine; pillage future; cretin life; villages; despondent; call now; drip, drip, drip; join stasis; atrophy; leave me; let me; go; mo' money; no problem; cheater; file; should; ought; could; what; when; where; slowed; slowed; slowed; dull boy; dull boy; inane; crawl; crawl; evasion; repression; failure; skill; talent; networked; cyber; life; in the wires; timeslots; casted; wrangling; non sequitur; business; back up the drain; plunge; don't; can't; shouldn't; ain't no way; bricolage; archival; tapes; stuff from the street; revaluing the world; at large; objects, forgotten and remembered; white cat; black hat; I am; decisive; Mr. Ed; humous; falafel; pita; winter wonderland; introducing; dream lover; overdrawn; beggar's can't be choosers; tombs; catacombs; rise; rise; arise; family of kids; no mo' play; dull boy; dull boy; dull boy; weighty matters; levity; support; crushing Russian; white Russian; booze; drunk; tanked; yanked; whanked; whore; blow up; down; blowjob; androgyny; incorporate; ad campaign; Polynesian town; crane shot; pantomime; puppy; purported; ribs; quality; quantity; Cabo; Baha; snow; wind; fire; whatever; The Who; light for shot; Merry Fucking christmas; good girl; bad girl; intimidated; uncover cowardice; crippled; paralysis; quoting; Montaigne; three now two; score; who has the score?; cage; enclosure; inside; outside; randomness; cretinism; pot; pans; pansexual; multicultural; bourgeois(ie); beauty; fuckable; saddleback; rack; titties; punsies; design boldly; operate timidly; much garbage; take in; eat out; deliver; instinct; unknown; random; unknown; unknown; structure the day; quadruple; past control; hosers from future; get; trilogy; modern times; pink martini; stereophonic; breathing conflict; revolution in a can; bottle; barrel; submit; buy your problems away; look don't touch; banjo; blue grass classic; network star; Bill Buckner; squibble; dribble; stunted growth; shrinkage; laundromat; complication; parsimony; what are you on?; zany; tension; intensity; improvised; ow vey!; snow covered miseltoe; what; divine taste; crude appetite; stupid judgment; justify; derive; live on; float to nowhere; quality not needed; move units; sell sell sell; last choice; amuse them; arouse yourself; pilfer the mind; embrace the bizzare; pariscope up down; quit now; now; cut your losses; sex; death; taxes; sterile; verile end; climax; collapse.

Friday, September 01, 2006

The King is Dead; Long Live the King


AP Photo/Junji Kurokawa
"Oh my god! I left my lights on!"

Thus ends another chapter of USA basketball's fall from grace.

Fielding a team of pitchmen, high school hoop prodigies, former collegiate standouts, and imperfect derivations of past legends - looking at you Dywane Wade, the United States once again collapsed under the weight of massive expectations.

A Greek team, with exactly zero NBA players on its roster, defeated the star-studded Americans 101-95 in the semi-final of the 2006 FIBA World Championship. Of course, before the US team tip off for the bronze medal in Japan, the blame game will be well under way.

Will it be directed at Mike Krzyzewski, who, in spite of preaching defense, allowed this group of purportedly the world's best players to be shredded for 101 points in the semi-final? The words "perimeter" and "defence" are somewhat incompatible for this particular US squad. Greece shot 76 percent from the field, 25-of-33, in the second and third quarters, transforming a 12 point deficit into a 77-65 lead heading to the final period.

Or will the onnus be on Jerry Colangelo, architect of this supposedly new and improved US team?

With all due respect to Chris Bosh, he rode the pine for most of the tournament and would not have helped the team's shooting woes. The US team shot a horrid 9-of-28 from three point territory against Greece, following an equally abysmal 10-for-40 performance against Germany. Which causes one to ask where was Adam Morrison, former collegiate sharpshooter, and soon to be Charlotte Bobcat standout?

He was not in a USA uniform. He possibly was at home punching a hole in a wall while watching US players lay bricks from beyond the three point line as well as at the charity stripe (the Americans shot 59 percent from the free throw line).

Or does the blame belong to BronMeloWade, the co-captains, who combined for 63 points in the semi-final? The spectre of Bird-Magic-Jordan looms large over these three; they have yet to escape, nor will they with anything less than a gold in Beijing. Suffice it to say, Dream Team I is a distant memory. BronMeloWade is no Bird-Magic-Jordan, not yet.

Then who is to blame? Two words: Kobe Bryant. No, that's too easy. It's too easy to hate on Kobe, instead of acknowledging the real reason behind USA basketball's fall from grace.

Simply put, the world has caught up and possibly surpassed the USA. During certain stretches, opponents outclassed the USA in the fundamental aspects of the game: team defence, perimeter shooting, and free throw shooting. In other words, the rest of the world is better than the USA at the international game. They are better at exploiting the shorter three point line, have better overall ball movement, and can consistently make free throws.

It might be time to admit that the American "game" is filled with cheap knockoffs, primadonnas, and corporate pitchmen primarily concerned about earning potential and marketability. With global endorsement deals becoming more lucrative than even player salaries, it is not hard to see why players are first and foremost loyal to their brand, then to team and nation. ESPN, showing reel after reel of dunks and acrobatic moves, forgets to mention that a dunk is two points, with exceptions, but a trey is worth three points. 3>2; in spite of the aesthetic of a poster.

In America, the culture of basketball has lost its soul. It values the image, along with its pigheaded, "I'm gonna dunk on you, sucka" mentality. Well, well, the boys who know how to shoot beat the aerial acrobats; there must be a grin on Dr. Naismith's face, whereever he is.

While boys in Argentina, Greece, or Spain play the game without conceit, without an entrenched sense of entitlement or self-promotion, young players in America emulate the moves, the dunks, the swagger, the shoes of a Jordan, but neglect the substance of his game, the strength of his character, and his indomitable desire to win.

Basketball has rediscovered its soul, in the streets and gyms of Rio and Buenos Aries and Athens and Madrid. The game is beautiful, when played by those who love it. Although USA Basketball may take little solace in it, the game of basketball is better off with American dominance dead and buried. Competition makes the sport that much more interesting. The King is dead; long live the king.

Friday, August 25, 2006

The town drunk and its only philosopher

Hanging upside down on a length of rope tied to a bough, I awoke and saw a large figure stumbling towards me.

"You ain't dead yet," he mumbled to me, or maybe he was conversing with himself, couldn't tell initially, he talked into his chest. In any event, he stopped a couple of paces short and bobbed his head up and down, evidently examining the dangling body.

"You don't remember much do you?" he asked. After he finished slurring his words, I hurled, suffering from the inverted perspective; it certainly was not a commentary about my nameless interlocutor. As I can attest to, there is nothing quite as vile as vomiting while dangling upside down from a tree, especially if one is relatively sober. The rush of acid burns doubly when turned on one's head. And the smell! The smell was rank, inescapable and utterly unbearable. No, he was right. I didn't remember anything. I couldn't recall the night before. I couldn't recall the poisons I ingested, if any at all. And I didn't know how I ended up there.

"Boy, did you have quite a night," the nameless man said, evidently content to stand by and provide a running commentary, which, in retrospect, I was grateful for.

I tried to wipe the residue from my mouth, which proved to be a trying task. Sapped of strength and any semblance of dexterity, my right arm was foreign to me. It collided repeatedly with my chest, rapped my nose bloody, before finding its way to my mouth. Upon completing the rather absurd sanitary task, I asked him who he was.

"The town drunk and its only philosopher," he replied. I rolled my eyes in response.

"A philosopher, huh? I guess I should not ask you to cut me down."

"Why not?" he asked.

"Well, because you will ask why or why not until both of us are maggot food."

"That's rather parochial, but I don't judge people or justify what I do. I just do what's expected of me," he said, taking another swig from his paper bag. He offered me a sip; I declined. He took a few steps back and looked intently at the tree.

"A sturdy twig from the looks of it," he said, still giving no indication whether he was going to help me get down, nor was I going to ask; I was quite content to dangle from that uncommon view, at least for the meantime. With blood finally flowing to my skull, I was in a rather contemplative mood.

"Are you from the camp or the town?" he asked.

"The camp, but I think I ventured into town for the night," I replied, unsure whether that was the truth, or merely an anachronistic recollection about some other night on the town, or simply of a night that I had merely heard about. In any event, the drunken philosopher was not convinced.

"You're not from the camp," he said nonchalantly. "You ended up in the camp and couldn't find your way home."

"No, no, no, I'm from the camp. That is where I'm stationed," I replied sharply, slightly annoyed by the implication that he knew better than me about where I was from.

"Were you born in the camp?" he asked.

"Of course not!" I provided a loud rebut, growing further agitated by his questioning.

"Hmm. Hmm. Hmm." He continued in this manner for sometime, pacing back and forth, before walking right up to me.

"So you are not from the camp then now are you?"

"Well, if you want to get technical about it, I am from my mother's womb. Oh, but wait, that's not completely accurate either. I'm from my father's gonads as well. Oh wait, wait, I have it, I'm from my father's gonads, by way of my grandmother's cunt and grandpappy's come. I could go on you know." After I finished my rant, the drunken philosopher strategically positioned himself so that his crotch obscured my line of sight. He stood there a long while, without word or response. It may have been a minute or ten or twenty of silence. I was naturally concerned about my doubly precarious position - vomit below and a crotch in my face. And, I could not see his face. Looking up, I only caught the bottom of his prominent chin; and one can't read a chin. At last, he broke the silence.

"What is a camp?" he asked.

"See, this is what I mean about you philosophers; always asking questions when the answer is right in front of you", I said, motioning behind me to where I thought the camp was.

"Not the camp, a camp, what is a camp?" he asked again, growing more obtuse with every passing word. However, his question barely registered, as my mind wandered elsewhere. The stench of the man's crotch inexplicably aroused thoughts about death, that irrevocable fate of man. The stream of blood flowing from my nose halted; a development that provided me great comfort.

Assured that I wouldn't die of a bloody nose, I imagined death in all its forms, or at least the forms I could think up; a bayonet blade plunged into the throat; a bullet to the head; sleep without awakening; to die of exhaustion after a night of lovemaking; freefalling to the bottom of a canyon; trampled to death by a pack of buffalo, or bulls, or cows, or obese women; setting oneself on fire; incineration; starvation; bodies branded for annihilation; hangman's noose; executioner's axe; Judgment by the invisible hand; atrophy; entropy; an imploding sun; horsemen on the run; and so on and so forth. We all had to go sometime, or so they say; at least I didn't bleed to death dangled in front of a strange man's pungent crotch.

"A camp," I finally responded,"is a series of barracks, a mess hall or two, a shooting range, officer's quarters, and sometimes a gymnasium; all of it surrounded by a giant fence and secured by men with guns eager to shoot." He laughed at my response. I thought he, like any philosopher, dealt in abstraction and metaphysics, and was probably mortified by such a cursory account of surface phenomenon. Nevertheless, he appeared to be pleasantly amused by the description.

"Well, that's one answer," he said while pacing back and forth, at last removing his crotch from my face.

"The deciding factor, of course," he said,"is the possibility of being shot if one leaves without authorization. Is that what defines a camp? Being shot or reprimanded for acting contrary to authority?"

"I guess," I replied, now concerned about whether I exceeded my authorized leave. I waded through my shirt pocket and found the slip, but since I had no clue about the day or the time; the discovery provided me little comfort.

"Yes," I continued, "I'm free, namely not getting shot or disciplined, if I obey." The hulking man let out a hearty laugh.

"The outsider," he began again, "is lead into the camp, for training, for rectification, for quarantine, for indeterminate detainment, or for his ultimate demise; and for him, freedom is simply the other side of the fence."

"Obedience," he continued, "is merely done for the sake of survival." He turned around, looked up at the rope wrapped around the bough, and smirked. "Freedom always comes with risk," he said, "the possibility of failure or punishment or further incarceration comes with the possibility of freedom. Let me ask you: is this inverted noose your idea of freedom?"

I noticed that I had assimilated to my inverted perspective, and, alas, it lost its novelty.

"No, it was rather interesting at first, but now it's pretty inane."

"So you want me to slice you down?"

"Sure, but make sure I don't fall face first into my own vomit."

"I can't assure you of that," he replied, "its a risk you have to take."

"Alright, I want down anyways."

He disappeared from my sight. I looked around and caught him climbing up the tree. He navigated along the bough, pulled out his pocketknife, and, as he worked on the rope, I readied myself for the fall. He sliced through the rope and I started my descent, managing to avoid the vomit, and landing relatively unscathed on my side.

"Thank you!" I shouted, astonished by how ecstatic I felt about my release. He nodded to recognize my voice. Surprisingly, I got to my feet with relative ease in spite of earglier struggles with my arm. He jumped down from the tree and turned to walk towards town.

"Where are you heading to?" I asked.

"Back to work," he said.

"Really?"

"Yes, they need to see the town drunk living in abject squalor to confirm their place in society."

"And the philosopher?"

"Well, he's never been needed; it just happens that only the town drunk has the lucidity to philosophize. He's the marginal character, the rambling jester, paraded out as a comedic spectacle, for the rest to consume or ignore. The beauty is that both roles come with the same set of demands; hence, they are one in the same."

I smiled and waved goodbye, until I realized I needed to figure out the date and time.

"Wait, wait, I shouted to him, I need to head into town as well."

"Heading home?" he asked in a rather sardonic tone.

"No, I have to figure out the date and time."

"For what reason?" I pulled out my slip, only to realize that the information on it was utterly illegible. He looked over at the slip, held up by my trembling hands.

"Time, evidently, has no measure without the sovereign Word," he said.

I no longer was in a mood for his abstractions.

-----

I remember a young recruit, named Jeb or Jess; the name is rather extraneous to the story, so let's say he was named Jim. Jim tried to steal into town one night to visit his girl visiting from a town over. He navigated through an underground network of tunnels, built up over the years by men seeking clandestine nights in town, and all seemingly went as planned. That was until he unwittingly took a wrong turn. Rather than ending up in the utility shed outside the walls of the camp, safely obscured from the sightlines of the eager watchmen, he popped through the floorboards of the Commanding Officer's quarters, uh, let's say he was named Yanic, who had company at the time.

CO Yanic was a rather domineering and tough public figure. He would openly beat recruits he deemed disobedient or incompotent with his trusty metre stick. The violations would range from a loose shoelace to an untimely chuckle. But usually he didn't need particular provocations to whip out the stick.

"Man is the measure of all things," he would recite. "You boys don't measure up!" The distant sound of a tapping metre stick haunted the barracks long after he returned to his quarters. Well, returning to Jess', I mean, Jim's story, the details are rather unclear. First, we couldn't figure out why in the world there was a tunnel leading to the CO's quarters. If one's aim is to make it out of the camp, a tunnel leading to the CO's quarters is a rather cruel, and in Jim's case, a fatal joke. Second, we had no definitive account of what went on in the room that night, before and after Jim made his unexpected appearance. There were several accounts.

One, Yanic had a female companion, usually a particularly fetching prostitute imported from the town named Lorelai, or was its Lori? Anyways, just as Yanic gathered momentum, getting a lather going, as the saying goes, the jarring sound and sight of Jim popping through the floor made him lose his cool and he climaxed prematurely into Lori's experienced orifice. The prostitute, as the story goes, giggled at the officer's predicament, providing an unfavourable comparison of Yanic to a twelve-year-old virgin. Yanic, needless to say, was incensed, pulled out his metre stick, and beat Lori beyond all recognition, shattering several in the process, or, so the story goes. Jim's fate was considerably more drawn out and, well, cannot be delved into without sorting through some of the other accounts.

Another account purported Jim had found himself alone in the room with Lorelai. Well, the name itself probably tells the story. He was lured to bed by the alluring siren-whore, apparently abandoning all rational faculties - if he had them, he would have realized that CO Yanic would appear at any moment. And, of course, Yanic appeared on the scene readied to enjoy Lorelai's company, only to see a lowly recruit ravishing her rather expertly on his bed. Exhausted from his trip through the tunnels and the carnal encounter, Jim could not fight off Yanic, who easily subdued and violated him with his metre stick.

The official story held that Jim attempted to strangle the CO in his sleep only to be subdued by Yanic, who won a struggle with Jim. There was no attempt at explaining why Jim ended up in Yanic's room or why there were murderous intentions. They needed justification, no matter how erroenous or irrational, for the punishment to be meted out in private darkness. In any event, all we knew was that Jim was never to be seen again after his cruel turn in the tunnels. Not one of us in the camp could find out what happened to Jim; we could only imagine the reprimand or executions soon to be validated in order to kill innocents - innocents in the particular sense, not the universal.


Buber on Palestine

In 1925, Buber became an active member of the German chapter of Brith Shalom (The Peace Association), which means literally, the Covenant of Peace, an organization dedicated to cultivating mutual relations between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.[1] Buber later played an integral role in the League for Jewish-Arab Rapprochement and Cooperation, and headed the creation of an associated party, Ichud (Union), established in August of 1942.[2] Buber’s vision for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East was the creation of a bi-national state, consisting of direct relationships between Jewish and Arab communities. This vision, however, was not shared by the majority of Jewish Israelis who believed the central aim was simply the defense and security of the Jewish “homeland” from the supposedly imminent Arab threats. Buber, as it turned out, was tragically prescient in his warnings about the aggressive political tactics adopted by the Israeli government, most clearly expressed in his debates with David Ben-Gurion, who eventually would be named the first Prime Minister of the state of Israel.[3] Ben-Gurion and other political leaders, as Jewish historian Laurence Silberstein notes, “elevated the nation and the state to the level of ultimate value”.[4] In contrast, Buber did not see the bi-national state as an absolute solution; rather, it would create the conditions for dialogue, wherein the Jewish and Arab peoples could come to together to address problems and challenges – whether economic, cultural, political, or social.[5] Hence, in regards to the question of Palestine and the future of the Arab and Jewish peoples in the region, Buber called on the people of each nation to take an active part in the creation of a bi-national state, rather than allow political leaders, consumed by political illusion to dictate the future of the region. Alas, Buber’s call was and has largely been ignored, and the region, since the creation of the state of Israel in 1947, has been beset with political unrest, violence, and a growing distrust between the two peoples.[6]

As early as 1921, Buber believed the grounds for cooperation had to be cultivated through “intensive and systematic cultivation”.[7] What Buber meant by intensive and systematic cultivation was not the simple imposition of formula and program on the Jewish and Arab communities. Rather, he saw that the framework of a bi-national state, cultivated through Arab-Jewish rapprochement, would create the possibility for trust between the two peoples. The actualization of this trust, however, was not a task left to politicians, scholars, or bureaucrats; trust would be actualized through the participation of communities and its members in addressing common interests, such as economic interests. Rather than simply consenting to decisions and programs formulated by politicians such as Ben-Gurion, providing such political ends “the absolute form of unambiguous moral imperatives”[8], Buber, through his involvement in Ichud, actively tried to cultivate social and political relations between the two peoples; but such attempts failed, because the ‘majority’ of Arabs and Jews did not believe cooperation was possible, due in large part to the prevalence of political distrust, which painted the other side as threat or enemy.

The creation of the state of Israel, built upon a series of unilateral actions that neither acknowledged nor considered the claims of the Arab population, only reinforced a Palestinian Arab view of Jews “as invaders bent upon dispossessing the Arab masses”.[9] Therefore, politicians such as Ben-Gurion, in their “realist” approach to the situation in Palestine, willingly took on the stereotypes regular Arabs inscribed onto Jews, while considered the Arab population within and around Palestine to be threats to the security of the newly created Jewish state, and took political steps towards militarizing the new state.[10] Although Buber reluctantly embraced the new Jewish state, he insisted that the Jews’ historical re-entry into their homeland “took place through a false gateway”[11]. For Buber, without the possibility of trust, and its subsequent cultivation through dialogue between peoples of the two nations, there would be no lasting peace for the new Jewish state or its neighbours. This view, as Silberstein notes, would often lead Buber into direct confrontation with Israeli government leaders.[12] And as Buber points out in a January 1962 speech, “whoever considers war to be inevitable collaborates, willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, in bringing about war,”; addressing directly the readiness of most Jews to accept the political illusions fed them by government and its leadership.[13]

Buber poses a challenge to the idea that the task of a citizen is to legitimate the current regime - through ballot, party participation, or activism, and tacitly consent to the actions undertaken by leaders – “Argue as much as you want and about whatever you like, but obey!”[14] This reasoned capitulation, argues Buber, leads humanity towards illusions and away from the actual life between persons. For Buber, political surplus, afforded by tacit consent, exacerbates political illusions by fostering and addressing phantom threats rather than confronting the actual problems that threaten the life of the interhuman. Let us turn our attention to an article by written Buber in May 1946 concerning the escalating tensions between Arabs and Jewish Israelis in order to explore this point. In the course of the article, Buber wonders why the emerging conflict had been framed as a zero-sum political game. Although real conflicts do arise between groups of people, these conflicts, according to Buber, can be resolved “within the domain of life itself”, a domain between persons not dominated by the political principle.[15] However, in modern politics, the ‘other side’ is assumed to absolutely untrustworthy until proven otherwise, entrenching the myth that conflict between groups are necessarily irreconcilable, the ineluctable divide between victor and defeated.[16] The assumption is that conflict and contestation is necessary for a regime to retain its distinctively political character.[17] This imbalanced need to sustain politics for the sake of politics generates illusory threats by exaggerating real conflict to grotesque proportions. In his short article, “A Tragic Conflict?” (1946), Buber writes, “The politics of a group produces within its members a sense of conflict with proportions much greater than those of the real conflict, and accords it a different, seemingly absolute, character.”[18]

In short, Buber acknowledged the real and central conflict between Arabs and Jews, namely, the necessity for both peoples to live together in the land known as Palestine, and contended that the existence of a Jewish state could not be secured without cooperation with the Palestinian Arabs. The political leaders of the Israel, however, held steadfast to the conventional political line; that Arab peoples surrounding Israel are assumed to be threats and enemies, whose potential aggression must deterred by the accumulation of Jewish military and political might. As it turns out, Buber and those who shared his view of a bi-national Palestinian state provided a warning that tragically went unheeded.




[1] From a 1925 document produced by the group, it states its object. “The object of the Association is to arrive at an understanding between Jews and Arabs as to the form of their mutual social relations in Palestine on the basis of absolute political equality of two culturally autonomous peoples, and to determine the lines of their co-operation for the development of their country.” And as Mendes-Flohr notes, the bi-national state the group had in mind, at least at this stage, “was a modus vivendi between Zionism and Palestinian Arab nationalism within the existing political framework of the 1920 British Mandate (which, in short, established the goal of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, elaborating upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration that initially set out this aim). Hence, according to Mendes-Flohr, “Birth Shalom envisioned as the most reasonable solution to the problem of Palestine a constitutional agreement whereby Jews and Arabs would enjoy political and civil parity within the unitary framework of the Mandate.” Martin Buber, “Brith Shalom”, A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs. Paul Mendes-Flohr, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 72-75.

[2] In the program of the Ichud published on September 3, 1942, which Buber composed along with his colleagues Robert Weltsch and Judah L. Magnes, once again asserts the need for co-operation between Jewish and Arab peoples. Article 2 of the program states: “The Association Union (Ichud) therefore regards a Union between the Jewish and Arab peoples as essential for the upbuilding of Palestine and for cooperation between the Jewish world and the Arab world in all branches of life – social, economic, cultural, political – thus making for the revival of the whole Semitic world.” Buber, “The Ichud”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 148-49.

[3] This debate between the two regarding the composition of a Jewish state is expressed clearly in an article entitled, “A Majority or Many? A Postscript to a Speech”. In the article, Buber explicitly disagrees with Ben-Gurion’s proposal for creating a Jewish majority in Palestine and politically justifying the creation of a Jewish state on those grounds. Buber, “A Majority or Many? A Postscript to a Speech”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 164-68.

[4] Laurence J. Silberstein, Martin Buber’s Social and Religious Thought. (New York: New York University Press, 1989), p. 255.

[5] For example, in “A Majority of Many”, he contends that a “commonality of interests” would be beneficial in cultivating trust between Arabs and Jews. “The separate national economic systems should be replaced, as much as good economic allows, by one shared countrywide system, in whose success both nations are interested and whose shared development may well create mutual trust, that in turn will lead to far-reaching agreements.” Buber, “A Majority or Many? A Postscript to a Speech”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 168.

[6] This is reflected by the most recent Middle East crisis between Hezbollah, a militia within Lebanon, and Israel in July and August of 2006.

[7] “In this land, whose population is both sparse and scattered, there is room both for us and for its present inhabitants, especially if we adopt intensive and systematic methods of cultivation.” Buber, “A Proposed Resolution on the Arab Question”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 61.

[8] Buber, “A Majority or Many? A Postscript to a Speech”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 165.

[9] Silberstein details some of these myopic actions on the part of the Jews, i.e., buying up land from wealthy land owners rather than negotiating with Palestinian Arabs about potentially common economic interests. Silberstein, Martin Buber’s Social and Religious Thought, p. 255

[10] In his May 1958 address to the American Friends of the Ichud, Buber recounts an event from the “unhappy partition of Palestine” that is particularly chilling. “It happened one day, however, that outside of all regular conduct of the war, a band of armed Jews fell on an Arab village and destroyed it.” In a footnote, Mendes-Flohr provides some further context. “On 9 April 1948, during the siege of Jerusalem, a combined force of Irgun and he Stern Gang attacked Deir Yasin, an Arab village commanding the road to Jerusalem, reportedly killing 254 of its inhabitants – men, women, and children.” Buber, “Israel and the Command of the Spirit”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 292, 293, n. 4.

[11] In the May 1958 address, Buber affirms the factual reality of the State of Israel, but warns that without Jewish-Arab rapprochement, the unrest between the two would only persist. He says during the address, “There can be no peace between Jews and Arabs that is only a cessation of war; there can only be a peace of genuine cooperation.” Buber, “Israel and the Command of the Spirit”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 293.

[12] Silberstein, Martin Buber’s Social and Religious Thought, p. 262, 328, n. 53.

[13] Buber, “We Must Grant the Arabs Truly Equal Rights”, A Land of Two Peoples, p. 299.

[14] Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”, Kant: Political Writings. Hans S. Reiss, ed., H.B. Nisbet, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, 1991), p. 59.

[15] Martin Buber, “A Tragic Conflict?” A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs. Paul Mendes-Flohr, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 187.

[16]Politics, seeking to retain its domination of life, has an interest in treating the interests of the various groups as if they were irreconcilable. But since this in fact is not so, politics has to make it so.” Buber, “A Tragic Conflict?” A Land of Two Peoples, p. 187.

[17] “The essence of all politics…is conflict, the recruitment of allies and a voluntary following. Weber, “Parliament and Government in Germany”, Weber: Political Writings, p. 173. To reiterate, Weber contends that political struggle is the crucible in which the modern politician is forged, sustaining individual initiative in the face of growing authoritarian and bureaucratic regimes. “But the given palaestra for the modern politician is parliamentary conflict and the fight for party in the country, and there is nothing of equal value which can replace such struggle – least of all competition for promotion…where the leader achieves power in the state.” Weber, “Parliament and Government in Germany”, Weber: Political Writings, pp. 173-74.

[18] Buber, “A Tragic Conflict?” A Land of Two Peoples, p. 187.

The different "I"

The I of I-It, or the ‘experiencing I’, is necessary, because man must experience the world in order to address Thou. Therefore, this 'experiencing I' cannot be regarded as evil, because without it man cannot be sustained in life. The danger of It-world experience is the immersion of the individual into It-world causality, i.e., approaching the world and others for instrumental use and experience. But, it should be pointed out that Buber does not advocate a purely spiritual existence. Because, as Friedman correctly points out, the I-Thou is not an unqualified good, since its lack of measure, continuity, and order threatens actual human life.[1] In other words, I-Thou does not and cannot remove man permanently from the world of experience, but simply helps actualize his life in it. Buber does not believe that mystical detachment from the known world can confirm human existence.[2] Hence, an absolute valuation of either the I-It or the I-Thou to the preclusion of the other may lead towards isolation and a noetic state of incompleteness. Although the I of I-It and the I of I-Thou are different, they are both necessary to an actual life between persons.

The differentiation Buber makes between these two ‘I’s can be elaborated upon. The ‘severed I’ is the individual immersed in experience or purely spiritual contemplation and the ‘engaged I’ is the person open to relationship with others and the world. The ‘severed I’ is burdened with conceit; specifically the belief the individual can confirm itself in monologue. In contrast, the ‘engaged I’ has no such conceit, because while open the I-Thou relationships, this I embraces an invariable return to the It-world of experience, changed by mutual encounter. The ‘severed I’ precludes either the realm of experience or the realm of spirit in favour of the other and, hence, keep human beings as individuals by neglecting or obscuring the potential for relationship.

The particular uniqueness of interlocutors engaged in dialogue is not absorbed into a single unity through I-Thou relationship. Rather, as Buber notes, uniqueness is affirmed through relationship.[3] In stepping into dialogical relationship, one is not immersed into a unity, once and for all. The relationship is a passing encounter that changes the way participants experience the world, i.e., destabilizing a stagnant impulse to simply use and apply experience for instrumental ends. Hence, the ‘severed I’ is different from the ‘experiencing I’. They are not one in the same. The ‘experiencing I’ is necessary, because man must experience the world in order to provide for his life. However, the ‘experiencing I’ can stagnate into a ‘severed I’ without the possibility of I-Thou relationship. Hence, the I of I-It and the I of I-Thou have the potential to become engaged with experience and spirit or severed from relationship when immersed solely in its respective realm. Therefore, the ‘severed I’ is the individual lost in causality. The ‘engaged I’ acknowledges the necessity of experience and relationship, and strives to actualize the life between persons, rather than merely within individuals.



[1] Maurice Friedman, Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 60

[2] This is why Buber, in “What is Common to All”, objects to the prioritization of an individualized “dream world” in Hindu and Taoist traditions above the common “waking” world and refutes Aldous Huxley’s claim that a mesculin trance allows an individual to transcend selfhood and the ephemeral world. Buber, “What is Common to All”, The Knowledge of Man, pp. 81-85, 89-92.

[3] “What the genuine saying of ‘Thou’ to the other in the reality of the common existence basically means – namely, the affirmation of the primally deep otherness of the other, the affirmation of his otherness which is accepted and loved by me…” Buber, “What is Common to All”, The Knowledge of Man, p. 86. Maurice Friedman provides some elucidation to Buber’s argument. “I-Thou is the world of relation and togetherness, each of the members of the relation really remains himself, and that means really different from the other.” Maurice Friedman, Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 61



Thursday, August 24, 2006

Pluto's a planet no more

Pluto's a planet no more,
and schoolboys rejoice;
one less to remember, they say.

The man in motion,
twenty trips around the sun;
a globetrotting cyborg rolls on.
Bomb plots defused,
unrest nevertheless the norm;
misery abound in this planet,
that we call home;
yet it is still a planet,
but according to whom?

Pluto's a planet no more,
dead,
erased,
snuffed from the chart;
for man prefers death,
willed by his own hand,
and exalted cogito.

Long after Chamfort*

Wit in fools has something shocking
Like cabhorses galloping.

-----

The trouble with tragedy is the fuss it makes
About life and death and other tuppeny aches.

-----

Better on your arse than on your feet,
Flat on your back than either, dead than the lot.**

-----

Live and clean forget from day to day,
Mop life up as fast as it dribbles away.

-----

Ask of all-healing, all-consoling thought
Salve and solace for the woe it wrought.

-----
Hope is a knave befools us evermore,
Which till I lost no happiness was mine.
I strike from hell's to grave on heaven's door:
All hope abandon ye who enter in.***

-----

sleep till death
healeth
come ease
this life disease

-----

how hollow heart and full
of filth thou art

- Samuel Beckett, 1975-76
(translated by the author)
-----

* adaptaions of the maxims of Sebastien Chamfort
**
Refers to an A.E. Houseman poem?
***From the original French: "Je mettrais volontiers sur la porte du paradis le vers que le Dante a mis sur celle de l'enfer: Lasciate ogni speranza etc."
- Samuel Beckett, 1975-76
(translated by the author)

Song

Age is when to a man
Huddled o'er the ingle
Shivering for the hag
To put the pan in the bed
And bring the toddy
She comes in the ashes
Who loved could not be won
Or won not loved
Or some other trouble
Comes in the ashes
Like in that old night
The face in the ashes
That old starlight
On the earth again.

- Samuel Beckett, 1962

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Private health care

Dr. Brian Day, who runs a private clinic in Vancouver, was elected the head of the CMA (Canadian Medical Association) today. This is surely a bad sign for the future of public health care in this country. Of course, this development will colour the CMA's approach to public health care. The sky may not yet fall. But be weary of it coming down some time in the near future. It's nice to know that most of my generation will likely suffer from cancer, diabetes, HIV, or AIDS without public health care. Either you're filthy rich, willing to go into debt to stay alive, or dead. It makes me want to go get a vasectomy, while I still can afford it.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Absinthe night

I woke up in the drain. Or not. No. It wasn’t the drain. It was the tank. I ended up in the tank. I looked around and saw the standard four-by-six furnished with a stainless steel commode and the bed that I was laying on. Beautiful. How the fuck did I end up here? I looked around and couldn’t make out a thing. They took my glasses, and evidently my pants as well. Fucking pigs. No, I shouldn’t be like that. They left me my grey briefs and socks. It was decent of them. There are decent pigs, except they’re the exception. Oh, oh, I had to use the commode. The smell of stomach acid and half-digested pepperoni pizza lingered for a good while. I went back to lay down, still unsure of whether I got a hummer from the bikini chick. I recalled her, but also her boyfriend, Bigfoot’s forgotten progeny, I suspected. Absinthe. Nasty shit. I still taste it now. Man, she had a nice rack and a pink tongue stud to boot. She was hanging on me, rubbing up, rubbing down. Hope I got something out of it. Yeah, the Absinthe…wormwood floating in a murky liquid, I still can’t recall much. Sugar on a spoon, blue flame, downed one, downed two, downed four…fade to black. Damn, she was hot. That’s a straight guy’s mind for you. Really, it was getting to be a tree-falling-in-the-forest thing. I just assumed the tree made a sound and went back to sleep. They'd have to fetch me eventually.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Clarity and precision is elusive

Clarity and precision is elusive. It is hard to be clear, when one's mind is filled with doubt. It is harder to be precise; the eternal question of why hinders precision. Why? Why am I? Why am I not? Precision, however, comes easier to those who move away from abstraction. A writer achieves precision by observing and experiencing the world. The writer, in a way, is part voyeur. Whereas voyeurs consume the image, writers do more than consume; they speculate beyond the surface.

Clarity and precision is difficult to achieve - descriptive narratives may serve as example. Although a writer can free himself from abstraction by writing about experience and observation, this move exposes him to another danger, banal verbosity. Descriptions ought to paint with generous strokes an adequate representation of reality, or at least a subjective interpretation of reality. The writer is entrusted by his audience to provide insight as well as description; in short, the task is to inform readers without falling into tedium.

Clarity and precision, hence, does not come from inspiration alone. For a piece of writing to achieve these two elusive qualities, the writer must approach the task as a labour of love - a task initiated by passion and sustained by discipline. Even when a writer goes gonzo, he is still expected to be clear and precise in thought; it all must lead somewhere and be coherent, if only in structure.

It is hard to write like Samuel Beckett. In spite of his ostensibly fractured narration, such as in Molloy, a careful reader ought to note the carefully plotted structure of the work. Hence, there is an aporetic quality to clarity and precision. On the surface, clarity of structure is not easily grasped when reading "schizo" prose. The narrator, possibly named Molloy, alludes to the point of the story - "to speak of things that are left, say my goodbyes, finish dying". And in spite of the ranting and wandering narrative, which some characterize as late modernist, insofar as it supposedly subverts the conventional structure of the novel, Beckett moves the story along through the recurrence of lack - no sense of time, no sense of place - "Molloy" often wonders where he is, and a general sense of uncertainty. Lack provides for mood. And of course, Molloy and Moran's narration, at times lacking consistency, does provide ambience. The intensity of this lack culminates with the infamous ending, "It is midnight. The rain is beating on the windows. It was not midnight. It was not raining," as if negating -- through this most assured of negations -- the entirety of the novel. The condition captured by the writer is a subjective interpretation; the question of whether it is an actual condition is often irrelevant. So what is clear or precise about imploding the novel with this negation at the end? Death is the highest negation. The novel finished dying. Possibly to begin again.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Shooting an Elephant - George Orwell

From George Orwell, Shooting and Elephant and Other Essays. (London: Secker and Warburg, 1950), pp. 1-10.


[1] In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people - the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. No one had the guts to raise a riot, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans.

All this was perplexing and upsetting. For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically - and secretly, of course - I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. The wretched [2]prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been Bogged with bamboos - all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt. But I could get nothing into perspective. I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East. I did not even know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts. Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty.

One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism - the real motives for which despotic governments act. Early one morning the sub-inspector at a police station the other end of the town rang me up on the phone and said that an elephant was ravaging the bazaar. Would I please come and do something about it? I did not know what I could do, but I wanted to see what was happening and I got on to a pony and started out. I took my rifle, an old 44 Winchester and much too [3] small to kill an elephant, but I thought the noise might be useful in terrorem. Various Burmans stopped me on the way and told me about the elephant's doings. It was not, of course, a wild elephant, but a tame one which had gone "must." It had been chained up, as tame elephants always are when their attack of "must" is due, but on the previous night it had broken its chain and escaped. Its mahout, the only person who could manage it when it was in that state, had set out in pursuit, but had taken the wrong direction and was now twelve hours' journey away, and in the morning the elephant had suddenly reappeared in the town. The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it. It had already destroyed somebody's bamboo hut, killed a cow and raided some fruit-stalls and devoured the stock; also it had met the municipal rubbish van and, when the driver jumped out and took to his heels, had turned the van over and inflicted violences upon it.

The Burmese sub-inspector and some Indian constables were waiting for me in the quarter where the elephant had been seen. It was a very poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts, thatched with palmleaf, winding all over a steep hillside. I remember that it was a cloudy, stuffy morning at the beginning of the rains. We began questioning the people as to where the elephant had gone and, as usual, failed to get any definite information. That is invariably the case in the East; a story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes. Some of the people said that the elephant had gone in one direction, some said that he had gone in another, some professed not even to have heard of any elephant. I had almost made up my mind that the [4] whole story was a pack of lies, when we heard yells a little distance away. There was a loud, scandalized cry of "Go away, child! Go away this instant!" and an old woman with a switch in her hand came round the corner of a hut, violently shooing away a crowd of naked children. Some more women followed, clicking their tongues and exclaiming; evidently there was something that the children ought not to have seen. I rounded the hut and saw a man's dead body sprawling in the mud. He was an Indian, a black Dravidian coolie, almost naked, and he could not have been dead many minutes. The people said that the elephant had come suddenly upon him round the corner of the hut, caught him with its trunk, put its foot on his back and ground him into the earth. This was the rainy season and the ground was soft, and his face had scored a trench a foot deep and a couple of yards long. He was lying on his belly with arms crucified and head sharply twisted to one side. His face was coated with mud, the eyes wide open, the teeth bared and grinning with an expression of unendurable agony. (Never tell me, by the way, that the dead look peaceful. Most of the corpses I have seen looked devilish.) The friction of the great beast's foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit. As soon as I saw the dead man I sent an orderly to a friend's house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle. I had already sent back the pony, not wanting it to go mad with fright and throw me if it smelt the elephant.

The orderly came back in a few minutes with a rifle and five cartridges, and meanwhile some Burmans had arrived and told us that the elephant was in the paddy fields below, only a few hundred yards away. As I started forward practically the whole population [5] of the quarter flocked out of the houses and followed me. They had seen the rifle and were all shouting excitedly that I was going to shoot the elephant. They had not shown much interest in the elephant when he was merely ravaging their homes, but it was different now that he was going to be shot. It was a bit of fun to them, as it would be to an English crowd; besides they wanted the meat. It made me vaguely uneasy. I had no intention of shooting the elephant - I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary - and it is always unnerving to have a crowd following you. I marched down the hill, looking and feeling a fool, with the rifle over my shoulder and an ever-growing army of people jostling at my heels. At the bottom, when you got away from the huts, there was a metalled road and beyond that a miry waste of paddy fields a thousand yards across, not yet ploughed but soggy from the first rains and dotted with coarse grass. The elephant was standing eight yards from the road, his left side towards us. He took not the slightest notice of the crowd's approach. He was tearing up bunches of grass, beating them against his knees to clean them and stuffing them into his mouth.

I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant - it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery - and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided. And at that distance, peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and I think now that his attack of "must" was already passing off; in which case he would merely wander harmlessly about until the mahout came back and [6] caught him. Moreover, I did not in the least want to shoot him. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home.

But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd - seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing [7] it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing - no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.

But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. At that age I was not squeamish about killing animals, but I had never shot an elephant and never wanted to. (Somehow it always seems worse to kill a large animal.) Besides, there was the beast's owner to be considered. Alive, the elephant was worth at least a hundred pounds; dead, he would only be worth the value of his tusks, five pounds, possibly. But I had got to act quickly. I turned to some experienced-looking Burmans who had been there when we arrived, and asked them how the elephant had been behaving. They all said the same thing: he took no notice of you if you left him alone, but he might charge if you went too close to him.

It was perfectly clear to me what I ought to do. I ought to walk up to within, say, twenty-five yards of the elephant and test his behavior. If he charged, I could shoot; if he took no notice of me, it would be safe to leave him until the mahout came back. But also I knew that I was going to do no such thing. I was a poor shot with a rifle and the ground was soft mud into which one would sink at every step. If the elephant charged [8] and I missed him, I should have about as much chance as a toad under a steam-roller. But even then I was not thinking particularly of my own skin, only of the watchful yellow faces behind. For at that moment, with the crowd watching me, I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone. A white man mustn't be frightened in front of "natives"; and so, in general, he isn't frightened. The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do. There was only one alternative. I shoved the cartridges into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim.

The crowd grew very still, and a deep, low, happy sigh, as of people who see the theatre curtain go up at last, breathed from innumerable throats. They were going to have their bit of fun after all. The rifle was a beautiful German thing with cross-hair sights. I did not then know that in shooting an elephant one would shoot to cut an imaginary bar running from ear-hole to ear-hole. I ought, therefore, as the elephant was sideways on, to have aimed straight at his ear-hole, actually I aimed several inches in front of this, thinking the brain would be further forward.

When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick - one never does when a shot goes home - but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd. In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of [9] his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralysed him without knocking him down. At last, after what seemed a long time � it might have been five seconds, I dare say - he sagged flabbily to his knees. His mouth slobbered. An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years old. I fired again into the same spot. At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping. I fired a third time. That was the shot that did for him. You could see the agony of it jolt his whole body and knock the last remnant of strength from his legs. But in falling he seemed for a moment to rise, for as his hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upward like a huge rock toppling, his trunk reaching skyward like a tree. He trumpeted, for the first and only time. And then down he came, his belly towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay.

I got up. The Burmans were already racing past me across the mud. It was obvious that the elephant would never rise again, but he was not dead. He was breathing very rhythmically with long rattling gasps, his great mound of a side painfully rising and falling. His mouth was wide open - I could see far down into caverns of pale pink throat. I waited a long time for him to die, but his breathing did not weaken. Finally I fired my two remaining shots into the spot where I thought his heart must be. The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet, but still he did not die. His body did not even jerk when the shots hit him, the tortured breathing continued without a pause. He [10] was dying, very slowly and in great agony, but in some world remote from me where not even a bullet could damage him further. I felt that I had got to put an end to that dreadful noise. It seemed dreadful to see the great beast Lying there, powerless to move and yet powerless to die, and not even to be able to finish him. I sent back for my small rifle and poured shot after shot into his heart and down his throat. They seemed to make no impression. The tortured gasps continued as steadily as the ticking of a clock.

In the end I could not stand it any longer and went away. I heard later that it took him half an hour to die. Burmans were bringing dash and baskets even before I left, and I was told they had stripped his body almost to the bones by the afternoon.

Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

Autumn, 1936

Hannah Arendt - Love and St. Augustine

(3) Three points of principle that govern and delimit any presentation of Augustine:

1) diverse trains of thought appear side by side;
2) dogmatic rigidity steadily increased as Augustine grew older;
3) there is a biographically demonstrable development that involves a marked change in the
horizon of Augustine's thinking.

(3) "Augustine's every perception and every remark about love refer at least in part to his love of neighbour."

(5) "For Augustine, authority commands from without what we would also be told by conscience, the inner law, if habit had not ensnared us in sin."

(9) "Every craving...is tied to a definite object, and it takes this object to spark the craving itself, thus providing an aim for it. Craving is determined by the definitely given thing it seeks, just as a movement is set by the goal toward which it moves."

(9) "Once we have the object our desire ends, unless we are threatened with its loss. In that case the desire to have (appetitus babendi) turns into a fear of losing (metus amittendi). As a quest for the particular good rather than for things at random, desire is a combination of "aiming at" and "referring back to."

(11) "Thus (what) the good love craves is life, and (what) the evil fear shuns is death. The happy life is the life we cannot lose. Life on earth is a living death, mors vitalis, or vita mortalis. It is althogether determined by death; indeed it is more properly called death. For the constant fear that rules it prevents living, unless one equates being alive with being afraid."

(11) "By putting an end to life, death is at the same time the cause of constant worry of life about itself -- the endless concern about it transient happiness -- and about life after death."

(13) "Every good and every evil lie ahead. What lies at the end of the road we keep walking all our lives is death. Every present moment is governed by this imminence. Human life is always "not yet." All "having" is governed by fear, all "not having" by desire...The future is by no means unknown since it is nothing but the threatening or fulfilling "not yet" of the present. However, every fulfillment is only apparent because at the end loom death, the radical loss. This means that the future, the "not yet" of the present, is what we must always fear. To the present, the future can only be menacing. Only a present without a future is immutable and utterly unthreatened. In such a present lies the calm of possession. This possession is life itself. For all goods exist for life alone, to protect is from its loss, from death."

(13-15) Note Arendt's exploration of time, remembrance, and expectation; is it related to what Beckett explores in Molloy's ending?

(15) "Time exists only insofar as it can be measured, and the yardstick by which we measure it is space. Where is the space located that permits us to measure time? For Augustine the answer is: in our memory where things are being stored up. Memory, the storehouse of time, is the presence of the "no more" (iam non) as expectation is the presence of the "not yet"(nondum).
Therefore, I do not measure what is no more, but something in my memory that remains fixed in it. It is only by calling past and future into the present of remembrance and expectation that time exists at all. Hence the only valid tense is the present, the Now."

(16) "Life, too, becomes a "thing," an object that disappears from the word, like all other objects of our desires, does not endure. From this perspective of desire, life is looked upon from the outside (from outside the living person) as something that occurs in the world and mutably clings to the immutable in order to gain permanence from it. Such permanence is granted by eternity, the object of desire."

(17) "As it takes an object to determine and arouse desire, Augustine defines life itself by what it craves. Life craves the goods occurring in the world, and thus turns itself into one of them only to find out that things (res), if compared to life, are of almost sempiternal permanence. Things endure. They will be tomorrow what they are today and what they were yesterday. Only life vanishes from day to day in its rush toward death. Life does not last and it does not remain identical. It is not ever-present and, indeed, is never present, since it is always not yet or no more."

(17) Love of the world?

(18) "Desire mediates between subject and object, and it annihilates the distance between them by transforming the subject into a lover and the object into the beloved. For the lover is never isolated from what he loves; he belongs to it."

(18) "The quest for worldliness changes man's nature. This quest transforms him into a worldly being. In cupiditas, man has cast the die that makes him perishible. In caritas, whose object is eternity, man transforms himself into an eternal, nonperishible being. Man as such, his essence, cannot be defined because he always desires to belong to something outside himself and changes accordingly. Hence, he is seen by Augustine in his isolation as seperated from things as well as from persons. However, it is precisely this isolation that he cannot bear."

(19) "Love that denies a worldly object, be it a thing or a person, is constantly frustrated in its quest for happiness."

(19) "For happiness, which is the reversal of isolation, more is required than mere belonging. Happiness is achieved only when the beloved becomes aa permanently inherent element of one's own being."

(19) "Hence, for happiness, which is the reversal of isolation, more is required than mere belonging."

(20) "Goods outside myself are not within my power, and among them is the highest good, life itself."

(21) God "circulating within us."

(22) "Augustine's uncritical use not only of Stoic but also of Neoplatonic categories could not help but lead him into inconsistencies, if not into outright contradictions."

(22) the question of space?

(23) Man cannot be absolutely fearless...merely a hyperbole?

(23) "To be sure, true being means "not being in want" and the corresponding attitude would be fearlessness. However, the specific quality of being human is precisely a fear that nothing can remove. This fear is no idle emotion, but rather the manifestation of dependence. Desire is not bad because the "outside" is bad. Rather, desire is bad and slavish because it entails dependence on what is, in principle, unattainable."

(27) "In other words, man's present life is being neglected for the sake of his future, and loses its meaningfulness and weight in comparison with that true life which is projected into an absolute future and which is constituted as the ultimate goal of present, worldly existence."

(28) "Since craving is the basic mode of human existence, men always "forget over something," namely, over whatever they happen to desire. Desire itself is a state of forgetfulness."

(28-29) "Insofar as human existence is temporal, its mode of being is from an origin toward an end. The transit achieves oblivion of the "from" over the "toward," whereby the forgetting of the origin obliterates the entire dimension of the past."

(34) " A life governed by caritas aims at a goal that, in principle, lies outside the world, and thus outside caritas as well. Caritas is but the road that connects man and his ultimate goal. Stretching out in this purposive direction, caritas possesses a provisional sort of eternity. By the same toek the world, as a mere means toward this end, loses its awesome character and gains some sense by being made relative through the process."

(35) "Caritas comes to terms with life and the world by "using" them freely, that is without being bound by them...Life on earth is not independent even in caritas. Life on earth remains subject to the fear of losing the "highest good." Hence, for the present time, human life remains tied to desire and fear...If we succeed in freeing ourselves from the world, we become the "slaves of caritas (servi caritatis) and subject to "chaste fear" (timor castus)."

(35) "Thus, the freedom of caritas is a future freedom. Its freedom on earth consists in anticipating a future belonging for which love as desire is the mediator. The sign of caritas on earth is fearlessness, whereas the curse of cupiditas is fear - fear of not obtaining what is desired and fear of losing it once it is obtained."

(36-37) "From the viewpoint of the anticipated future, the world is not only not eternal, it never exists for its own sake. Hence, man's proper attitude to the world is not "enjoyment" (frui) but "use" (uti).

(37) "The relevance of means and tools is determined by the ultimate purpose of the user. And so the world, which is harnessed to the "for the sake of," receives its meaning from the purposiveness of the user. Viewed from this perspective, the world is set into a definite order - it is the order of the relative importance of means toward a definite end."

(37) "In the search for his own self, human existence itself becomes the object of craving and desire; that is, a "thing" that is love as though it were objectively extant, a "true life" outside the present life. This "reification" of existence is completed precisely by its projection into a future of timeless stability. He who returns from the absolute future to regulate the world will see even his own present existence as a "thing" among things, to be fitted into the rest of what exists."

(42) "The establishment of the order that assigns to each thing its proper place can originate only from outside. This demands an objectivity and a basic lack of concern with the particular entities being arranged. The "outside" is the absolute future anticipated in hope.

(48) Memory undoes the past. The triumph of memory is that in presenting the past and thus depriving it, in a sense, of its bygone quality, memory transforms the past into a future possibility. What has been can be again - this is what our memory tells us in hope or in fear."

Monday, August 14, 2006

Spend the years of learning squandering

Spend the years of learning squandering
Courage for the years of wandering
Through a world politely turning
From the loutishness of learning.
-Beckett, "Gnome"?