The Totalization of Shadows, Part IV
In my garden of “me, myself, and ‘I’”, I come to a fork in “I”.
If I take one fork, do I remain “me, myself, and I” whereas if I take the other, do I become other? Do I remain “me, myself, and I” on both, or neither?
Which would I choose, if I could indeed choose?
I think I shall choose none of the above, for, as a matter of fact, none of the above is what has been chosen for me, as my choice.
The choice history has chosen for me to choose is this one: I can take any combination of forking paths in me to live out, to live through, any plotline in “me, myself, and I” which I might may, or would, or could, or should—without thereby altering the delicate, fragile, and yet permanent grandeur of my immutable “I”. (Or me, myself.)
Though I change the routes, the paths do not change me, overmuch. I change, but not really,(ha,ha,ha!)The changes do not penetrate to the true me, (or I,myself.) Essentially, I am I.
(In which case—if I could accept an immutable “me, myself, or I”-- I would no longer require despicable quotation marks around first person pronouns.)
Who would have thought this the plausible option, and why?
Okay, I will admit I already have an answer in mind for that--but let's move on...
I hate the implausibility and outright flippancy of the following post-modern,(Yogi Berric?), post-structuralist option,
In other words, “I” takes both paths at once--simultaneously.
However, I must realize that this silly, ridiculous option is no more silly or ridiculous than the option of “essentially the same” I’ve lived with more or less my whole life.
What the heck!
If I take one fork, do I remain “me, myself, and I” whereas if I take the other, do I become other? Do I remain “me, myself, and I” on both, or neither?
Which would I choose, if I could indeed choose?
I think I shall choose none of the above, for, as a matter of fact, none of the above is what has been chosen for me, as my choice.
The choice history has chosen for me to choose is this one: I can take any combination of forking paths in me to live out, to live through, any plotline in “me, myself, and I” which I might may, or would, or could, or should—without thereby altering the delicate, fragile, and yet permanent grandeur of my immutable “I”. (Or me, myself.)
Though I change the routes, the paths do not change me, overmuch. I change, but not really,(ha,ha,ha!)The changes do not penetrate to the true me, (or I,myself.) Essentially, I am I.
(In which case—if I could accept an immutable “me, myself, or I”-- I would no longer require despicable quotation marks around first person pronouns.)
Who would have thought this the plausible option, and why?
Okay, I will admit I already have an answer in mind for that--but let's move on...
I hate the implausibility and outright flippancy of the following post-modern,(Yogi Berric?), post-structuralist option,
“I” come to a fork in the road, and “I” takes them.
In other words, “I” takes both paths at once--simultaneously.
However, I must realize that this silly, ridiculous option is no more silly or ridiculous than the option of “essentially the same” I’ve lived with more or less my whole life.
What the heck!
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 12:50 PM
8 Comments:
This is crap.
Hi Christoffer,
Because by writing this I garnered some small insights into multiplicity, "both/and" logic, and how both multiplicity and "both/and" logic might relate to the concept of affirmation, I didn't feel I was offering crap here.
I realize I have offered crap here in the past--mainly to try to keep things going--I thought the blog would die otherwise, and I didn't want it to...Offering up crap would at least keep the ball rolling, if not in a very satisfactory manner.
I also realize this could be crap for reasons which are opaque to me. For example, it could be crap to you because it is poorly written--you don't get from reading it what I got from writing it. That this may be happening is a constant concern and worry to me. I suffer from intellectual isolation--I don't get enough intelligent feedback, criticism, and questioning in my everyday exchanges, and I literally don't know what goes over well and what goes over poorly, or why, or when.
I also take responsibility for not accepting enough demands from the outside onto my thought, such as would come, for example, if I were a real student of philosophy, required by my professors, or whomever, to conform to certain standards of clarity, or whatever.
To jump is a primary motivation for me, so I do it a lot. I do not like to be unconscious of the jumps I am making, however, and I do not like to include them when I write something up--I don't intend them to be in posts. I recognize the jumps are disconcerting and even unintelligible--weird. I would take try to do something about them if I myself find them in my posts. Maybe I have so many jumps in this, you called it crap. If that's what it is which prompted this reaction, you have an apology from me.
I don't get constructive responses even when I do believe I have taken care of most of the jumps and obscurities. What I do get most of the time is like what I got from you-- a statement such as "that's crap." This tells me someone doesn't like something, but it doesn't tell me very much else, and therefore, it isn't helpful to me. I don't learn very much from it. If you could specifically indicate what you saw as flawed, or whatever it was which prompted this criticism from you, I would at least consider it. I might take it to heart--though I doubt you'd see a radical change from me, probably not in the short run.
--Yusef
Please, no "many worlds" theory, nor any quantum mechanic -"I takes both paths at once .."
And I dont see at all what this has to do with post-structuralism.
And please no "my whole life" stories ..
"My life" problems are better solved by a psychologist, the last person you want to turn to is a philosopher. Even if they are existential problems! :)
Philosophy is never ever going to solve your problems. Just in case you were thinking or hoping that.
Hi Yusef,
You write,
I also take responsibility for not accepting enough demands from the outside onto my thought, such as would come, for example, if I were a real student of philosophy, required by my professors, or whomever, to conform to certain standards of clarity, or whatever.
To jump is a primary motivation for me, so I do it a lot. I do not like to be unconscious of the jumps I am making, however, and I do not like to include them when I write something up--I don't intend them to be in posts. I recognize the jumps are disconcerting and even unintelligible--weird. I would take try to do something about them if I myself find them in my posts.
I always appreciate your "jumps" and (generally :-)) find your posts stimulating and not weird at all. We have traveled (and will continue to do so) along many paths, some of them cul-de-sac*s, but then jumped elsewhere.
Of course there might be times when a little more clarification is asked for or needed which is to be expected and enjoyed.
By all means, jump - and I'll try to leap a little!
Orla
"Please, no "many worlds" theory, nor any quantum mechanic -"I takes both paths at once .."
And I dont see at all what this has to do with post-structuralism."
I don't think this is or leads to a many-worlds theory.
It may be something which in some form has been taken up by quantum mechanics--insofar as quantum mechanics is the first truly great probabilistic theory of science. I think what I am talking about has the utmost and revolutionary importance for the mathematics of probability.
I think you might resonate with this in that you seem receptive to the notion of "the fluke."
I will attempt some time soon to discuss what this has to do with post-structuralism-- I think it has everything to do with it, at least insofar as Deleuze and Foucault are post-structuralist thinkers.
-Y
Post a Comment
<< Home