Stream of consciousness
Oct. 25th, 2006 04:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarigwaemirLowell House, on the Feast of St. Gaudentius
2 AM: Theodor Adorno, you are one angry, angry man. I'm not sure if I was able to separate your ranting from your analysis, but never fear, you are still much more clear than Lukacs, whom I still don't understand. I thought I knew what the Hegelian dialectic was, but the way Lukacs seems to idolize it (the only historical methodology that perceives the totality of things instead of just their parts) has utterly confused me...to the point where last night I had this dream where I was walking around asking people what the dialectic was, and everyone had a different answer. Prof. Gordon did not entirely clear up the issue today, but I think I've a better grasp on what Lukacs is trying to say. I still suspect I'm missing out on something though because I keep wondering why he didn't say it in a few paragraphs instead of 40+ pages of what looks to me like repetitive rhetoric.
At the moment I'm rewriting the revision of my personal statement. My mentor made a few substantial edits and left some spots for me to iron out on my own, and one would think that it shouldn't be such an onerous task but it is. Argh. There are whole sections which she rewrote, and I'm nervous because I'm sure her wording is more technically accurate but on the other hand I also want to ensure that it sounds like me. -_- The thought that I'll need to go through this process at least two or three more times is terrifying.
I also need to at least come up with a rough outline of what I'm going to write for my paper due this Friday, which means going through Freud again, oh joy.
I think tonight is going to be my first all-nighter (or at least near all-nighter) of the semester. I've been sleeping pretty regularly so far (averaging at eight hours a day, shockingly enough), so I have no idea how I'm going to handle this sudden lack of sleep. I got a Turbo Hot from Dunkin Donuts on my way home tonight in preparation, so I'm still awake. Unfortunately that doesn't make me any more willing to write.
3 AM: Muffled repeated screams coming from this corner of the Internet. Well, on the bright side, the second draft of the personal statement is more or less done. Now to coming up with something to say about Freud. My original goal was to have an outline done before morning so I could start writing tonight and finish tomorrow, but at this rate...
When on earth am I going to write my plan of research for the NSF fellowship? I suppose it will have to come after the developmental biology midterm. At least I'm more or less on top of the reading, even if I'm not entirely sure I understood all of Adorno or Benjamin's cultural criticism. Lukacs is a lost cause. I also read the Nei-yeh (內業), an early Taoist text. I think I should become a Taoist. I came out of Prof. Puett's lecture on Zhuangzi with an unusual sense of happiness--although that might have been an effect of the transiently beautiful autumn weather--and reading texts like the Nei-yeh is calming and relaxing.
I really want to go to noraebang. I checked Ziller listings the other day and found several songs from some of the new albums I downloaded this summer. I read the lyrics for Alin's "Question" and found myself liking the song more than ever. "Though this weary life might encoil me, to the last moment, I won't let go of me/Even when I've turned into a fistful of dust disappearing into sky above sky..." Isn't that lovely? I've been playing it over and over, along with the new Cherry Filter album. I've also been listening to the Every Single Day CD that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
angelyrique bought for me in Korea. It's an album that gets even better with time; at the moment I'm particularly enthralled by "낯선 여행" ("Unfamiliiar Journey"). Maybe I'll make an update on Angelette's rotation LJ if I ever get around to importing the CD into mp3 format. Every Single Day is considered Korean indie, although it actually sounds very mainstream alternative when compared to the Western music scene.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that what hooks me in a song is the instrumentation, not the lyrics. Actually, while I was reading Adorno's ranting against the "light" (i.e. popular) music of his day, I got the suspicion that I'm very much the type of "regressed listener" that he despises so much. Besides, I like jazz music.
Tangent: Despite my snark, I think the dialectical approach is actually quite compelling. I mean, my reductionist mind likes to universalize human history and observe cycles rather than linearity, but nonetheless, it can't deny the truth of historical uniqueness, that each event is the product of everything that came before and hence not a simple repetition. More specifically, one would like to observe the contemporary era objectively; hence one attempts to decentralize its importance by describing it in terms of deterministic forces, but nonetheless, it remains that this historical period is still different from the ones that preceded it because of the very fact that it is conscious of the past. The dialectic provides a convincing solution to this paradox by placing it in a metaphysical (metahistorical?) progression. My main problem though is that the theorists throw out all these plausible ideas and assertions but fail to really prove or argue them convincingly. The Marxists have the same sort of dogmatism as Freud insofar as any opposition to their ideas is explained away in the framework of their philosophy. I.e. they answer any challenges to their assumptions using arguments that still rely on the very same assumptions being challenged. Perhaps a side effect of a philosophy that is also methodology; not only thought but how to think about thought.
...Hey, maybe I can work that into my paper.
By the way, if anything of what I'm saying sounds like utter nonsense to you, please tell me because I'm not sure if I'm understanding these writers correctly. I've never been so at sea in a humanities text before. Of course, I can always choose to avoid writing about the Western Marxists in the next paper but what if they turn up on the exam?
4 AM: Okay, so settling down to a more careful dissection. The starting point lies in the following passage from Civilization and Its Discontents:
Maybe what I need to do is go through Civilization and Its Discontents again and outline the course of his argument.
I mean, is it a convincing argument? Just because two processes are teleologically similar doesn't mean that their mechanisms are. I mean, it's certainly not true in biology. I'm especially not sure what to make of the "founding myth" of the tribal father killed by his sons because clearly there is some validity to the story (given the prevalence of father-deity sacrificing mythologies in ancient cultures); yet on the other hand, there is hardly a concrete rationalization for it, unlike the Oedipal complex, which is clearly explained in terms of family relations.
What is the goal of the paper topic? To justify the analogy despite Freud's own admission of its flawed premise? To judge the extent to which we can accept Freud's psychoanalytical theory of history? (To interpret an interpretation?)
Maybe I should extend another analogy and think about why we accept that "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" in biology.
Yours &c.
Post-script: Sorry for being slow on replying to comments! Will probably get around to it after this paper is written. >_>
2 AM: Theodor Adorno, you are one angry, angry man. I'm not sure if I was able to separate your ranting from your analysis, but never fear, you are still much more clear than Lukacs, whom I still don't understand. I thought I knew what the Hegelian dialectic was, but the way Lukacs seems to idolize it (the only historical methodology that perceives the totality of things instead of just their parts) has utterly confused me...to the point where last night I had this dream where I was walking around asking people what the dialectic was, and everyone had a different answer. Prof. Gordon did not entirely clear up the issue today, but I think I've a better grasp on what Lukacs is trying to say. I still suspect I'm missing out on something though because I keep wondering why he didn't say it in a few paragraphs instead of 40+ pages of what looks to me like repetitive rhetoric.
At the moment I'm rewriting the revision of my personal statement. My mentor made a few substantial edits and left some spots for me to iron out on my own, and one would think that it shouldn't be such an onerous task but it is. Argh. There are whole sections which she rewrote, and I'm nervous because I'm sure her wording is more technically accurate but on the other hand I also want to ensure that it sounds like me. -_- The thought that I'll need to go through this process at least two or three more times is terrifying.
I also need to at least come up with a rough outline of what I'm going to write for my paper due this Friday, which means going through Freud again, oh joy.
I think tonight is going to be my first all-nighter (or at least near all-nighter) of the semester. I've been sleeping pretty regularly so far (averaging at eight hours a day, shockingly enough), so I have no idea how I'm going to handle this sudden lack of sleep. I got a Turbo Hot from Dunkin Donuts on my way home tonight in preparation, so I'm still awake. Unfortunately that doesn't make me any more willing to write.
3 AM: Muffled repeated screams coming from this corner of the Internet. Well, on the bright side, the second draft of the personal statement is more or less done. Now to coming up with something to say about Freud. My original goal was to have an outline done before morning so I could start writing tonight and finish tomorrow, but at this rate...
When on earth am I going to write my plan of research for the NSF fellowship? I suppose it will have to come after the developmental biology midterm. At least I'm more or less on top of the reading, even if I'm not entirely sure I understood all of Adorno or Benjamin's cultural criticism. Lukacs is a lost cause. I also read the Nei-yeh (內業), an early Taoist text. I think I should become a Taoist. I came out of Prof. Puett's lecture on Zhuangzi with an unusual sense of happiness--although that might have been an effect of the transiently beautiful autumn weather--and reading texts like the Nei-yeh is calming and relaxing.
When you enlarge your mind and let go of it,It's so nice to read that as you take a deep breath and find your mind relaxing spontaneously.
When you relax your vital breath and expand it,
When your body is calm and unmoving:
And you can maintain the One and discard the myriad disturbances.
I really want to go to noraebang. I checked Ziller listings the other day and found several songs from some of the new albums I downloaded this summer. I read the lyrics for Alin's "Question" and found myself liking the song more than ever. "Though this weary life might encoil me, to the last moment, I won't let go of me/Even when I've turned into a fistful of dust disappearing into sky above sky..." Isn't that lovely? I've been playing it over and over, along with the new Cherry Filter album. I've also been listening to the Every Single Day CD that
angelyrique bought for me in Korea. It's an album that gets even better with time; at the moment I'm particularly enthralled by "낯선 여행" ("Unfamiliiar Journey"). Maybe I'll make an update on Angelette's rotation LJ if I ever get around to importing the CD into mp3 format. Every Single Day is considered Korean indie, although it actually sounds very mainstream alternative when compared to the Western music scene. You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that what hooks me in a song is the instrumentation, not the lyrics. Actually, while I was reading Adorno's ranting against the "light" (i.e. popular) music of his day, I got the suspicion that I'm very much the type of "regressed listener" that he despises so much. Besides, I like jazz music.
Tangent: Despite my snark, I think the dialectical approach is actually quite compelling. I mean, my reductionist mind likes to universalize human history and observe cycles rather than linearity, but nonetheless, it can't deny the truth of historical uniqueness, that each event is the product of everything that came before and hence not a simple repetition. More specifically, one would like to observe the contemporary era objectively; hence one attempts to decentralize its importance by describing it in terms of deterministic forces, but nonetheless, it remains that this historical period is still different from the ones that preceded it because of the very fact that it is conscious of the past. The dialectic provides a convincing solution to this paradox by placing it in a metaphysical (metahistorical?) progression. My main problem though is that the theorists throw out all these plausible ideas and assertions but fail to really prove or argue them convincingly. The Marxists have the same sort of dogmatism as Freud insofar as any opposition to their ideas is explained away in the framework of their philosophy. I.e. they answer any challenges to their assumptions using arguments that still rely on the very same assumptions being challenged. Perhaps a side effect of a philosophy that is also methodology; not only thought but how to think about thought.
...Hey, maybe I can work that into my paper.
By the way, if anything of what I'm saying sounds like utter nonsense to you, please tell me because I'm not sure if I'm understanding these writers correctly. I've never been so at sea in a humanities text before. Of course, I can always choose to avoid writing about the Western Marxists in the next paper but what if they turn up on the exam?
4 AM: Okay, so settling down to a more careful dissection. The starting point lies in the following passage from Civilization and Its Discontents:
The process of the civilization of the human species is, of course, an abstraction of a higher order than is the development of the individual and it is therefore harder to apprehend in concrete terms, nor should we pursue analogies to an obsessional extreme; but in view of the similarity between the aims of the two processes--the one case the integration of a separate individual into a human group, and in the other the creation of a unified group out of many individuals--we cannot be surprised at the similarity between the means employed and the resultant phenomena.Freud identified the course of ego-development by observing cases where such development failed, i.e. the neurotics, so perhaps one could suggest that he observed the "similarity between the aims" by noticing where civilization itself "failed" to socialize societies...the horrors of World War I, etc.? Although I don't think that works because Freud seems to be arguing that civilization in whatever form is still a neurosis, although I really wish he more clearly articulated if some forms of civilization were more neurotic than others. Neurotics are only an extreme manifestation of the struggles in the normal mind.
Maybe what I need to do is go through Civilization and Its Discontents again and outline the course of his argument.
I mean, is it a convincing argument? Just because two processes are teleologically similar doesn't mean that their mechanisms are. I mean, it's certainly not true in biology. I'm especially not sure what to make of the "founding myth" of the tribal father killed by his sons because clearly there is some validity to the story (given the prevalence of father-deity sacrificing mythologies in ancient cultures); yet on the other hand, there is hardly a concrete rationalization for it, unlike the Oedipal complex, which is clearly explained in terms of family relations.
What is the goal of the paper topic? To justify the analogy despite Freud's own admission of its flawed premise? To judge the extent to which we can accept Freud's psychoanalytical theory of history? (To interpret an interpretation?)
Maybe I should extend another analogy and think about why we accept that "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" in biology.
Yours &c.
Post-script: Sorry for being slow on replying to comments! Will probably get around to it after this paper is written. >_>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-26 02:36 am (UTC)In a way, the kind of ground-up, self-sufficient community she is proposing is new(ish), because it is in the Love Nature Plant A Tree vein, which didn't exist before the critique of industrialization reached critical mass in the sixties. But at the same time it is a very, very old solution for neighborhoods to organize their own services when the city isn't doing enough. In her book and in person, she talks and talks and talks, but in the end her conclusions weren't new, even though she definitely thought they were.
Bah. I have to write a paper about her and I was so unimpressed...it'd be different if she had had greater material results (not that in sixty years there haven't been any, but they're limited). But the way the book is written, this "new" way of thinking is the result. "Change yourself to change the world" or something. It's especially funny when you consider her argument that small-group discussion is the best way to uncover new ideas -- the same kind of "work" she'd done as a Marxist. (From a physicist's perspective) new ideas require new information, they can't be created from nothing.
All of this is only sort of related to your post. XD an example of how awareness does not necessarily prevent cyclical thinking? Re: the paper, you could just poke holes in Frued. I mean. It's certainly easier to deconstruct someone else's argument than to construct your own.
This is off-topic, but have you heard of the cladistics mafia?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-28 08:06 pm (UTC)I haven't heard of the cladistics mafia, but I have heard of cladistics as a phylogenetic model...er...not sure if that's the same cladistics you're referring to. ^_^;;
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-28 08:18 pm (UTC)Mm yeah, and I also have this problem with Tolkien.
Cladistics: The same! I was curious. A friend of mine is in a class on evolution this term. She was in lab when the professor wandered in, and somehow he got started on cladistics and the changes he's proposing that would add, uh, I think it was a consideration of time frames. He called it "strato-cladistics". Then he became very serious and said no one should repeat that, because the cladistics mafia might get them -- apparently he gets threatening phone calls and can't publish in certain papers, and some of his grad students have had their scholarships revoked or access to libraries taken away.
"It's a shame that this is done to me, but what really gets to me is when they go after my students...!!" Something like that. The way my friend told this story it sounded like there was some bizarre underground movement going on, so I wondered if you'd heard anything.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-28 08:24 pm (UTC)