Showing posts with label meditations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meditations. Show all posts

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Passing fancies and structures.


(Borrowed from The Anti Room.)

There's a pleasure in etymology beyond that of the purely trivial, of knowledge for its own sake, of tracing of one word of one language to an older word in a different language. Before the abstract (which language is) there existed the material, the innumerable objects and phenomena of the physical world -- or more concisely, nature. No matter how long, circuitous, or obscure the path, every noun, verb, and adjective leads back to nature, and sometimes studying language brings to our attention the exquisiteness of natural patterns, the germs of which are inextricable from our words.

I recall an evening some time ago -- whenever it was, it was during the winter, and I was in Jersey. Snow had fallen during the day; in the evening the clouds blew over, but the trees were still laden with snow, frozen to the branches.

I went for a walk that night on one of the trails through the woods. There's one path I've always frequented more than any of the others (probably because it's so close to my mother's house), and there's a certain tree that always caught my attention. It's unusual because it's a spruce -- the only evergreen in sight, towered over on all sides by the older ash and maple trees. It's the odd man out, and I've always felt a fondness (even a sort of kinship) for this tree.

It might have been last year, probably around Christmas. I had come from Pennsylvania to visit the folks, and I had gone out to walk the old path and pay my respects to the evergreen odd man.

It must have been Christmas because it was between midnight and 1:00 -- this I do remember -- and Orion was overhead.

It was exceedingly frigid, even for late December: the sky was a limpid black and the stars shone cold and crisp. (Cold nights are best for stargazing in the northeastern United States: the lower the temperature of the air, the less obfuscatory moisture and dust it can hold.) I remember standing beside the spruce and looking up through a gap in the bare canopy.

The loveliness of the winter sky is distinguished by an intimation of geometrical structure. It's dense and richly patterned, almost arabesque. The straight lines of Orion's belt and scabbard; the conjoined pairs in Auriga, Gemini, and Canis Minor; the "V" shape of Taurus, and the prongs of Canis Major -- and all of these are as points and branching outgrowths of a hexagon, a wheel with Betelgeuse at the fulcrum.

As I gazed at the stars through a trellis of spruce branches (and bear in mind that the geometry of evergreen growth, all straight, divergent lines, is suggestive of fractal patterns) there was a gust of wind, scattering ice crystals overhead. The stars were so bright and the snow so reflective that wisp of ice momentarily sparkled -- and during this moment of superpositioning between the snow, stars, and spruce branches, the words occurred to me.

"Stellar dendrite."

From The Online Etymology Dictionary:

stellar (adj.) 1650s, "pertaining to stars, star-like," from Latin stellaris "pertaining to a star, starry," from stella (see star (n.)).

dendrite (n.) mid-18c., from Greek dendrites "of or pertaining to a tree," from dendron "tree" (see dendro-).

Stellar dendrite, then: "of stars, that of a tree."

This is, of course, is the term used to describe a structure seen in ice crystals and snowflakes.

(Taken from On Flat Lake Time.)

It was a small and passing thing, but ineffable and astonishing. If I had the conviction or faith, I might have said a prayer. I don't think I said anything. I'm certain I didn't.

I would like to say that I marveled, like Whitman, in perfect, knowing silence, knowing that silence is the language of the ineffable. But I didn't say anything because I didn't have the words to speak of what had touched me.

All language stems from nature, but sadly tends to lack the precision and felicity of its estranged parent.

Monday, January 14, 2013

What Is Art? (two cents out of a thousand million.)



Some weeks ago, a kneejerk response to MoMA's decision to add video games to its collection prompted several comments. Some concurred and some disputed, but Mr. Pangrac sagaciously opined that partisans on either side were going off half-cocked:

But really, I have long been bothered by any discussion of 'Are video games art' due to the fact that no one ever seems interested in defining what 'Art' is. Like 'Truth' or 'Justice,' it's used as a vague catch-all to describe something that is good and noble, but anything more specific (or specific at all) is always left out of the conversation. Until we have an idea of what 'Art' is, what a work needs to achieve or attempt in order to be considered 'Art,' I find these discussions ultimately meaningless.

Perfect. We can't argue about what does and does not qualify as art when we have only vague and inconsistent notions of what "art" means.

So now we're on the right track. First we will define "art" -- and only when we have agreed upon a set of universally-applicable and unambiguous criteria for what something must do, be, or have in order to qualify as art, we can decide whether Mario and Mass Effect makes the grade. Sounds easy enough, yes?

Unfortunately if it were easy enough there would be no necessity for debate. Our definitions of art are vague because we've failed to draft any better ones, and it isn't as though people haven't been giving the matter any thought.

Rather than submit my own opinions about what art is/isn't and should/shouldn't be, I'll offer a demonstration as to why I'm at such a loss to make any assertions with even the slightest degree of confidence. We'll examine some characteristics that we generally recognize art as possessing, and that might be thought to designate art as such; then we'll look at some of the counterpoints that poke holes in these proposals.

(I do not presume to offer a treatise. This will be half-cocked as any of the IS/ISN'T arguments posted on any number of comments boards. It is only an effort towards corralling my own thoughts on the subject.)

I. Art Is Beautiful.

This should be it. What would be called art must be beautiful. End of discussion. If a person made something beautiful with the intent of making something beautiful, we call the thing he made art. There need not be any other qualifiers.

Problem #1: Pieter Bruegel's The Triumph of Death. Francisco Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son. Peter Paul Rubens's The Massacre of the Innocents. Anything Andy Warhol ever did. Wolf Eyes. The Rite of Spring. American Psycho. Nick Ut's Pulitzer-winning Vietnam War photograph. There are some things which most people would call "art" that do not exude beauty -- their contents are disturbing, they flout aesthetics, they're sometimes just offensive to the senses -- ugly. What if this was the artist's intention? Do we only accept the work of artists whose intention is to present us an idealized (or bleached, or snowjobbed) vision of reality.

Problem #2: Any definition of beauty is subject to cultural bias, and culture (1) differs from one place to another (2) changes over time. What was beautiful to the authors and readers of English poetry in the 17th century seems magniloquent to the 21st century reader. Kabuki is an esteemed art in Japan, but probably looks and sounds ridiculous to the first-time visitor from the West. Shakespeare would have sounded like so much hot air to the austere sensibilities of the Greek tragedians. If Michelangelo had taken his David far enough east, its audience would have viewed it as idolatry rather than art.

Nobody can agree on what is beautiful. If we insist that art is what's beautiful, we ensure that nobody will agree on what is art.

Problem #3: What is beauty anyway? Do we think that discussion will be resolved any more easily?

If we're struggling to define a nebulous concept, what sense does it make to base it in terms of another nebulous concept we struggle to define?

Problem #4: "Well, duh. Everything is beautiful. Everything is art."

Whoa. Who said that? Leave the room, please. You have nothing to contribute to this conversation if you refuse to have it on terra firma.

To paraphrase D.H. Lawrence, people are not sewer pipes. However deliberately or indeliberately, we prefer some things to the exception of others. (We might call the sum of these preferences an identity.) All reality and its contents mights be beautiful in a TRANSCENDENT sense (and let's face it, it is and they are), but if the mass of humanity were intimate with the transcendent, no one would have use for art.

If we want art to mean something, it -- whatever it is -- must be exclusive. To borrow a thought from Pound, we have to treat some (most?) flowers as weeds if we wish to maintain a garden.

II. Art Is Nonutilitarian

We might want to make a distinction between "art" and "design" or "artisanry." The latter two are often artful, but in their ends they diverge from what we would call "fine art." We could limit our definition of art to the things that have no purpose other than to exist and be art. Such a definition would bolster Roger Ebert's assertion that video games are not art.

A meal can be prepared in an artful and exquisite way, but it is not art: it serves the practical purpose of providing sustenance. An ornately-carved chair is beautiful work of craftsmanship, but it is not art: it is built as a piece of furniture, a fixture possessing beauty as a supplement to its function. Design crafts such as web and fashion design would be excluded; although both require and exude artfulness, the end products are essentially tools. Video games would be eschewed for the same reason as board games: however well-designed or artfully crafted, they are first and foremost games to be played.

Problem #1: A painting isn't ever just a painting: it is something that is bought, sold, and hung up as a decoration. It has a function; a purpose towards which people use it. Shall we exclude stained glass because it serves the function of allowing light into a chapel? Do we admit that the relieving of stress is a societal necessity and throw out the theater, music, television, and film because of their utility towards this end?

Problem #2: Fountain.

Any lines we draw between "art" and "not art" on the basis of the object’s utility value must needs be arbitrary and subject to contention and subversion.

III. Art Is Communication

Art is something a person does or makes in order to convey information: ideas, stories, images, feelings, etc. Herman Melville was grappling with some ideas about humanity's relationship with the ineffable and eternal (and also whales) and so he tried to shape them into an articulate message by writing a book called Moby Dick. Whitman wanted to communicate what 19th century America and its people were to him; he wrote Leaves of Grass. Every painter in history's whole procession worked to communicate a vision. Virtually all music is composed for the purpose of conveying a feeling to the listener. Video game designers are more often constructing their games as situations designed to elicit (communicate) particular sensations from the experience.

Art is an act of communication.

Problem #1: This is likely the best criterion we can conceive in that everyone can agree on it. It's also the least effective: it screws on too coarse a filter. This blog post is communication. A dirty limerick written on the back of a cocktail napkin is communication. A brick thrown through a window is communication. A pop-up ad is communication. Inane office memos are communication. An automated Twitter account is communication. A penis drawn in a bathroom stall is communication.

What kinds of communication are art? Is it a question of content or form? Or both?


 
Backtracking a bit, we might borrow Ezra Pound's definition of beauty: beauty is aptness to purpose. What if we said that art is beauty of (or in) communication?

Idea: Art is a message conveyed through a medium with the maximum felicity afforded by said medium.

Problem: Again we're spinning our wheels. On paper, this might satisfy some people. In practice it only reframes the debate.

When we argue whether video games, hip hop, Fountain, or a work of a new or controversial form qualify as art, what we're really debating is the amount of cultural capital we should afford them.

How important is this object, form, or practice to our culture in the long run? Should it be taught in schools? Does it belong in a museum? Is it worthy of academic scrutiny? Does it deserve NEA grants? Should we assure it a space in the time capsule? Would it be one of the first things we show a visiting alien to communicate what homo sapiens and our civilization are all about?

What we might be debating, and have been debating all along, is the divide between "high" and "low" art. And this once again sets values and virtue as the measurers.

IV. (High) Art Is Enriching

What distinguishes high art from low art must be its values, or the virtue it communicates. High art doesn’t merely entertain, charm, or enliven. High art makes us better people.

Someone once said that artists are the engineers of the human soul. High art appeals to the nobler aspects of human nature; it speaks to our higher faculties.  High art is soul food. High art is the window through which we can glimpse our better selves in a better world.

Problem: "Enrich" is a funny word. By whose standards? What might be seen as enriching to someone from an eastern school of thought might be condemned as anti-intellectual by someone from a western school. Are we enriched by art that appeals to emotion? Are we enriched by art that makes us laugh? Do we praise the art of the ecstatic for the realms to which it transports us, or do we censure it as a detriment to rationalism (as does Plato)?

Can great art only be that which is solemn, baroque, and didactic? Or is the best art that which most titillates us? (In that case we might have to take down all the paintings and replace them with video games and porn.)

"Artists are the engineers of the human soul." The quote is Josef Stalin's. For an illustration of this principle in practice, look at North Korea. Is this what we want from art?

On the other hand: what is soul food? How do we sift the art that elevates from that which merely delights, interests, or entertains?

We're still unable to set down any criteria on these terms because we’re trying to count unquantifiables. It all seems up to interpretation, doesn't it?

V. (High) Art Is What (Some) People Say It Is

It's all opinion. What qualifies as high art depends on what the academics of a given time and place say it is. Or where the whims of the tastemakers and curators are directed. Or what the government insists. Art and its standards are defined by authority.

This definition leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it?

Would it be any better to democratize it? Let's say there's no such thing as high and low art. All art in and of itself is equal, and the measurer is public opinion. What the public loves best, that is the best art.

Leaving it up to prevailing opinions in the ivory tower might be unappealing, but would it be any better to let the mob decide what speaks for its culture? Are their preferences representative of what we would truly consider the best we have to offer ourselves?

None of this takes us any closer to a definition of art. Do we admit that art is too mutable, too elusive, and too arbitrary a thing to define? If we can't define it, then who the hell are we to talk about it, criticize it, or say what is or isn't?

But that's no less dissatisfying.

VI. Art Is Intuitive

The tool of the artist is his intuition: knowledge unsystematized, irrationality, inspiration. Likewise, it is through intuition that we perceive that thing that makes art what it is. What we see in art, in the best of it, can only be called the sublime. Art -- high art -- conveys something of the sublime.

Problem: We don’t know enough about it (the sublime, or our perception of it, or what causes it) or about ourselves to quantify or account for we perceive it as we do in what we do. Until we can -- let's see how far the physiologists and neurologists can go – we're just left shrugging and saying "I know it when I see it."

We can’t say that high art is that which has the most sublimity or highest concentration of it. That would be absurd.

If anything, by venturing down this route we've only proved that we're trying to objectively resolves something that only exists subjectively. It can't be done. Art is that which has the characteristic we recognize art as having.

If we backpedal to our earlier attempts, we’re stuck admitting that any definition of art will possess so many ramifications, exceptions, and ambiguities as to put the final decision in the hands of authority or consensus. What art is depends entirely on who says what art is (and how many people listen to them).

I suppose this means anyone interested in art is therefore obligated to continue arguing about it ad infinitum.

Unless anyone has a better idea?


My head hurts. For the time being I’m going to smoke and read Euripides. I’m a little ways into Medea and feeling cautiously optimistic about where things seem to be headed.

Edit: oh god

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Space, Outer and Inner (Part II)



I think I'll be taking a short break from blogging so I can turn my undivided (or rather less divided) attention towards a couple of heavier items on my agenda. (I need to edit a short novel and prep it for pimping. A novella requires editing and fact checking. Etc. Etc.) In a perfect world I would have enough time to simultaneously work on short and long-term projects, but this is no perfect world.

In the meantime, I will be updating the comics page every week for a month or two, so don't expect me to disappear. I'll slap the strips up here and they will double as blog posts, because I'm allowed to do that.

Now. About a year and a half ago I threw together a post about why astronomy is a useful and beautiful thing, but never concluded it and so left it dangling as a "Part I." Since I dislike leaving projects unfinished, and since I've been going out to hunt for Messier objects lately (the Crab Nebula and Triangulum Galaxy still elude my lens), now seems as good a time as any to tie up this year-old loose end.

I'm looking at the original half-baked post again and thinking I remember where I wanted to go with it -- but well, we'll see. A thought dropped sixteen months ago probably won't be quite the same when it's picked back up.

Anyway: today we begin with the grand Western intellectual tradition of arguing with shit Plato said. From the Republic:

And now, Socrates, as you rebuked the vulgar manner in which I praised astronomy before, my praise shall be given in your own spirit. For every one, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another.

Every one but myself, I said; to every one else this may be clear, but not to me.

And what then would you say?

I should rather say that those who elevate astronomy into philosophy appear to me to make us look downwards and not upwards.

What do you mean? he asked.

You, I replied, have in your mind a truly sublime conception of our knowledge of the things above. And I dare say that if a person were to throw his head back and study the fretted ceiling, you would still think that his mind was the percipient, and not his eyes. And you are very likely right, and I may be a simpleton: but, in my opinion, that knowledge only which is of being and of the unseen can make the soul look upwards, and whether a man gapes at the heavens or blinks on the ground, seeking to learn some particular of sense, I would deny that he can learn, for nothing of that sort is matter of science; his soul is looking downwards, not upwards, whether his way to knowledge is by water or by land, whether he floats, or only lies on his back.

I acknowledge, he said, the justice of your rebuke. Still, I should like to ascertain how astronomy can be learned in any manner more conducive to that knowledge of which we are speaking?

I will tell you, I said: The starry heaven which we behold is wrought upon a visible ground, and therefore, although the fairest and most perfect of visible things, must necessarily be deemed inferior far to the true motions of absolute swiftness and absolute slowness, which are relative to each other, and carry with them that which is contained in them, in the true number and in every true figure. Now, these are to be apprehended by reason and intelligence, but not by sight.

True, he replied.

The spangled heavens should be used as a pattern and with a view to that higher knowledge; their beauty is like the beauty of figures or pictures excellently wrought by the hand of Daedalus, or some other great artist, which we may chance to behold; any geometrician who saw them would appreciate the exquisiteness of their workmanship, but he would never dream of thinking that in them he could find the true equal or the true double, or the truth of any other proportion.

No, he replied, such an idea would be ridiculous.

And will not a true astronomer have the same feeling when he looks at the movements of the stars? Will he not think that heaven and the things in heaven are framed by the Creator of them in the most perfect manner? But he will never imagine that the proportions of night and day, or of both to the month, or of the month to the year, or of the stars to these and to one another, and any other things that are material and visible can also be eternal and subject to no deviation -- that would be absurd; and it is equally absurd to take so much pains in investigating their exact truth.

I quite agree, though I never thought of this before.

Then, I said, in astronomy, as in geometry, we should employ problems, and let the heavens alone if we would approach the subject in the right way and so make the natural gift of reason to be of any real use.

It's neat to imagine that the most renowned minds of antiquity disdained empiricism. Just thinking about something was more than good enough for them, and infinitely preferable to dirtying their hands with the contents of this filthy reality. This would be why Aristotle (and thus Western science, for many centuries) believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Until Galileo, we don't know of anyone ever bothering to test it.

The material fact supersedes the thought. And as the physical reality we experience terraforms our intellectual landscape, the extent to which we accurately understand that reality informs the veracity of our idealizations.

Plato underestimates the extent to which the study of the stars can expand human knowledge -- which, of course, is the classical aim of philosophy. After all, astronomy is the egg from which modern science hatched; and in only the last few centuries, the scientific method has yielded such a wealth of hidden facts of our world as to necessitate a thorough reevaluation of two or three millennia’s worth of philosophy. (Do you think Plato would be galled by the irony of being upended by the results of pursuit he deemed “absurd” and unfit for the philosopher?)

As the history of astronomy over the last five hundred years is a veritable trophy rack for science, it also attests to a physical universe that consistently defies our presumptions about it.

For instance:

“The stars and sun revolve around the Earth, which is the center of the universe.” Nope!

“The Earth and other planets move around the sun in circular paths.” Nope!

“The universe is about as big as all the stars we can see.” Nope!

“Light travels through space instantaneously.” Nope!

“The values of time and space are absolute.” Nope!

“The universe is essentially static.” Nope!

“Gravity should put the brakes on cosmic expansion.” Nope!

Homo sapiens (and perhaps a few very closely-related ancestors) are, as far as we can guess, the first and only animals on this planet capable of conducting such enquiries into the machinery of reality. We’ve only gotten decent at deciphering the universe’s blueprints in the last 500 years or so (out of the nearly 200,000-year history of our species), and there is yet unimaginably much beyond our grasp. But we’re moving right along.

It’s rather drolly funny that some of Homo sapiens' mightiest intellectual achievements led directly to the realization of Homo sapiens' cosmic insignificance.

From the very beginning of our species's foray into the domain of “intelligent” life, we’ve just been figuring our shit out as we went along. Everything had to be invented on the fly -- it’s not as though Homo sapiens ever had any prior examples it could follow.

Throughout most of its history, humanity's conception of its place in the cosmos was far from accurate. Our perceptive senses evolved as a means to keep us alive (in a terrestrial environment) long enough to pass on our genes, not to peer into the outer and innermost vistas of reality and speculate on its causes. Jury-rigging the capacity to do the latter with our faculties for the former was just a wonderful accident. (Whether or not such an adaptation is advantageous for the long-term survival of the species remains to be seen.)

The various conceptions of the universe painted by our ancestors vary with time and place, but the overall pictures are fairly similar. The Earth was the fulcrum of the universe, made and kept by gods and spirits with strikingly human characteristics, who interacted and communicated with human beings. Though humanity was unquestionably subordinate to higher powers, the gods representing these forces of nature could be petitioned, placated, and reasoned with by human beings.

Now we know that this is not the case. The universe is vaster and stranger than we can understand, and our stature in it has shrunk considerably in the last few centuries. The "new" cosmos is no longer something on which we can easily impose human characteristics, and we have little to no reason to believe that it has any interest or investment in our continued existence. And it certainly does not communicate with us; every solid fact about its existence about which we can be remotely sure had to be wrestled from it.

(Consider how many of our traditions, institutions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., were born of actions taken, decisions made on the fly based on incomplete information, repeated and repeated long after their initial usefulness had passed, their original intent and context forgotten. “There’s orthodoxy!”)

(Of course, one maddening truism of humanity's lot is that the facts are never all in.)

Today we know the stars in the night sky aren’t just green-screened somewhere behind our existence; our existence is a haphazard collateral product of their existence, and there exist more stars than human beings.

This is the context of all human affairs, and we cannot claim to understand anything when we neglect to put it in its proper context.

The pursuit of astronomy -- and I mean doing more than just looking at Astronomy Picture of the Day; I mean looking at the stars out of habit, keeping track of the movements of the planets and phases of the moon, investing in some optics, learning about the methods and milestones, even crunching some of the numbers for yourself -- will bring the practitioner down to Earth, so to speak.

In fact, a foray into amateur astronomy can often make one feel intolerably small. People looking at the night sky for a while often remark how tiny it makes them feel; going outside with a telescope on every other clear night puts one face to face with this aspect of their situation on a regular basis, making it that much harder to ignore.

This is a useful thing.

Another useful (but somewhat more extreme) exercise would be to look at yourself in the mirror each morning and remind yourself that you’re very close to nothing. Nothing I do matters. Everything I feel and know and possess will be lost. Everything I make and say will be forgotten.

(Recall as well that everyone else in the world is as equally tiny and clueless and lost, and they’re only a quiet, starry night away from being reminded of it.)

Routinely call to mind as well that the Earth formed 4.54 billion years before you came into existence, and will go on existing without you until the dying sun gobbles it up (five billion years from now?),  destroying every last trace of Homo sapiens' existence except for a few burnt-out space probes coasting through eternity.

(Granted, we’re discounting the possibility that humanity gets its shit together and survives long enough to master interstellar travel, but I think we can safely assume the odds are not in its favor. I eagerly invite humanity to please prove me wrong.)

But none of this is new information. You’re certainly aware that this is the truth of our existence, but probably don’t think about it very much. We rather go to lengths to avoid dwelling on it.

I believe that what a person decides to do, when honestly confronting the fact that his life is infinitesimal and all his work in vain (because all human endeavor will finally amount to nothing in time), determines the grade of his character. The existentialists might call it the truest choice he can make.

Even as it humbles us, the knowledge of our place in the cosmos must also encourage. Most of us probably aren't in the habit of conceiving of miracles as infinitesimal occurrences -- but, well, here we are: small creatures of strange and splendid circumstance.

We are marvelous beings with incredible capabilities. Look at us: we’re monkeys that have gone to the moon; apes that figured out how split the atom. We’ve sent flying robots beyond Pluto. We’ve figured out what life is made of and how it works. We’ve peered at photons and galactic clusters. We created the blue-flavored snocone and Beatles records.

Of all the other 187 planets and moons in our neighborhood, none of them have produced anything remotely like us. Of the 851 extrasolar planets we've counted in our galaxy (so far), we guess that only 0.5% are habitable. Peculiarly, astronomy has revealed at once how insignificant and how precious we are.

People preoccupied with the stars are popularly regarded as asocial, but it it is hard not to feel a concerned interest, if not compassion, for one's fellow creatures when his avocations routinely put their situation's tenuity in such sharp focus.

Although it’s miraculous that we’ve been able to come so far and achieve so much, we have nothing assuring us that we’ll go much farther or learn much more. The cosmos has no reason to wish to take care of us.

We must take care of ourselves.

Any world we would choose to build for ourselves that would be worthy of us -- of the best parts of us and our potential -- must be constructed with a mind to our position in the broad scheme of things, and all of its ramifications.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Optimist and Two Pessimists


A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

-- Winston Churchill, as parroted by the stupid "Daily Words of Wisdom" toy on my boss's desk.


I never liked this aphorism. While it probably isn't untrue in and of itself, it and the reality it implies seem mendaciously oversimplified to me.

Why praise the optimist for seeing things one way and scold the pessimist for seeing things differently? A person's perceptions only matter inasmuch as how they inform how he acts.

The person who notices the silver lining isn't necessarily going to be a happy and successful go-getter as Churchill connotes. And the person who sees the cloud might not be a morose layabout.

Churchill presumes the pessimist's tendency to expect an undesirable outcome will paralyze him, inhibit him from running for the door when opportunity comes a-knocking. It very well could -- but the same logic, we can surmise that the optimist will commit himself too quickly, too eagerly. He'll be the guy who invests all his money in a tech start-up that never breaks even; the kid who doesn't do his homework because he's sure of a snow day, but gets a flurry instead of a blizzard.

Success is always sweeter when you were anticipating failure. And defeat is always more bitter when you took victory as an assurance.

The optimistic writer receiving a hundred rejection slips for his screenplay is likely to feel the blow more acutely than the pessimist, who expected as much anyway. When he finds out he didn't get the job after all, the optimist is crushed. The pessimist stopped thinking about it a week ago and has been sending out more resumes.

What irks me is the fat man's suggestion that seeing the difficulty in an opportunity is failing. Since when is foresight undesirable?

More than the optimist, the pessimist can be expected to have a backup plan. When he embarks on a course of action, he's anticipating speed bumps, roadblocks, and detours. That usually means he's planning and preparing for them.

The pessimist is a fellow more likely to be carrying an umbrella during the rainy afternoon following a cloudless morning. The pessimist keeps a spare tire. The pessimist's heart is less apt to be broken because he's more cautious about placing it in someone else's hands. The pessimist isn't baffled when the protest march fails to change the world or make history. The pessimist understands the tendency of plans to go awry, the persistent difficulty of achieving a desirable (let alone ideal) outcome from any endeavor, and that things seeming too good to be true usually aren't true.

In this world, optimists are apt to be disappointed. And when you're expecting to find gold at the end of the rainbow and end up with the contents of a leprechaun's chamber pot, you'll probably think twice about following the next one.

It is true that many pessimists are former optimists. I suspect it would be a universal and inevitable transition were it not for the fact that some people truly are lucky and others have no sense of pattern recognition.

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of pessimists.

One is the sort who expects that things will go wrong and people will disappoint him, and then takes pleasure when he's proven correct. I kept saying that people suck, everything sucks, and you see I was right. Hah.

This kind of pessimist is called an "asshole." It's probably the kind Mr. Churchill had in mind. And I would think a high percentage of the most insufferable assholes are former optimists who failed one too many times to temper their expectations. Ain't no one more bitter than a burned idealist.

The other kind of pessimist believes that things will go wrong and people will disappoint him. But he commits to them anyway, and rightly doesn't view the outcome he expects as the desirable one.

He deposits a can in the recycling bin and then watches it gets thrown into the same dumpster as the rest of the garbage. He asks out the woman for whom he's harbored a crush for years, and he gets turned down. He quits his job at the cannery in order to follow his dream -- open a restaurant, record a folk album, pursue a career in standup comedy -- and he doesn't make it, he loses all his money, and ends up back at the cannery after three years, older and a few grand deeper in debt.

But at least he was true to himself. At least he answered the call. And whereas the optimist who never doubted he was ordained for the golden one in a million may well be wrecked, the pessimist who hoped for success while anticipating failure will put on the wipers and keep on truckin'.

Because the wise pessimist knows that the right thing to do, the things he ought to do aren't easy and will probably backfire, but he does them anyway.

This sort of pessimist acts like an unburned optimist. He sees the difficulty in opportunity, but says oh what the hell and runs after it anyway -- albeit with some prudent reservation, and with an eye for pitfalls that the callow optimist often lacks. He appreciates what it means to side with the angels in a world run by demons. He understands that survival is necessarily a upstream swim, and the current is a strong one. He is gentle with others because he knows how flawed and fucked up people generally are, and can't hold it against them because he himself is a flawed and fucked up person.

I'm not sure of the term for this stripe of pessimist.

The word "idiot" comes to mind.

The world could probably use a couple more idiots.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Words typed into Notepad at two in the morning when I couldn't sleep

I moved into a new room in a different building two days ago.

Tonight while walking back from her place, I noticed Jupiter in the sky, north of Aldebaran. Two months ago, Jupiter was a morning star. Now it's a midnight star in a sky where the autumn stars rise earlier every night.

I felt guilty that I was too distracted by my writing -- this short story is taking too long, I need to revise and finalize the new (short) novel, I really should get around to drawing more comics, this would all be so much easier if I could just quit my day job -- to be very good company.

But in another year -- for certain this time -- I won't have the day job. I won't be here, and I won't be able to see her anymore. Not like this, anyway.

Three days ago -- no, now four -- I stood at the curb outside a Philadelphia hotel and said goodbye to a girl I met in May, beneath Arcturus. Her work is taking her to Tanzania and I may very well never see her again.

Vega was almost directly overhead -- maybe inclined slightly toward the west -- when we sat on the patio above the street sipping cocktails, and she mentioned my book. There was a lot about it she liked, but she offered several points of criticism; but overall she honestly liked it and thought that it was an impressive first effort and those reviews she'd read weren't fair.


I first noticed Aldebaran and the autumn stars -- REALLY noticed them -- one September night in 2009. We'd all taken acid out in the Poconos and I kept a campfire going while everyone else was away. That very night I made up my mind to learn more about the constellations. And I resolved to finally finish the manuscript for a novel called The Zeroes, of which only the last three chapters remained to be written.

The day job would be piling the hours on next week. I wished I could quit it.

I may very well never see her again. And it's likely the last September I'll be living here, where my day job is. And I really like my day job, which I can say for the first time in two years. But the short story isn't writing itself, and I'm still worrying about a novel I wrote three years ago.

My birthday is now in less than two weeks.

It's staggering. The conceit that these moments are my only moments. That it's always my last chance.

Tonight I spent half an hour looking at the Milky Way through the binoculars when I could have been writing. It was astonishing. It always is. And there is a nonzero probability I'll never do it again.

It's what happens during the intervals between our assessments and plans for it. However deliberately we try to live it, life happens indeliberately, and largely unobserved until



"Well. I'm really not at liberty to say."

Sunday, August 5, 2012

On a Sunday in August



August. Less than fifty days until the autumn equinox. The summer stars (Vega, Deneb, Altair) blink overheard at sunset, and the autumn stars begin wheeling up and around after midnight. The cicadas chutter by day and the katydids rakakat by night. And I'm returning from my self-imposed exile from blogging. Such summer days as these....

The bad news is that I won't be getting that several-month vacation I've been sorta hoping for and could really use. The good news is that I'm still gonna have a job after the end of the month. The better news is that I've switched positions and will now be working in the library at this place. "This place" meaning, of course, the Quaker study/retreat center at which I've been living and working since last October.

When I pause and think about it, it still feels downright bizarre that I'm living and working in religious community. I've become so acclimated to worship-, god-, and Jesus-related discourse that I barely notice it anymore -- but then I'll end up in a conversation where somebody is asking or telling me about god and have to obtusely change the subject or otherwise just smile and give a noncommittal nod.

A sure indication that this place is having an effect on me: as I type this, my inclination is to capital-G the word "god." It doesn't make a difference to me, but working within the editorial and procedural guidelines of your employers is usually a sound policy.

I'm still an atheist -- there's no doubt about that at all. As far as organized religion is concerned, I'm a lost cause. Once you've stopped superimposing a human face on the cosmos, I'm not sure you can ever find it again without willfully deluding yourself.

However, my feelings toward the social value of faith and religion may have undergone a shift.

I've met some remarkable people at this place. Balls-to-the-wall environmentalists. Money-where-their-mouths-are activists. People who do volunteer work, visit prison inmates, and acting as AA sponsors. Grounded, motivated people who read frequently, take care of their bodies, and live with conviction. People for whom kindness and equity are a way of life rather than arbitrary prescriptions.

I can't help but notice that most of these people are religious. And I can't help noticing that I've found such small concentrations of such people elsewhere in secular or commercial settings.

To the point: even if religion is founded on a fallacy, does faith build better human beings?

Even Plato concedes that his perfect city must be founded on a lie.

It's worth considering what behavioral differences may exist between a person living and acting under the assumption that some extradimensional, omniscient, omnipotent intelligence observes all of humanity's affairs and favors moral conduct and the people who practice it; and a person who understands (accurately) that human action and human existence are inconsequential flickers in the mindless, voiceless void and that the universe doesn't care one way or another what happens to us or what we do.

We needn't place the deity in the role of a boogeyman Santa Claus, either. How do behavioral patterns differ between a person who lives and acts in the belief that humanity is not alone, that there are higher laws than human values, and that everything isn't all for nothing; and a person living and acting under the (almost definitely correct) assumption that existence exists independently of any reason for its being and that whatever he does probably doesn't make much of a difference in any kind of long run?

"We should do X because it is in humanity's best interest for reasons Y and Z" doesn't set a fire in the guts like "we must do X because God wills it." The same distance lies between "I should behave morally for the purposes of social cohesion" and "I must behave morally, no questions asked;" "I should take care of my body and environment for my own health and happiness" and "I should take care of my body and environment because God made my body and the world and God wants me to take care of them, God is glorious, etc;" "I should make art because I find creative behavior rewarding in spite of the frustration it causes me;" and "I must make art because it is my calling."

The world we've built is fucked up. Acting towards getting humanity's shit in order with full earnestness necessitates a kind of loony, irrational optimism. Not the kind of optimism you're likely to have if you're seeing the situation clearly.

Is the god delusion a beneficial human adaptation, I wonder?

Of course, my thinking maybe I should give religion the benefit of the doubt persists only as long as I can go without seeing news stories about the political supporters of Chic-Fil-A or suicide bombings. But I nevertheless wish secularism could step up its game and produce a compelling, accessible, alternative to religion that could galvanize people's best instincts and potential. Mass consumption, rational self-interest, and statism haven't been cutting it so far.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Transmission (under the hood / of ideas)


Well, this business with The Zeroes (my novel, now available for the Kindle and all enabled devices!) has been on my mind pretty constantly for the last week or so, so I haven't had much opportunity to worry myself with much else. In order to calm myself down, I went back to Jersey for the weekend to visit the family, meet up with friends, play EarthBound, and generally avoid doing or thinking anything productive. I needed a break, dammit.

The day after I arrived home, my car began acting funny. You know what you don't want to see when you open up the hood to take a look? TRANSMISSION FLUID EVERYWHERE.

So I'll probably need to have a new transmission put in or buy a new car. The place I'm living/working at gives me a $500 stipend once a month. In all likelihood, a new transmission will effectively cost me two months' pay.

All of a sudden it seems tremendously imperative that I move as many copies of The Zeroes as possible. (Available on Kindle! Check back in two to three weeks for a print version! FOR GODS SAKE I NEED THIS REALLY




In the meantime, I haven't got much else prepared this week -- except for maybe this letter I wrote to a colleague recently. Guess something in his one-paragraph message must have hit some sort of spigot.


Sorry for taking so long to answer. I’m awful at keeping up with personal email, since my inclination is to give the most worthwhile response possible to anyone who took the time to write me a worthwhile response. So instead of just answering these things off the cuff, I put it aside and think it over – and then forget about it until I’m cleaning out my inbox three to six months later. Ach.

Your praise is much appreciated, and I can understand and sympathize with your not reading fiction. Novels aren’t really in vogue these days (except for the kind with vampires, private detectives, and/or vampire private detectives that you buy at the airport, read in a week, and then never touch or think about again), and people with artistic temperaments tend to gravitate towards alternative forms that promise a bigger audience and a greater potential for gain. (Well, the sensible ones do, anyway.)

I think this New Media business is partially to blame – and not only because of the havoc it’s been wreaking on our attention span/s (“span” in the individual case, “spans” in the cultural). Why follow the life of Madame Bovary or Anna Karenina when you can just flip on some reality TV show or follow somebody’s Facebook feed a few years backward? Why push through some author’s pretend version of events when the world now converts itself – seemingly automatically – into a series of concentric, simultaneously-occurring narratives that perpetually spell themselves from one day to the next?

I think there’s still a place for good fiction – even if not many people are writing or reading it anymore.

I recall once reading a tract by some Nietzsche/Kierkegaard-spouting philosophy student about how he stopped reading fiction and now only reads philosophy books because fiction doesn’t go far enough. At its best, he says, it’s only distilled philosophy.

My tendency is to see it as the difference between an idealized principle and the situation “on the ground.” You can read an economics textbook and get an understanding of what the markets should be expected to do over the next few months or years, but there are always too many unseen variables and fudged assumptions at play to do anything but produce educated guesses. Nor can you understand the whole extent of any situation within the system on purely economic terms; there is more to humanity during a given fiscal year than what they produce and consume. Another comparison (one closer to my heart) would be how Kepler’s Laws should permit you to understand and predict everything about planetary motion within the Solar System, but that’s not the case. They’re extremely accurate, but it’s the smaller variables – the orbital perturbations from the interactions of the planets’ gravitational fields on each other, for instance – that prevent the idealized model from fully matching the truth of the situation.

Fiction is very often philosophical, but philosophy always assumes nice, round, easily-divisible numbers and simplified cases that prevent one from fully understanding its implications within dynamic, mutable circumstances without accounting for the particulars. Am I making any sense? It’s the difference between the Republic of Plato and North Korea’s “socialist paradise” (their words, not mine). It’s the difference between reading a statement like “the meaning of the world does not reside in the world” from some early twentieth-century philosopher and understanding what this might really mean (or how it might apply) to a person living their life on this planet.

Fiction gives us a controlled environment in which we can explore what happens when the pure idea is introduced to the muddy reality. (Plato would certainly agree that any object from the World of Ideas can never be pulled into physical existence without suffering some significant wear and tear.)

Sometimes the truth is too elusive and subtle to be condensed into a declarative statement. Sometimes it’s too good at evading articulation to be conceived (or conveyed) on its own. Fiction offers us a way of giving these fragments a “delivery” vehicle, without which they would be meaningless and inert.

If a novel doesn’t take its argument and follow it to the scary, uncharted place it needs to go – stops short at a point where it’s easy to do so – then that is the fault of the novelist, not the novel. (Of course, nobody really understands how far anything goes. That’s why people still puzzle over philosophy and write novels nobody reads.)

(Another problem I have with replying to email like this is that when I finally get around to it, I end up penning very long answers to questions I wasn’t actually asked.)

Long story short: maybe you shouldn’t read my novel, but I’d suggest taking War and Peace for a spin while this life affords you the opportunity. If you ever break your abstinence from fiction, that is what you should do it with.

Yrs,

PR

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Chapter 5 (The Secret Soul of the City)

(Image callously ripped off from James F.)

(First, a totally unrelated topic: In the last post, I suggested that #Occupy had disappeared from the news. It would seem that my report of its death was somewhat exaggerated.)

Not long ago I was asked to read some of my work at a local "coffee shop" type event. What I ended up choosing to read was a digressionary chapter of an unfinished project (other excerpts have been posted here once or twice before). Between you and me, I was clearly stealing from that chapter from Lalka I posted some time ago.*


Chapter 5

On my third night in Boulder I dreamed of New York.

For the first few years after stepping outside the Port Authority with Gilliam and taking in the north and south of Fifth Avenue in a prolonged wide-eyed sweep, I lived in constant amazement at my new home. Though I grew up on the rim of Providence and spent my truncated university days in Boston, neither town could measure up to The City. Even when I had lived there long enough to know my way around the streets and associate every intersection with its nearest subway station, my tendency to walk with my head tilted back and jaw hanging open frequently elicited sneers and rolled eyes from passersby who mistook me for a New England bumpkin on vacation.

For the newly arrived, it is often the case that the price of admission to a life waking, working, and sleeping in the hub of the human world spares one little means of purchasing the luxuries and perks for which the city is so renowned. As a lowly copy shop clerk I could barely afford my share of rent on our Manhattan toehold, let alone pay for theater tickets, cover charges, cab fare, designer threads, Apple gadgets, or tabs at two-drink minimum lounges. I lived on a tight budget, bringing my lunch to Kinko’s in a reusable bag, carrying my coffee in a thermos, and subsiding on canned soup in the two-bedroom Murray Hill apartment I shared with Gilliam and four strangers.

My home had a fine view of Lexington Avenue, infrequent roach sightings, and a furnace that only broke down once a month or so. Excepting Gilliam, I did not much care for my roommates – for reasons which anyone who has ever occupied a living space with four people with whom they shared nothing in common but an inability to afford their own place will appreciate. But for the most part, the apartment remained a peripheral concern. I spent as little time there as possible. When my shift ended in the late afternoon or early evening, I never went straight home, preferring to stay outside and wander the grid until I simply lacked the strength to walk any farther.

On its best days, the city was mystical. Intoxicating. During the spring I felt like Walt Whitman; I wanted to climb up on the upper deck of a tour bus and enumerate Manhattan’s wonders over a megaphone. The bridges, the Bowery; Broadway’s boisterous swagger and the supernova spectacle of Times Square. The stone cathedrals and stained glass saints; the lustrous obelisks of midtown, blinding in the afternoon sun, blazing to spite the worst of any winter. The drummers in the subways, singers at the crosswalks, the students and seekers smoking on stoops; old Cubans contemplating checkmates across stone tables, the brilliant and beautiful people at the museums exchanging confidentialities in whispered French and Cantonese. The parks, the piers, the Corinthian columns and cobblestone streets, the statues in the squares; the delirious rush of the midnight J train tearing through space over the livid churnings of the East River, and the Lower West Side looming above the trees at sunset, inverted and shuddering in the Onassis-Kennedy Reservoir…

On its worst days, New York was altogether nauseating in its appalling reality. It was a hundred-thousand madmen digging through the garbage, pleading for McDonald’s money, and howling in crowded subway cars about George W. Bush, the aliens, the FCC, and Babylon. It was doomed doomsday prophets, crackhead fistfights, rag-men sleeping on the sidewalks in the sleet. It was pigeon shit. It was piss on the stairwells, crusted condoms on park benches, charred metal spoons, and garbage – garbage everywhere. It was single mothers with deep lines in their faces dragging screaming children by the wrists, one in each hand; it was old men who knew they’d work until they died, and when they died, they’d die alone; it was the palpable weight of loneliness and exhaustion on the late train, and it was the periodic thump of recognition that your face is only one of eight million, and the other 7,999,999 pairs of ears around you have no time or interest for what your mouth might have to say to them.

None of this was new to Gilliam, who, unlike me, did not come to the city as a carpetbagger. Having grown up immersed in New York’s sensations, scenes, stenches, and idiosyncrasies, he barely seemed to notice them. His parents still lived on Roosevelt Island, but he never spoke to them. I never asked his reasons – and reasons he surely had – but it seemed most likely he wished to live as little beholden to them as possible.

After returning home from Boston, Gilliam subsided on a slew of temporary sales positions, often working seven days a week. He selected his jobs carefully, only taking ones that paid commission – preferably those that allowed him face-to-face time with his marks. Gilliam could sell an icemaker to an Eskimo, provided he had the chance to shake his hand and look him in the eye. With the money he pulled in, he could have easily had an apartment to himself, were it not for his plans. The bulk of his earnings went straight into savings and stocks, not to be touched until he had amassed enough to start his business – once he figured out what sort of business he intended to start. Despite making at least seven or eight times more money than me, the weekly budget on which Gilliam lived was as meager as my own.

He kept a close watch on events and trends within Manhattan’s cultural sphere, intending to know his way around The Scene once he had the cash and clout to gain admittance to it. More than anything else, he paid attention to events in the art world. Although modern art held little fascination for him (self-congratulatory rubbish, he called it, though never when anyone who mattered was around), Gilliam was keenly interested in the things with which modern art was associated: cosmopolitan multinational crowds with fat wallets, thick rolodexes, and empty heads; trust-funded, easily-impressed girls attending SVA and FIT; journalists, bloggers, bankers, trendspotters, and socialites, all tipsy, talkative, and accessible; and, most importantly, free booze. Since neither of us could regularly accommodate fifty-dollar drink tabs, we went to galleries instead of bars. Once a week or so, Gilliam would call me at work to tell me about an opening that evening in Dumbo, Chelsea, or the West Side, and I’d rush home after my after my shift to shower, change into one of my rotating sets of dress clothes, dab cologne behind my ears, and pick up a pack of Nat Shermans at the corner store, primarily for their value as a conversation starter.

The art was pleasant to look at, even if I usually didn’t understand it. If the bottom-shelf chardonnay and cans of Rolling Rock left anything to be desired, it certainly wasn’t a better price. Because it was all free, and since I felt so ill at ease in a building full of strangers who all seemed to know each other, I returned to the makeshift, intern-staffed bars at least four times an evening – however long it took me to feel as in my element as Gilliam, who scarcely needed a drop before he could approach an attractive or interesting stranger with a business card in his extended hand and wearing his I’ll give you the world grin to tell them who he was, what he planned to do, and how they could be a part of it. His story changed from night to night. I think he was waiting to hear himself tell the right one; the one that had the greatest likelihood of becoming real with the help of the person to whom it was addressed.

His successes were mixed. He got invited to a lot of parties, filled up his address book, and let a lot of sloshed professional women and grad students take him home, but never found the investor, collaborator, or untapped innovator he needed. For my part, I met a lot of new people, but nobody ever wanted to know what I was doing afterwards, and the phone numbers I handed out on napkins never got any calls. Still, there was never a shortage of brief, intimate conversations with strangers who were eager as I was to discuss the city, their work, and their aspirations over a cigarette – whose tips I usually replaced with a pinch of green herb.

It was on these nights that I sensed the wonder of the city most acutely. Exiting a gallery after sunset, lightheaded, high, tired from my day’s work, having lost sense of myself in the noise and jostlings of the crowd, and finding the city awash in its own light, I invariably found myself pausing at the curb and gazing out at the streets and up at the towers, contemplating where I was, what it was, and what it might all mean.

The hardest thing is knowing what to ask. The object stands before you, too massive to be apprehended within its own vicinity, but nonetheless solid and self-evident. But no less evident is the riddle – and it reaches an especial salience in the mind of the stoned and tipsy college dropout in his early twenties.

Why?

It is impossible to grasp New York in its byzantine entirety. Though you might take your first and last breaths in the Presbyterian Hospital between ninety intervening years; though you could master the grid, commit to memory all the significant names, dates, and places, follow the cyclical seasons of neighborhood decay and revitalization, ride every tour cruise, and tread every foot of sidewalk on either side of every street, at the vital core of any individual conception of the city rests a kernel of inscrutability that resists all reason’s attempts to crack.

What is the city? How was it created? And for what purpose?

Is it within the mortal mind’s capability to chart the lengths of every street, track the paths of every copper wire, know the heights, foundations, and interiors of every structure, plumb the depths of every sewer pipe and subway tunnel, and calculate the converging, colliding, and diverging paths of the tens of millions of human beings to walk its streets since the first bricks of Fort Amsterdam were laid in 1614? Could human intelligence appraise the efforts of desire, design, and will that transformed the bucolic island of the many hills into a veritable organism of amalgamized stone, machinery, and human masses?

I sometimes thought of Archibald and Aristotle. We are what we repeatedly do; it is with cities as it is with men, which are the very atoms of metropolis. The city’s nature can be understood by what it does: its identity rests upon its function. But what was that function? What could New York be said to do?

And I wondered why I should be at such pains to understand a thing erected by men; built by human hands and conceived by human minds – hands no stronger, minds no greater than our own. How could it be that a human creation could defy human understanding?

Sometimes I would loiter outside the gallery and nurse a cigarette, waiting for somebody to approach and ask for one. I’d light it for them and ask what they thought about the city, what it was, and what it meant. Most of the time they didn’t understand what I was asking. The ones who understood could never answer. Though I kept pressing them, and they kept mulling it over (or pretending to), their cigarettes were always finished before any appreciable progress could be made, and they never hung around for much longer afterwards. And I would end up going home and watching VH1 with my roommates, only to corral my thoughts.

One October evening, we left an opening at an art space in Dumbo – myself, Gilliam, and a gregarious Romanian photographer he had met inside and who was eager to show him her work back at her apartment in Queens. It had stopped drizzling. After breathing in the evaporated perspiration of two-hundred bodies for the last three hours, we all agreed we should take a walk, so as to savor both the evening and the seventeen glass of white wine we’d consumed between the three of us.

We found ourselves drawn westward, and soon stood at the rocks straddling the bank of the East River. Partitioned between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, a segment of Manhattan rose from the gloom, lit by innumerable yellow beads strung in rows across the massive, motionless forms of the Lower East Side. At the towers’ base, the double-tiered FDR Drive flowed with living light, passing with the same liquidity as the waves slapping against the stones at our feet. My companions’ conversation about David LaChapelle became small and distant as the tantalizing problem of the city’s being reexerted itself.

I asked myself the same questions, arrived at the same incomplete answers, and came no closer to a conclusion than I had on any of the last twenty, thirty, or fifty nights like this.

For the first time, I thought to consult Gilliam. I asked him: what is the city?

Gilliam said nothing. His fixed, laconic gaze toward the opposite bank told me he considered the question useless. The photographer answered for him: it was New York, she said, the greatest city in the world. When I pressed her for specifics, she only elaborated so far as adding that this was where it all happened and that there was nowhere else like it.

I asked Gilliam a different question: what made the city? If we couldn’t grasp the whole of its nature, could we at least understand the physics by which it assumed its form?

Of course, said Gilliam (not a little drunk): having, wanting, getting. The exchange of what one has for what one wants.

The five boroughs that are New York form the four-chambered heart through which the life of our world flows. It is the magnetic pole of means, and means attracts means. And so all things are drawn irresistibly toward the city.

This, Gilliam said with a grand gesture toward the rows of towers across the river, is where all the currents converge. It is the fulcrum of civilization; the citadel of humanity; the very fountainhead of capital. Why should the man in need to drink content himself with waiting for the well to fill or praying for the rain to fall when he might tap into the very wellspring with a little exertion?

But what makes this place the wellspring, I wanted to know.

The people who come here to search for it, Gilliam answered. Listen: a star is a star because it is massive. A star becomes massive by first being massive – by existing at the center.

The photographer remarked at the profundity in his choice of metaphor. Gilliam ignored her.

Human beings have needs that must be met if they intend to continue being human. The means to acquire the things to satisfy these deficiencies flow through the city like an underground vein pushing against the surface. By seeking means, we make the means, and make the city grow. It has always been this way, ever since we decided to stop being apes and start being people. There is no other alternative. If the heart stops pumping, the body must die.

It sounded so simple. I could not question or refute any of this – especially not when Gilliam answered with such assured conviction while I was at pains to even produce a question.

I asked Gilliam, for the first time, why he was so dead set on his grand plans. Why wasn’t it enough for him to work and be paid for it?

He thought about it. A train roared eastward on the Manhattan Bridge, and he waited until it passed to give his answer:

Because it’s what a man is supposed to do. A boy follows. A man leads. The architects of our world were people who refused to content themselves with just getting by. The city was built by men – men with ambition, who would rather provide for themselves than be provided for by others.

His face was lit up by the flash of the photographer’s camera. His focus broken, he shrugged and commented on the weather before sitting back down.

I considered what he said, and knew that Archibald and my father would have agreed with him. It was early yet, and I had tomorrow off. I resolved to spend the rest of the evening revising my résumé and searching job listings once I returned home and sobered up.

We parted ways soon afterward. Gilliam and the photographer headed for the F train with their hands in each others’ back pockets, while I walked crookedly toward the ACE station at Red Cross Plaza. At the entrance, a young vagrant with a southern accent asked me for a cigarette. I gave him the whole pack of Nat Shermans from of my pocket (there were probably twelve left) and waved off his thanks.

The platform on which I waited nearly thirty minutes for the uptown train was deserted, save for an old bum with bleeding gashes on his face who lay passed out against support beam, and a gorgeous girl about my age wearing a dress that matched the paint upon her cherry lips. She listened to a pair of earbuds and stared unflinchingly at the white tile wall across the track.

I paced and ruminated what Gilliam had said. It weighed up well enough, but something in it still seemed to ring hollow.

The city was built by human beings who had to find the means to meet their wants, and their efforts made the means by which other human beings could meet their needs. Ten, twenty, fifty million simple, and singleminded efforts toward an interminable gradient of individual necessity. Thus the current flowed, and the city accrued like sediment gathering at the mouth of a spring. New York stood, then, as the product of twenty generations of human endeavor. While its people lived through labor, the city piled up around them; turbid waves left in the wake of human life, remaining for the next generation to push through, coalescing, splitting, and mutually destroying one another. And thus New York was made, sustained, and transformed – though not through any deliberate intelligence or focused purpose.

At last, the train arrived. The girl in the red dress boarded a different car than me. The vagrant remained snoring against the rusted pillar. I got on the train and shared a car with six or seven inexpressive faces with eyes that only opened to check the station stops and lips that remained press together except to let a cough pass through.

The train rushed through the darkness at the city’s roots, and I realized that the city wasn’t the cause, and it wasn’t the end. It was only the side effect.

Twenty generations of human beings in the pursuit of their day-to-day interests had pushed and shoved each other across four centuries for the things their natures on each of the 147,000 days of those four hundred years, and the city was the imprint of their actions. How could the product of a hundred million different human efforts toward a hundred million different ends in a hundred million different directions be understood, except as incoherence?

And this was the heart of human existence: a mechanism built by an appetite with no aim, plan, or goal but to keep itself fed and sheltered for a time and live in such a way that life was free from want as could be managed. An indeliberately constructed labyrinth, continually rebuilt and expanded by the men who wandered it – mastered by the thing their fathers made!

It was raining when I emerged from the subway. Thirteen streets and three avenues stood between me and my apartment. I didn’t have the cash for a cab. Somewhere in Queens, Gilliam was dry, warm, and probably sharing a bed with his Romanian photographer, and I would have to hear all about it the next day.

While I waited at a crosswalk for the light to change, a Lexus swinging a right struck a puddle, drenching me from the waist down. I thought about how none of this would be necessary if I had a car of my own, and decided that moment that placing myself in a position to afford one must become a top priority.

The rain came down harder. I ducked into a bar to wait it out. After five minutes, the bartender noticed I wasn’t buying anything and told me to leave unless I planned on having a drink. The cheapest beer they had was six dollars, which I hadn’t the luxury of being able to part with. He pointed me toward the exit, assuring me of his sympathy – but rules were rules. No purchase, no shelter.

Home at last. I couldn’t get inside the room Gilliam and I shared because our other roommate – a postal clerk in his mid-thirties – was loudly copulating with the latest boy or girl he’d brought home from the Pyramid Club. In the other bedroom, our one female roommate yelled at the boyfriend on the other end of the phone about his reluctance to let her move in with him. Our remaining two roommates sat on the living room couch in the grip of some psychedelic drug or other and watched Mr. Ed reruns with the volume turned up to drown out the screams and grunts from behind either bedroom door.

Too much noise. I shivered it out in the kitchen with a cup of tea and can of tomato soup, and grudgingly washed the dishes my roommates left in the sink to pass the time, vowing that one way or another, I would be living somewhere by myself this time next year.

The last pinch of herb in my pocket barely amounted to a puff, which I exhaled through the open window. Our apartment was on the fourteenth floor – the window in the kitchen pointed north along Lexington, where the Chanin and Chrysler Buildings billowed upwards to eclipse the electrified sky. From the towers’ unseen foundations extended a glowing thread that gradually widened, quickened, and at last segmented into cars and cabs humming in the breeze as they passed below. The whole visible city seemed a baroque carven canyon through which flowed a miraculous clockwork river that radiated golden light.

Magnificent, I thought – and in the living room, Wilbur asked Mr. Ed if he thought they would ever understand women, and Mr. Ed answered: "Don't try. Just enjoy 'em."

And I decided, on the advice of a talking horse, that for all of her strangeness and ugliness, and for all the sense I couldn’t make of her, I loved New York and could never bring myself to leave her. It seemed just as rational as anything else in that place on this night.

A few months after that night, I gave my two weeks’ notice at Kinko’s when a respected international manufacturer hired me to fill an open position within its editorial department, where I would assist in the drafting and editing of its product manuals. I moved into an apartment of my own and bought a Volkswagen Beetle. My thoughts turned from the secret soul of the city to the operational particulars of motorized tie racks, shoe-shining machines, paper shredders, and electric toothbrushes, and how they might be most succinctly expressed to the masses of searchers and spenders too wrapped in their own business to sort their own ties, shine their own shoes, destroy their own documents, and exert their own arms to clean their own teeth. I stopped smoking herb and started smoking Marlboros; I stopped visiting galleries and started visiting bars. My relationship with New York settled down. It no longer confounded me, and it was only in dreams that the city appeared to me with the same bewildering beauty and strangeness I saw when I first arrived.

That night in Boulder I dreamed of the Chrysler Building in the rain.



* Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal. - T.S. Eliot

Monday, November 28, 2011

Space: Outer and Inner (Part 1.5)

Image filched from The Old Farmer's Almanac


For the past two months I've been a resident and employee at a Quaker retreat center outside of Philadelphia. I affectionately refer to the place as "the farm" in conversation, but the place isn't a farm, and it's really not in the middle of nowhere. It's something like a commune with a business model: most of the residents/clients are recent college graduates, retired folks, or people experiencing a period of transition. This place gives them a setting in which they can live with other people in similar circumstances, participate in workshops, and figure out their next move. It is a religious place (and I am, of course, an atheist), but the Quakers are not what you'd expect from a Christian sect in the States. In all the weeks I've been here, nobody has ever once tried to talking to me about Jesus. Early on, a few people asked me if I was a Quaker, and did not pry any further when I answered in the negative. All I'm saying is that this godless blasphemer isn't making a peep of complaint about the company he's kept lately. (They're tolerant to the point where I'm a little tempted to show up at a morning worship meeting and shout out HAIL SATAN. They probably wouldn't be too happy about it, but there is actually a nonzero possibility that they would give me the chance to explain myself afterwards -- and I can make a pretty good case for Satan.)

But I digress!

One of the daily events at this place is a gathering called Epilogue. Like pretty much all of the religious stuff at this place, it's totally optional. But what it usually consists of is a short reading, song, or meditation session in order to close out the day. A couple of weeks ago, one of the folks in charge of scheduling daily and weekly events approached me and said she heard tell I was something of a stargazing buff.

"How would you like to lead an outdoor Epilogue one night?" she asked. "You could say a few words about the stars and point out some constellations for us."

I sure as hell wasn't about to say no.

It's probably going to happen sometime this week, whenever the skies clear up. I've drafted a text of what I'd like to say. It would be sloppy of me to read from a sheet of paper, so what I'm probably going to do is read it over a few (A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND) times and reduce it to a series of points and subpoints in my memory. But here's hoping whatever comes out of my mouth goes something like....


Tonight it is my privilege to direct to your attention: eternity. Or, at least, the largest piece of it we are capable of observing directly under ordinary circumstances.

Today we have a pretty good idea (or at least some supremely educated guesses) about the nature of these distant points of light – what they're made of, how they work, how they're born, and what happens when they die. But it has only been in the last five hundred years of our species' 200,000-year history that we've made such a stupendous breakthrough. But even before humanity acquired the technological and intellectual tools to understand it, THIS [gesturing upwards] was there, tantalizing the imaginations of our ancestors.

Even without the aid of telescopes, sophisticated mathematics, or even a written language, our predecessors' powers of reason and observation were keen enough to notice a few important characteristics of the stars: namely, that their relative positions to each other in the sky remain fixed, and their movement across the celestial sphere corresponds with the solar cycles. Given the stars' usefulness as agricultural time-markers and navigational tools, our ancestors had a far more intimate relationship with the heavens than we do to today, despite their total lack of knowledge regarding the stars' physical properties.

What we're seeing now is a textbook picture of the autumn sky – a nice, fairly subtle, transitional scene, and the very setting where my own experience as a stargazer began. Looking to the west, you'll see triangle of summer stars Vega, Deneb, and Altair, of the constellations Lyra (the lyre), Cygnus (the swan), and Aquila (the eagle) sinking toward the horizon. Of these, Cygnus is the easiest to spot from here – simply direct your gaze this way, to the four stars that look like the top of a cross. Were there less light pollution, you might be able to see the Milky Way stretching from the northeast and cutting through the Triangle to the southwest – but to borrow a sentiment from a former Secretary of Defense, you go to stargaze with the sky you got.

[Note: if all goes according to plan, I will be pointing these out with a special green laser pen developed for just such an exercise.]

The fact that we still identify the stars by these groupings and these names is an intellectual relic of our ancestors. Presented with a span of objects that they could not approach, touch, or examine, our ancestors' imaginations compelled them to associate the stars with their mythological figures and cultural symbols. Dominating the sky at the moment is a patch of constellations representing the myth of Perseus and Andromeda. The W-shaped asterism right above us is Cassiopeia, the vain queen of Ethiopia who boasted that her beauty excelled that of Poseidon's sea nymphs. In the direction where the shape seems opening up is the constellation Cepheus, named for Cassiopeia’s complicit husband; and at Cassiopeia's turned “back” is her daughter Andromeda, whom she offered up as a sacrifice to quell Poseidon's wrath. Below Cassiopeia is the hero Perseus, the slayer of Medusa and forebear of a long line of Achaean kings; and between him and Andromeda you'll find a leg of Pegasus, the flying horse Perseus rode to rescue Andromeda from the sea monster Cetus – who is represented by his own constellation some ways to the south of Pegasus.

Below Perseus is the Auriga (the Charioteer), marked by the brilliant Capella – the uppermost point of the Winter Hexagon (or Winter Circle), the emblem of the rising winter sky. At the ring's center you'll find Betelgeuse, the second-brightest star of the hibernal hunter Orion.

I would also like to draw your attention to a visitor: the planet Jupiter, skirting the rim of the constellation Aries (the ram). We shall call him a visitor because, unlike the rest of what we’re seeing, he is not a permanent fixture of the sky. (Though of course, “permanence” is a term that speaks to the limitations of our temporal perspective. Had we a sufficiently long memory and broadness of vision, we would appreciate that virtually nothing in this existence is permanent – but I digress.)

Our word “planet” comes from the Greek term planetes aster, meaning “wandering star.” Unlike the “fixed” stars of the firmament, the planets move across the sky at their own paces, with an apparent erraticism that we've come to fully understand and accurately predict out only within the last few centuries, as our understanding of our place in the cosmos has transcended mythological models and guesstimates founded on inaccurate assumptions and scant data. Thanks to [name deleted] and her telescope, we can vouchsafe from Jupiter an example of our progressive knowledge.

What you’re seeing are the four Galilean Satellites, discovered by the great Galileo Galilei and named for four of Jove’s young human lovers: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. Their discovery in 1610 did far more than afford another well-off white male the chance to name four little dots in the sky after his fancy; they demonstrated a principle. Here was evidence to support the then-controversial heliocentric model of the sun and planets: the fact that these objects orbited a body other than the Earth proved that our world is not the central fulcrum of all existence, as was previously assumed.

Galileo was a link in the recent chain of scientific enlightenment that began with Copernicus and Kepler, and continued on through Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking, et cetera. Their work has furnished humanity with an exponentially more accurate conception its cosmic existence than it possessed at any other time in its history.

There is too little time, and my own knowledge is too limited to go into much detail beyond what you learned in science class. You already know we’re looking at a multitude of burning nuclear orbs flying through the void, each individually more massive and farther away than our terrestrial experience has equipped us to appreciate.

Even if we do not have the time or inclination to memorize all their names and educate ourselves about the physical processes that make them what they are, we should at the very least be mindful of them, and of the fact that our existence is by no means whatsoever separate from theirs.

I would imagine that most of us have come here in order to better understand who we are and what we should do with the time we’re afforded as conscious entities on this planet. You would not argue with me if I suggested that we cannot hope to attain a full understanding of a person – or of a people, a civilization, or a species – without taking into account the setting of his (or their) existence. (The world is, after all, much more than just a flat backdrop to human affairs.) I do not think it is a leap of logic to induce the equal importance of examining the cosmos in which the Earth bubbled up (whether by chance or grace of god) in our efforts to arrive at a substantial understanding of our world.

If we do not consider our situation from a cosmic standpoint – and all the implications this presents – any self-knowledge we profess to have will be tremendously incomplete.

Now is a fine time to start looking upwards and thinking it over – there are few better times for stargazing during the winter months, when the air is clear and the skies are dark. If you require an intellectual starting point in your meditations, I might advise Psalm 19: "The Heavens declare the glory of God." But bear in mind that this is only a springboard. Like any useful piece of Scripture, the simplicity of the phrasing belies a world of meaning that demands to be explored.