Open ended

Blown my mind.

Never thought I would identify with contemporary art. Well, both "I" and "It" are obviously drawn to them today, to the unexplainable profoundity that I would like not to know them as any "-ism". While it is not my position to comment on their expressions, it is lovely to feel artists are asking questions, sometimes same ones, only they invite you into a symbiosis which creates temporary "short circuits" (bad analogy!), drowning me with currents of...almost tangible touch.

Dia: Beacon has all the humane sensitiveness that can take one's breath away every single time you look away from the artworks. The winter sun makes the glass windows porous, quiet air filtering through and occasionally fluttering with every step of--

me walking, a walk like forever is simply truly ever.

Course Evaluation

Last lecture.Professor asked us to write a reflective piece on the distance we have traveled with this "Conversations of the West". As someone who is always fascinated by this class, I surprisingly found myself stumbled at...nothing concrete really, to put on paper at that time. The first line is lame: "I have learnt about what it takes to be part of the humanity." Well well, who is to be fooled. Probably I will never understand what catalyzed the consciousness of my own existence.Finally I penned down something that truly touched me: Never take any virtue for granted. Even after we fabricated these models, fairy tales and hells, what did we use (advantage or weakness) to commit ourselves to seeking these ideals?

Most puzzling of all, since when did our ancestors realize Mother Nature is not an ally as important as some tribes of brutal force and ambitions?

Since we never had a chance to appreciate the acquaintance with other earthlings, did morality really make us one of the kind or we are just satisfied at the top of the ecological pyramid--essentially a creation of our own?

I believe philosophers, as a more or less impartial generalization, have more daring minds than their fellow human beings. Like the magician who grabs the rabbit out of the hat when most of us are still crawling and enjoying the warmth in the fur, philosophers venture to confront with the seemingly trivial but ever present imperfections in our life, behind lying the reality no one is excited about. We dislike to be disoriented. How blissful if our life is full of auspicious signs pointing to the direction we first set our mind to! It seems one thing we definitely share with other communities is inclination towards expediency, simply put, laziness. Don't mess this with that, don't complicate it when there is a straight way out! Why are we so afraid of complications, fusions, transformations...

They say most people only use 1/10 of the brain for the whole life.Try to imagine a brain that travels above spatial and time limits in "Symposium", or one that embraces absurdity as what it is, or those that pierce through what we pride ourselves with, find disturbingly nothing there and still affirm a positive prospect of future. In my view, this course is not to help me make any choice or make the confounding mysteries of life any easier experience. I am still looking at the shadows even I read Plato. Unpleasant and inescapable indeed, but it is more pathetic to trick and trap the mind in order to summarize the view of life with a few adjectives.

It is simply wrong to try to fit the profound into the mundane life. If necessary, I may be able to say I realize how hard it is to believe and have faith at the same time, just like to do something good without emotional motives.

Enough rambling. For the only class I never ever skipped a single time, I wrote at the "comments": The best class I had at NYU so far.

Stage Alive

In “The Birth of Tragedy”, Nietzsche considers that plays of Euripides represent the decline of tragedy. He writes that “now we have all recognized that Euripides failed absolutely in his efforts to base tragedy upon the Apolline spirit” [P62], where Apolline spirit refers to rationalism and moderation in contrast with the Dionysiac spirit. However, “The Bacchae”, Euripides’ last play, is the most Dionysiac tragedy where the playwright explores the dark insight into the irrational and unpredictable human nature by staging a gruesome battle between Pentheus and Dionysus. This is a play about pleasure personified by Dionysus and boundaries backed by individual moral agency exemplified by Pentheus, as well as the agony of their transgression. In the play, Dionysus is capable of transforming people into “blond beasts”, who “enjoy freedom from every social constraint, in the wilderness they compensate for the tension which is caused by being closed in and fenced in by the peace of the community” [GM, I, 11]. Hence, to a large extent, the defeat of Pentheus by Dionysus epitomizes the failure of the moral systems in regulating behaviors desired by human communities, corresponding to Nietzsche’s ideas in “On the Genealogy of Morality”.
In the era when new surge of sophistic education, rhetorical training and more materialistic explanations of the gods (as we witness from Eryximachus in Plato’s “Symposium”) clashed with polytheistic worship and traditional mythologies, young men like Pentheus adopted Socratic questioning to challenge old customs with the belief that the city should be run by reasoning. For instance, Pentheus expresses his doubts to Tiresias by saying: “Do you really need another deity to profit from your trade as a prophet?” [The Bacchae, 251-253].He emphasizes practical necessity and downplays the significance of erratic inclination in human behaviors. On the other hand, perceiving Dionysus’ cult as an usurpation of his authority, Pentheus defends his ascetic ideals by standing firm against the god of intoxication and fertility, renouncing personal desires for “the awakening of the communal feeling of power” [GM, III 19]. Nevertheless, Pentheus indeed finds Dionysus’ look aesthetically compelling, as he exclaimed “oh look what a darling he is, the handsome stranger!” [The Bacchae, 435-436] Ironically, his downfall at the mountainside is brought upon by what has been repressed the most—his sexual desires. Here, power comes from submission to desires rather than self-control. Moreover, his guilt, surely aroused after he allows himself to be dressed like a woman, is just the “excess of feeling” [GM, III 19] which he has been feeding himself with to maintain a seemingly moral superiority that ultimately crippled. In Nietzsche’s eyes, the self-deceptive attempt of preserving a degenerating life by physiological inhibition against the deepest instincts “which has remained intact” [GM, III 13], eventually leads to Pentheus’ tragic death.
We witness the regressive nature of individual moral agency not only in the character of Pentheus, but also from the exercise of his power. He holds Dionysus responsible for disrupting the sexual order hence the political order for he “has taught our women his abominable arts” [The Bacchae, 651]. As a result, Pentheus seeks to punish the objects of his desire in a misguided attempt at imprisoning Dionysus. Later, Pentheus is surprised to discover he has not bound the stranger at all. Despite of his claim that Dionysus’ followers are “backward” and “less wise than the Greeks” [The Bacchae, 465], this metaphor reveals Pentheus’s oblivion in paradoxical contrast with the knowing Dionysus. Similarly, Nietzsche argues that ascetic procedures along with human invention of punishment are exploited to “hypnotize the whole nervous and intellectual system” and to make these fixed ideas “ineradicable, ubiquitous and unforgettable” with the preaching of human free will [GM, II, 3]. Nevertheless, the audience sees what Pentheus himself cannot see: his physical mediocrity compared to Dionysus and his interest in his own sexual gratification which threatens his sanity and self-control.
It is Dionysus who is in complete control of actions in “The Bacchae” and thus he is the real ruler of the Thebes. While he seductively persuades Pentheus to degrade himself to the status of a woman, Pentheus is still blind to the god’s divinity but beginning to recognize the desires that had thus far been hidden from him. With the gradual disintegration of traditional religions and customary moral systems in the Greek society, Euripides presents a dark imagery that irrational fanaticism overthrows the patriarchal society, where citizens has been increasingly substituting communal moral codes with philosophical inquiries in public affairs. Facing divided ideologies in the society, he demonstrates the need to contemplate on how to exploit and balance between human beings’ rational judgment and animalistic instincts in running a city. Nihilistic individual moralities are no longer able to cure or completely restrain the inborn sexual desires except turning them into inward aggression. In “The Bacchae”, the triumph of hedonism represented by Dionysus warns audiences against the vulnerability of moralizing repressed desires and grievances, just as Nietzsche’s call to decide on “the rank order of values” [GM, I, 11], in order to achieve self-affirmative power without withdrawing from life.

Love, for the unattainable

Saint Augustine’s “Confessions” is a monumental work of religion and philosophy by merging the Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian tradition, one of the most decisive moments of western religious development. Intellectualism and many other characteristics of Greek philosophical tradition are displayed in his critical examination of his personal life in “Confessions”. He also credits Platonists with making it possible for him to conceive of a spiritual reality, which set him on the correct path in his search for God, as he began to see God as more eternal and infinite—“Eternal truth and true love and beloved eternity: you are my God” [Confessions, VII.V (16)]. Nevertheless, even though both St.Augustine and Plato praise the cause of pulling oneself out of worldly desires to seek for immortality, they apply their equally powerful reasoning skills from different angles in rationalizing the ways which they believe to achieve sense of fulfillment in the long run.

In both “Symposium” and “Confessions”, happiness is identified as the instinctual motivation behind human behavior. Although St.Augustine’s disappointment over his professional excellence, which eventually led him to seeking peace in Christianity, seems to contradict with Diotima’s teaching that “the happy are happy by the acquisition of good things” [Symposium, 205A]. “Good things” may not be conventionally acknowledged at all times, only the desire is perpetual in all people. In addition, the longing to an interior world ever free of anxiety was shown when Augustine was consumed by frustration before his enlightenment--“while I was saying ’Tomorrow I shall find it; see, it will become perfectly clear, and I shall have no more doubts. Faustus will come and explain everything’” [VI. XI (19)]. This, echoing with Diotima’s saying that “eros is of the good’s being one’s own always” [206A-B], suggests that Augustine’s conversion to Christianity is to a certain extent like falling in love, though with immaterial beauty--God’s grace.

On the other hand, St. Augustine compelled by the need to establish a coherent Christian doctrine, intends to impart a more specific religious morality through “Confessions”. Reason as the center of Greek philosophy is used only in theoretical representation in “Symposium”, such as in “Ladders of Eros”. Augustine may find the approach ambivalent. He uses reason for practical significance when he presents to readers his spiritual journey to God and attempts to rationalize his decisions along the way by introducing free will. Platonist love does not work like rational judgment and people yearn for ultimate Good and Beauty because loving has become the center of their will. As a result, it seems to be a natural progression as one’s pursuit of beauty ascents from body to soul, one to many, the material to the immaterial towards the things that are always as opposed to those that come into being and pass away. In contrary, Augustine calls for a proper freedom of will, which is the ability to enjoy what is good and beautiful, to lead us to God’s grace. Unlike Plato who advocates the autonomy of human free will as long as one seeks after the truth, Augustine thinks freedom of will must be necessarily guided by divine law, which results in inevitable lack of autonomy. Consequently, God’s grace may change the will as we witness how Augustine managed to resist the worldly temptations and adopted a life of abstinence as his pursuit shifts away from worldly ambitions because his inward teaching already fulfills him—“It is simple to see how far I have succeeded in restraining my mind from carnal pleasures and from curious quests for superfluous knowledge; for I do not indulge in these things” [X. XXXVII (60)].

St. Augustine may find many truths about God in Platonist philosophy but his conversion to Christianity showed him that only in Christ, Platonism is completed and perfected for the mass. As an elite in the society, his objective in writing “Confessions”, besides calling for believers who had sinned to recognize the omnipresence and omnipotence of God, was to initiate a moral system based on reason, with divinity at the top—the locus of “truth” in Plato’s Ladders of Eros. He uplifted the Hebrew religious customs to a higher level by laying down the foundation of Christian theology, which enabled the survival of the religion under unified teaching of Roman Catholic Church in subsequent conflicts. Hence, St. Augustine would only be attracted to platonic notions that could help him in better shaping the authoritative religious mentality in his time.

Simple as believing in what you see?

“The Book of J”, though differs from King James Bible in numerous ways, still preserved many of the most well-known religious stories in Christianity and Judaism. It describes the creation of humanity and its earliest civilizations, portraying not only the power of Yahweh but also the interaction between Yahweh and the mankind. Through the stories of conflicts and harmonies, we could re-establish the journey human civilization with the gradually conscious adoption of religious and moral values. On this matter, Sigmund Freud believed that religions are “mass delusions” [P.32-9]. The ego ideal in religion is substitute for a longing for the fatherly figure since childhood. When the ego falls short of its ideal, a religious sense of piety and humility induced. Nevertheless, with respective to the story of Abram from “The Book of J”, deviations from the Freudian psychology on religion and morality can be observed.

In ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’, Freud concludes that people resort to religions because the system “assures him that a higher Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustration he suffers here.” [P.22-7] Most importantly, he believes that such infantile wishes are directed to “an enormously exalted father”. [P.22-10] Indeed, in many religions, the piety of the believers is shown most passionately in their devotion in nurturing their “bond” with such a figure, who is the embodiment of attributes desirable yet unattainable by mankind. Abram was the first man chosen, guided and blessed by Yahweh for his whole life. In the account on his fruitful relationship with Yahweh, for the first time in the book, there also appears a detailed description of “the exalted father” in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, it is puzzling that Yahweh, in the story of Abram, exhibited inconsistency in exercising his power over the earthlings, especially on issues involved equality and justice—ideals relentlessly sought after since time immemorial. If religious feelings, as Freud believes, largely stem from the longing of helpless human beings for shield from the ruthless nature and the possible coercion from fellow human beings, it is difficult to account for the lack of objection from women over Yahweh’s inadequate regulation when Abram intentionally gave up his wife Sarai, who became Pharaoh’s concubine, for his own wealth and safety. Furthermore, Hagar upheld her unwavering faith, exclaiming that “You are the God I lived to see—and lived after seeing” [P.81-38], even though neither Abram nor Sarai was blamed for the unfair treatment of Hagar despite her obedience as the surrogate, which seems horrifying in its magnification--“The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. In the story of Abram pleading Yahweh to reconsider his annihilation of Sodom, a stark contrast was displayed between the heroic determination of Abram with the disappointing recklessness of Yahweh, which almost resulted in desecration of the heavenly decision-making process. In this context, Yahweh seems far from the resemblance of the father figure in Freud’s psychoanalysis of religion, who can convince his followers to bear with the frustrations in life and abide by his moral principles in hoping for a blissful future.

On the other hand, for the earthlings, the condemnation of contempt towards Yahweh surpassed that of any moral sins, even the self-mocking laugh of Sarai outraged Yahweh. Yet he did not consider it offending when Abram questioned his impartiality towards the innocent in Sodome nor unethical when daughters “conspired” to conceive children for their father Lot. Moreover, when Sodom was about to be abandoned by Yahweh, the absence of repentance was incongruent with Freud’s assumption that “what is bad is whatever causes one to be threatened with the loss of love”. [P.85-20] In the Bronze Age civilization presented in the story, the fear of the authority--Yahweh, seemed not be able to arise any noticeable guilt or remorse administered by the superego.

The reason for the incompatibility of Freud’s analysis (especially the part on morality) with “The Book of J”, I venture to propose, may lie in the drastically different levels of material well-being of two civilizations where the two authors lived. Freud lived in a time of rapid technological advances when life expectancy was not longer at the mercy of God and the sustainable economy allowed people to pursue their spiritual needs. Whereas three thousand years ago, when the top concern of mankind was to survive and sustain the familial bloodline, the most expedient guidelines practiced naturally differed from the contemporary view of morality and justice. Hence, while religion in the context of 19^th century Europe was to alleviate people’s dissatisfaction of being inhibited from following instinctual desires, the saga in “The Book of J” represented the initial struggle to preserve human species, during which compromises had to be made and submissive attitudes adopted when confronted by the unknown nature and fate. Based on this assumption, however, Freud’s theory that “Eros and Ananke [Love and Necessity] become the parents of human civilization” [P.55-17] helps to explain the rudimentary forms of customs and culture observed in “The Book of J”, which might be the most pragmatic application possible. As a piece of religious text, the question on how the imperfect image of God was interpreted and utilized for religious purposes still remains unresolved. However, I have come to appreciate that, in a society which still prioritized generating surplus to enlarge the community, it was somehow reasonable for J to depict a God who is not the embodiment of a comprehensive set of virtues deemed indispensible by modern societies of both Freud’s and our time.