On Jabberwocky: Why We Do the Things We Think We Aren’t Doing
The text, said Aldous Huxley, is the pretext. We read not only to learn or process information. We read—or at least we did once upon a time—to revel in the sheer opulence of language. “‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,” is how Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” begins. Humpty Dumpty parses the words for Alice and explicates their “portmanteau” nature, but the pleasure resides not only in sense-making but in the sensual flair and appetite of our potential engagement with the language.
All our activities may be viewed in the same light. We do things not only to get them done but to embroider our personalities around them: in talk, exchange of pleasantries and jokes, shared reverie. What is specifically human is what is civilized, that is, what remains after function has been subtracted. Packing for a trip, washing the dishes, receiving a massage, for example, are activities that may all be accomplished more or less mechanically. What is specifically human is the excited talk about the forthcoming trip while the bags are being packed, perhaps badly; the chatter over the dishes, though several may break; or the tickle in the massage. In other words, what is essentially human is what is gratuitous, the whole range of being which is not function-related, the non-utilitarian, the element of play taken in the widest possible sense.
The philosophic distinction going back in part to Plato’s Parmenides, sometimes phrased as the opposition between Reality and Necessity, is the appropriate discrimination here.* Necessity refers to the domain of activity in which the purposes of subsistence are exclusively served. It is what we may call the economic sphere of confined exertion—that of which John Travolta, playing the archangel Michael asked to revive a dead puppy, says, “It’s not my area.” Reality is the realm of spirit or of the non-replaceable, in which the sense of being is enhanced in the circuitous attainment and expression of either joy or wisdom or both. It is what John Donne is getting at when he writes: “On a huge hill/Cragged, and steep, Truth stands and he that will/Reach her, about must, and about must go.” Similarly, Emily Dickinson: “tell all the Truth, but tell it slant—/Success in Circuit lies.” And so, Polonius: “By indirections find directions out.”
Another wonderful piece by our resident sage Mr. Solway. I take the point about irritation signaling the triumph of instrumentality over the imaginative faculty: that’s going to be hard to apply in real life, but I will attempt it. I can imagine that Mr. Solway turns moments of irritation into occasions for witty and profound reflections such as this one. Please keep on!
If the Obama administration has its way (which is not foreordained), wit and profundity will disappear into the muck of bureaucratic legalese. See my roundup of opinion on Common Core, sometimes called Core Standards, an intervention into the teaching of English and American literature and language that had a low profile before the presidential election. Here is my take on the problem: http://clarespark.com/2013/01/05/american-fascism-and-the-future-of-english-and-american-literature/. So far, right-wing commentary assumes that writers are correctly taught in classrooms everywhere. I argue otherwise in the last few links.
A legitimate point. However there is one redeeming feature of where we are, as opposed to where the government wants to take us. This is that there is still some emphasis on literature, for now. However badly taught (and it is badly taught, and was when I was in school), there is inevitable leakage of some ideas, whenever students are exposed to imaginative or thoughtful writing of any quality. The censors just aren’t good enough to keep all lit at the level they want. There is always something you can admire or dispute.
The new guidelines are the ultimate answer to this problem. If kids’ reading is really going to be government memos, then we can be pretty sure no thoughts whatsoever will come through, and clarity of thought and expression will hit their natural bottom.
I wish that I could entirely agree with George S, but it takes maturity and systematic study of literature and history to understand even one work of imaginative fiction or poetry. I made a stab at it here: http://clarespark.com/2012/03/20/links-to-cormac-mccarthy-and-mark-twain-blogs/. It took me roughly 25 years to get my head around Herman Melville, and even there I am uncertain about my interpretations.
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,” is how Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” begins.
One, two! Red, White and Blue!
His vorpal blade will go snicker-snack!
He’ll tear Obama right in two
And with his head he’ll go gallantphing back
A welcome respite from the incessant drone of functional illiteracy currently dominating most news sites.
You are one of my favorites, Mr. Solway. Always a discovery and a delight.
“Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding
of a problem.”
~J. Krishnamurti
He goes on…
“Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation, and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a sense of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these dominates man’s thinking, relationships and his daily life. These are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man in every relationship.”
Great comments to a great article.
If I may expand:
“Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it… through any creed… dogma, priest…nor…philosophical knowledge…”
And yet some Truths are Self Evident, and it is a Mans responsibility to say so….to share with his children the fruit of his knowledge, so harshly gained and so fragile to now finally, safely hold.
“ Man has built in himself images as a sense of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these dominates man’s thinking, relationships and his daily life. These are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man in every relationship.”
Quite true when symbols no longer hold The Truths that was the reason of their creation…Flag and Cross irrationally held aloft as mere counterbalance to them being irrationally defiled…
With no conversation as to why they ever existed at all.
The Paradox of “Truths”
DS: “True wisdom is a stranger to irritation and it is precisely this refusal to be irritated that is the principal element in our picture of the Wise Man. In ordinary life it is when irritation is embellished by humor, wit, or the imaginative curse, or is immediately deflated by self-mockery, that the specifically human, the civilized, has once again asserted itself.”
If we only possess a material nature, if we are animals only, then it makes sense to be angry and irritated at every trauma or setback, however small. Possession of God’s Spirit increases the value of every individual to infinity, and thus the small setbacks and traumas, and even the big ones, can be viewed from an eternal perspective, and better managed as beautifully described above. Why get so irritated when one believes, by faith, in life eternal? Why get so irritated when one expects, in the end, to be seated at the table of the King of the Universe, where the wind and the air may be expected to cultivate a sensuous purpose or lack of purpose forever?
“if we are animals only, then it makes sense to be angry and irritated at every trauma or setback, however small”
Which sums up Mohammad and his followers pretty well donch think?
“Why get so irritated when one believes, by faith, in life eternal?
Exactly.
Thats why I’m beginning to think God Created Mohammad and his followers as a TEST for the rest of us….
“OK, youve got that “love your neighbor” thing down mostly…but happens when your neighbors are EVIL KILLERS that completely reject ME no matter what YOU do….”love” your way out of THAT one, then we’ll talk about Infinity together”
Good religion elevates the individual and leads him to truth, life, love of neighbor, love of goodness, liberty, and creativity. Bad religion degrades the individual and leads him to lies, murder, hatred of neighbor, hatred of goodness, subjugation, and destructive violence.
Thats why Islam is such a test of Western (Christian) character.
They clearly reject love, mutual respect and cooperation as a way of living, and no amount of “appeasement” by us can or will ever satiate their bloodlust.
We cannot “cure” sufficient numbers of them with Christs such that the remainders will ever NOT be a threat, and we cannot descend to THEIR level and still call ourselves “ godly”.
Love SHOULD conquer evil, that would be wonderful….…but, is it really, REALLY possible?
What “should be” and “what is” are not always the same thing… I would argue that in fact they very rarely ever are.
So what do we do?
From a philosophical standpoint, I mean….
I KNOW what needs to be done on the ground.
From a philosophical standpoint we must become intolerant of any religion which is destructive of the individual’s God-given equal rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness.
“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live [Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Constitution].” Samuel Adams