Saturday, August 9, 2014

"The abstract intelligence produces a fatigue that’s the worst of all fatigues. It doesn’t weigh on us like bodily fatigue, nor disconcert like the fatigue of emotional experience. It’s the weight of our consciousness of the world, a shortness of breath in our soul. Then, as if they were wind-blown clouds, all of the ideas in which we’ve felt life and all the ambitions and plans on which we’ve based our hopes for the future tear apart and scatter like ashes of fog, tatters of what wasn’t nor could ever be. And behind this disastrous rout, the black and implacable solitude of the desolate starry sky appears. The mystery of life distresses and frightens us in many ways. Sometimes it comes upon us like a formless phantom, and the soul trembles with the worst of fears – that of the monstrous incarnation of non-being. At other times it’s behind us, visible only as long as we don’t turn around to look at it, and it’s the truth in its profound horror of our never being able to know it. But the horror that’s destroying me today is less noble and more corrosive. It’s a longing to be free of wanting to have thoughts, a desire to never have been anything, a conscious despair in every cell of my body and soul. It’s the sudden feeling of being imprisoned in an infinite cell. Where can one think of fleeing, if the cell is everything? And then I feel an overwhelming, absurd desire for a kind of Satanism before Satan, a desire that one day – a day without time or substance – an escape leading outside of God will be discovered, and our deepest selves will somehow cease participating in being and non-being."

Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet 

Sunday, July 27, 2014

"Buddhism is a deeply psychological tradition and the Buddha's pleasure palace is a striking image of the mind in denial. We naturally want to hold suffering at bay and it is tempting to protect ourselves in a carapace of heartlessness. But our own and other people's pain will always penetrate our defences and break our hearts. Only then, the myth tells us, can our spiritual quest begin."


Saturday, July 26, 2014

Given that serious harm in life is practically inevitable, is it better to have lived than not to have existed at all? David Benatar makes a strong case in favor of non-existence, particularly when it comes to the issue of procreation. He believes that the morally responsible thing to do is not to procreate, because "the only way to prevent harm altogether is to desist from bringing children into existence". Here is a summary of Benatar's position in his own words.

As anticipated by Benatar, my immediate impulse is to argue that there is significant good in life that justifies existence even if it doesn't outweigh the harms, but on reflection I recognize that to believe (baring exceptions) that it is better to be alive than not is essentially a value-judgement, and it is a value-judgement that springs not from pure rational considerations but rather from the brute, biological will to live.

There is another way to frame this question aside from the context of procreation. The ability to create life puts us in a miniature God-like position. Now imagine God pondering over the decision to create this universe (more specifically, the decision to create sentient beings capable of subjective experience). The same considerations of harm vs good in existence present themselves but on a much grander scale, applying to the whole of creation. Is it better to bring into existence beings who would experience the excruciating horrors of this world, even though at times they would have their share of bliss as well? If God did create this universe, then God made the value-judgement of preferring life over non-existence. From Benatar's perspective, this decision was morally irresponsible on God's part. He should've let non-existence be.

This is not a mere philosophical problem of no consequence. The decision to have or not have kids is a decision that the vast majority of humanity has to make at some point during their lives. Most of us decide either thoughtlessly or selfishly, but few pause to wonder what is the better outcome for our potential children. Are they better off alive or notional? We don't know, and we have no way of knowing, and yet we have to take that decision anyway.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

"The worst sin in heaven is blindness."

Often times psychotic patients make statements that sound poetically meaningful when taken in isolation, but can become nonsensical when considered in context. For example, the above statement (which strikes me as quite profound) was immediately followed by "And the second worst sin is cancer".

Looks like posting patient quotes is becoming a common thing on the blog. So, there is a tag for it now. Enjoy!

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

"When I walk on grass, 
         it makes me allergic to Haldol. 
I don't see the dew 
        when I am not wearing glasses. 
I walk on the wrong colors 
        of rainbow."

(From a patient interview)

Monday, June 30, 2014

Jean-Luc Picard: If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are.

Star Trek: The Next Generation, 1x01

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder by American Psychiatric Association in 1973 remains a significant moment in the history of psychiatry, not simply from the perspective of human rights but also because it forced psychiatrists to confront the complex and deep-seated conceptual issue of what it means to say that a condition is a 'mental disorder'. It was following this debate that DSM under Robert Spitzer, for the first time, attempted to provide a definition of mental disorder. Also, what is less apparent to many is how politically-driven APA's decision was. What is seemingly a scientific question, the pathology or non-pathology of homosexuality, was eventually settled by a democratic vote, a referendum of the full APA membership, following a bitter controversy.

Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis by Ronald Bayer is a political analysis of this historic event. It recounts in details the socio-political background and the events which led to this decision, and the fierce debates within the discipline which all but fractured the psychiatric community. For anyone interested in the topic, it is a highly recommended book.

Ronald Bayer explains in the introduction why he chose a primarily political vantage point for this analysis:

"To assume that there is an answer to this question that is not ultimately political is to assume that it is possible to determine, with the appropriate scientific methodology, whether homosexuality is a disease given in nature. I do not accept that assumption, seeing in it a mistaken view of the problem. The status of homosexuality is a political question.... It requires a political analysis."

The philosophical significance of the debate is explained by Bayer as well. Again, I quote:

"For psychiatrists engaged in clinical work, the extent to which normative considerations inform contemporary definitions of mental health and illness remain largely an unexamined matter.... Only when their conventional orientations have been challenged by extraordinary occurences have therapists been forced to assume a more self-reflective posture. The dispute over the status of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder did just that, compelling many clinicians to confront the extent to which social values frame the most basic elements of their professional work."

For this reason the case of homosexuality is an excellent case study to investigate the ways in which medical diagnoses are shaped by social and political considerations.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Semicompatibilism is the philosophical position that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, while being agnostic about the compatibility of free will and determinism. More here and here.

Got introduced to it from a recent interview of John Martin Fischer at 3:AM Magazine.

Character: There is no God.
Hannibal: Certainly not with that attitude!

Hannibal, Episode 2x02

Sunday, June 15, 2014

'[Thales] held there was no difference between life and death. "Why then," said one, "do you not die?" "Because," said he, "there is no difference."'

Narrated by Simon Critchley in The Book of Dead Philosophers

Sunday, June 8, 2014


Dr Manhattan from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen

Friday, June 6, 2014

Recently Cambridge students were asked in an exam to write about a poem consisting only of punctuation, Tipp-Ex-Sonate by the South African writer Koos Kombuis. Jon Kelly discusses how to make sense of such a poem. Apart from the general discussion of interpreting such poetry as anti-art or typographic trickery, the article mentions something specific about the poem:

'In fact, according to Kombuis, a long-standing anti-apartheid activist, Tipp-Ex-Sonate was a protest against censorship laws imposed during white minority rule. "If you know about the historical and political context you could make sense of it as an inability to use a language that's tainted by apartheid," says Ford. But assuming undergraduates did not have access to an internet connection, it would be difficult for them to work out the poem's intended meaning, he adds.'

This reinforces an opinion that I have expressed on this blog several times: a proper understanding and interpretation of art, especially modern art, requires a certain awareness of the social-political-philosophical-religious context, and a knowledge of the author's intention. From my perspective, an understanding of Tipp-Ex-Sonate remains incomplete as long as the reader is unaware that the poem was a protest against censorship; we remain deprived of the 'objective meaning' of the poem. (By objective meaning I refer to what an author attempts to convey to the reader via a work of art.) Yet, modern art and poetry continue to be presented to the public in anthologies, magazines and museums without the necessary context that is required for proper appreciation. Modern art is in this sense paradoxical: it implicitly or explicitly insists that a work of art be taken on its own terms and be interpreted utilizing the internal clues it has to offer, while at the same time the work of art is more often than not produced to serve a certain purpose or convey a certain message, such as protest against authority or rebuking of tradition, which cannot be discerned wholly from the internal clues.

What I wrote in an earlier post warrants reiteration:

'The point is, unless the poet himself reveals what the poem is about, the reader is free to judge the poem as belonging to any category he thinks appropriate. When a poem is published in isolation, the objective meaning of the poem is lost, and the poem becomes a matter of complete subjective interpretation, capable of being fit in any category the reader believes it to belong to. The poet abandons a poem to subjectivity by withholding the objective meaning. Of course, people can and do argue that this very subjectivity is what makes poetry what it is. If that is so, well, then that is so. The question of "What does it mean?" becomes irrelevant, because the answer to that is "It means whatever you want it to mean."'

* By 'modern' I refer loosely to both modern and post-modern.

Eric Schwitzgebel presents a theory of jerks:

"I submit that the unifying core, the essence of jerkitude in the moral sense, is this: the jerk culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others around him, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers. This failure has both an intellectual dimension and an emotional dimension, and it has these two dimensions on both sides of the relationship. The jerk himself is both intellectually and emotionally defective, and what he defectively fails to appreciate is both the intellectual and emotional perspectives of the people around him. He can’t appreciate how he might be wrong and others right about some matter of fact; and what other people want or value doesn’t register as of interest to him, except derivatively upon his own interests. The bumpkin ignorance captured in the earlier use of ‘jerk’ has changed into a type of moral ignorance."

Friday, May 23, 2014

"The primary error of the crush lies in overlooking a central fact about people in general, not merely this or that example, but the species as a whole: that everyone has something very substantially wrong with them once their characters are fully known, something so wrong as to make an eventual mockery of the unlimited rapture unleashed by the crush. We can’t yet know what the problems will be, but we can and should be certain that they are there, lurking somewhere behind the facade, waiting for time to unfurl them.

How can one be so sure? Because the facts of life have deformed all of our natures. No one among us has come through unscathed. There is too much to fear: mortality, loss, dependency, abandonment, ruin, humiliation, subjection. We are, all of us, desperately fragile, ill-equipped to meet with the challenges to our mental integrity: we lack courage, preparation, confidence, intelligence. We don’t have the right role models, we were (necessarily) imperfectly parented, we fight rather than explain, we nag rather than teach, we fret instead of analysing our worries, we have a precarious sense of security, we can’t understand either ourselves or others well enough, we don’t have an appetite for the truth and suffer a fatal weakness for flattering denials. The chances of a perfectly good human emerging from the perilous facts of life are non-existent. Our fears and our frailties play themselves out in a thousand ways, they can make us defensive or aggressive, grandiose or hesitant, clingy or avoidant – but we can be sure that they will make everyone much less than perfect and at moments, extremely hard to live with."

The Philosophers' MailOn the madness and charm of crushes

We are all broken, but some of us are broken more than others.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Facebook rant:

There is a narrow social space within which Pakistani women are expected to navigate their lives. With every milestone of their lives (marriage, motherhood, etc), they become more and more trapped. Those who deviate are threatened with dishonor and destruction, are emotionally blackmailed and infected with moral guilt. In such circumstances, the ones who thrive are either those who happily play along with the social roles they are offered or the ones who are fortuitous enough to have found a family that values the ideals of personal freedom and growth. There is no honor in the burden of "honor" that the society places on the shoulders of female sex the moment one is born. Our social moral values are built on centuries of systematic oppression of women; what good is an edifice of virtue whose foundations are rotten with vice? Set it on fire, let it burn, let it crumble! In many cases the oppressed sex does not even possess a language with which to vocalize her un-freedom. The most subtle oppression is one which cannot even be expressed. (P.S. It's not like men in Pakistan have a lot of freedom either, but what they experience is far less compared to what women experience.)

Monday, May 19, 2014


Edvard MunchThe Voice/Summer Night, 1896
(click to expand)

According to Munch, this painting refers to his memory of first love. (Contrary to the calm serenity of the painting, it was a tumultuous affair with a married woman, Milly Thaulow.)

"I stood before the Mystery of Woman - I looked into an undreamt-of World..." (Munch's manuscripts)

"One cannot be much of a philosopher without a good measure of detachment, even alienation. To see the Cave as Cave one must be in it, but not of it. One who dwells comfortably in the human-all-too-human may make brilliant contributions to logic and linguistics, say, but will never get the length of an Augustine or Spinoza. A philosopher is one who is haunted by Transcendence, whether in the form of the really real, authentic existence, or genuine knowledge."

William Vallicella, Starting with Nothing. From the book Falling in Love with Wisdom: American Philosophers Talk about Their Calling

Gary Gutting: "I agree that no theistic arguments are compelling, but I don’t agree that they all are logically invalid or have obviously false premises. I think the best arguments (especially, sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument) are dubious only in the sense that they use premises (e.g., any contingent thing requires a cause) that are not obviously true but that a rational person might properly believe."

The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’, Gary Gutting interviews Philip Kitcher

Gutting succinctly states what I have myself believed for the last few years with regards to the philosophical arguments for God's existence, a (sane) position which I feel has been largely ignored in the debates surrounding New Atheism. There is no logical necessity to believe (or disbelieve) in God, but given certain premises (which are not unreasonable) there are logically valid arguments for God's existence. I do not accept the either extreme position endorsed in popular debates according to which a rational person ought, or ought not, to believe in God at the pain of irrationality. You can rationally believe or disbelieve in God without maintaining that there is a logical necessity to do so, and without maintaining that anyone who disagrees is a fool.

Of course, that is aside from the fact that invalid arguments (or invalid versions of valid arguments) exist in abundance in popular debates on both sides. I am also talking just about the philosophical concept of God, and not a particular portrayal of God in this or that religion.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Maverick Philosopher describes his approach to philosophy as radically aporetic. That is, he holds that the central problems of philosophy, although genuine, are insoluble. I asked him whether this applies to the applied problems of ethics as well. Here is his response.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014


Edvard Munch, Death and Life, 1894
(Also titled as Death and the Maiden)

I have seen Munch's Death and Life several times before but I never knew until just now that what is depicted on the left is a stream of sperms. (See here, click on Details.) This is a difficulty I experience repeatedly in my pursuit of appreciating art properly... how can one ever know such things about a work by just looking at the image, when, once known, it is apparent that such facts are crucial to a proper appreciation of the painting? Appreciating art, it seems, entails more than just looking at the painting; it also requires reading and researching about it.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

In conversation with a friend

Me: With passing years I am realizing I'm making peace with life's absurdity. I don't fight or struggle with it philosophically like before. Nor am I plagued with existential anguish as a result. It's a resignation of sorts, or perhaps an exhaustion. I realize my life will probably never amount to much in a historically significant way, but I live on, often happy and satisfied. The thought would've been excruciating for the adolescent me.... Life has tamed us.
Z: Like so many before us.

Friday, April 25, 2014

"These stories, I realized, were lost. Nobody was going to know that part of the city but as a place where a bomb went off. The bomb was going to become the story of this city. That's how we lose the city - that's how our knowledge of what the world is is taken away from us - when what we know is blasted into rubble and what is created in its place bears no resemblance to what there was and we are left strangers in a place we knew, in a place we ought to have known."

Bilal Tanweer, The Scatter Here is Too Great

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Morality, it appears to me, springs fundamentally from emotions - moral emotions, such as compassion, sympathy, empathy etc - and not from reason, although reason definitely plays an vital role in its development. Much of philosophical discussion of morality, on the other hand, seems to be centered on the rational agent. We ponder and ponder over how a rational agent ought to behave in so and so circumstances, but is a rational agent equivalent to a moral agent? I suspect the hope of reducing morality down to reason is doomed to failure. What is left of morality if you take out compassion and empathy out of it? Individuals in a population of rational agents driven only by individual self-interest may act in ways that appear to be moral, but I am inclined to think that such behavior only mimics morality.

At the same time, there is little doubt in my mind that much of moral development of humanity has been the result of increase in rationality rather than increase in moral emotions. Reason allows us to recognize and resolve the inconsistencies in our emotions and resulting behavior. It is reason that breaks through the limitations that we have placed on our moral emotions by excluding certain groups from it, such as individuals of other gender, race, sexuality and even species. 

Sunday, April 20, 2014

"The result is that much reading robs the mind of all elasticity, as the continual pressure of a weight does a spring, and that the surest way of never having any thoughts of your own is to pick up a book every time you have a free moment."

Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms
(Translated from Parerga and Paralipomena by R. J. Hollingdale)

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Thrasymachus: To sum up, what shall I be after my death? Be clear and precise!
Philalethes: Everything and nothing.

Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms
(Translated from Parerga and Paralipomena by R. J. Hollingdale)

Friday, April 18, 2014

"They are insecure and as parents emotionally dependent on their children. This is how emotions become destructive and self-fulfilling: Your parents are afraid of abandonment. They want to hold on to their children desperately. Yet, in that desperation they hold too tight, suffocating the children, riddling them with emotional guilt of a crime yet uncommitted. This naturally only serves to alienate the children. The desperation and fear of abandonment leads precisely to that. They push away through folly what they so desire to keep close. That is the hallmark of neurotic relationships."

Almost surprising that the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer entails such a morality:

"... the appropriate form of address between man and man ought to be, not monsieur, sir but fellow sufferer, compagnon de misères. However strange this may sound it corresponds to the nature of the case, makes us see other men in a true light and reminds us of what are the most necessary of all things: tolerance, patience, forbearance and charity, which each of us needs and which each of us therefore owes."

Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms
(Translated from Parerga and Paralipomena by R. J. Hollingdale)

Thursday, March 20, 2014

"Talk to me. Let me give meaning to your madness."

Monday, March 10, 2014

"Certainly, it can come as a jolt to discover that, with a single exception, we have no extant descriptions of the Battle of Badr that date from before the ninth century AD. We do not even have Ibn Ishaq’s original biography of Muhammad—only revisions and reworkings. As for the material on which Ibn Ishaq himself drew upon for his researches, it has long since vanished. Set against the triumphal hubbub raised by Arab historians in the ninth century, let alone the centuries that followed, the silence is deafening and perplexing. The precise state of play bears spelling out. Over the course of almost two hundred years, the Arabs, a people never noted for their reticence, and whose motivation, we are told, had been an utterly consuming sense of religious certitude, had set themselves to conquering the world—and yet in all that time, they composed not a single record of their victories, not one, that has survived into the present day. How could this possibly have been so, when even on the most barbarous fringes of civilisation, even in Britain, even in the north of England, books of history were being written during this same period, and copied, and lovingly tended? Why, when the savage Northumbrians were capable of preserving the writings of a scholar such as Bede, do we have no Muslim records from the age of Muhammad? Why not a single Arab account of his life, nor of his followers’ conquests, nor of the progress of his religion, from the whole of the near two centuries that followed his death?"



Oil Sketch for ‘Medicine’ by Gustav Klimt


A black and white photograph of the original painting which was destroyed

It was part of a trio of paintings (Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence) made by Klimt for the ceiling of the University of Vienna's Great Hall.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

"See, we all got what I call a life trap, this gene-deep certainty that things will be different, that you'll move to another city, and meet the people that'll be the friends for the rest of your life, that you'll fall in love and be fulfilled. Fucking fulfillment, heh, and closure, whatever the fuck those two... Fucking empty jars to hold this shitstorm, and nothing is ever fulfilled until the very end, and closure... No, no, no. Nothing is ever over."

True Detective, Episode 1x03

"My own preferred term for the enemy of God is misotheist. [...] Since God is not a person or an interlocutor, to be hostile to God means really to marshal the negative emotions of hatred toward an entity that is absolutely outside the human sphere, something intangible [...] Thus, the most immediate effect of God-hatred is on the misotheist himself, for whom it serves a therapeutic function. Although seemingly directed at the figure of God, misotheism reflects a passionate concern for the affairs of man. [...]

Simply put, misotheism is a response to suffering, injustice, and disorder in a troubled world. Misotheists feel that humanity is the subject of divine carelessness or sadism, and they question God's love for humanity [...]"


Wednesday, March 5, 2014

"The position of the psychiatrist around 1900 was not a particularly happy one. Although he was better able to classify the psychosis and predict their outcome than his predecessors a century before, he still suffered from the same ignorance of the causes of mental illness and he still had to be content with the same miserable methods of treatment. If he worked in an institution or a clinic he saw only severe and hopeless psychoses, and although anatomy and physiology had been so helpful to his medical colleagues, they had failed to teach him anything about the nature of these illnesses except in the case of general paresis. His patients were prisoners, and in a way he himself was a prisoner caught up in the difficulties of the field in which he had chosen to work."

Erwin H Ackerknecht, Short History of Psychiatry (1959)

The state of psychiatry now is, of course, dramatically better from what it was in 1900. Our treatments, although far from curative, have restored majority of psychiatric patients back to functional lives, and the neuroscientific understanding of the causes is progressing rapidly. I was, however, struck by the last line of the passage, which resonated with a chord in me. I am not certain whether he refers to patients as prisoners in a literal sense, but there is a literal sense in which a small subset of psychiatric patients can be called prisoners: the patients who are admitted in inpatient units against consent because their state of mind (suicidality, mania, psychosis, etc) poses an acute and significant danger of harm to self and/or other. Majority of these patients when they are discharged acknowledge and recognize the need for the admission, nonetheless, dealing with these prisoner-patients is unfortunately a difficulty of the field of psychiatry, one which takes an emotional toll on a psychiatrist with moral sensitivity, and a responsibility from which a psychiatrist cannot flee.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

My article 'Mental Illness vs Brain Disorders: From Szasz to DSM-5' has been published in the February 2014 issue of Psychiatric Times

Unfortunately (free) membership is required to read the article on the website, but if you are even remotely interested in psychiatry, and you are not already a member, it would be worthwhile to sign up for Psychiatric Times, as it is a popular online resource and one of the most widely read psychiatry journals. 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

“But we are alone, darling child, terribly, isolated each from the other; so fierce is the world's ridicule we cannot speak or show our tenderness; for us, death is stronger than life, it pulls like a wind through the dark, all our cries burlesqued in joyless laughter; and with the garbage of loneliness stuffed down us until our guts burst bleeding green, we go screaming round the world, dying in our rented rooms, nightmare hotels, eternal homes of the transient heart.” 

Truman Capote, Other Voices, Other Rooms

Monday, January 27, 2014


Screenshot. Suits 1x07

Sunday, January 26, 2014

"Needless to say, our fixation on the ideal of happiness diverts our attention from collective social ills, such as socioeconomic disparities. As Barbara Ehrenreich has shown, when we believe that our happiness is a matter of thinking the right kinds of (positive) thoughts, we become blind to the ways in which some of our unhappiness might be generated by collective forces, such as racism or sexism. Worst of all, we become callous to the lot of others, assuming that if they aren't doing well, if they aren't perfectly happy, it's not because they're poor, oppressed, or unemployed but because they're not trying hard enough.

If all of that isn't enough to make you suspicious of the cultural injunction to be happy, consider this basic psychoanalytic insight: Human beings may not be designed for happy, balanced lives. The irony of happiness is that it's precisely when we manage to feel happy that we are also most keenly aware that the feeling might not last. Insofar as each passing moment of happiness brings us closer to its imminent collapse, happiness is merely a way of anticipating unhappiness; it's a deviously roundabout means of producing anxiety. [...]

Why, exactly, is a healthy and well-adjusted life superior to one that is filled with ardor and personal vision but that is also, at times, a little unhealthy and maladjusted? [...] Might not the best lives be ones in which we sometimes allow ourselves to become a little imprudent or even a tad unhinged? [...]

I don't wish to fetishize psychological or emotional instability; I'm aware of the enormous toll it can exact. And I know that there are many people who live under unbearable burdens of uncertainty. But we are mistaken when we interpret anxiety and other forms of existential disorientation as being at odds with a well-lived life. It may well be that they are an essential part of such a life."


Thursday, January 23, 2014

More than 5 years ago, I wrote about my perception of weddings in Pakistani society:

"The ceremony has become more about appeasing the society than about celebrating the union of two people. [The wedding] has lost its purpose in this manner, and hence it is not surprising that the feeling which I have most markedly noticed while attending any [wedding] is that of absurdity.

Weddings have never been enjoyable for me, even as a child. Perhaps because the wedding ceremony appears to me to be the perfect example of the superficialities and hypocrisies of our culture; it has become a symbol for me of whatever I hate about our society."

It is only fair that I should approach my own wedding now with the same marked sense of absurdity. Aside from that, there is also in my own case, a distinct taste of alienation. In a concrete sense, my wedding is about me, but in a larger, abstract and more important way, my wedding is not my own. My presence is a nominal formality, an excuse for the society to do what it does. (I am speaking here specifically of the wedding ceremony, the function, the social customs and traditions, and not about my marriage, regarding which my sentiments are of a more positive and pleasant nature.) How did I end up in a position where I have to allow the society to do what it does, especially when it is steeped in practices I find ethically reprehensible? I know that I brought it on myself, playing a game of give-and-take with this society, only to realize that any victory may well turn out to be pyrrhic. I am not here to whine or complain. This is a record of my last of human freedoms, a small sign that though I may have been subdued, I have not yet been silenced.

Perhaps I despair too much; perhaps I will be able to derive some joy out of this occasion after all.

Monday, January 20, 2014


Interviewer: Do you think of yourself as having a relationship with God?

Anne Carson: [...] reading a lot of mystics, especially Simone Weil, I’ve come to understand that the best one can hope for as a human is to have a relationship with that emptiness where God would be if God were available, but God isn’t.

As Carson talks of a relationship with the emptiness where God would be, it seems she has developed a relationship with another sort of a emptiness... the empty poetic spaces we have in Sappho's poetry, poetry of which we have inherited only fragments. Just like God, those missing slivers of verses are unavailable (while existing in a sense), but the readers and interpreters are invariably drawn into a relationship.

Anne Carson: [...] this is the magic of fragments—the way that poem breaks off leads into a thought that can’t ever be apprehended. There is the space where a thought would be, but which you can’t get hold of. I love that space. It’s the reason I like to deal with fragments. Because no matter what the thought would be if it were fully worked out, it wouldn’t be as good as the suggestion of a thought that the space gives you. Nothing fully worked out could be so arresting, spooky.

Read also in the interview how the mysterious half-verse of Sappho's fragment 31 ("But all is to be dared, because even a person of poverty") leads Carson to a mystical interpretation of the poem. 

Here is a philosophical analysis of the critically-acclaimed film Her, in which a male character develops a romantic relationship with an artificially-intelligent operating system (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). While brilliantly depicting the quirks and pitfalls of human relationships by making them more poignant by this peculiar sort of romance, the film is also an account of the development of artificial intelligence, and how they may evolve rapidly to a state beyond human comprehension. Highly recommended.


 

Copyright 2013 A Myth in Creation.

Theme by WordpressCenter.com.
Blogger Template by Beta Templates.