i guess since i have this going on screen in the ouc (reads like a verse in the national anthem) i better get to the biz of posting for our class. everybody is ahead of me which means there are no trails to blaze just now.
i started reading the foreword and found me in huck finn land again...like finnlandia. one important note was the idea of introducing ways of reading, not endorsing any methodology. the heuristic approach is how i do most any reading. unless assigned, i give any book at hand 25 pages to establish a relationship between text and reader. fair enough i think. i try to keep favorites in my collection. oh, i don't like huck finn like i did centuries ago. one of us grew up, maybe.
a book grabs me visually first, like a buffet item. it might be the title, but usually the cover design is the bait. the finn thing again: sawyer's claim that doing things different from what's in the books and get things "all muddled up." that doesn't even work with recipes in cookbooks.what does work is taking a look, trying what's interesting, and not being too intimidated by the unfamiliar (which reminds me of the angst i was in getting bloghand going). sawyer trusted books, making simple actions complicated.
then mr. bressler brings in Flannery O'Connor's "...Good Man...". That story surprised me and serves as a warning should i choose to read more of O'Connor's works. Grandma wasn't shot in the head; maybe so she'd look "good" at the funeral, if the body is found soon enough. What did the gang do with the family's vehicle? any text, printed, painted, carved in stone, is going to have multiple meanings. we are not copies of each other. i'm glad. a comfort for me is that there is no metatheory under which we all must stand.
chapter 2 takes us to the 5th Century BCE era, with socrates and his thinking progeny. that's about the time prince guatama dumped his present to seek beyond all time. i mentioned buddha in class and that was right as well as wrong. if we are to study one sport, we need not investigate all of them. i hope i use two words often enough to remember them: "ontology" and "epistemology" are the two. there are many more, but it seems like to know we have to have a being to experience.
Plato's assertion that poets must be banished reminded me of buddhist teachings that include burning buddha images and using sutras (scripture) to wrap fish. the idea is that images and texts keep one from the internal exploration which is how buddha became what he was. maybe that's why this post seems boring to me. that being the case, i don't expect anybody to get more from it but something has to show up here. i'll blame it on the blog's appearance. a bland blog blah. maybe i'll fix it.
i think of me as a gypsy scholar, from some text i read somewhen. just read a henry james story: "Daisy Miller - a study". it took three hours but it was worth much more. his brother, William James, is a familiar name among psychology students. in our text, james is said to have declared that "good novels show us life in action and, above all else, are interesting." Daisy's story fits that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love your addition of the Buddha’s perspectives on texts. I love many things about the Buddha’s ways; one being the idea of using scriptures as you have stated he said to do. Think of what the world would be without wars over scriptures. But there lie many problems with the Buddha perspective as well (in my humble, gracious, and utmost respectful opinion); think of the world without any texts at all—all the fish wrapped with O’Connor and Poe, no history, no literature, no laws (as scripture once was)… The Buddhists believe that true enlightenment (aka Nirvana) comes from complete isolation from all things—in this isolation, or solitude perhaps is more fitting, however serene, one cannot be hurt by others either through loss/death or malicious intent. the idea is to avoid suffering, to free oneself from suffering. I would ague that somethings, Love for example, are worth the price of suffering; it is to better to love and lost... right? But, if we take that Buddhist approach and apply it to all things in life, such is the case now: literature, what would that leave us with? Certainly, we would not have the wars over scriptures… but we would not illuminate war; wars will always be fought. So what better, I ask one writer to another, is there better to fight wars over, if not those fought over words??
ReplyDeletebuddha (prince siddhartha of the sakya clan) cranked up the engine to get the wheels turning...it is our apparent individual natures who negotiate the curves. Plato idea of a perfect chair isn't so different from the idea of a perfect statue or painting, or a perfect sutra. If we wait for circumstances to be perfect to take action, there will likely be no need to take action and hopefully sufficient mindfullness to enjoy the perfect. yeah, something like that.
ReplyDeleteThe sentence that stuck out to me most with your blog is "sawyer trusted books, making simple actions complicated." I know you said so much more but this stuck out to me because of an idea I have been thinking of lately and it is this: people often times strive for the Epic or the Epic ideal and yet they so often miss the wonderful that is all around them. People love heroes and yet they do so little to become ones themselves. I guess that is the true reason why people love books. Someone can live through great adventures and never leave their home, they can stare death in the face as a character they never have to meet. It's too bad that Plato wasn't more correct that if everyone read about bravery and heroism they themselves would become braver and more heroic.
ReplyDeleteJene, what is up with this!!!! Get out of my Head sister!!! Wow...
ReplyDelete"People love heroes and yet they do so little to become ones themselves."
I'm always saying people are zombies, television slaves, and very few people are actually alive. I love that you wrote this!! It means I am now alone in my thinking :)
Urrggg!! Not "Now Alone"... "Not Alone"...
ReplyDelete