Immeasurable goods

Thoreau starts with his own perspective on things, with the first person, but that’s not the end but only the beginning of taking subjectivity — my subjective stand — seriously (and setting aside, for the moment, how I am an object to myself or an object in the manipulative or cognitive scheme of someone else).  We move with the modulated stance of any “I” – open to any “you” or “it” – open to any “we” or “they,” even to any other “me.”

The immeasurable importance of this subjective stance has been lost in the wake of ever-colonizing cognitive styles that groom the sciences and their allied technologies, styles that further bureaucratic-administrative idioms that dismiss both commonplace sentiment and deep passion (something murky and dangerous) – that refuse instruction from the personal idiom that is a power of literature, philosophy, and the arts. Artistic, literary, or philosophical production and reception are relegated to the provinces of entertainment or pastimes. After all, there is no yardstick to measure the social or career benefits of loving Shakespeare or Wallace Stevens or wondering at the genius of Ella Fitzgerald, Basho, Kierkegaard, or Thoreau. But why should there be?
These are final goods.

People nowadays think scientists are there to instruct them, poets, musicians, etc., to entertain them.  That the latter have something to teach them — that never occurs to them.                           — Wittgenstein, 1940


3 comments on “Immeasurable goods

  1. dmf says:

    indeed, but can such tastes be taught from naught or just cultivated where they are already found?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s