Communicative mutuality, again

Recently a fine student called asking if I’d be willing to be interviewed.  Who can say no!  Here’s one question he asks under the name “Vitalist” [his blog on literature and culture and philosophy is fine, and named “The Vitalist.”]

**

VITALIST  Do you see then, a larger role for philosophy in the every (presumably American) day than it currently has? In other words, could you see there being a “common-reader” of meditative, lyrical philosophy in the way that Woolf imagined there was a common reader of English literature? Or as may have briefly existed among a people, among friends, in Concord?

EM  I think there are at least two temperaments at war here.  One is the ideal of a community sharing common bread, reading from a common stock of literature and poetry and philosophy that inspires and binds souls together, the sort of wedding-scene of comedy, with wine and dance and circling communions of flesh and spirit, a wedding scene built around celebration of words, words of rhythm and color, of anchoring and affecting in the world.  Of course such a dream no doubt hovered over Concord for a spell, where utopian communities and joint writing, philosophical, and literary projects sought (and momentarily found) a convergence and transcendence of the dull and deadening.

Many – and I include myself when I don’t judge myself too deluded — hope for such a community hovering at the edge of humanities departments in colleges and universities, or at least at the edge of faculty and student watering holes.  But of course the reality is that faculty are pushing their mortgages ahead of them, heads down, making payments through the labor of specialized publications, etc., and have very little time (or interest) in chatting to neighbors or enjoying or constructing “A Common Reader.”

If a wedding were in progress in the meadow to the left, they’d trudge on by.  If they happened by Walden, they’d not notice, and fall right in.  So that’s one ideal of community, known mostly by its sad shadow, a desperate inattention to its fragile buds of existence and deep ignorance of even its possibility.

The other temperament — and of course to say “two temperaments” is immediately to provoke us to think of three or four or five — is not marked by community-yearning but by battle-seeking.  Non-lyrical philosophy loves a fight, loves to defeat the competition in getting the ‘right theory’ of this and that, and thinks of intellectual inquiry and exploration as a Darwinian survival struggle or as justified colonial imperialism.  The barbarians must be made to listen.  If there’s a moment of lyricism, it’s in celebration of victory over benighted, now defeated or mortally crippled, opponents, or over those so benighted and superfluous that they never even saw there was an issue there to fight over, settle, or to be correct about.

I try to repress my attraction to philosophy-as-warfare.  I once half-jokingly planned a journal, with a colleague, conceived on long runs in the Berkeley Hills.  It would be called “The Journal of Refutations.”  In whatever field an argument might be advanced, we’d just deliver the refutation by return mail.  But I wished my gravestone to have other than “EM, A Beloved Refutation Machine”.  Hence my essays often have titles like “Love, that lenient interpreter” (as a counter to “How to Become a Master of Suspicion”).

[A nice discussion of pedagogy in the university as the issue arises in teaching in religious studies departments, including interviews with Mark Taylor and Jack Caputo, among others,  can be found at:

http://www.jcrt.org/archives/12.2/index.shtml  ]

*

Advertisements

One comment on “Communicative mutuality, again

  1. dmfant says:

    In the Park

    You have forty-nine days between
    death and rebirth if you’re a Buddhist.
    Even the smallest soul could swim
    the English Channel in that time
    or climb, like a ten-month-old child,
    every step of the Washington Monument
    to travel across, up, down, over or through
    –you won’t know till you get there which to do.

    He laid on me for a few seconds
    said Roscoe Black, who lived to tell
    about his skirmish with a grizzly bear
    in Glacier Park. He laid on me not doing anything. I could feel his heart
    beating against my heart.
    Never mind lie and lay, the whole world
    confuses them. For Roscoe Black you might say
    all forty-nine days flew by.

    I was raised on the Old Testament.
    In it God talks to Moses, Noah,
    Samuel, and they answer.
    People confer with angels. Certain
    animals converse with humans.
    It’s a simple world, full of crossovers.
    Heaven’s an airy Somewhere, and God
    has a nasty temper when provoked,
    but if there is a Hell, little is made of it.
    No longtailed Devil, no eternal fire,

    and no choosing what to come back as.
    When the grizzly bear appears, he lies/lays down
    on atheist and zealot. In the pitch-dark
    each of us waits for him in Glacier Park.

    -Maxine Kumin

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s