Monday, December 1, 2008

Of Course You're Right, But...

There's this thing that happens in philosophical inquiry wherein one advances a position and is met with the dreaded, "Of Course You're Right, But..." response. It's as if particular individuals free their selves from the shackles of Plato's cave, creep to the entrance, glance outside, shit their selves, and then run screaming back to their states of bondage as they happily stare at the reflections upon the wall.

I do not think that there are any deep truths towards which one much delve. I do not think that there is a veil to reality which must be cast aside to reveal the Truth. Hell, I'll go so far as to state that Truth is neither deep nor veiled in the classic sense. It's not about seeming. It's about how things are.

If there is a veil it is a veil placed over one's own eyes. If there is delving to do one is always only ever digging through layers which one has posited onto the situation. Truth is the foundation, reality is the foundation, and that foundation is always only ever brazenly apparent, obvious, and accessible.

Every human being will die. That's the classic "obvious" truth. Every human being to ever be impacted, influenced, or helped will die. And "Of Course You're Right, But..." human beings still have to do something in the meantime. It's all futile, but in very tiny slices things may be meaningful.

All meaning is posited by human beings. If I care about a particular person then that caring is self-maintained, self-posited. I posit meaning onto a particular person. But that meaning only ever exists in my positing that meaning. So, there's really no meaning independent of that meaning being posited. And "Of Course You're Right, But..." human beings still posit meaning. One will recognize that one's spouse or significant other is merely a fish out of a sea and a great many other people can fulfill that role. But one still maintains the illusion of particular significance.

It's the scene from Pulp Fiction with the Gold Watch. Captain Koons explains the history of the watch. Butch posits meaning onto the watch. But that meaning only ever exists in the positing. There is nothing "meaningful" about the watch in and of itself. To gain meaning one must posit the recognition that the watch was in Butch's father's ass for five years and in Captain Koons' ass for two years after that. That only exists, though, in its being posited, in it's being maintained by beings who posit meaning.

Which does not mean that human beings have to not posit meaning. It does not mean that human beings need to never do anything. It does not mean that human beings need to kill their selves. It doesn't mean anything. And that's truth. It's not deep. It's not elusive. It's not veiled. It's obvious, intuitive, accessible. It's simply the way things are.

So I think that instead of saying "Of Course You're Right, But..." simply remove the "But". Stop trying to get meaning, value, worth, love, or any of it. Simply recognize how things are.

There is a particular thing. One maintains great affection for that particular thing. Yet the affection only exists in its being maintained. So one may certainly maintain that affection. Yet I think it sensible to recognize the relation of that affection and the thing. Recognize how things are. Recognize the fluidity of being.

It's not about meaning or value or love. It's about living one's life.

And saying "fuck you" a lot.

5 comments:

Roscoe said...

Have you ever listened to me bitch/expound upon Hemmingway's "A Clean, Well-Lit Place?"

Becuase.. that's what I bitch about.

Two waiters talking about an old man... supposedly, we're to take their understanding of the man as expert testimony.. as sancrosanct.

But.. who are they? they don't know the dude. They're just projecting onto the dude.

All the reader knows is the dude is old.

_J_ said...

Just read it.

Kind of stupid.

Roscoe said...

kinda.. yeah..

but.. I always like it when a professor or a teacher uses it in class...

Because inevitably, the class takes the waiters' assumptions about the man as valid.

which allows me to argue that they're just waiters.. They don't know anything about him, and they're projecting.

The number of teachers who seem stunned by that have always confused me.

_J_ said...

Yeah.

I agree with you that the waiters are projecting onto the old man. It's just that the observation is entwined with that Hemmingway stylistic framework of not really imagery and almost compelling narrative.

I kind of mostly don't like Hemmingway. He employs a sort of anti-tolkien imagery that mostly pisses me off.

Roscoe said...

That's the thing about Hemmingway. A lot of his work isn't what people like about him. It's his Life.

i.e. The smoking, drinking drifter who went to sporting events.