Banter no. 4

Thursday, September 30th @ 8pm

@ Sabine's house
was brilliant with nine attendees

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

--Albert Einstein

______________________________________

Topic: 

 Is objectivity possible?  Is being logical/objective desirable? (ie, in our banter group or in life amid intelligent humans?) Or are we inexorably embedded in our cultural/historical/educational context--therefore perhaps we should just dive wholeheartedly into our subjectivity?

Definitions:

Objectivity/to be objective:  1.b. of, relating to, or being an  object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers:  having reality independent of the mind; 3.a. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (an objective history of the war, an objective judgment) (from merriam webster).  1. the basic tenet of scientific method is objectivity--in essence separation of observer and observed.

Embedment/to be embedded (can also be imbed/imbedded):  1. To fix firmly in a surrounding mass. 3. To cause to be an integral part of a surrounding whole.  4.  To assign (a journalist) to travel with a military unit during an armed conflict.  5. A phenomenon in mechanical engineering in which the surfaces between mechanical members of a loaded joint embed.  It can lead to failure by fatigue.  6. (Math.) To represent (a graph) by points and lines in a given surface in such a way that no two edges intersect; to incorporate (a mathematical structure) in a larger structure while preserving all important structural features.

Inexorable:  Incapable of being persuaded or moved by entreaty; that cannot be prevailed upon to yield to request; not to be moved from one's purpose or determination; relentless.

Point of view (POV):  The vantage point from which an author presents a story.

a. Limited Omniscient POV:  POV in which the narrator sees into the minds of some but not all of the characters.  Most typically, limited omniscient POV sees through the eyes of one major or minor character.

b. First Person POV:  If a character in a story tells the story as he or she experienced it, using I or we, it is first person pov.

Questions:  (to attempt @ Banter 4)

1.  Is it possible to stand outside of yourself, to truly be objective and see a situation, a piece of literature, a historical situation, a memory, a conflict, etc.?  Or are we each inexorably embedded within our context, culture, historical time, educational bias, etc.?

2. Is there any way to get around our context, patterns, angle, embedment?

3.  Why is logic or objectivity important to you?  When isn't it important?

Tasks (before Banter 4)

1. RSVP whether you will or will not be coming.

2.  Attempt to list out all of your influences to your particular angle on the world, your particular color and shape of lenses you wear with which you see the world through.  (Include exuberant influences and tragic ones.)  **Write this down, bring to share...don't have to share unless you want to.

3.  Attempt to see your own context, and contemplate which angles it might be very hard for you to see, which lenses it might be quite impossible for you to wear.

4.  Read the poem "A Difference of Fifty-Three Years" (see source below), write down your initial reactions, attempt not to edit yourself or make yourself more heady, less emotional than you might actually be.  Then reread the poem, write down your more objective reactions, your reactions which may consider another lens to view the poem from.  Observe the relation of this to the above two tasks.  Bring this to banter night.

5. After reading the scholarly essays (particularly Said's), explore this for yourself:  do you romanticize about something (international ways of life, the freedom of travel, being a good parent, organic food, intellectual forums, yoga, being vulnerable with close friends, a person you love, community altruism, open-mindedness, what meditation can do for the world, artists, indigenous cultures, the 1920s, etc.) to the point that you only look at the aspects that support your particular angle and romanticism of the object at hand?  Write this down, bring to share.  (For example, note that I have offered a set of questions and readings that lean heavily on my romanticism of the literary, academic world produced by highly educated humans.)

Readings: (try to read all of the fiction and poetry, and at least one scholarly piece on objectivity/context)

In regard to logic:  W. Somerset Maugham's very short story "Appointment in Samarra", my quick narrative about "Escape Velocity" and a discussion with three friends, followed by Walt Whitman's poem "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer."  Also three pages out of a book called Rhetoric & Contemporary Logic.

In regard to objectivity, or having an angle you can't see past:  Compare Wilfred Owen's poem "Dulce et decorum est"  with Thomas Hardy's poem "The Man He Killed."  Then compare Frank O'Connor's two versions of short story "First Confession" (limited omniscient version vs. first person version).

In regard to delving further into cultural context and being embedded in cultural context, etc.:  Read at least one of three scholarly essays (reading all three will help drive the grasping of cultural context/embedment quite a bit higher, however)--

                                         1.Ohmann's "Shaping of a Canon"

                                         2. Edward Said's "Orientalism"

                                         3. Deepika Bahri's "What is Postcolonialism?"

         

Sources for the above reading:

Fiction:  1.(Appt.Sama)http://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english320/Maugham-AS.htm 

             2.(1st person version of O'Connor's): (via email--pdf)

             3. (Limited omniscient version of O'Connor's): (via email--pdf)

Poetry:  1.  (Learn'd Astron) http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=174747

             2.  (Dulce et dec.)http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

             3.  (ManKilled)http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/2959-Thomas-Hardy-The-Man-He-Killed

             4.  (A diff. of 53) http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/index.php?date=2010/09/13

Scholarly essays:  pdfs sent via email to banter group

Rhetoric & Contemporary Logic:  pdfs sent via email to banter group

Brief narrative on escape velocity:  word doc sent via email to banter group

Quasi-logical/quasi-metaphysical exploration of scientific objectivity:                

          http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Objectiv.htm

Definitions:  Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Merriam-Webster dictionary, Wikipedia, A Handbook to Literature

Banter no. 3: Define love. (early September)

Eros & Psyche (at the Louvre, Paris):

Standing in for the usual lengthy list of reads and questions, this time there were just four:

1.  Answer this for yourself, as was proposed to Socrates, Plato, etc. at a dinner party, "make the finest speech you can in praise of Love and then pass it on to the man at your right."  Or less flowery, describe what you think love/eros is in a way that can be expressed in words.  Write it down, bring it to share.  Consult whatever texts, sweet embraces, walks down memory lane, etc. that you'd like to help you define it for yourself.  & as always attempt objectivity as to where these ideas of yours arose from, being that you're probably not a blank slate of self-scripted genius (ie Disney, Shakespeare, Old Testament, etc.)

2. Read Plato's Symposium.  Come on, only 62 pages, of the aforementioned guys giving their individual speeches on Love/Eros.  They're pretty darn cool too.  My favorite is regarding Love being the child of Poverty (mother) & Resource (father).  You can either read part of it at this link (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html) or read it in full if you download the text from that same webpage, or read at the WF library via electronic resource.  I bet 99% of you will love it if you open it up...it's not a hard read, because they're funny smart.

3. Also answer this for yourself, are there different varieties of love--that you have for a child, that you have for a mate, for a pet, a friend, yourself, your art/passions, etc?  Or is love something that isn't splice-able?  I'm fond, for instance, when my daughter says, "You love me more than anything in the world, don't you?"  to reply, "Yes, except that, to me, love's not more," said the bubble-bursting mother.  Here's a curveball, did Sethe of Beloved share the same love you do for your children (or your idea of your children, if you haven't procreated) when she whacked Beloved against the shed to save her from the approaching slaveholders?  (Toni Morrison's Beloved- novel & film)

4. Bring your thoughts to banter it out Socrates-style.  If you've forgotten precisely what that means, take some time looking updialectical argument...or read here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method...but even better read Symposium because Socrates dishes it out to everyone at the end & you can see dialectical argument in action.  Though I think he isn't as clever as he is in other texts, and falls into the trap of thinking he knows something concretely, which is anti-dialectical in my mind. Read for yourself.  (Or skip it all and just show up as some of you are apt to do & amazingly skilled at.)

Banter no. 2: The Philosophy of Accountability (mid-July)

Taking on the topic of 'Accountability' next, as suggested by one of Banter no. 1's attendees:  It could be as heated and polarizing as taking on who's accountable in the BP spill, but I have hopes that we will weave more deeply by delving into the philosophy of accountability:  

What does it even mean to be accountable?  How would you describe the sensations of feeling accountable?  What is it that we squirm away from when we either feel accountable but don't want to be, or when we want someone else to be accountable and observe them not being?  What leads you, personally, in deciding, weighing out, attributing accountability (to yourself or to an Other)?  Is it the grand narrative that you subscribe to (which is what)?  Is it an innate/ or non-innate sense of right and wrong (where do you pick that up from)?  What in us likes to see accountability placed correctly?  What is a world (or a relationship) that embraces accountability, what is a world (or a relationship) that doesn't?

So let's get our hands dirty with this one.

Bring on the discourse,

& please don't be afraid to come.

I assure you that your mind is rockin' some corridors none of the rest of us even knew were there.

_________________

The above, backed by loads of reading that focused on discovering our own grand narratives around accountability, blame, guilt, etc., resulted in a good round table discourse despite varying abilities of objectivity.  Objectivity will be a particular challenge in a community not teeming with academia's exacting blade that cuts  foremost at its own belief systems, but I think it can be cultivated/sharpened with or without a university.  Good Will Hunting style--all you need is a library card.

Banter 1: The human-animal conundrum (late June)

Banter no. 1 was a beautiful start to weaving a new tapestry of interaction in our quaint, lovable, come-on-give-me-a-little-more Whitefish.  Thanks for the different threads & needle sizes that you each brought to the table on the human-animal conundrum.

The basic gist of Banter no. 1 was:

After being doled out a vast list of philosophical, academic, fictional, mythical, human/animal rights, and historical readings, we attempted to discourse on What does it even mean to be a human, and some other varieties of the same question (as below).

What are the complications and/or benefits of personifying animals or anthropomorphizing them?  How do you splice the divide between human rights and animal rights?  What are the historical complications (ie,Animals of the Third Reich excerpt) of leveling out human and animal rights if we bring humans down to animals?  Can we bring animals up to humans, why would we?  Why does the definition of what a human is often go scientific or push off of animals, yet not get too intricately into emotional, philosophical approaches to this definition?  Is it even possible to create a definition for a human that is meaningful, comprehensive, and artful?   

The Rules of Banter Proper

The Rules of Banter Proper: 

--Attend.

--Read some to most of the materials the group chooses for the topic so that the discussion is understood to be a human/cultural/philosophical one and not your own personal battleground or soapbox within the confines of pure opinion. 

--Keep in mind that the group doesn’t strive to be a spiritual venture aimed at bringing us all to the same ethics, life goals, mindset, consciousness.  It is an intellectual, social, and emotional venture aimed more at pushing at your own edges, than striving to push on the edges of the others in the room.  Please be respectful that we aren’t necessarily all going for the same things in life.  In fact, I know for certain that I am not going for what some of you are going for, and vice versa.  Let us expand as humans to understand the rampant prevalence of trying to get others to be just like us.  Let this be one of the coolest parts of our group process—a forum where we are blurring our own edges instead of taking out the wide permanent marker and reinstating the lines around our borders, and drawing lines on each other without even asking.

--Yet let us not get into the sappy pattern of patting each other on the back and not dismantling arguments.  Please let the banter be ripping!  There is a fine line difference here that will be our greatest challenge as a group.  We need to be able to speak in an unedited, raw, bantering sort of manner—that’s the point.  Yet, we need to keep in mind that we are arguing and dismantling arguments, cultural thought patterns, and not each other.  Please attempt to listen to new angles, but also please attempt not to be forever broadcasting your particular angle to the group as if it is anything more than your personal construct of what makes sense to you.  Feel free to share that you are pissed if you are, or feeling dismantled and raw, but try ever hard not to take it personally, as others try not to make it personal.

--So please argue a new point, a new thought, but don’t argue incessantly the same point from the same angle, attempting to badger others into your angle.  Present your argument, your thoughts, and then toss it out to the group to respond to.  Then respond to them with new material, not simply repeating what you already said.  A bit of generosity, good manners, and curiosity for that outside of ourselves should take us all a long way on this one.

--We also have to take care that one or two people don’t dominate the group because they like talking, get fired up regularly, and end up making everyone else listen to them well past politeness’ time frame.  We’ve all been there at the farmer’s market, dinner parties, phonecalls, etc. & it sucks to stand before someone who doesn’t even take a breath.  To avoid this I suggest we attempt conversation style debate first, but if this fails on a particular topic, anyone in the group can ring the bell, which will indicate we switch gears and have it out Oxford debate style:  Two sides.  We’ll split the group down the middle & each side will polarize for the sake of polarizing not because you agree with the issue or not.  Two teams.  Then we alternate with one person from each team speaking for 2 minutes at which time no one else can talk unless the speaker gestures (to the one flagging a hand) that they can insert a one or two line comment or argument.  If the speaker doesn’t indicate you can talk, however, then you can’t.   Then we vote/discuss at the end of all the speakers as to which side presented the best argument, not based on which side you believe in more necessarily, but which side was the most emotionally or intellectually heavy-swinging and thorough.  All the more reason to come prepared with reading from an array of angles.

 --Lastly, the topic should be chosen by the group if possible, with each person picking an excerpt or reading and pooling these so that all have a chance to contribute and read the array of varying angles on a subject.  We can also alternate between group members as to who wants to simply choose a topic, and the readings, if this is easier.  Not to be the same person from meeting to meeting.  My bent, and weakness, is my fervor for the scholarly and my skepticism for almost everything else.  Having someone else contribute materials will be key to representing other voices that are not so academic.  However, I think if we can each time make an attempt at including scholarly works, historical works, creative works, modern works like journalism, new age works, tribal works, blogs, films, paintings, religious texts, etc. this will cover the topic comprehensively and feed everyone’s particular pleasures.  For instance taking all of our reading from the 19^th century will be very limiting, or reading all works from French philosophers, or all works from post-2000 by Americans, or all animal rights activists.  Let us strive for readings that cross time, eras, cultures, genres, and beliefs, so that our own minds can ultimately do the same.

--One more lastly, we’ll have to sort out how to keep the group ripping smart, yet humble and generous...and to do this may take refinement of the members that ultimately make up the regular banter circle.  We'll figure that out in due time.