Whitefish Banter Night: 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