“What are we supposed to do with this?”
Perhaps that is the right question—at least
it has been seeming like the appropriate
question as of late—and finding the right
question is sometimes half the battle.
“Why?” has become seemingly more and more inappropriate,
if only because its implication is in the past—a thing that has
already happened.
The shift from the focus on the past to the focus on the future
with different methodological questions involving what and
how remind me of
style and Joyce and how it seemed like this is what sets art &
artists apart from the crowd.
Nobody cares why they do it until it becomes necessary from
a historical perspective and
they’re usually dead by then.
We are what we were,
not why we were.
We are what we will become,
not why we will become.
It all started a long time ago, see, when I realized I had
officially stopped questioning the motivation of my
roommates: I knew that the place the acted from came
from their understanding that they knew what was best for
them, and motivation is, realistically, the why?
The only questions I ever had for them was about what they
did and how they went about doing it.
Why is important in its way,
but for me, I’m attempting
to move beyond metaphysics
and see the world through an
ontological framework—which,
for a guy whose major mode of
thinking has been actions reveal the
desires of the actor, is not a big step from
desire to asking, “What do you
want?” and “How do you go about
getting it?”
Apparently I have been asking these questions
all along and simply not realizing what I was doing.
Apparently I have been wondering about what
and how for longer than I have even understood them.
Apparently I have been doing things I haven’t
understood, and that is essentially sublime, I think.
Right now I am channeling the sub-conscious, unworried
about the ramifications and repercussions of the words
flowing out of my mind and through my fingers: let
them come.
What do they mean?
How are they being put together?
2 comments:
"Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve, / and hope without an object cannot live." -STC
Interesting, because I have been reflecting on the end goal of education, but came to that by asking "why do we educate?"
Though, I have also been wrestling with "what is education?" and "how should one educate?" i.e., to achieve the desired end.
I believe the right question takes one to the heart of the matter.
But must "why?" be confined to the past, or "what?" and "how?" to the future? Doesn't tense primarily rest in the verb?
Concerning ontology, in which I have a great amount of interest, are you familiar with Polyani, who is one among others that suggests an ontology of being-in-relation. I have read the "others" but not yet Polyani.
"Me'uvat l'o-yuchal litqon, /
vechesron l'o-yuchal lehimanot." -Qohelet
"What is crooked cannot be straightened, / and what is lacking cannot be counted."
Buck
Language has been a sort of pervasive thing in my world lately (that is, the world of Korea), and I'm discovering that sometimes tense is implied where maybe it oughtn't be.
My director says, "From Monday," when she means, "By Monday."
I never realized it before, but when I hear "from Monday," I think of last Monday, and when I hear, "By Monday," I think of next Monday, and this is an incredibly difficult situation for me.
This same kind of implication (although it is still in the nascent stages) is seeming to arise in types of questions.
When I was in Education 114 - Theory of Education, why we educate was always placed in historical terms: Candide, Emile, even the slightly more modern Savage Inequalities.
Perhaps the Why is the theory that supports and the what and the how is the plan and the action?
Polyani no, but he is now officially on my list. I'm struggling with Being and Nothingness right now--which is ironic given the "what is lacking cannot be counted."
Thank you for the truly insightful comments, and keep them coming.
Post a Comment