In a discussion with S over on the wonderful, wonderful blog: 'firstknownwhenlost.blogspot.com' I was reminded of Calasso's American Woodsman-the Man of the future, because he has no past, no time to see anything grow, has no patience for the slow cycles that he thinks have bound us for so long. What is human,truly human, is for him the ability to break out, escape, from all that is 'given' and perhaps this amounts to the same thing: to destroy what is given.
All truth is on the frontiers, space is ultimately something to be conquered, controlled and bound, something to be traversed (Sennett was perhaps right to say that in the modern city all that matters is getting from A to B). Space suggests commensurability, abstraction and universailty whereas place is distinctive, limited, low-key. It is no surprise that for settlers and rational planners alike space is such a fundamental concept. Empty space, outer space. Imperial projects always rely on a unification of space, don't they?
This is in stark contrast to Wendell Berry's lovely thoughts on tobacco farmers and the deep continuities of work in a community (Macintyre's 'internal goods'). There is also much to like in Berger's book which is related to all of this.
Metis vs techne is really at the heart of it.
The interesting (and slightly disappointing) aspect of the discussion is what you detect to be what appears to be a faint whiff of nationalism-something I've come across over the years whenever there is any criticism of 'the west' or America (and Israel, no doubt, too). Of course, it makes no difference that you are equally critical of the barbarism and nihilism of Muslims or the religious in general, that the mere mention of the so-called 'mystical east' brings tears-from laughter- to your eyes. No, to even mention the possibility that other people, radically different from you, warts and all, could have a profoundly human outlook is to be in some sense political in this day and age!
Question: if a poet speaks of suffering that is not his own is he being political? Blake, for example? Is Milosz political if his writing is informed-obliquely or otherwise-of the spiritual degradation produced by Communism?
Of course, I'm overreacting given the rapid growth of fundamentalism I see all around, the narrowing down of horizons that relegates all that is different from one's own perspective and position to being somehow tainted and deeply flawed-as are the people who hold those alternative views. Khair...here are the remarkable lines:
The American woodsman is interested in nothing. Any notion of sensitivity is foreign to him. Those boughs so elegantly sprouted by nature, the fine foliage, the bright colour that enlivens a part of the forest, the deeper green that darkens another part of it-all this means nothing to him. He has no memories to call upon in any particular place. His only thought is for the number of ax-strokes required to chop down a tree. He has never planted anything; he does not know such pleasures. Any tree that he plants is worthless to him, because he will never see it when it has grown sufficiently large to be chopped down. Destruction is what keeps him alive. Destruction is everywhere; hence every place suits him. He cares nothing for the field where he has done his work, because his work is only toil and no idea of sweetness is associated with it. What emerges from his hands does not pass through all the stages of growth that so touch the farmer's heart. He does not follow the destiny of his products...he has no regrets about leaving the place he has dwelled in for years.
And they [the Fishermen] have no love for any particular place and know the land only by the ugly house where they live....this man is a trigger of technical violence: his place can be any place, because his mind has lost the mnemotechnical loci from which it can hang images...Woodsman and Fisherman are ...united in their hatred for the earth that still generously envelops them. It is a hatred for all that grows and that, in growing, becomes sweet and fades. Their pace is different from everyone else's: they strike blows, they pull and tug-gestures that are a metaphor for those of the gambler who rolls the dice. And in their devotion to the blow lies their cosmopolitan mission: the blow is the same everywhere; the plant has the flavour of a single place..the citoyens seemed archaic and out-of-date compared to these two new characters, who, beyond the frontier, were acting out the gestures of burgeoning history.
---Talleyrand, cited in Roberto Calasso's Ruin of Kasch
All truth is on the frontiers, space is ultimately something to be conquered, controlled and bound, something to be traversed (Sennett was perhaps right to say that in the modern city all that matters is getting from A to B). Space suggests commensurability, abstraction and universailty whereas place is distinctive, limited, low-key. It is no surprise that for settlers and rational planners alike space is such a fundamental concept. Empty space, outer space. Imperial projects always rely on a unification of space, don't they?
This is in stark contrast to Wendell Berry's lovely thoughts on tobacco farmers and the deep continuities of work in a community (Macintyre's 'internal goods'). There is also much to like in Berger's book which is related to all of this.
Metis vs techne is really at the heart of it.
The interesting (and slightly disappointing) aspect of the discussion is what you detect to be what appears to be a faint whiff of nationalism-something I've come across over the years whenever there is any criticism of 'the west' or America (and Israel, no doubt, too). Of course, it makes no difference that you are equally critical of the barbarism and nihilism of Muslims or the religious in general, that the mere mention of the so-called 'mystical east' brings tears-from laughter- to your eyes. No, to even mention the possibility that other people, radically different from you, warts and all, could have a profoundly human outlook is to be in some sense political in this day and age!
Question: if a poet speaks of suffering that is not his own is he being political? Blake, for example? Is Milosz political if his writing is informed-obliquely or otherwise-of the spiritual degradation produced by Communism?
Of course, I'm overreacting given the rapid growth of fundamentalism I see all around, the narrowing down of horizons that relegates all that is different from one's own perspective and position to being somehow tainted and deeply flawed-as are the people who hold those alternative views. Khair...here are the remarkable lines:
The American woodsman is interested in nothing. Any notion of sensitivity is foreign to him. Those boughs so elegantly sprouted by nature, the fine foliage, the bright colour that enlivens a part of the forest, the deeper green that darkens another part of it-all this means nothing to him. He has no memories to call upon in any particular place. His only thought is for the number of ax-strokes required to chop down a tree. He has never planted anything; he does not know such pleasures. Any tree that he plants is worthless to him, because he will never see it when it has grown sufficiently large to be chopped down. Destruction is what keeps him alive. Destruction is everywhere; hence every place suits him. He cares nothing for the field where he has done his work, because his work is only toil and no idea of sweetness is associated with it. What emerges from his hands does not pass through all the stages of growth that so touch the farmer's heart. He does not follow the destiny of his products...he has no regrets about leaving the place he has dwelled in for years.
And they [the Fishermen] have no love for any particular place and know the land only by the ugly house where they live....this man is a trigger of technical violence: his place can be any place, because his mind has lost the mnemotechnical loci from which it can hang images...Woodsman and Fisherman are ...united in their hatred for the earth that still generously envelops them. It is a hatred for all that grows and that, in growing, becomes sweet and fades. Their pace is different from everyone else's: they strike blows, they pull and tug-gestures that are a metaphor for those of the gambler who rolls the dice. And in their devotion to the blow lies their cosmopolitan mission: the blow is the same everywhere; the plant has the flavour of a single place..the citoyens seemed archaic and out-of-date compared to these two new characters, who, beyond the frontier, were acting out the gestures of burgeoning history.
---Talleyrand, cited in Roberto Calasso's Ruin of Kasch
No comments:
Post a Comment