Monday, August 29, 2005
10.~~~~~~~~~~~
A well-accepted tenet of contemporary liberalism is the blessings of individuality, as in “each person is an individual“ and presumably we should view ourselves as individuals first of all. This is not a starting point for reflection but the stopping point of a belief system, an ideology that claims wisdom, a directive: “Be an individual, make sure your thoughts are your own!“ It goes along with, “don’t trust anyone!“ As such it is an assertion of rights to be recognized, thrown against a background of the pressure to conform, which in liberal thinking has taken on the image of the tyrant or commanding God. As an ideology, it does not include a respect or interest to explore the content of individuality when that content resists the assertion of individuality. Moreover, it obscures another viewpoint, that of the interrelation, the connectedness of minds, which has a subtlety that is harder to demonize than the tyrant. It is easier to stand against the coercion of one’s mind by another than the interrelation of our mind with another.
There is no individual mind, just as there is no individual art. That is, in the concreteness of the individual content is absolutely unique, however similar, but the form of the mind is relation. Mind is the very making of relation, the desire of relation, the interplay of relations. A fascination, which seems so individual, is a desire for relation. Each is specific, existing among the myriad of possibile fascinations, yet this myriad is the context without which the one could not exist. A claim to superior validity is an assertion of one relation over another, one that we make at one moment, replaced or reinforced at another moment. How important could it be to notice and speak of some relations--for instance, ask this question--and not others?
Every perception we have of a relation between things takes on its meaning only in the relation with other minds. The organ of the brain itself, in its genetic evolution, is entirely dependent on all those that preceded and contributed to it. If we do not own our brains then certainly we cannot think alone. When we believe we are, when we have the energy that comes from thinking we are the producers of our thought, we are pushing others away and so are not alone. What we are doing is not thinking unless we are aware of this, awareness itself being another word for relation. Thinking is then, in my narrow definition here, a very particular activity of the mind, quite rare. It would be hard to call it a function of the mind. It is vision, a broadening, an expansion that includes the other as condition of oneself, a falling off of the illusion of individual selfhood. It may not interest anyone at all, yet still it is done in relation with everyone.
Writing can be a mode of thinking in that it assumes others, even if imaginary, who could find and share one’s thinking, simply by being expressed in language. Similarly, there is no creating art or music alone, even if our intention is completely otherwise, following the notion of individuality. Performing music, for instance, can either be the demonstration of what we alone can do or have decided to do, or it can be the actual playing we do at one moment, by which we allow each other to enter and share a space. Even a solo can be played in this way, not to create a space for oneself but a space that is shared, even created together at the same time. One plays the sounds that others are giving, just as in writing one gives back the thoughts and images and sounds of words that come from those who read what has been written. And even from those who will never read it--especially those are the ones for whom, or with whom, one writes. One writes, plays, thinks, when one and the other touch. This is the source of pleasure for all these activities, and what all ideologies resist. ¶ 6:56 AM
A well-accepted tenet of contemporary liberalism is the blessings of individuality, as in “each person is an individual“ and presumably we should view ourselves as individuals first of all. This is not a starting point for reflection but the stopping point of a belief system, an ideology that claims wisdom, a directive: “Be an individual, make sure your thoughts are your own!“ It goes along with, “don’t trust anyone!“ As such it is an assertion of rights to be recognized, thrown against a background of the pressure to conform, which in liberal thinking has taken on the image of the tyrant or commanding God. As an ideology, it does not include a respect or interest to explore the content of individuality when that content resists the assertion of individuality. Moreover, it obscures another viewpoint, that of the interrelation, the connectedness of minds, which has a subtlety that is harder to demonize than the tyrant. It is easier to stand against the coercion of one’s mind by another than the interrelation of our mind with another.
There is no individual mind, just as there is no individual art. That is, in the concreteness of the individual content is absolutely unique, however similar, but the form of the mind is relation. Mind is the very making of relation, the desire of relation, the interplay of relations. A fascination, which seems so individual, is a desire for relation. Each is specific, existing among the myriad of possibile fascinations, yet this myriad is the context without which the one could not exist. A claim to superior validity is an assertion of one relation over another, one that we make at one moment, replaced or reinforced at another moment. How important could it be to notice and speak of some relations--for instance, ask this question--and not others?
Every perception we have of a relation between things takes on its meaning only in the relation with other minds. The organ of the brain itself, in its genetic evolution, is entirely dependent on all those that preceded and contributed to it. If we do not own our brains then certainly we cannot think alone. When we believe we are, when we have the energy that comes from thinking we are the producers of our thought, we are pushing others away and so are not alone. What we are doing is not thinking unless we are aware of this, awareness itself being another word for relation. Thinking is then, in my narrow definition here, a very particular activity of the mind, quite rare. It would be hard to call it a function of the mind. It is vision, a broadening, an expansion that includes the other as condition of oneself, a falling off of the illusion of individual selfhood. It may not interest anyone at all, yet still it is done in relation with everyone.
Writing can be a mode of thinking in that it assumes others, even if imaginary, who could find and share one’s thinking, simply by being expressed in language. Similarly, there is no creating art or music alone, even if our intention is completely otherwise, following the notion of individuality. Performing music, for instance, can either be the demonstration of what we alone can do or have decided to do, or it can be the actual playing we do at one moment, by which we allow each other to enter and share a space. Even a solo can be played in this way, not to create a space for oneself but a space that is shared, even created together at the same time. One plays the sounds that others are giving, just as in writing one gives back the thoughts and images and sounds of words that come from those who read what has been written. And even from those who will never read it--especially those are the ones for whom, or with whom, one writes. One writes, plays, thinks, when one and the other touch. This is the source of pleasure for all these activities, and what all ideologies resist. ¶ 6:56 AM
