Thought Experiment 1

Editor’s Foreword

No essay stands in more need of a foreword than the present work, since without some explanation of the strange way in which it is put together, it is bound to seem an oddly assorted hotchpotch. Upon writing the aforesaid work, the author used the printed sheets of various blogs as waste paper, and as a consequence, the reader will find these blogs scattered throughout the work. It is well to mention too that by some mysterious means, thoughts of the author’s mind appear to interject at certain intervals. The editor humbly begs the reader to take these interruptions with stride, and not to think any worse of the author because of it.

An Essay on the Self

The self… that mysterious form of consciousness we call “I”. The filter through which we view the people and events around us. What exactly makes up this thing we call the self? Are we born with it? Do we develop it? I think therefore I am, but I also do therefore I am. I speak, I laugh, I lie, I love, I write. Is it the action of doing these things that makes me who I am?

[Mind] Shit, what to write, does this sound too lofty? Probably sounds like I’m up on that high horse again, tone it down a bit.

Through actions, we are able to get the clearest picture of who we are or who someone else is. Any action is a form of communication that conveys something about the self. Simple actions like walking or laughing give away hints to how a person views themself. The act of writing can be a truthful form of self-expression but it can also be very deceiving. It is important to keep in mind that behind a written work there are certain motivations. There is the audience the writer is writing to, and also what the writer wants to convey to that audience.

[Kostylo Music] It should be clear that once an idea leaves your body in the form of an expression, it's already gone through one filter. Still, we may not be aware of this filter… Why do we filter ourselves though? Perhaps because we want to appear more interesting or beautiful than we are. It could be said then, that society-

The autobiography can be an especially deceiving form of writing because the writer is writing on himself. He is portraying himself in a certain way and wants the reader to see himself from a certain light. In E.T.A. Hoffmann’s book The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr, we are presented with two narrators. One is the Tomcat Murr, whose autobiography gives us an account of his upbringing. Through this autobiography, two forms of the Tomcat Murr’s self can be seen. The first is the self that Murr wants us, the reader, to see. He presents himself as a modest genius, whose only wish is to simply educate young tomcats through his life and poetry. “Young tomcat, be modest like me, and don’t be ready with your verses on every occasion if plain honest prose will do to spin out your ideas.” (301)

The other Murr, that is perhaps the more real one, is the Murr we can piece together through the “chinks in his armor” so to speak. This Murr has a large ego, thinks himself as probably the greatest tomcat that ever lived, and wishes to become famous for his beautifully flowing poetry.

[Mind] Tools, spell-check. Sentence fragment, ignore, Murr, ignore, self expression, change. Now where was that one quote? Uhh I hate cats… allergies asthma grandma’s apartment Mr. Tubbs every Christmas, party poppers always something inside, cold fresh air- ok focus.

In the foreword to the book that was supposed to be suppressed, Murr says rather arrogantly, “With the confidence and peace of mind native to true genius, I lay my life story before the world, so that the reader may learn how to educate himself to be a great tomcat, may recognize the full extent of my excellence, may love, value, honour and admire me – and worship me a little.” From this excerpt we can begin to see that Murr’s opinion of himself may be a little higher than he lets on. As the editor later puts it, “…if many another sensitive author’s modest preface were translated into the true language of his inmost thoughts, it might not sound so very different.” (7)

Yet is there really such a thing as “true language”, or a true self? Our actions are probably the best representation of our true selves. They reside outside the imagination of our heads and are able to be held up against the majority’s reality. The self that lies in our head can be completely different from anything we’ve ever done.

[Mind] The self that lies in our head is often the self that lies. Haha nice, very clever.

A man can be the smartest, most attractive person inside his head, yet when tested through real world actions, this may not be the case. But what is reality?

[Mind] Ahh, I really don’t want to get into this hippie, “its all relative” stuff, but it looks like I have no choice.

Who’s to say that the reality outside a man’s head has more truth to it than the reality inside? There is no one true reality that exists.

[Espinod] I have this idea in my head, and it just keeps growing and growing and growing. When we actually see ourselves, and I mean in the mirror and not in a photo on the computer, we are seeing the REAL US. Our selves. When we walk around and have-

Do we ever see the “real us”? Do we ever know ourselves? Can we ever know anybody else?

[Mind] This is an essay, not a questionnaire, give ‘em some evidence!

In E.T.A. Hoffmann’s Tomcat Murr, the other narrator is an anonymous biographer that gives the secondhand account of the life of Johannes Kreisler. Unlike when we hear the story from Murr, we the reader can never really be sure of what Kreisler is actually thinking since biographer cannot know this. The biographer imparts to the reader, “Such is the case of the man who has undertaken to set down for your benefit, gentle reader, what he knows of the remarkable life of Kapellmeister Johannes Kreisler.” And, “But such nice chronological order is out of the question, since the unfortunate narrator has at his disposal nothing but oral information imparted bit by bit, which he must set down at once if the whole is not to be lost from his memory.” (37) When we read the story of Johannes Kreisler, we aren’t reading about Kreisler’s true self, but are reading the biographer’s interpretation of Kreisler. We are seeing the image of a man not only distorted by the biographer’s reality, but also his memory.

[Nanotext] “To begin to resemble the other, to take on their appearance, is to seduce them, since it is to make them enter the realm of metamorphosis despite themselves” (445)

The above quote from Baudrillard’s “The Evil Demon of Images” seems like a perfect place to pick up with-

The self is a tricky object to pin down. It is always changing, always being impacted by the events we experience. We are what we do, but we pick and choose to remember what we’ve done. Our past selves can be just as relevant as our current selves, depending on what we choose to define ourselves as.

[Williamnot] That being said I want to inform anyone who decides to wander these pages that past blogs show who I was, not who I currently am. I am not particularly proud or ashamed of any entry, but I am interested to see if any of them have any relevance to-

There are many facets to a man that make up his existence. As Walt Whitman says in Song of Myself, “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.” The thing called “I” is more than just a singular entity. It can envelop all sides, all moods, and all thoughts of a person. Is it “I am”, or “I are”? All these multitudes exist in the complicated idea called self.

[Mind] Should I end it here? I think I’ve said everything I wanted to say.……. Yeah, ill end it here.


Sources

Hoffmann, E.T.A. The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr.
New York: Penguin Books, 1999. Print.

Kostylo, Joe (Kostylo Music). “Liar.” Weblog. Some Kind of Strange. 22 January 2010.

Prichard, Tony (Nanotext). “Doppelgang.” Weblog. Nanotext. 18 May 2009.

Espinoza-Gonzalez, Daniel (Espinod). “Thought Experiment Outakes…” Weblog. He Who Laughs Last Didn’t Get it. 26 January 2010

Beyer, William (Williamnot). “A Disclaimer.” Weblog. Nano Shock. 6 January 2010

Whitman, Walt. Song of Myself. 30 January 2010.

Madness!

In The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr by ETA Hoffmann, there is a recurring depiction of the artist as a man on the brink of insanity. Hoffmann paints the romantic picture that a fire inside the artist allows him to create, but at the same time, if not controlled, can consume the artist. This madness is a double-edged sword that can both create, and destroy.


One of the biographies in Hoffmann’s book is of one such artist, Johannes Kreisler. Kreisler is viewed by most of the common characters in the book with a raised eyebrow. Most see him as a bit eccentric, and generally do not understand him. He is often thought to be at times consumed by his emotions. Madame Benzone, a character in Hoffman's book, reflects this perception of Kreisler when she says, “I have always thought that music has too strong an effect upon you [Kreisler], and consequently a harmful one, for all the features of your face would change as your whole being seemed imbued by the performance of some fine work. You turned pale, you were unable to speak, you could utter only sighs and tears, and then, if anyone ventured to say so much as a word about the master’s work, you would round on him with the bitterest mockery, with deeply wounding scorn.”



Kresiler himself is aware of this madness brewing inside him. "He [Kreisler] had always been obsessed with the idea that madness lay in wait for him like a wild beast slavering for prey, and one day would suddenly tear him to pieces." (117)



The notion of the artist being directly linked to madness is again related in the following poem by Emily Dickinson. In it, Dickinson expresses the idea that to be mad is to actually be sane, and that true madness lies in following the majority. Outsiders, such as artists or rebels who think differently than the majority, are percieved as a threat.



Much Madness is divinest Sense –
To a discerning Eye –
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness –
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail –
Assent -- and you are sane –
Demur -- you're straightway dangerous –
And handled with a Chain --



Leonhard Ettlinger is another artist from Hoffmann's Tomcat Murr that is literally "handled with a chain". Princess Hedwiga tells Kreisler that Ettlinger was a painter in the castle whom she befriended when she was younger. After some time, Ettlinger disappears, and Hedwiga searches the castle for him. She finds him in a part of the castle that is usually locked and asks him if he can paint something for her as he used to. Hedwiga says, "At this Leonhard ran towards me with a peal of wild laughter - a chain that seemed to be fastened to his waist clinked as he moved..." (116). Ettlinger then grabs Princess Hedwiga and attempts to cut her throat, saying madly that he needs blood to paint his picture.



Hoffmann seems to portray two paths an artist can follow, and divides them accordingly. There are those that can control their madness and there are those that are overtaken by their madness. Kreisler and Ettlinger seem to represent these two paths. After Madam Benzone expresses to Kreisler her impressions of him (see above quote), Kreisler replies that he has changed and can now listen to a beautiful piece of music and merely tap his finger. Later, the Privy Councillor is surprised at how well Kreisler is able to control himself when a lieutenant stops Kreisler to recite a long-winded poem he wrote. Ettingler on the other hand is consumed by madness, forcibly chained to restrain his homicidal tendencies.



Kreisler and Ettlinger are essentially the same person except for the way each handles madness. Upon meeting Kreisler for the first time, Princess Hedwiga mistakes him for Ettlinger, and every time she sees Kreisler after this, she is reminded of her traumatic experience with Ettlinger. While Kreisler is taking a walk through the park, he looks into the lake and sees the reflection of Ettlinger. "Oho," Kreisler says, "oho, are you there, my dear doppelganger, my brave companion?" (123).



It is even more interesting when the character of Kreisler is analyzed from the viewpoint that his life is actually a romanticised version of ETA Hoffmann's life. Many similarities exist between the life of Kreisler and Hoffmann to the point where it is obvious Hoffmann used his own life at least as inspiration for Kreisler. Viewing Hoffmann from the perspective of the artist raises the question of whether Hoffmann struggled with this artist's madness himself? The unimaginative Sir Walter Scott says, "the inspirations of Hoffmann so often resemble the ideas produced by the immoderate use of opium..." In the footnotes of the book, it is cited that in a letter to a friend, Hoffmann wrote "Why do I think of madness so often, sleeping or waking?"

One Big Cat's Cradle

“-who but an idiot has really understood?-” (Ronell)

This quote, discussed briefly in class, raises some interesting questions about mans ability to understand. Is ignorance really bliss? Does Forest Gump understand life better than we do? Maybe we all just think too much and should take things for their face value.

(As a side note, its kind of ironic that Ronell says this, due to the fact that she is a student of Derrida, who is known to overanalyze texts. And doubly ironic that this quote from Ronell is taken from a larger quote by her on irony.)

Take a magic trick for example. The fun of seeing a magic trick lies in the mystery; of not knowing how the trick is done and being amazed by it. To over-think the trick and figure it out essentially ruins it. Yet it is inevitable that when we see a magic trick, we immediately develop multiple theories as to how it’s done. For example, “Maybe there was a trap door underneath.” or “Maybe it was a fake sword.” But the point of a magic trick is not to understand it. Maybe only the idiot understands this.

It’s human nature to want to understand though. If this weren’t one of mankind’s key traits, then religion wouldn’t be a worldwide institution. Going back to the earliest human civilizations, religion was used to explain that which man did not understand. Man has always pondered the questions of life. How does the universe work?, does God exist?, what is my purpose in life?, etc.

Religion in itself can be viewed as a parasite, preying on man’s need to comprehend. It spreads from generation to generation, filling the void in mans head caused by life’s unanswered questions. Without a population of believers, a religion dies. Gods only live on in the minds of people who believe in them. After that, they are but a fictional character in the history of man.

To be fair though, religion is much more than a leeching parasite. Religion offers man sanity, happiness, and comfort in thinking he’s got the world figured out.

The following poem from Kurt Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle relates this idea nicely.

Tiger got to hunt,

Bird got to fly;

Man got to sit and wonder, “Why, why, why?”

Tiger got to sleep,

Bird got to land;

Man got to tell himself he understand.

Religion is one way man can tell himself he understands. Without religion, man would be lost and scared in the unpredictable world around him. People feel safer believing an all-powerful, all-loving being is watching over the world, and that the events in their lives happen for a reason.

The smart man will constantly ponder life, and the sane man will tell himself he understands life.

Parasite or Symbiotic Organism? You Decide...

Is the parasite in David Cronenberg’s Shivers actually a parasite at all? Technically a parasite is something that takes advantage of another organism, using that organism in a way that is detrimental to its well-being. The relationship between a parasite and its prey is one-way. The parasite takes and the prey gives.

This definition of a parasite does not match that of the parasites in Shivers. In Shivers, although the parasite uses human beings by living in their intestines, it also gives something in return. It gives humans a release from the inhibition of their sexual desires. In the film, Nurse Forsythe desired Doctor St. Luc, and the parasite she obtained was a means to fulfilling that desire.

Doctor st. Luc examining the parasite.

Is this release from our inhibited sexual desires necessarily a good or a bad thing? There are many examples in the film where it is obvious this release is a bad thing. A father making out with his own daughter, and a man with two children on leashes for example. However, by the end of the film, it appears that all of the humans infected with the parasites seem much happier as a result.

Yet what is the cost of this happiness? To answer this question, the economist’s central dogma of “Do the benefits outweigh the costs?” can be used. Do the benefits of being happy outweigh the cost of having a parasite and breaking certain cultural values and taboos? Depending on the answer, this creature is either a parasite, or a symbiotic organism.

The classic definition of symbiosis is “the living together of unlike organisms” (de Bary). It involves two different species working together to survive. The relationship is not one-way, as with parasitism, but a give-and-take. Symbiotic relationships can be seen all around us. A jock and a nerd who become friends to make up for each other’s shortcomings, an alligator that opens its mouth so birds can clean it, or a dip-n-dots stand inside a McDonalds. All of these are symbiotic relationships that benefit both parties.

Another symbiotic releationship? you decide...

Finally, on a bit of a tangent, what about the relationship between Batman and Robin? Is Robin a parasite or a symbiotic organism? Robin lives in Batman’s giant mansion, eats his food, and drives his super vehicles. He follows Batman around on his missions, doing next to nothing besides offering a secondary exclamatory to Batman’s puns. Symbiote or parasite? You decide…