Every human is an island

My argument is fairly old. I shall try to restate it quickly. I have for some time had a notion of the mind as working mostly (perhaps only) in synthesis. Kant wrote, I exist as an intelligence which is conscious solely of its power of combination. This notion is at the root of one of my beliefs, of one of the few phrases that I have held on to: to be human is to be open to being a multitude. Among the many other things, this phrase means that the one moral path I always try to follow is that of empathy.

I read somewhere that Jonathan Swift once wrote that man is not a rational animal but an animal capable of reason. I agree. Law and the reason of mankind will never rule a human state because, as some of the pragmatists insist, pleasure and pain are the rulers of our kind and guide all human reason.

Fascism and monarchy may be conceived through empathy, but they have never been ruled with empathy. Constant world-embracing empathy is impossible, there are too many people, too many desires. Most people have not even a shred of empathy anyway. Most attempts at purification lead not to purity but to repression and blindness and condemnations and anger and strife. I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. One may strive for purity but must accept that purity is not something we are capable of and must admit one’s faults and work through them, not repress them. Catholicity, in the oldest sense of the word catholic, is what is needed. To be human is to be open to being a multitude. Wisdom is not purity. Wisdom is empathy, catholicity, the opening of one’s arms. Empathy means freedom, means that one may attempt to guide others if one wishes but ought not command.

A well-ordered human state is impossible. Human government is bound to failure. Government is only a multiplicity of human relationships and human relationships are always a sad sweet farce.

Poetry can multiply our vision, can give momentary stays against confusion, can make clearer our sight, can make us feel, can multiply us, can teach us how to embrace. This is the only way I wish to move through the farce.

Swift also wrote, I hate and detest that animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth.

Old man I do not want a part in your republic.

Belief in Style

Among these various authors, whose names hold little significance without having read their work, there are indeed emergent styles which commingle and diverge at varying points throughout the body of these respective works. These elements of style then must be representative of the author's beliefs. Seeing as the beliefs of these authors differ in various ways, it is through these points of belief that differing styles emerge. The prose of theorists and philosophers has the capacity to account for beliefs through their means of logic and argumentation, whereas the poet is able to convey their beliefs through whatever stylistic means they see fit. Within these varying mediums of poetry and prose then one is able to freely express their ideas and beliefs through whatever style they see fit, but one would assume in most cases that this freedom is still limited to the conventions of language. Gertrude Stein proves that these conventions are malleable, but the product of this malleability from the surface would seem incomprehensible.

Throughout her various poems Stein attempts to capture moments in consciousness, which occur solely within the present moment. In her critical essay “Composition as Explanation” Stein refers to this moment as the “continuous present”, which is the conception of a perpetual moment of existing without beginning or end. This concept stands as a guiding principle of her poetry as it requires only action and movement to convey her beliefs, as opposed to the constraints of conventional meaning, which require some agreement between the signifier and what is signified.

Now the product of this composition that is the style of Stein’s poetry is representative of her beliefs in how language should be utilized. Therefore Stein suggests that this language should function only in this moment of composition itself within the continuous. With this belief guiding her stylistic process it is clear as to why most undergraduates would rather do obscene things to their Stein as opposed to reading them. One must realize though that the reaction of one’s beliefs and faculties by which we understand language are being question by Stein, so it left to the reader to decide their actions for dealing with this style that challenges beliefs not in what is written, but rather how it is written.

Charles Sanders Peirce is able to account for these reactions as the reader is being guided by what he refers to as the object of our inquiry, which is founded on the settlement of our beliefs and opinions. When these beliefs then come into question it is all too common then that one reacts according to a method for “fixing beliefs”. Among these methods one can bury his or her head in the comforting sands of a fixed immobile belief, and deny the possibility that one’s beliefs are being challenged. According to Peirce however this means of fixing one’s belief seems improbable as “Unless we make ourselves hermits, we shall necessarily influence each other’s opinions”(Peirce,16). Seeing as the exchange of belief is unavoidable in most instances Peirce’s authority method is more realistic and has a similar effect as the ostrich method, but also bears a frightening consequence, as it creates a sense of ideological hegemony, which regulates beliefs for all to agree with one another.

Now both of these methods only allow for the dominant beliefs to thrive, which prevents the possibility for any new beliefs to form, so it is necessary for the sake of an open and rounded existence then for another method. Peirce refers to this one as the a priori method, as it is founded on the innate ability to believe and form new beliefs. One is therefore predisposed to holding beliefs and adopting new ones as seen fit, so one can either be habituated into maintaining a single belief or freely sliding between them as they see fit. Stein clearly would have selected the latter of the two, as she able to challenge our habituated beliefs through her style, but it is according to the reaction of the reader to gauge the effectiveness of this style as a means of conveying belief, and is left to entertain it as a possibility or simply deny it.

different original projects (cassandra)

(Sorry For the Delayed Post! <- Proof I can be flighty at times)

Both Stevens and Stein seem to be focused on much of one idea throughout their writing- they don't deal with a multitude of problems or aspects of humanity. They both seem to be obsessed with writing about the structures that humans put on the world around them, and about how fallible humans are. With Stevens I see his focus mostly on the religious or idealogical restrictions humans put around themselves. In his poetry he tends to try and abolish this aspect of human nature. One example of this- for me- is the poem, "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird." http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/stevens-13ways.html My interpretation of this poem is influenced by other times he has come out and openly expressed the faultiness of religious beliefs. I think Stevens is having the Blackbird stand for the religious projections humans put on the world:

A man and a woman

Are one.
A man and a woman and a blackbird

Are one.

This reminds me of Ephesians 5:31- For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

There are other moments in the poem that Stevens seems to be alluding to the projected boundaries and meanings we put on events and life in general and how ridiculous they are, in his eyes. For this reason, his poetry is written "clearer" than Stein's. Sometimes it's difficult- but the difficulty is enjoyable, and the experience of finding meaning in his poems is kind of a self-fulfilling example.

When compared to Stein I see hers as more of an attack on words and meanings. Seeing how our ways of communication fall short, she decides to play around with words in her poetry, more specifically nouns. Many of her poems almost seem like she's poking and prodding the noun until we see it in every light and view point. There are so many of this example that I have a hard time picking one- but if I quote the most quoted Gertrude stein line "a rose is a rose is a rose" each time rose is written, it changes to a new meaning- over time, through the sentence, are we talking about the letters, a real rose, all roses, a symbolic meaning- what are we talking about when we say rose?

(Julie ^ That is how I read Stein)

They both deal with the erring nature of man and man's habit of creating structure on a world that is messy and about how those structures fall short of the meanings every time. The reason for their own individual "project" shapes their styles to be extremely different- I don't think Stein's "project" could be covered in Stevens' style and vice-versa.

Though it's true that the elements that make up a writer's style aren't always a matter of choice, let's imagine, for a moment, that they are. What is gained, and what is lost in the choice of a particular style of writing?
The idea that the content of a piece of writing can be altered or affected through the writer’s ‘choice’ of style is, to me, greatly what this course is about. After all, we have been trying to bridge the gap (or, at least locate the bridge.) between poetry and philosophy. However in some sense, I feel like what we’ve uncovered is the fact that poetry and philosophy often try to do the same thing; have the same goals, just through different styles, which have unquestionably affected their audience. (Or lack thereof.) It is undeniable that a writers’ style influences the readers connection to that writer’s work. For example, in Sein’s Tender Buttons, the author begins naming seemingly arbitrary items and divides the items into three categories; Objects, Rooms, and Food.
A PAPER.

A courteous occasion makes a paper show no such occasion and this makes readiness and eyesight and likeness and a stool.

A DRAWING.

The meaning of this is entirely and best to say the mark, best to say it best to show sudden places, best to make bitter, best to make the length tall and nothing broader, anything between the half.

WATER RAINING.

Water astonishing and difficult altogether makes a meadow and a stroke.

COLD CLIMATE.

A season in yellow sold extra strings makes lying places.

MALACHITE.

The sudden spoon is the same in no size. The sudden spoon is the wound in the decision.

Immediately the reader begins reading this list of items, and tries to make sense of it. It is almost as though Stein set up the poem as a recipe; each item holds importance and needs to be used to create something larger, and it is up to the reader to discover what they can make with the given objects. IF this poem was set up in more of a traditional style, like we saw in Steven, the words would seem somewhat less urgent and mysterious. Less of a puzzle for the reader to solve.

Reaction (Julie)

Depending on the choice of a particular style of writing, the same elements can be gained or lost, such as the understanding of a text or a poem. For example I quote Stevens and James on the same idea of experiencing life: "One likes to practice the thing" (Waving Adieu, Adieu, Adieu) and "I live, to be sure, by the practical faith that we must go on experiencing and thinking over our experience, for only thus can our opinions grow more true" (The Will to Believe). Stevens' line is concise with the main idea, while James can develop more the idea by explaining it. That is a difference between poetry and a lecture.


A second element is the seduction effect that we talked so much about. At first sight, a poem can appear more seductive than a lecture. But it is not necessarily the case, and sometimes a long sentence or a short paragraph that readers easily understand can seduce more than a line or a verse that is not clear at all. Think James and Stein for example.


A third element which can be gained or lost is the fact of making readers think about an idea or a question. For instance I think that people will reflect more upon Stein's poetry to try to get a meaning of it, than upon James' lectures.


The choice of a particular style of writing is therefore a key element in catching readers' interest. Depending on people, they will be more attracted by a lecture than a poem, or the opposite, even though the idea expressed is the same. Think of the example I gave about Stevens and James.


The choice of a particular style of writing can provoke strong feelings. For example with Stein' s writings or poems. I quote Composition as Explanation: "And after that what changes what changes after that, after that what changes and what changes after that and after that and what changes and after that and what changes after that" (519). After reading such a sentence, it is either you love it and you want to read more or you hate it and you want to throw the book out of the window because it drives you crazy. But at least you have a reaction. And I think that is the point she wants to make: reaction to what you are reading. Nonetheless, such a style of writing can foreclose possibilities of expressing meaning, as well as to keep readers' attention. And it is a shame.

Lines, forms

I forgot about this.

The first thing I want is a definition of style. Style is the words rubbing together. I do not know how this rub works, how one winds the feeling about the words; some of it must have been made by the past, by all the reader’s readings, by everything she has heard, murmuring, murmuring; but it feels intuitive too, something throaty and warm and strung from the navel. It must be built out of experience; words are built out of experience; it feels remarkable, then, this net through which every word must be sifted must be an intricacy of interweaving, but it has been so densely done it feels like one’s own strings.

I like those writers who can move in and out of styles. I am a cynic by instinct, and do not like that which tastes too strongly of belief in one thing, in one feeling, one thought. These things pass. To be human is have many voices, to be open to being a multitude. Belief can close you in. Style can shut you up, darken the sight. Thus I love irony. But I do not, of course, believe in it. It is not the final style. Belief is beautiful.

How does a writer’s style open or foreclose possibilities of expressing meaning? What does this mean? to express, to press, down and in. One pulls it out, draws it slowly out of the stomach, leaves it, and it sits. Another picks it up, opens it, draws from it. Three things.

Lately I’ve been interested in books with writings and drawings and images collected together. Drawings and images give the eye forms and lines different from the usual 26. Those twentysix they make you weary. Different forms and lines freshen and inspirit letters. They make a writing cleaner, stronger. I like things that are clean and strong.

We give the world its forms. I like forms, lines, the feeling of moving along the curve of a thing. I would have as many lines as I could.

Stein and James: The Same Coin

“If the red is rose and there is a gate surrounding it, if inside is let in and there places change then certainly something is upright. It is earnest.”

This is a short passage from Tender Buttons by Gertrude Stein. If you read this and didn’t scratch your head at all you either understand the giant intellectual buffet that is the poet’s mind or are mentally unsound. With Gertrude, its often easy to be uncertain which applies to you. Stein’s writing appears to be randomized and pure gibberish, but – to paraphrase Hamlet – there is method to her madness, or at least that’s what she told us. Stein is exploring the language gap between words and objects. By exploring this gap, she shows the sort of limitations our language has. We can not adequately express a rose because of all the connotations a rose may have for every individual who sees it. I see a rose, I may also see other flowers or gardening equipment or clichéd expressions of love. Gertrude Stein may see a gate.

The problem with Gertrude’s expression of this idea, language and limits and how to break through them, is that the lack of convention makes it difficult to understand. The leaps and jumps she makes may make sense for her, but they won’t make sense to everyone (or even anyone?). This is where I feel it is best to let William James pick up the slack. Because James is a natural lecturer and speaks in the very clear terms that Stein does not, he can explain away Stein’s seeming insanity. For example, in his lecture “The Stream of Consciousness”, James explains that “[t]he entire history of what is called Sensation is a commentary on our inability to tell whether two sensible qualities received apart are exactly alike.” James can give reasonable explanations, easier for our minds to follow, that Stein can’t.

James and Stein are complimentary. Stein is the poetic, the chaotic, while James is the scientific, the order. They are both dealing with the same subject, but each on their own terms. Two sides of the same coin if you will. Each accomplishes something the other can’t. James can’t adequately show the examples he talks about but he can explain them. Stein can’t explain what her writing is without breaking the form, but she can use that form for all she’s worth.