While ostensibly about Occupy Wall Street, this article will veer off into areas rarely considered in popular, or unpopular, discourse. As the tangents appear, I will always provide immediate, or eventual, context to support an easy comprehension. Though challenging, this is not a test, and no special knowledge will be expected on these abstract and obscure concepts.
In the preceding article “Embracing the intangible...”, I offered a personal assessment of what the motivations of Occupy Wall Street might be, though, I knew as I wrote it, it was more a reflection of myself, the nature of abstract notions and revelation being what they are. This I hope to be more philosophical in tone though I’m aware the choice of matters brought into the fray are distinctly personal in their selection.)
The frustration most often voiced about the swelling Occupy movement is, it does not appear, in any easily digestible way, to be “about” any particular thing, rather a morass of dissatisfaction with various contemporary ideas, structures and their expression. I’m going to come back to this thought, near the end, but, now, take you as far as I can, away, from today.
The mathematician Riemann, in the late 19th century, made a separation between the two primary concepts of time, the continuous and the discrete, which he referred to as manifolds, in that looking at reality through either concept yielded very different, virtually incongruous, realities, both valid from the perspective they were viewed from. The continuous manifold would consist of the eternal nature of things, the physical universe and its expression in energy, space and entropy (or time as writ large) and /or God, as eternal, would be of this manifold. In a very Taoist distinction, the discrete manifold could consist of any subdivision of the continuous into a timeframe with a finite length, a beginning and an end, a birth and a death, the temporal expression of reality that flows about us in our normal lives, hiding, but always part of, the continuity of time. It is at once, dichotomous and complementary: continuous time consists of discrete sections, all well and good, but, careful here, the continuous contains more than the collection of the discrete time, the quality inherent in the discrete of being inexact and incomplete. If you will, the discrete manifold is a series of anecdotes, the continuous manifold is the story being told, and whether your personal viewpoint on the story is that it is divine or profane is irrelevant. It bounces off reality like light off a mirror.
This morning, I was reading a critique of Melville written by Charles Olson. Thrust of his argument was that Melville, in presenting a naturalistic style, never gets down to the point, is never clear and precise in expression, settling for a metaphor of reality in its enumeration. I couldn’t help but wonder the scathing Whitman or Ginsberg would have received. Olson, in his minimal and direct style, believed in taking care to strike the nail with force and only the nail, precisely. His contention, which I admire, is reality is direct, and forceful in intent and expression, and the closer one stays to that natural tendency, the more likely one is to be speaking in the eternal, continuous voice.
And then he mentioned Hegel, in passing, and immediately this article started to dance before me, seductively. I think the Occupy movement is under the impression that governments are striving towards Hegelian idealism (God help them), that hearts and minds and politicians can be bought back from greed by good intentions, to which I say, “Maybe, but only for a short time.” In the darkest hearts, the light of the mind shines rarely and briefly: they operate on instinct but, even there, not all hope is lost. We instinctively hunt and gather, to ensure our survival. We instinctively associate for security and to make the best use of our individual gifts. Instinct is at the base of our civilization but when societies fail, the association has been forced to perpetuate past its legitimacy. Or, in keeping with the discussion above, the ongoing, continuous needs of the association have fallen to the immediate, discrete needs of individuals. The best hunters must share with the community lest they be set upon or driven out and, in turn, benefit from the security and diversity of the community.
So, we are at last to it, the question, that is, as the question that is: why should we work together to persist in a reality that is, at best, ambivalent to our existence? Looking through the continuous manifold the question is ridiculous: we won’t. Looking through a discrete manifold makes it much more personal, doesn’t it? Our lives have meaning and, even if only for ourselves, deserve to be lived. We don’t make this decision consciously, it’s part of our instinct to live at all costs and when we are seen as disposable, replaceable and redundant, whether seen by the universe or by other men, to stand in rebellion.
Though the Occupy movement would probably describe themselves as idealistic, Hegelian, the argument is instinctual, and as such, borders the inexpressible: associations, and the nations they inspire, must function towards the continuous good of the all the associated members or it will be rent asunder, naturally.
I give you the nail. Strike it soundly.
In the preceding article “Embracing the intangible...”, I offered a personal assessment of what the motivations of Occupy Wall Street might be, though, I knew as I wrote it, it was more a reflection of myself, the nature of abstract notions and revelation being what they are. This I hope to be more philosophical in tone though I’m aware the choice of matters brought into the fray are distinctly personal in their selection.)
The frustration most often voiced about the swelling Occupy movement is, it does not appear, in any easily digestible way, to be “about” any particular thing, rather a morass of dissatisfaction with various contemporary ideas, structures and their expression. I’m going to come back to this thought, near the end, but, now, take you as far as I can, away, from today.
The mathematician Riemann, in the late 19th century, made a separation between the two primary concepts of time, the continuous and the discrete, which he referred to as manifolds, in that looking at reality through either concept yielded very different, virtually incongruous, realities, both valid from the perspective they were viewed from. The continuous manifold would consist of the eternal nature of things, the physical universe and its expression in energy, space and entropy (or time as writ large) and /or God, as eternal, would be of this manifold. In a very Taoist distinction, the discrete manifold could consist of any subdivision of the continuous into a timeframe with a finite length, a beginning and an end, a birth and a death, the temporal expression of reality that flows about us in our normal lives, hiding, but always part of, the continuity of time. It is at once, dichotomous and complementary: continuous time consists of discrete sections, all well and good, but, careful here, the continuous contains more than the collection of the discrete time, the quality inherent in the discrete of being inexact and incomplete. If you will, the discrete manifold is a series of anecdotes, the continuous manifold is the story being told, and whether your personal viewpoint on the story is that it is divine or profane is irrelevant. It bounces off reality like light off a mirror.
This morning, I was reading a critique of Melville written by Charles Olson. Thrust of his argument was that Melville, in presenting a naturalistic style, never gets down to the point, is never clear and precise in expression, settling for a metaphor of reality in its enumeration. I couldn’t help but wonder the scathing Whitman or Ginsberg would have received. Olson, in his minimal and direct style, believed in taking care to strike the nail with force and only the nail, precisely. His contention, which I admire, is reality is direct, and forceful in intent and expression, and the closer one stays to that natural tendency, the more likely one is to be speaking in the eternal, continuous voice.
And then he mentioned Hegel, in passing, and immediately this article started to dance before me, seductively. I think the Occupy movement is under the impression that governments are striving towards Hegelian idealism (God help them), that hearts and minds and politicians can be bought back from greed by good intentions, to which I say, “Maybe, but only for a short time.” In the darkest hearts, the light of the mind shines rarely and briefly: they operate on instinct but, even there, not all hope is lost. We instinctively hunt and gather, to ensure our survival. We instinctively associate for security and to make the best use of our individual gifts. Instinct is at the base of our civilization but when societies fail, the association has been forced to perpetuate past its legitimacy. Or, in keeping with the discussion above, the ongoing, continuous needs of the association have fallen to the immediate, discrete needs of individuals. The best hunters must share with the community lest they be set upon or driven out and, in turn, benefit from the security and diversity of the community.
So, we are at last to it, the question, that is, as the question that is: why should we work together to persist in a reality that is, at best, ambivalent to our existence? Looking through the continuous manifold the question is ridiculous: we won’t. Looking through a discrete manifold makes it much more personal, doesn’t it? Our lives have meaning and, even if only for ourselves, deserve to be lived. We don’t make this decision consciously, it’s part of our instinct to live at all costs and when we are seen as disposable, replaceable and redundant, whether seen by the universe or by other men, to stand in rebellion.
Though the Occupy movement would probably describe themselves as idealistic, Hegelian, the argument is instinctual, and as such, borders the inexpressible: associations, and the nations they inspire, must function towards the continuous good of the all the associated members or it will be rent asunder, naturally.
I give you the nail. Strike it soundly.
