Pearls and Putrefaction, More and Less
Then again, mystery can be an art. It's okay to be mysterious as long as you don't try too hard to be too obtuse. Then again, to an artist, even being obtuse can be an art — and perhaps the artist would be untrue to be plainer than he or she perceives often obtuse reality to be. Do we have a duty to oversimplify so even the simple can understand? And even then, if they've missed the complexity, have they even understood despite our best attempts to aide them? Perhaps we cannot do them a disservice either way, so long as we address them with a semblance of respect. But we can, I suspect, disserve ourselves by oversimplifying complexity, overcomplicating simplicity, and so on.
I just read these words in Pessoa's The Book of Disquiet
(text 115):To organize our life in such a way that it becomes a mystery to others, that those who are closest to us will only be closer to not knowing us. That is how I've shaped my life, almost without thinking about it, but I did it with so much instinctive art that even to myself I've become a not entirely clear and definite individual. [translated by Richard Zenith]
* * *
To dream or to act or to mix the two?
Just read this in Pessoa's The Book of Disquiet
I have to choose what I detest — either dreaming, which intelligence hates, or action, which my sensibility loathes; either action, for which I wasn't born, or dreaming, for which no one was born. Detesting both, I choose neither; but since I must on occasion either dream or act, I mix the two things together. [translated by Richard Zenith]
* * *
Both, er...
I cast my pearls and putrefaction before both swine and the divine
Not always knowing which is which or when or why
Rarely unaware that I am all of the above and more and less
In various ways at any given time on any given day
And so are they
Categories: Religion and Philosophy, Poetry by JC
Tags: Fernando Pessoa Richard Zenith Book of Disquiet
My ad hoc sound bite responses:
My immediate reaction to the idea of explaining art or poetry is that if I feel like explaining, I'll explain, and if I don't, I won't.
Explanations in general--I think that as active, engaged citizens of the world we should demand more explanation, more rigorous self-examination, more transparency from educators, politicians, large corporations and the media.
Explanations and zen, or explanations and faith--I am of mixed opinion. On one hand, I see zen answers as obnoxious roadblocks to an inquiring mind. One the other hand, embracing irrationality can be a kind of relief to a mind that has parsed matters to irreducible yet still confounding delineations. Faith and reason as wave and particle.
RE identity and mystery--I don't know that it's always possible to explain oneself fully, or even to know oneself fully. Maybe that's the role of literature, of writing. I bristle against sound bite culture--the expectation that one's got it all figured out, all positions are known.
There is the matter of cultivating mystery purposefully--that's up to the individual, in my book. (Tho I ain't got a book.)
I bristle against policies for reality though I'm always searching for policies for my reality. On the micro level, I'd like to think we're free to do what we please as individuals. On the institutional level, I tend to want policies. Policies that include rather than exclude, policies that empower rather than marginalize. Policies for cooperation. On the institutional level, that is.
Both dream & act - one does not the other detract - acts spring from dream
Reply to this
I have a few quick thoughts on reading this…
First off… just because an author or poets says something doesn’t necessarily make it so.. We all perceive the world through our own reality. So what we see and what we know is always only part of a whole… our part but a part nonetheless.
So I try to take what people share in a context.. and if I don’t understand I ask questions not criticize.
Second thought… I think there is something to be said for being yourself and not what others want to make of you.
But I don’t think that explaining that to others is a bad thing if it’s needed. It doesn’t diminish anyone to do that if it brings a little understanding and it certainly doesn’t diminish you to share yourself and who you are with others once in a while. Because we all change and grow everyday anyway it is really only a snapshot for the moment. So there is no mystery lost. For myself I’m as much a mystery to myself as I am to others sometimes but I still know myself better than anyone else does. So if explaining helps another person to know where I’m coming from or who I am or what I might be thinking at the moment I’ll do it.
I think it is a way of shutting people out to feel one has to be a mystery and not explain oneself. So I don’t get Pessoa on that. For me to do that would be a bit of a copout to act that way. I would say that also extends to art and writing for me too. There is always more in what I write than even I’m aware of sometimes. And that comes from a part of me I will never fully know… my subconscious… but I’m willing to share if people ask about something as best I can. Or why write at all anyway?
I think being an enigma is a bit overrated…. My own opinion on that. It goes with the stereotype of the troubled angst-ridden poet… we may all be that once in a while… but all the time? Don’t think so….
Those are a few thoughts on quickly reading..
I might come back if the discussion gets good.
Have read and agree with several things Ladies shared but will be back….
Reply to this
A thing worth noting: Pessoa most often wrote not necessarily as himself but as one of an assortment of "characters" (for lack of a better word). I believe he wrote the above texts under the heteronym Bernardo Soares.
Reply to this
Yes, he wrote Book of Disquiet by the name Bernardo Soares, assistant bookkeeper in the city of Lisbon.
As I thumb through this 500 page paperback I found 116 interesting for all you writers.
"To write is to forget. Literature is the most agreeable way of ignoring life. Music soothes, the visual arts exhilarate, and the performing arts (such as acting and dance) entertain. Literature, however, retreats from life by turning it into a slumber. The other arts make no such retreat - some because they are visible and hence vital formulas, others because they live from human life itself.
This isn't the case with literature. Literature stimulates life. A novel is a story of what never was, and a play is a novel without narration. A poem is the expression of ideas or feelings in a language no one uses, because no one talks in verse."
I love this last sentence. Pessoa is so different that I find him stimulating to read but can only take a few pages at a time because he makes me think. I believe you agree, John, don't you? Read 117 as well since it also has a lot to say about literature and what people say when they talk or write. There is a big difference....
Reply to this
well what you quoted from Pessoa contradicts itself.. How can literature both stimulate life and retreat from life by turning it into a slumber?
Did you quote it accurately?
As I said before just because some one wrote it doesn't mean I agree with all of it. I have to measure it against my own experience to see if it fits.
Reply to this
As Lady alluded, light behaves as a particle and as a wave -- despite these seeming contradictory. As someone else said, "Corn is hominy / And there is no disharmony / Only harmonies to which our ears / (my dears and our fears) / Are unaccustomed."
Reply to this
Well I wondered if it was an accurate quote..
I agree life can be paradoxical.
Reply to this
I've just started the book of disquiet.. but haven't gotten very far yet...
Oh. and as I said on Face Book.. I- Ching hexagram 61 is interesting with regard to the poem shared at the end..
Reply to this
The only problem with 61 is that it is stated that pigs and fish are the least intelligent of animals. Think of people who find pet pigs more intelligent and dolphins (not fish or course) extremely intelligent.
Reply to this
Well these were the ancient Chinese speaking not western zoologists. So the eastern context needs to be taken into account.
In China (as well as other places) pigs were thought of as unclean and unwise because they would "nourish themselves" with anything. Fish... referring to here as carp or koi.. were the same... So the context of the I-Ching and knowing it are important to its interpretation.
In the I-ching we "nourish " ourselves by the company we keep and the thoughts we feed. Thus the reference to the pigs and fishes. It is very similar to the " pearls before swine " metaphor save that it is also self- reflective as well as involving others.
Reply to this
I don't think that any artist should purposely "dumb down" their work to appeal to the masses.
Having dealt with reading comprehension issues all my life, I know that there are still books written that I will never understand. I never took a philosophy class because I knew I could not wrap my unique little brain (notice I did not say learning disabled!)around that language. I struggled through sociology articles because I was so interested in what they had to say, even if they were written in such technobabble that I could barely understand what was written.
So, it's true. Some people just ain't gonna get it! But if they are interested enough, they will read it again and think about it and maybe come to a totally different idea about what you wrote than you had. And that's okay too.
-----
I'm going to have to get the Pessoa's book. I've carried it in the store before but never really looked at it.
The quote about dreaming and acting struck a particular chord for me because I feel I find it's so much easier to spend my life dreaming about living then actually taking the actions to live it. (And people wonder why I never come to poetry readings!) It so much easier sitting here with my characters and living their lives than getting into the mess of living one of my own... pathetic, I know...
I imagine Senor Pessoa has more interesting things to say.
----
Thanks for the stimulating thoughts. Haven't had a chance to comment lately and it's nice to have something to add.
Reply to this
I didn't interpret John's comments as being only about art.. And explaining in some instances is not necessarily dumbing down your art.. it could be but doesn't have to be.
I've had a few times when someone has asked me about a poem and I haven't minded at all I was happy to clarify something.
But I don't feel I have to do it for each one. Nor should anyone.
But I got the impression some of the thoughts had a wider application.. and in a relationship or friendship, etc.. it can be egocentric to think you never have to explain anything... it's also dangerous.. because you do risk being permanently misunderstood.
Reply to this
We spend most of our lives listening and reading explanations and interpretations of what others have written throughout the ages. When we write our own thoughts they are our individual creativity in poetry and other kinds of literature. But to explain or interpret other's writings is to be a critic, or perhaps a book reviewer or even a religious leader. The Bible is a good example. Most of us believe it was written by man and not by God. Genesis is subject to a lot of interpretation and explanation.
So if one believes God created the earth and all in it in seven days and this took place 5,000 years ago it is a literal interpretation of the Hebrew translation into English. God help us!
If the Islamists believe that the martyrs for jihad go to heaven and are rewarded with 70 virgins this is simply a mistranslation of the Arabic Koran.
The meaning is white grapes and not virgins. So to explain literature or philosophy or psychology etc. perhaps we need interpreters, professors and writers to "explain" the meaning but for us poets and modern writers this is not only not necessary usually but casts doubt. So enough of trying to explain anything to anyone. The words should speak for themselves...and if they don't, so what??
Reply to this
I might add that our constitution is also subject to interpretation and explanation This is a constant battle between the courts, the House and Senate and even the President plus all of us who think we are guaranteed our freedom of speech, religious freedom and the pursuit of happiness (whatever that is)
All is subject to explanation and interpretation. And they are just words in a document, aren't they?
Reply to this