---
J (3/20/12) responds to this paragraph in particular:
"The Greek verb from which the noun "problem" is derived means to throw or cast forward. Problem means in the first place something jutting out, for example a promontory: more concretely, an obstacle, something that I find before me; and by metaphorical extension, what we usually call an "intellectual problem." But let it be noted that in order that something should be an obstacle to me, it is not enough that it should be there in front of me: I have the wall in front of me too, and does not serve as an obstacle to me, but as a shelter--another sense which the Greek word also possesses; its presence in front of me is not sufficient for it to be converted into an obstacle: it is necessary that I should need to pass to the other side of it, precisely by going through it; then it is a real obstacle, in the concrete form of what the Greeks called aporia, that is, lack of any pore or hole through which to escape from a situation."
J: Still reading it, so dense! But I can say a few things right now.
I appreciate the likelihood that I may never read the actual book, but that the introduction has shown me several interesting ways of thinking about the process of thinking, philosophizing, and problem-solving. As he points out, the historical situation is central to the relevance of a particular philosophy, and part of the reason why I feel like I may not read the actual book, at least following my current patterns, is its historical situation in 1950s America, one that I don't connect with as much. But he himself recognizes that, and so he at times discusses matters that are less entwined with his own historical situation, like the discussion of what a "problem" is, including the Greek origins of the word. That was my favorite part so far (I'm about halfway done). His pointing out that something--a situation, a concept, an attitude--is only a problem if it is perceived as an obstacle. And "obstacle" implies movement, the process of going somewhere, and the thing that is preventing one from getting to where one is going. Like when he mentions a wall--a wall can be either an obstacle or a shelter, depending on one's goals and where one wants to go. I love this because it reveals to me a bit why different people get passionately involved in vastly different theories, concepts, ideas. It seems that it is partly a matter of where they are going, or where they believe they are going. For one person a particular religious belief may take the form of a shelter, and the person may passionately guard this shelter from any outside attack, from entertaining any possibility of their belief being wrong or false, just as one would want to protect one's physical home from attack. But for someone else, who is also religious but takes shelter in otherbeliefs, this same religious belief may prove to be an obstacle for them--an obstacle in their journey for truth, or peace, or happiness. So they may seek to debunk or dismantle the other person's belief, because for them it is not necessary, and appears to be impeding a religious understanding that they believe they are heading towards. Does that make sense? It's like what you told me about that older woman whom you spoke with. Was it Gwen's grandmother? The woman's face when you felt like you shattered, or at least tampered with, one of her cherished beliefs. Sort of like that.
Or I think of it in terms of relationships. In a monogamous, romantic relationship if one person wants to go out and experience romance with other people, they may perceive the relationship's boundaries, its walls, as obstacles to be overcome or solved, whereas the other partner may perceive those boundaries as their shelter, taking comfort in the exclusivity of the monogamy. The first person will experience the conflict of facing an obstacle, while the second will experience the comfort of resting in a shelter. Of course, it is usually more complex than that, but you know what I'm saying.
Anyway, that discussion of obstacle vs. shelter has proven to be most fertile for me.
---
H (3/21/12): Wow. Can I pass this along to Peter? You've got some great thoughts here. I mean, you're talking about what defines the very nature of conflict (vs oneself, vs others). There is a subtle motif below the larger issue of obstacle vs shelter which also interests me a lot: the manifestation of ideas, and their physicality. It's interesting to think that an IDEA can become a wall. It's as if the make up of a thought straddles metaphysical and physical composition.
There's a lot more I want to think about before continuing along this line of thought.
Read Huxley's The Doors of Perception and he said something interesting:
ReplyDelete"Art and religion, carnivals and saturnalia, dancing and listening to oratory - all these have served, in H. G. Wells's phrase, as Doors in the Wall."
I like this in relation to thinking about the wall as obstacle vs. shelter. In a way, with a door, in the wall, it can serve at the same time as a shelter and obstacle. But I'm not entirely satisfied with this vision.
My aim is to understand the duality of obstacle vs. shelter, and see if an idea, or really a way of life, is neither.
I came across something slightly earlier to the Huxley text, in a book called The Monument Upside Down, edited by Sevgi Ortaç (it is a book about the old defense walls in Istanbul and the community living in and around the walls, and how the government is slowly trying to expel them), in an essay by Funda Baş Bütüner called Land Walls and the City: Everlasting Confrontation. The quote actually comes from a Georges Perec book called Species of Spaces and Other Pieces, it goes,
"I put a picture up on a wall. Then I forget there is a wall. I no longer know what there is behind this wall, I no longer know there is a wall, I no longer know what a wall is. I no longer know that in my apartment there are walls, and that if there weren't any walls, there would be no apartment. The wall is no longer what delimits and defines the place where I live, that which separates it from the other places where other people live, it is nothing more than a support for the picture."
This has been more fruitful than Huxley's section. I do think that "a picture on a wall" could establish a type of shelter, but Perec wisely seems to devalue the wall altogether, as if, not only is the wall not a shelter, it is not an obstacle either, and rather, it is a support (for a picture nonetheless). I don't think he means to forget the world by putting up pretty pictures either, but rather, by slightly altering the appearance of the wall (i.e. an idea) it appears different and he is able to view the wall more transparently, or rather, with different insight.
(H)
Wow. First, another French writer who speaks about spaces is Gaston Bachelard, whose books "Poetics of Space" and "The Poetics of Reverie" are highly recommended.
ReplyDeleteSecond, as you point out, this brings to mind the idea of perspective. Sometimes a wall needs to approached in a more creative manner--perhaps hanging a picture or otherwise altering the wall can create something new, more helpful.
Third, there are questions of context. As seems to happen frequently in various philosophical or ideological systems, one idea becomes the context for, or supports, another idea. And just as the picture needs something to hang on, often ideas cannot come to fruition without the groundwork having been laid first.