I'll use your "big word" as a launchpad for my response. You seem to be establishing an epistemological "dichotomy" that sets mnesis (memory) in opposition to intellectual hedonism. When you wonder whether "all this exploring of the issues ever actually stick in [your] head," I think ("think" because the sentence's grammatical barbarism precludes any solid comprehension) you are bringing up a problem that has plagued me for years: my obsessive surfing, browsing, and scanning of the multiplicity of “intellectual” fields and disciplines has provided, in essence, TOO MUCH information to effectively integrate. The two of us wish to be interdisciplinary specialists, Renaissance men endowed with eidetic recall of specific terms and data from everything we have ever read. Unfortunately, our brains are only so capacious. This fact, combined with the hypomnesis (degradation of memory) that accompanies the proliferation of info-at-your-fingertips media within the modern technocracy, renders the average human mind incapable of anything but limited dilettantism. It is impossible to be a specialist in all fields, Lance. Yet at one time I convinced myself that if I WRITE DOWN every term or concept of interest I encounter, I will preserve them for future use. Opening my ledger now, I find a number of abstruse and esoteric terms from multiple disciplines: “morphallaxis” (an entomological term); “punctuated equilibrium” (a theoretical component of evolutionary biology), “henosis” (an existential objective of Neo-Platonist philosophy ); etc. While many of the words I have recorded have slipped my mind (but not my pen) I DO remember most of them. But they are not just brimming at the surface of my subconscious, waiting to spill over in some brilliant moment of significant discourse. When it comes down to it, I flounder and sputter my way through conversations, ATTEMPTING to sound witty or “learned” but often failing miserably. That strange arrangement of terms I have tucked away in my ledger is just that – a strange arrangement, an expression of logophilia with no practical application. Which brings me back to your “dichotomy.” The issue you seem to be grappling with is not just your ability to recall what you have learned but whether or not you really care about what you are learning. Believe me, I’ve felt the “rush” of knowledge. I’ve snorted that line of Wikipedia links from the Marquis de Sade to the guillotine. And in my opinion, reading books instead of hyperlinks DOES help a great deal in establishing deep and comprehensive knowledge on a particular subject. The problem is that books take time. It’s much more seductive to read the definition or wiki entry on morphallaxis than it is to actually read a monograph on the subject. But alas, I am left with just a term, a “sign” without any real signified. So I’ve decided to limit my book-reading to topics that are specific to my interests: language, literature, criticism, and philosophy. Of course, I’m now becoming more of a specialist and less of a Renaissance man. Ask me about the healthcare bill and I’ll happily offer a philosophical objection, but until I read the newspaper I can’t engage in a concrete or legitimate argument about its specific manifestation in the here and now. My thoughts are always caught up in theory rather than praxis. I think this makes me a coward, but not a fool.
Anyway I wish you luck in sorting out your epistemological crisis. I think it is best to come to terms with your own limitations. Stop trying to be such a smartass all the time and roll with the flux of knowledge, its availability, and its willingness to flow through you. I go through periods where I feel like all of the knowledge of the world is at my immediate disposal, but most of the time I just feel like an idiot who can’t get the words out. As for Rick, tell that nigga that my libertarian foot is about to go straight up his pinko ass. On a side note, if you’re looking for a few interesting reads, here are some to look into:
Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences”
Donna Haraway, “The Cyborg Manifesto”
Michel Foucault, “Discipline and Punish,” or “The History of Sexuality”
Guy Debord, “The Society of the Spectacle”
Jorge Luis Borges, Pretty much anything, but particular “The Circular Ruins” and “On Exactitude in Science”
Jean Baudrillard, “Precession of Simulacra” from “Simulation and Simulacra”
Roland Barthes, “Striptease” and “The Death of the Author”
No comments:
Post a Comment