In a previous post on “Convictions, interconnectedness, and getting out of despair,” I wrote about the conflicting rationales of Ivan’s ways of thinking and my own identification with various aspects of Ivan’s philosophy. I was troubled by Ivan’s inability to deal with his suffering and wavering convictions. I have been meaning to follow up with this post on him and my perceived analysis behind his philosophy, because the next paper I did for this existentialism class infused Nietzsche’s “passive” and “active” nihilist views and Ivan’s “convictions.” Whether or not I “correctly” read Nietzsche’s nihilist philosophy is, as always, in question, but it makes sense to me and I am glad I think I resolved this conflict in my mind… So I went back and re-read parts of my paper and am going to share some of them here now…

However, Ivan’s positing of his world as the truth is problematic: the “escape” Ivan creates is one of wavering conviction. In the progression of the novel, Ivan’s convictions come back to haunt him via the Devil in his nightmare. Ivan characterizes the Devil as his “illness…, the incarnation of…only one side of [him]…, the nastiest and stupidest of [his own thoughts]” (Dostoevsky 592). In his self-proclaimed belief of absolute nothingness, much like a passive nihilist, Ivan gets into a feeling of despair. Ivan claims everything to be “disorderly, damnable, and perhaps devil-ridden chaos” (207-208). Later on, all the worlds of God and Satan are “not proved, to [his] mind” (597). Ivan clings onto the need for proofs, rationality, and logic in order to justify his true world he has created. However, Ivan’s despair and confusion is the natural result of the “escape” that follows from the first two psychological stages of nihilism.

Ivan develops his philosophy by relying on reasoning, logic, and rationality. However, he does not realize that “the strength of knowledge does not depend on its degree of truth but… on the degree to which it has been incorporated” (The Gay Science; 169). Ivan has not incorporated his knowledge and philosophy into his character and his being. He created his beliefs through logic, on the notion that there exists nothingness and that faith in a higher being cannot and does not provide value for him. Logic and reason, however, prove faulty for the basis of “truth.”

…

What Ivan would have needed was to reach the third psychological state of nihilism. This last state begins with the realization that the reason one must invent and create a new true world is derived from one’s psychological needs (The Will to Power), just as “achieving,” “becoming,” and “aims” are psychological needs. Thus, one then concludes that one has “absolutely no right” to the truth one has created, by which one can then realize that “the reality of becoming…[is] the only reality” and there remains no reason to convince oneself that there exists a “true” world. When aim, unity, and being – the highest values – devaluate themselves, Nietzsche argues that one should become an active nihilist in order to truly grasp and take advantage of life…[Ivan] did not want to discover another world because he became obsessed with trying to find meaning and make sense of the one sun, the one world he was in.

Ivan should have embraced the realization that there is no truth by becoming a free spirit and living life dangerously. When Ivan’s god began to die – began to lose its meaning –  Ivan slipped into further despair and confusion; an active nihilist, in hearing that the old god is dead, would feel “as if a new dawn shone on [him]” and his heart would overflow with “gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation” (The Gay Science; 280). The active nihilist would view the old god’s death as a wonderful opportunity to venture out into the unknown, into the “open sea,” and embrace “what is beautiful, strange, questionable, terrible, and divine” (346).

Herein lies where, in the past 6 months (however long ago it was that I wrote this paper/took this class…) I think I’ve come to my own understanding of “life” and reconciling the seemingly “meaningless” world with an amazing, “beautiful..terrible..divine” life I am living. So this is my new sun, and while I am relishing in this “new sun” I am going to embrace the meaning I derive from it, until one day — if ever — my god/sun/meaning begins to die or devaluate itself…by which point it will be time to venture onto a new sea.

Back in high school, I once had a conversation with a friend about human beings always striving for something higher, wanting more than what they already have. Back then, we concluded that such is human nature: as kids, we grow up, go to school, continue onto higher education, establish a career, get married, settle down, have kids, want our kids to grow up to be just as successful, etc. etc. From one stage to the next, we strive for more — be it for better or for worse. We are never quite satisfied with what’s in our lot. Now, don’t get me wrong: this is not a bad thing; it was merely an observation.

So, what does that have to do with anything? Well, recently, I’ve consciously acknowledged myself doing this, and have been trying to determine why it is that I seem to want to strive for more.

In the past few months, I’ve thought about studying abroad for a semester in Europe. Last semester, I decided that I wanted to go abroad to London, England. So, when this semester rolled around, I began to look for programs and universities that I wanted to attend. I even planned out my class schedule for the next 2.5 years, to see if I could still graduate and have taken everything for my simultaneous degrees, which actually worked out (in my plan, that is). Anyhow, it wasn’t until I realized that I couldn’t go abroad to London through the UC Education Abroad Program (EAP) for Spring semester of next year that I re-evaluated my decision.

I’ve had battles in my mind about this for quite some time now, and I’m trying to possibly convince myself that I needn’t study abroad for a semester because:

1. I already went abroad this summer to Taiwan (which “technically” may not count, seeing as I’ve lived in Taiwan before and have family there…)
2. With my simultaneous degree/double major, my class schedule will be tight. In London, I’d be taking classes for elective requirements only.
3. The class selections at King’s College (where I would have gone) are not broad at all.
4. I want to take so many electives that is offered for the undergrad program of the Haas School of Business.

However, I DO want to study abroad in London because of an idealized image/scenario I have in my mind about how it would be: me in a new city, with new and interesting people, attending school in a foreign place, having an amazing time going out both during the day and nights…

It is then that I realize: this is what I used to think, before I came to college. This is what I thought/wanted (minus the “foreign”/”new”, persay) my summer abroad in Taiwan. I had the time of my life in Taiwan this summer. I lived my “study abroad dream,” meeting new people, going to places in Taipei I never really knew existed, attending school… Coming to college in Berkeley, studying abroad in Taiwan, all of these experiences–it’s the same thing, in my head, which makes me wonder why I seem to have/want “new experiences.” I guess I don’t take time to realize that me being in Berkeley, away from home, is the “new/foreign” place; it was and still could be a place where I’m meeting new and interesting people, having an amazing time day/night; I am living my dream.

So what is it about my life that makes me want to continue and ask for more, continue to ask for a new scene? I don’t believe I’m unhappy right now, I don’t believe the people I’m around are un-interesting… So what the hell is it?!

I’m confused as ever but needless to say, I most likely will not be going abroad. Although I would love, love, love to stay for a month or two in London one day…preferably in the next few years, if I have the money to do so.

I guess we’ll see.

I wrote a response paper for a Chinese literature (taught and read in English) class earlier this year on Daoism, because we had read Laozi’s Daodejing and a portion of the Zhuang-zi. After reading the primary texts (or at least a part of it), I’d have to say I definitely made too broad of assumptions (if they were assumptions at all to begin with) in my religion paper I wrote on Daoism my senior year of high school (see Religion Paper Excerpts). I just think it’s interesting how my views on Daoism have changed. Obviously, I’m not suggesting I completely understand it, but from what I’ve read, this is just my own interpretation, which is all that matters for me, right?

Anyway, just thought I’d post this up… I also have it in PDF form, with the sources cited. Otherwise, here it is–

The Zhuang-zi and Laozi texts attempt to identify human’s vain desires for materialistic goods and temporal values, and in turn, suggest an alternative – the Way of the sage. Both texts are filled with contradiction after contradiction, paradox after paradox, all of which amount to one conclusion: that there is no answer, and that in itself is the answer.

Both Zhuangzi and “Laozi” highlight the emphasis humans place on fleeting values and tangible goods, such as wealth and jade. Laozi states that when the Way weakened, humaneness, rightness, intelligence, and wisdom emerged (84); he juxtaposes the Way with concepts that humans and society define as “good.” Zhuangzi, likewise, criticizes “knowledge,” arguing that human’s quest for knowledge triggered division and the “so’s and not sos’s” (117). Zhuangzi and Laozi’s critiques of human values stem from their argument that everything in the universe is constantly changing and transforming, and thus “the placement of value distinctions…[are] merely fleeting moments in the game of life that all come to naught” (Cook 66). Does this mean, then, that there is no point to knowledge, honor, wealth, and even virtue? What is virtue?

Zhuangzi and Laozi regard the sage as one who lives in harmony with the Way and disregards such temporal temptations and values. The ability to live amongst the paradoxes and contradictions is what Laozi characterizes as “profound virtue” (83). According to Laozi, a sage “accomplishes things by doing nothing” and furthers teaching with no words (80). The sage exists amongst ordinary men, amidst argumentation and conflict, but has the ability to consider, take positions when necessary (without argumentation), and make distinctions (Zhuangzi 119). The sage’s purpose is to harmonize with the Way as well as teach humans how to be stripped of natural desires such as ambition, knowledge, and wisdom. The sage, by doing nothing, brings society into order (Laozi 81), because “by doing nothing, nothing is left undone” (87). How does “doing nothing” result in “something”? What can be attributed to as “undone”? What is the meaning of words?

Present in both texts is a continuous play on words and strings of paradoxes. Zhuangzi presents pages and pages of dialogue about flutes, finger-pointing, there-is’s and there-isn’t’s only to say that we don’t know if we “know that what [we] call knowing is not, in fact, not knowing…[and] what [we] call not knowing is not, in fact, knowing” (Zhuangzi 119-120). The paradoxes and contradictions in the texts (and the texts themselves) become physical manifestations of the Way: ever-changing, open to interpretation, and words that may or may not mean anything and may or may not make sense.

Laozi and Zhuangzi’s manipulations of words and twisting of ideas throw the readers (like myself) in all directions, leaving me wondering what it is that Zhuangzi and Laozi are trying to convey about the Way. Only after reading the endless paradoxes and anipulation of language can I finally begin to comprehend “the wordless teaching [of the Way] and the advantage of doing nothing” (Laozi 89).

In search of an article/study to write my psych paper on, I stumbled across a couple articles that seemed very interesting but too long (they had to be 10 or less pages) to base my paper on. I read one of them, “Common Senses: Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning”, and thought I’d post some excerpts here–

“The thesis proposed is that the formal qualities and characteristics of the object – whatever it is – are crucial in that they provide a common basis for the construction of meaning. Equally critical to this discussion is an acknowledgement that (while acknowledging minor evolutionary adaptations) in general terms humans share common sensory and perceptual processes, although their experiences are, as noted previously, also composed of culturally specific beliefs and expectations, learned behaviours and embodied predispositions.”

“The article attempts to show that, although meaning is a human product, the environment is not a tabula rasa, but instead provides elements whose consistent characteristics are the basis for meanings that flow cross-culturally, creating common undercurrents in culturally specific engagements and interpretations.”

“Water’s diversity is, in some respects, a key to its meanings. Here is an object that is endlessly transmutable, moving readily from one shape to another: from ice to stream, from vapour to rain, from fluid to steam. It has an equally broad range of scales of existence: from droplet to ocean, trickle to flood, cup to lake…This process of transformation never ceases: water is always undergoing change, movement and progress. Captured in a cup or pond or lake, it evaporates or escapes and runs away: it is always physically flowing from one place to another in streams, torrents, waves and currents.”

“The overarching theme, which in many ways contains all of the other meanings encoded in water, is that water is the literally ‘essential’ matter of life and death.”

“The imposition of Christianity that subsumed Pagan cosmological beliefs reframed the ‘water of life’ considerably. Biblical descriptions demonstrate a shift from ancient visions of water as a source or personification of god-ness (primarily female) to a more ‘rational’ and abstract vision of ‘living water’ as the product of a single male God…However, even with the ascendance of the patriarchal Christian God, homologous Biblical imagery retained a vision of water as the essence of life.”

“With the Enlightenment, water became a ‘fountainhead’ of spiritual knowledge and wisdom, and eventually, under the weight of Rationalism, the ‘living water’ of the Bible was overtaken by a more Cartesian vision of water as H2O. However, the flow of ideas and images linking water and the spirit has not evaporated (Figure 4), and even in a primarily secular cosmos, water is still presented as the ‘essence’ of a living, functioning ecology of existence.”

“…a reality that water always contains the potential to be benign or harmful, and that the safety of interactions with it depends upon sufficient human control of the engagement.”

Source
Strang, Veronica. “Common Senses: Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning.” Journal of Material Culture 10.1 (2005): 92-120.
Available for download (if you have a subscription) here. Or, e-mail me and I will send it to you.