Uncategorized

Irony and Irony about Irony

Irony, reflection, and dialectic are all practices that let us become aware of other possibilities.    They can be rhetorical — methods of speech — or methods of thinking, since thought is much like self-talk.

Start with irony.  If we respond to a judgment with an ironic “yeah, right!” we are pointing out that one could judge differently.  If the parent says “Now that you’ve graduated from college you will get a job and be happy.” the adolescent’s response “Yeah, right!” suggests other possibilities — that she won’t get a job, or won’t become happy, or that she might instead die in an automobile accident.

Pointing out possibilities can be bitter and critical but need not be.  It could be joyous.  If we have no money for Christmas and you say “Christmas is cancelled this year.” I can respond “It sure is” ironically, because I think there is another possibility — Christmas is not cancelled because, like the hoos in hoo-town we can have a great Christmas without presents, or because I have a lottery ticket in my pocket I haven’t told you about yet.  However, irony is often used in the service of critique because to suggest other possibilities suggests that the current arrangements might be bad, or at least sub-optimal.

Irony is part of a group of practices that make us aware of other possibilities.  Dialectic is another one — the practice of asking “why do you think that?”.  Reflection is a third one — the practice of taking our judgments or speech as itself a topic of judgment of speech (the metaphor is looking at the judgment and speech in a mirror).

These practices have twins that try to make us not talk about other possibilities that we all kind of know are there.   Sentimentality, hypocrisy, and bullshit are such practices but there are many of them. Unlike the possibility-pointing practices which try to make us aware these try to make us less aware (or pretend to be less aware) so they can be less explicit and conscious.  So simple self-distraction and changing the subject, as well as various forms of splitting and histrionic self-dramatization are part of the complicated modern human being’s tool kit.  People sometimes talk like the ironists are having a field day and the people who just want to get a job and have a family are cowering before them, but this is false;  the powers of the anti-ironic (ant anti-dialectic and anti-reflective) practices are, generally, much stronger.

If it is impossible for us to become aware of another possibility — e.g. we are dying of thirst and confronted with water — irony  and its related possibility-suggesting practices has no toe-hold with us.

It is possible to be ironic about irony.  So, suppose we are confronted with a person who is using irony mechanically.  Without even listening to what we say this reflexive ironist responds “Yeah, right.”  We can say “It’s great how you are using your ability to point out  possibilities” meaning there are other options than pointing out possibilities — in other words there are other possibilities than irony.

The higher order version of irony is irony about irony, about reflection, double reflection, about dialectic, just dialectic, since the possibility of talking about talking is baked into that notion.  These phrases I believe work for any sort of n+1 version of the practice.  In other words, I am pretty sure there is no important difference between being ironic about the possibility of irony, and being ironic about the possibility of being ironic about the possibility of irony.  But if I am wrong please let me know in the comments.

Advertisements
Standard
Uncategorized

Is it True that “Everything is True” just means “Nothing is True”?

Does “God is everything” mean “there is no God”?

Does “I love everyone” mean “I love no one”?

Does “It’s all good” mean “nothing is good”?

Maybe!  It could be that we only have words like “true”, “love”, and “God” to pick out certain situations or aspects of reality as worthy of trust, love, faith or worship.  If so that would mean that applying these words globally means nothing is worth picking out as especially worthy of these attitudes.

If this were true one of our requirements of a meaningful speech act is that it runs some risk.   That is, we want to say to the person talking about truth, if there is no chance you are wrong, don’t waste my time.  You need, as they say, to have skin in the game.  You need to run the risk of misleading me for me to bother even considering following you.

Maybe!

Standard
Uncategorized

Jackie and the Suicide Ants

This is not something that actually happened, although something quite similar did.  As is my wont I have just changed all the names and concepts to different ones in order to protect the feelings of those involved:

There once was an attractive young woman named Jackie who had a good income and who had just graduated from college with excellent grades and recommendation letters and was living in a small apartment in Brooklyn.  She heard from her friend Joseph who was a contractor in Jersey City obsessed with THE PICATRIX that there was an apartment complex off the grid in the southeastern united states where the people were extremely artistically sensitive but were given to suicide.  She conceived a desire to learn more about these strange people and was able to find a hippie bus line that could take her there.  She discovered that these people lived at a very, very high level of sensitivity.  This sensitivity had a plus and a minus.  The plus was that they were able to express their intense feelings in beautiful poetry and essays which they published in an APA (amateur press association) zine.  The minus was that when something struck them as painful sometimes their only way out was suicide.

Jackie worried about how to take account of this strange apartment group given evolutionary biology.  How did they come to be?  She later learned that their mother (not biologically exactly) was a woman named Ilana Beverly.  Ilana Beverly deliberately brought about this state of heightened sensitivity in her “children” so as to explore paths of human flourishing that were hidden from most human beings by their unsensitivity.

“How could you do that?” said Jackie and that night they all committed suicide.

She became friends with Ilana Beverly (I don’t know if it was Platonic or not — I don’t have that kind of prurient interest in this story) and discussed the pluses and minuses of raising children who skate so close to the edge.  “It just doesn’t seem fair.” said Jackie.

“Great!” said Ilana Beverly.  “Now you made me feel guilty.”

MORAL:If somebody can make you feel guilty, it might be because you are.

Standard
Uncategorized

VICONAUTS!

I don’t need to tell readers here about Giambattista’s theory of cultural cycles, which is an important part of my emotional life and has helped me get through many a trying time of personal challenges.  To recap Vico believed that in the beginning of culture groups of human beings looked at metaphors as if they were actually real — they actually perceived the river as having a mouth.  During this time — which I think the Italian sage called “the age of giants” — groups lived in terror of each other, of nature and of the patriarchs of their clan, and enforced the norms of the community with terrifying punishments and supernatural sanctions.  As cultures progressed they passed to an age of prose from an age of poetry.  However ultimately the bonds of community necessary for a society’s survival could not survive this greater growth of self-consciousness.  A cultural period called “the barbarism of reflection” ensued, society collapses into roadwarrior-style chaos and then the whole thing begins again with a new group of patriarchal clans who viewed the world as poetry.

So I feel very much inclined to tell the story of a computer generation starship that is aware of Vico cycles and has to shepherd his crew of humans across the galaxy and oversees a series of Vico cycles.  The crew begin as modern, secular, skeptical scientists.  After a few generations they collapse in chaos.  A new religion of worshiping a patriarchal God springs up.  The religion has an enlightenment.  It collapses many, many, many more times.

When the earthmen arrive at the alien planet they are aware that “there is a Sky Thunder god who will punish you if you disobey him” and “there is truth that we need to understand to live our lives responsibly” mean exactly the same thing depending upon where they stand in the cycle.

They encounter a group of insects whose religion is a hypostasis of their relationship to the sentient fungus they live off of. Their cycles are different: for them the poetic and the literal are much closer.

The two species join together in a cosmic analog of love.

In the after-life the sentient robot meets God who is mildly disappointed in him.  “I was kind of hoping human beings would come to love me for myself”.  “I tried to do that” says the cycle-overseeing robot.  “Yes” says God” But I wish they had done that for themselves.  I feel like you helped too much.”  “I’m sorry.” says the robot.  “It’s okay.” says God.

Standard
Uncategorized

History of the Future as Told by An Extremely Ethical Robot

Biological moral enhancements have led to a race of super-moral cyborgs overseeing the lives of pure human ethical corner cutters.  The internet of cells has given everybody a tumor that is modifiable according to downloadable information.  Most people use their tumor to create a talking pony named AMBROSE, a smaller proportion of the population modify their tumor into two twins named WIZ and WAZ who copulate and create a mystical insight into the world economy of cells with their orgasm for the benefit of the tumor-possessor, and a tiny group of outcasts live off the grid with no tumor at all.   When writing science fiction we have no choice but to look backwards for our models, because the yet-to-be-imagined is yet to be imagined, so I reflect upon how the Emperor Constantine gave the bishops of the early Christian church the right to use the empire’s system of roads to send their letters, and this edge in disseminating information soon transformed Christianity into the dominant ideology of the Mediterranean and, soon, all of Europe.  Consequently in this future society the ethical robot creates a beneficent tumor named ROGER LICKS and violates net neutrality so that the LICKS tumor penetrates at a faster speed than its competitors AMBROSE and the WIZ-WAZ twinship.   The story is narrated by the ethical robot centuries after the ROGER LICKS tumor achieved pre-eminence during a time that it is being challenged by the few rogue unmodified humans who are regarded by the LICKS HUMANOIDS as demons, witches, and monsters.  The ethical robot witnesses an auto-da-fe in which a WIZ-WAZ tumor humanoid has its tumor removed by a member of the Sacred Order of Information Technologists and feels intense guilt for what he did.  He tries to relieve his guilt by putting his deeds in writing and justifying himself to an imagined audience of early 21 c. humans.

Possibly a children’s book?

Standard
Uncategorized

New Characters

Richard and Andrea a couple who have themselves legally reclassified as a single person.

Don a punk rocker who does not know what punk is or what rock is or what music is but is committed to punk rocking.

Andres-Sam a competitive pitier who is training for the Compassion Olympics.

Vice-Chatelaine Wong, a former member of Khmer royalty who now makes a living designing games and losing them.

Cradybor, a lich who lives in the copy room of a New York law firm and forces the lawyers to prosecute an ancient case using mind control.

Tim, a warlock who feels sad that he cannot satisfy the three witches in his coven.  Not sexually, not intellectually, not financially, not morally and not spiritually.

Mister Nolo Contendere, a man who has decided to stop fighting life.

Wendy, a fabulous composer of arabesques whose personal life is equally complicated.

 

Standard