My Brain Hurts

This reading is quite possibly some of the most heavy stuff I've ever had to wade through in my life, and I'm not entirely sure that if I make it to the other side, I will have even learned anything worthwhile. I mean, don't get me wrong, the discussions in class have been absolutely riveting, and reading the other blog posts has shed some light on Heidegger as well, but that's all its done. I find the things we discuss interesting, but I don't feel like they make much of a difference in the long run and I would think that Heidegger would agree. I mean, as we discussed on Tuesday, we'll never be as good of a philosopher as the common man because he isn't consciously breaking things down like we are. I feel as if Abernathy was really on to something when she said that we should all just walk around and sing. At least, the best way to live out Heidegger's philosophy is just to Be--To interact with our surroundings as they are, and as we are, and then to leave it at that.

With all of that being said, I would like to briefly discuss something that Hunter and I mentioned in class. Hunter said the phrase "what you do defines who you are", and I replied with "who you are defines what you do", and someone else added in "I think it's the way that you do it that matters", which was a nice observation, but in this context we'll ignore it.

Heidegger would have a problem with Hunter's statement because he is being defined by his function, instead of his inherent Hunter-ness. I.E. a hammer is defined by its ability to strike other objects rather than by it's inherent hammer-ness.  I, and Heidegger (I think), would disagree with this conclusion, because the inherent Hunter-ness or Hammer-ness is essential in defining an essent.

Thus, I issued my statement which essentially means that my actions are defined by my inherent Ben-ness. I.E. Because of its inherent hammer-ness, the hammer is used to bludgeon things. I do certain things because of something innate in me, not because of my environment, my upbringing or any other circumstances. Regardless of when/where/how I was raised, I would still be Ben because I have that inherent Ben-ness.  (I'm not going to make the Born This Way reference this time, I promise.)

However, this is also only part of the picture, because we can't feasibly take all of those variables out of the picture. So the only conclusion I've been able to come to is that who we are defines what we do, but what we do also defines who we are. While we make choices based on who we are, who we are has been heavily influenced by things we have experienced, chosen or witnessed in the past. Therefore who we are is essentially fluid, and can be morphed over time. However, we still have that inherent us-ness that will always be present.

I feel like I just talked in circles.

tl, dr : My brain hurts.

So what did we learn today? Nothing? That's what I thought. Tune in next week when I might actually know something about Heidegger!

P.S. I commented on Kaylie's blog "This title has nothing to do with my blog."

What if, what if, what if...

On Tuesday we touched on the authentic self and the inauthentic self and whether or not a person would still have the same Being if they were born in a different time or place. What if instead of being raised in an American Christian home, they were born in China and taught that Christianity was illegal? What if that was all they knew? Would the Being inside them long for the void left by the absence of God in their life to be filled, or would they even notice that something was missing? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that Heidegger believes that they would feel something missing and search for something spiritual even if it wasn't THE God they needed.

I apologize for the short blog, I accidentally deleted it the first time... :(

Being and Venture...A Flower Maybe?

I am desperately trying to wrap my mind around the relation of all the terms. If “swimming around in the head” was a witty phrase I was confident in, I think this case would serve an appropriate use. Now let’s get down to business-- notice my disclaimer: everything I’m about to say is probably wrong, so don’t take my word for it. Maybe, if I’m lucky, a small glimmer of truth will be found in my struggle.

From my understanding, the Being of being is not God, as some might automatically think, it is rather a center, of sorts. Being is the abstract part of beings that is central to them. Venture is similar to what people call the essence of life or destiny. It is described as a flinging, a daring. Accordingly, when you are being you are venturing. This is the relation between venturing and being. Venture draws being into itself. Life (destiny) draws life (existence) into itself. Picture it as a flower with petals. The petals are the circles that represent being, whereas the venture is the center part of the flower, drawing all of its petals to the center. Unfortunately that’s all I can say right now. I’m working out some more in my mind but I couldn’t possibly explain it in writing. Maybe I’ll save it for the paper or for the next blog. Yay! Goodnight all!

P.S. I commented on Alternate Heidegger, Megan's Post

The difference between me and my dog

In his “What are poets for?”, Heidegger explains the fundamental differences between the man and “other beings”

First, Heideggar makes a distinction which us in the 21^st century know very well - The idea that man has a will, whereas plants and animals do not.

But, Heideggar does bring up some very new and interesting points as well. Whereas plants and animals are simply “in” nature, man is “with” nature. Man places himself over nature and objectifies everything. There is nothing that man does not categorize, or name as an object including “the open.” However, It does not seem that Heidegger views this characteristic of man as superior. He talks of how man’s nature with much negative language, for instance he speaks of man “forcing everything under its dominion.” Moreover, he speaks of how out of man’s nature, arises great problems. For, man’s self-assertion makes it where he is constantly aware of the possibility of he himself becoming simply an object like everything else around him.

“He himself and his things are thereby exposed to the growing danger of turning into mere material and into a function of objectification”

I do understand that Heideggar is presenting a tension between the self consciousness of man and the problems that this creates. But on a different note, I am confused as to why Heideggar is writing this particular selection. It seems to be written like a lecture, but a lecture for what? What is he reacting to/ against? Also, he is providing a lengthy analysis of poetry from a few select authors, is he doing this to “teach” the poetry, or is he simply using the poetry and the ideas that it evokes as a platform/ vector for the viewpoint that he is presenting? A little bit of background would bring a lot of clarity.

I commented on Ajackson's "Jabberwocky"

This title has nothing to do with my post.

Okay let me just start with this… I find it borderline irritating to have to question my own existence. It’s incredibly weird first off, but it’s sort of creepy. The reason it is creepy because having to question reality makes me think of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies that I watched very recently and it’s a little frightening. With that said I’d like to move on from that and just share what I found interesting about Tuesdays class, because Lord knows I couldn’t explain it. I guess it was interesting to think about if I didn’t exist but had a twin that did whether or not there would be something missing. That led to discussing that there would be a missing authenticity of you because you are not interchangeable parts. I think that this whole idea of an authentic self is sort of a more intelligent and maybe eloquent way of saying that every person is unique. We’re taught that from the moment we’re born, and that’s essentially what the authentic self is. So really I’ve just been thinking about it and it’s just got my wheels turning, pardon the cliché, concerning the authentic self.
I feel like this is more of a ramble but Heidegger is the most confusing thing I’ve read in my entire life.
P.S commented on Kelsey Parish’s post

10:04

In our reading for tomorrow Heidegger writes: “The divine radiance has become extinguished in the world’s history.”So if I am understanding this correctly, God has just left us all of fend for ourselves and the God that we Christians believe in is just a default that doesn’t actually exist. Then he goes on to say that because no god exists except for some default that works for every nation, a time in which what humans base our lives on (our ground) is about to fail us. This is horrifying to me. I feels like stories of Zombie Appocolypes and the end of the world are consuming society today, and sometimes when I think too hard about all of these theories, I honestly become afraid. What if Jesus’ second coming is actually closer than anyone believes? What if, like maybe people think, the world will soon come to an end? The thought baffles me, so I try not to think about it. The words that Heidegger writes are even more frightening, because he speaks of a destruction of the world without the salvation and hope we Christians find in Christ. If this were true I would be totally freaking out right now, but fortunately I know that I will be saved by God when the end of the world comes. However, I cry for all of those who will not be saved. I really hope that I will die before God comes again, or that he takes me before I have to witness the suffering of all those who didn’t believe in God.

-Susan

P.S. I commented on Kelsey Parish's blog

Is something something or is it really nothing?

In reading Heidegger's question of why there are essents rather than nothing and thinking about the question we were asked in class of why is there chalk instead of no chalk, I was strangely reminded of DesCartes'. When we were asked this question in class, the discussion that came up was more or less of whether or not we can say with absolute certainty that there is, in fact, chalk. In DesCartes' first meditation, he talks about how that which he accepts as the highest truth and certainty, he gathers from his senses. He then goes on to say how he is inherently driven to doubt those observations because his senses have led him wrong before. In the same way, as we strive to simplify, we look to assert with absolute certainty that there is chalk. "I can see the chalk on the table. I can touch it and feel it. Without a doubt, that piece of chalk exists."

However, I think DesCartes' would agree with Heidegger when he pursues the "essence of the essent." He asks what exactly makes the essent an essent rather than nothing. We say that the chalk does exist because we can see it and touch it and seemingly confirm the fact that it is there. I would assert then, that according to Descartes' and Heidegger, the only absolute truth in this situation is the fact that we perceive the chalk to be existent, but because of perception itself, that becomes subjective in nature. It is safe to say that each and every person looking at the chalk has a unique perception of it, and if that is true, then the chalk cannot actually have a concrete form, e.g. concrete existence. Unless I am just completely off the mark, I think this is a crucial idea present in Heidegger's writing. An essent is an essent rather than nothing because it is percieved as such, but at the same time, that fact does not guarantee any absolute existence.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry for totally rambling.

p.s. I commented on Jabberwocky

I Am Me

I had two concepts that really jumped out at me during our discussion. The first was about my existence. I know I exist. I find it hard to question my existence. I know that I am a living, breathing human being. I have four parents, three siblings, tons of friends, and all of my amazing pets. I am nineteen. I live in Alabama. I exist! I cannot picture myself not being who I am because I have had nineteen years to understand who I am. I am me. It is impossible to picture if I had not existed because I know that I am still here. There is no point in trying to picture a life that never existed when I know that I do exist.
The second thing I dwelled upon was the idea of defining myself through my actions. When I was younger, I did not care how I acted at all. I got into a lot of fights and said a lot of mean things.. It did not really hit me that my actions were saying that I was an overly aggressive person to people until this young boy said that he remembered seeing me yell one time and he was terrified of me. I did a turn around and started trying to mentor the younger children of my community. They started seeing me in a completely different light. I learned that sometimes our actions tend to define us even if that is not who we truly are. I was not a very aggressive person but my temper said otherwise. The actions of the other person swinging first were not seen. Instead my actions of punching the girl in the face were seen. We really need to come to an understanding that our actions can paint a completely different picture of ourselves.

P.S. I commented on Joy's post.

Back into the Maelstrom

I feel like Heidegger has flung us into a maelstrom of confusion. Who are we and how are we here and how do we know we are here? All of these seem like questions that are swirling around in the circle of the vortex…doing nothing but destroying things (like sanity). The only conclusion I have drawn is by comparing Heidegger to Descartes (which may be a major breach of philosophical ethics, but hey- this is postmodernism- what are rules?). It seems like Heidegger is saying that your existence comes from genetics and your being/personality comes from social construction. Therefore, to find the authentic self you have to break down the social construction in which you are immersed. The preconceived notions of reality and labels given by culture have to be stripped away. Then, from the foundation of Being, from the edge of the abyss of nothingness, you can begin to rebuild on the true nature of who you know yourself to be. In this way, the authentic self is realized. The only way the self can be realized is through the parameters of language, because that is the only way we have of measuring reality. So, those are my thoughts, and I’m aware that I still sound a bit confused. Oh! I think I just saw the wicked witch of the west fly by on her broomstick! We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto! (random comment, please excuse me- we are in a maelstrom/tornado)
P.S. Joy This Defines vs That Defines

Dunkelheit

"This is why the poet in the time of the world's night utters the holy. This is why, in Hölderlin's language, the world's night is the holy night."

Heidegger here is stating the need for a poet in the times of destitution. They break away from the objective molds of human logic and trace spiritual matters in their true form. The poet, then, flourishes from the decay and loss of the world.

This is a definite possibility. The idea of divinity found when at the darkest of times is found in poems, as he mentions, but also in songs of worship. "O Holy Night" gives the line "Long lay the world in sin and error pinning." As the song progresses, Christ comes back and redeems. In Scripture, too, Romans 5:20 speaks of grace abounding even more when sin increases.

The poet serves as a beacon of hope by becoming an intercession for the people when they've become numbed by the growing cake of mundaneness they have built from hyper-analyzation.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Autumn's Jabberwocky

First Exposure

Last Thursday was my first exposure to Martin Heidegger. I had heard of Aristotle, Sartre and Nietzsche- all of whom worked in the realm of metaphysics- but not Heidegger. Generally, I like to know something of the people I read, so I did some digging around for biographical facts concerning the philosopher.

In 1889, Martin was born in Messkirch, Germany. His interest in philosophy was fostered in his youth, while he was preparing for the Catholic priesthood. In 1919, he parted with Catholicism and began lecturing on phenomenology at the University of Freiburg, where he met and married one of his students, Thea Elfride Petri.

Heidegger was elected rector of the university in 1933, and in the same year, he joined Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ (or "Nazi") Party. It was during World War II that he gave the lectures found in his Introduction to Metaphysics, which included "The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics."

After the war, he was barred from teaching in Germany, due to his association with the Nazis. For the rest of his life, he wrote books on the essence of being and criticized modern philosophy for losing sight of of the fundamental question: "Why are there essents rather than nothings?" He died in May 1976 and was buried in his hometown.

Hopefully, I have given the bloggers some biographical perspective that allows them to see the work and philosophy of Heidegger in another view, other than our 21^st century one, which often ignores historical context, and our evangelical Christian one, which often fails to wrestle with philosophers on their own terms.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Source(s) Used:  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship.

Commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's "Baffled."

Alternate Heidegger

Heidegger talks about the Authentic Self, which he believes is unique to every person. In class, Abernathy tried to explain how that worked. She used the example of having never been born, but someone else was born in our place that was like us in every way, but not us at the same time. The first thought that popped into my head was, Alternate Universe.

A lot of television shows I enjoy incorporate alternate universes into their storylines. Doctor Who is a prime example of this. In one episode the Doctor and his companions end up falling into an alternate universe where they find people they know, but they aren’t exactly the same. It seems that alternate universes, while maybe not exactly what Heidegger was talking about, fit into the schema he was trying to present.

I could be wrong about all of this, I’ve been stuck in bed all day with a bad back and I feel like I’m going a little crazy. But at the same time, I think I might be on to something.

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. – I commented on Jamie’s post, Baffled

Jabberwocky

So I’ve been reading my Heidegger stuff and working on my paper when I was suddenly like, “Oh my goodness this doesn’t make a lick of sense!” (Okay, maybe not suddenly, but you get the idea.) I felt like the Tootsie Pop boy I drew in my cartoon. I couldn’t figure out much of what Heidegger was saying and was frustrated, but then I had a thought. What if that was how Herr Heidegger wanted his listeners to respond? I don’t mean he wanted us to get upset and have our brains overload, but he simply sough to make us think. Heidegger is standing in a room full of students, or colleagues, or whatever and he tosses an infinite question “Why are there essents rather than nothing” in the midst of them. The effect was probably the same as it was in our class-- it got our minds turning. Heidegger twists and turns and gets us all tangled up trying to discover meaning in his philosophy and whatnot, but really he has fulfilled the very definition he gave to philosophy. It is not in the nature of philosophy to give answers which would simplify and therefore lose the meaning. It is the nature of philosophy to question and make things much more difficult. Mission accomplished Herr Heidegger.


P.S.: i commented on Mallory Searcy's post

Sitting by Dr. Talmage has made Heidegger bearable. At least in class. Wading in the reading is another thing.

The thing that bothers me about this stuff is that my brain wants to categorize it as religion. I know he says he's trying to steer away from religion, but it's almost as if he's really trying to go above religion. At least in my opinion, you can't go above religion- you just find more religion.

To speak of our "being" is not a new thing to speak of- he's right that the poets know about it. But is it also possible that everyone knows about it. It is in fact, the thing everyone can grasp rather than the parts. After all, I will never be smart enough to understand the Essent of iphone- not all of its wires and lights and metal. but i do understand its being. In fact, I am apart of the process that gives it being. I can't tell you what an iphone IS but I can tell you why it is. I can tell you its purpose and it's not possible for me to think of all its fine machinery and text someone at the same time.

And though I think Heidegger is right in that he understands this idea of purpose, I think he corners himself when he attempts to do this without religion. Existentialism, as far as I am understanding it, seems to be the most depressing system of beliefs I know. It seems that once you have outlined Being, will, purpose and even a "turning" back to the light, if you ignore religion you are left to yourself to find out how and what this means. That is where I see Heidegger stop, right before the every day man would turn to God. He sees a complicated and wonderful humanity and insists than neither Science nor God will give him a "why".

Maybe I don't understand this stuff at all. If someone else does, please explain it?

I commented on Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

The thought that we have a paper on Mr. H almost makes me cry... the fact that it's only like two pages makes it a little better. Okay... first of all- Dr. M posed the question: "Why do we need to know this stuff?" Also, H's question of "Why are there essence instead of nothing?" is a hard one for me because it seems rather post modern and Rachel know's what I think about post modernism... As Dr. Olsen would say "Maybe we can't understand it because there is nothing to understand.'

I am in no way saying that this is meaningless information. This is a step towards truth. It is good stuff... (I think) I just don't know that any of us are getting it though. Further more, when one comes to a conclusion we tend to answer with "Maybe... or... that's a good way to put it..." but so far... we are continuing to voice our opinions and be a confused mess when in reality the only way to sort everything out is to state what we know. What bits of truth have we gleaned from this reading? The hammer and nail analogy was a good one. I am not sure I can give the explanation justice as Dr. Abernathy, but in essence it is that we are not aware of every detail of an action or an object. We see a chair, not shaped wood covered in fabric.

What other truths do we know from the reading? Post them as comments so that we can help each other get organized, know why, and... hopefully write a coherent paper!

Commented on Joy's

Baffled

Honestly, I'm almost clueless when it comes to Heidegger. I just don't get it. And then, after the discussion in class yesterday, I'm even more confused. So, who are we, really? Are we who we are because it is instilled in us from the moment we come into existence, or are we only what our society makes us? If I had been born in Africa, and raised in an orphanage, personality wise, would I be anything like the person I am today? Be it right or wrong, the only conclusion I can make goes back to God. He created me. Everything about me, including my personality. Not only that, he placed me in the exact environment he wanted me in. Having me born in Africa wasn't part of His plan.

P.S. Commented on Joy's "This Defines vs. That Defines"

Things that stuck out to Me

I want to go back to the discussion about "Thrown/Flung" into a particular space. In class on tuesday we talked about the existence of a twin if the other twin was never born. For example, Joy and her sister Judy. Would Judy's existence be known by someone if they did not know Judy had existence. I called this the "Joy-Judy Twin Scenario." If I was not born to my parents but my sister was would my existence even be missed? This goes hand in hand with "Dais Sein"-- Being There. I would say no because if i was never there than how can I be missed? I was never THERE so that is not possible.
    Another thing that caught my attention in reading Heideger (dont know if i spelled that right) was the idea that who you are defines what you do. Or is it what you do defines who you are? At first I found this concept to be confusing. If what i do defines who I am then is that not the same as who you are defines what you do? I thought about this for awhile and began to gain understanding. Just as Joy wrote in her blog, If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then your actions will portray that. Would it not? The same is true for a person who one saw going for a run. They would assume that person who was running is a runner. So, yes, i agree that this is true.

p.s i commented on Joy's post

WHYdegger (see what I did there?)

"We fall in line, we live the lie. (Give up, give up, and feed the machine.
It grows inside, nowhere to hide. (Wake up, wake up, and kill the machine."
-Red, Feed the Machine

For one thing, in my honest opinion, metaphysics is really interesting and exciting to study, particularly when it comes to Martin Heidegger. The question of why there are essents rather than nothing may seem like a ridiculous question at first, but the more and more you look into it, the deeper it becomes. Soon, you're dealing with Platonism, Existentialism, and all different sort of ideas. By the end of the first chapter, you're dropped on the front lines of a war between machinerey and the sukis that you didn't even know existed. Yes, it is extremely confusing, but I believe that, for those who are willing and keep an open mind (dangerous as that may be) will find some very worthy material. What's funny is that, at the end of class yesterday, I believe it was Dr. Talmage who posed the question: "Why are we studying this? Why should we care about metaphysics at all? How can this stuff really apply to our lives?" Thankfully, that is the perfect question to ask.

It is extremely important that essays like the ones we have read are studied because, well, look what happens when they aren't! Look at the members of this world that don't care about poetry, that don't care about the deeper questions in life, that will never leave the front door of their own mind. They go through life pursuing the next big thing, chasing dreams and money and whatever comes to mind, and only look at the here and now of this life as to how it benefits them directly at that time. You know who these people are, and you know that we as a society and a culture are largely disinterested with anything that does not involve personal success, world peace, or simplicity. That's why things like poetry, philosophy, and the humanities in general have fallen by the wayside, and look at the kind of people this culture creates as a result. For anyone who remembers Nietzsche's predictions about the Last Man, who no longer cares about asking questions and finding meaning in life, who would simply crash his life on the rocks because it's how he feels at the time, look him in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

This is exactly what Heidegger warned about in the end of this chapter-the machine men. He sees industrialization not just in the physical world but in the metaphysical world, i.e. mankind as a whole. In our search for individuality and freedom we are in fact enslaving ourselves to trends, science, intelligence, and anything other that which truly frees us-the question of what it means to be. Despite the fact that Heidegger says to keep religion out metaphysics, no theologian can deny that a life simply lived looking at his shoes and hands without asking questions in a life that is dead. One must be alive in the Spirit, which one must be aware that there is more to life than just the day and awake to the fact this life in which we live will enslave us if we let it, and we as Christians cannot allow ourselves to let that happen. We can no longer accept apathy nor can we keep looking towards statistics and science as what defines us as people nor can we let ourselves be defined by Descartes. "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" Why do we care rather than not?

If you actually made it through all of that, you have my humble thanks. Feel free to comment as you please with questions or corrections. I commented on Joy Vigneulle's This Defines VS That Defines.

This Defines VS That Defines

“Who you are defines what you do” and “what you do defines who you are”… These two points were both presented in honors class today and I have thought about them off and on throughout the day… I believe who we are ought to define what we do. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then you ought to live your life differently then someone who does not follow Jesus Christ. If you are a white collar worker here in the states you will work different, talk different, and live different than a poor peasant in Haiti. It is who you are that dictates how you act and respond to things. However, what you do can also define you. Like Rachel was saying if you ride a bike then people will consider you to be a bike rider. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then people will call you a Christian. If you like reading you are considered a book worm. We have all heard the saying actions speak louder than words. So saying you’re a believer is great, but if you do not live your life as a follower of Jesus Christ things will not line up, in which case what you do will define you more than who you say you are because the two are not lining up (in other words you are a hypocrite). So let what you do line up with who you say you are.

PS - Jamie

PS -

Our very own waste land.

One thing that I can relate to in this reading is how life can become redundant and fall into an almost unbreakable routine. We are told that routine is good, order is good and so is structure. I think some people waste their life's potential settling for less because of a fear that there isn't anything better. Another part that was interesting to me was in section three when it was describing nature and how it was clean because people hadn't littered it with trash. In our group we discussed how beauty came out of a bad thing. We also posed the question is nature better off with out us?

Philomela: Princess of Athens

Sorry this is gonna be a few minutes late. This was almost the second week in a row i completely forgot to blog so please dont think i'm just neglecting it.

In section two of The Waste Land, Eliot mentions "the change of Philomel." Having never heard of Philomel, I looked it up, and it turns out that Philomela was raped by Tereus on a voyage to Thrace. I found this an interesting parallel to the woman portrayed later in the section. The woman has already had five children and is still being coerced by her husband to have more. Because of this, she is forced to take abortion pills in an attempt to stop her current pregnancy.

Now, what the implications of this are for the poem as a whole, i have absolutely no idea. But for the sake of the blog, I will venture to make a guess. The only logical conclusion I can come up with about this parallel is that is part of a social commentary on the times in which this poem was written. This was very much a time period where woman were still expected to be submissive and obedient to men as a whole, so for Eliot to draw this parallel in particular, i believe that he is disagreeing with that treatment. Philomela was indeed the princess of athens, so it would then be fair to assert that he would view this woman in the same way; as a princess who was altogether wronged.

p.s. - I commented on jamie's

The mind is the first to go

First I want to say that the most memorable thing from class Tuesday (no matter how sad this may be) is a quote by Dr. Mitchell
        "BIG MOTIONS! If you want to get that big job at Disney, you've got to get big motions!"

     My group discussed the fifth portion of this work. At this point, so many different things have happened. The subject has gone through so much and you can see it taking a tole on them. At the end he begins to use different language and seems to be almost rambling. He also makes reference to London Bridge making this reader remember the nursery rhyme from childhood.

     When a person is mentally ill and they are losing their mind, they tend to revert to a childlike mentality. They literally have the mind of a child. To me, his use of this in the end of the text shows a decline mentally or physically of the subject. Whether this is interpretation or just application, I think a parallel could be drawn for humanity. Before it gets to the end, you can see a decline in the subject. The gibberish is last showing a kind of end point. I think that our culture and society are the same way. You can see obvious declines. There is a lack of deeper thinking now and that is just one area of decline. Soon we could be getting back to a state like the subject of this writing.

I commented of Nick's post

Death at Water?

I didn't make class on Tuesday so I'm still as confused on The Wasteland as I was before. I was in class though when we divided up and talked about each of the sections.

My group talked Section 4, which was Death by Water. Which describes a man that had died on the water. The way that I understood it was that the man died while he was on the ocean during a storm. The section goes on to describe his body rising and falling on the waves. He has forgotten the sound of the gull's cry and the swell of the sea.

The poem continues to tell that death is no respecter of persons. The person can be a Gentile or Jew but it doesn't matter when it comes to death because the grim reaper doesn't respect any man.

P.S. I commented on Kaylie's Post

Death by Water

    When I first read through, "Fear Death by Water", from the "Wasteland", I was like... Ok cool so we are talking about a dead sailor who drowned. Nothing more uplifting right? But then again the Wasteland is hardly uplifting at all. As I read the section of the poem my second thought, is this is warning? But what is it warning us from? Simply to be cautious on the water, or something deeper?

    One of my thoughts were maybe it was a warning to the young and brave who are ready for adventure, that adventure does costs something, and eventually your life. Also do not be consumed chasing after profits, because the dead do not remember, the dead do not see or hear. Make the most of your life. 

    

    As I considered these thoughts, Abernathy said something. This is the most epic piece of the poem, there is action, adventure, pulse. This young Phoenician sailor died doing something he loved, he knew the risks of the sea. So was this really a warning or an encouragement? Not to die I mean, but neither to settle for dull land-lover-like life. I mean I would want to go out doing something I loved, in the middle of action. I'd much rather die in the middle of the sea rather then die at my desk doing paperwork. I rather die in the moving cool water, than the endless scorching desert. So should we fear death by water or death by paperwork? 

Flowers on a Grave

"... I was neither
Living nor dead, and I knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the silence.
Od' und leer das meer." (Waste and empty is the sea)

How do spell "AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!" You can ask Amanda, I just let out a cry of stress!
I'm in a place right now where I literally feel neither alive or dead and that everything I once knew no longer holds any truth. Would you call this place a waste land? Sounds good! It's like looking into an abyss, then looking back at God and asking, "Are you sure about this...?!" Yet trusting Him to guide your steps even when you can't see two steps in front of your feet. When you feel to numb to feel alive, but keep walking anyway, He gently directs you along the path He has laid out for your life. Look towards the heart of His light, and in the silence you will hear His soft, still voice. 

"That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?" 

The entire poem has recurring themes of life versus death and drowning versus drought, but also life that emerges from death. How does life feed off of something devoid of life? Like flowers blooming on top of a grave, does Eliot intend to say that even in death there is always hope,  and that in order for new life to begin a part of you has to die?

Commented on Joy's "Baptism"

Mama-Bear Syndrome

"What is that sound high in the air  Murmur of maternal lamentation 
Who are those hooded hordes swarming 
Over endless plains, stumbling in cracked earth 
Ringed by the flat horizon only
What is the city over the mountains 
Cracks and reforms and bursts in the violet air 
Falling towers 
Jerusalem
Athens
Alexandria 
Vienna
London
Unreal" -Lines 365-375 The Wasteland

While we were in our groups on Tuesday, Rachel mentioned the line about "maternal lamentation" which got cogs moving in my clockwork brain. Since I'm not a woman, and therefore will not be a mother, I can't exactly tell you firsthand what maternal lamentation looks/feels/sounds like. However, I decided that since I couldn't experience it firsthand,  I would look to all of the places that I know it can be found.

The first would be Andromache in "The Iliad" who is lamenting the death of Hector. Now, I know what you're thinking: "Ben, she's lamenting her husband, not her child!" That statement is mostly correct, except that she is lamenting about the life that her child will have to live without a father. Next in line is Clytemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon. She laments her innocent daughter, Iphegenia, who Agamemnon sacrifices to please Artemis. His thought processes behind the sacrifice still baffle me, as the whole reason Artemis was pissed at Agamemnon was due to all of the innocents who would die by his hands if he were to go to Troy. So, logically the best way to appease her would to be to kill your innocent daughter. Anyway, I digress. Not only did Clytemnestra lament her daughter, it eventually led her to killing her husband. I could also talk about Thetis, Achilles' mother, in the Iliad, but I feel like that whole plot line is a bit "fishy". I could also draw several Biblical parallels, but I figure you guys get the point.

As we learned above, maternal lamentation is a terrible thing to witness or experience. Mothers are the most loving, protective, strong, and nurturing beings on the Earth. So, naturally when their emotions start flowing, everyone should watch out. You might just end up dead.

However, as it is just a "murmur" of maternal lamentation, it implies that the mother is off in the distance somewhere, so you're probably safe.

For now.

So, what did we learn today? Nothing? The wasteland makes as much sense as Heidegger? Don't mess with mama? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll hopefully be able to actually make sense of something that we were assigned to read.

P.S. I commented on Callie's "Fallen to a Wasteland"

Heidegger on Knowledge

Just as Descartes stretched my mind, Heidegger is now doing the same. With Descartes it was about doubt, with Heidegger it is about being. Along with his discussion on being, Heidegger also touched on his philosophy of knowledge. I found his breakdown of knowledge interesting. On pages twenty-one and twenty-two Heidegger says that those who are knowledgeable are those who have the ability to learn. Ability to learn is shown by a person’s knowledge of their need to learn. This reminds me of Socrates, indeed Heidegger is a philosopher, and there is no doubting. Next Heidegger says the ability to learn implies that one has the ability to inquire. The image of inquiry brings visions of Honors in my head. Finally on page twenty-two Heidegger continues, “Inquiry is…the resolve to be able to stand in the openness of the essent.” Knowledge is not to “possess information” but to be able to struggle through inquiry. Isn’t that the point of honors? Honors seek to instill in us a desire to be learning and inquiring for the rest of our lives? Heidegger, I wager would agree with our program in this aspect. That is what Honors is about, and it was cool to notice that in our very own reading assignment.

P.S. I commented on Callie's post.

Fallen to a Wasteland

I found myself really enjoying the wasteland. While at first it seems hard to understand the poem, with its weird onomatopoeias, shifts in subject matter, and lines in other languages. However, this "nonsense" allows for the true beauty of the poetry to shine. One may not be able to follow a logical plot within the wasteland, at least not at first, but one will instantly understand the feeling of the poem. Like Plato constructs a city with words, the poet creates emotions with diction and form. A poem like Wasteland, or Jabberwocky, take the focus off of the literal meaning of the poem and forces the reader instead to focus on the image which it is presenting.

Through its "nonsense" the wasteland presents an incredible picture of brokenness and the lack of humanity in society. There is the woman with no care or desire, a great amount of death referenced through the entire work, and a grossness associated with all humanity (the scene of trash on the bank; dinner in tins; animal behavior). This poem is man in his fallen condition. Now we are left to find a solution.

I commented on Kaylie's "Wasteland 0.0"

DADA

Today in Art Appreciation, our class began to discuss an art movement called Dada. Immediately, I thought back to the last section of The Waste Land where we had a discussion about Eliot using the term.

According to my Artforms book, "Dada began in protest against the horrors of World War I..." This movement protested the war was to get away from "traditional, narrow-minded values" that, as Dadaists believed, started the war.

I began to connect this art form, or lack of it, to the to craziness that we all seemed to notice in The Waste Land. Obvious connections are the war and the madness that became of the poem in certain areas. Maybe Eliot's wanted to transfer the ideals of this relatively new artistic movement to his word art. This seems to be the case to me.

P.S. I posted on Cameron White's.

Scopes Too Narrow

I had to laugh at myself a little while reading through this hefty bit of philosophical musings. Heidegger brought up the word “resolve” and it brought my back to my final post of last semester. For the majority of my time in honors, I have ferociously abused the word “resolve” as some sort of synonym for peace of mind over these philosophical dilemmas we are ever confronted with in the classroom. Now, Webster may still agree with my former view on it, but I am taking to heart what ol’ Heidegger has to say on the matter.

“For this reason the misuse of language in idle talk…destroys our authentic relation of things.” Interestingly enough and as Facebook will testify, last night I joked with Amanda over my own choice of words in a text message to a friend: “I seriously won’t be offended.” I could have worded that in a couple of different ways, and it would have conveyed a different meaning to the person receiving the message. I appreciate what Heidegger has to say about being choosy with our words. I discovered this little problem when I went through Mashburn-osophy 101. Mashburn asked a question one day, to which none of us had a solid answer. This hurt me to watch, and it led me to question a lot in the wrong direction—much like Heidegger’s problem with questioning “rather than nothing”. I called several people I trusted to help me out with my questions. One person actually laughed and told me there was a problem with the way the question was asked because it only provided for the two possible answers Mashburn suggested to us. Once I was able to ask the question for myself in an appropriate manner, it led me to other questions rather than answers. In my opinion (if I may be so bold), the way a philosopher may pose a question may be just as deceitful as a poet that provides his own footnotes. Thank you, Dr. Schuler for pointing this out: “Because poets lie! It’s what they do!” Shall we keep them in the Republic or treat them as Orwell’s proles? I digress…

That established, I return to this fickle double-meaning of “resolve”. Heidegger states, “He who wills, he who puts his whole existence into a will, is resolved. Resolve does not shift about…but it acts out of the moment and never stops.” He then calls it the “crucial beginning of action”. How wrong I have been about resolve! It seems I do have resolve after all! Well, on most days…sometimes I am apathetic about it. What Heidegger seems to be suggesting is that resolve is willing to know, willing to question, and acknowledging that knowledge incorporates learning without hope of stopping. Resolve is this endless thirst for truth we find ourselves in, of seeking to win from the darkness of unknowing.

I shall end my ranting with my favorite lines from the passage: “Ability to learn presupposes ability to inquire. Inquiry is the willing-to-know analyzed above: the resolve to be able to stand in the openness of the essent.” [emphasis mine]

COMMENTED ON DANIELLE’S

a wasteland indeed

The river’s tent is broken: the last fingers of leaf
Clutch and sink into the wet bank. The wind
Crosses the brown land, unheard. The nymphs are departed.
Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my song.
The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed.
And their friends, the loitering heirs of city directors;
Departed, have left no addresses.
By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept,
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song,
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
But at my back in a cold blast I hear
The rattle of the bones, and chuckle spread from ear to ear.

These several lines from part III The Fire Sermon scream death. It speaks of what once was life.Nature, civilization, and everything bearing life has gone down the chute. The nymphs are departed. there is no longer any song; not even the wind can be heard over the brown land. No leaf for the wind to rustle, no grass for the nymph to lie it's bosom? Indeed a Wasteland, a Wasteland Indeed.

posted on ms. hillbun's blog

The Waste Land and Tornados

My group did Section 1 of The Waste Land. The section starts off with saying that "April is the cruellest month..." I immediately thought of my experience with the April 27 tornados. April has always been a month known for severe storms in the Birmingham area, but last year really proved the point. I remember driving to school and the sky was the scariest shade of green that I had ever seen. Only a few kids were at school and the teachers were running around in a frenzy. We had already had a tornado come through and destroy some of the areas in Warrior the night before. We returned home just in time before the storms hit. It was terrible. We could only watch in horror while the news showed the tornado rip through Tuscaloosa and head towards Birmingham. The storms eventually passed. My childhood day care was completely destroyed and I lost 2 people in Tuscaloosa. April 27th will be a day I never forget. April will be a month that I will always label with destruction. This reading really brought back all of the memories and I thought about how April brings destruction, but May brings hope and sunlight. "April showers bring May flowers." May is like the light at the end of the tunnel. Out of the darkness, comes light and hope. I believe that Eliot was trying to emphasize how April allows for flowers to grow and winter to leave. Spring is coming and it will be warm and beautiful again.

P.S. Commented on Brittany's post, "Adventure Time."

Mortality and the Wasteland

During the class discussions, my group focused on section four of the wasteland. To me, this section says a lot about mortality. The the sailor died at sea, his life flashing before his eyes. It didn’t matter how well he knew the sea. It didn’t matter how tall, strong, or handsome he was. At this point, he is dead. This made me think about how, in life, we tend to spend so much of our time worrying about things that are ultimately insignificant, when, in the end, very little of it will matter after our death.

No one will really care about the type of house you lived in or the kind of car you drove. Chances are, no one will remember all of the things you said, and a lot of what you did won’t matter. However, if you change one person’s life for the better, that one person will remember you. And maybe that one person will impact someone else, who will help someone else, and so on.

-Jamie

Commented on Joy's "Baptism."

Heide-what?

"Why are there essents rather than nothing?"

This question does not seem like one that I can ask. I am completely frustrated by it. I follow his argument thus far (I'm only on page 31 right now), but I'm faced with a sense of apathy towards it. As he said, any answer that we could come up with is inconsequential to the actual existence of things. No answer could change anything. Perhaps it is because I do not have this sort of will to know as he defines it. In philosophy we always talked about questioning things and how questions without answers can leave us better off. Speaking honestly, I don't really know how asking this question could leave us better off. Perhaps that's what is so scary about this age to me sometimes--that a person could get to the point where they honestly, willfully ask this question. What does it say about they world that surrounds them?

commented on Mallory's

Acceptance: Wasteland Style v. God's Style

So my group got to discuss section two of The Wasteland. And we found some interesting images in it, too many to fit on the board since everyone insisted that they had to read it. One thing I found interesting was the story interwoven with HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME. I’m not quite sure what happened to the husband, but the wife and a friend are discussing his return and what will happen if the wife doesn’t change her appearance. It was very odd to me. I wasn’t quite sure what to think, especially when the friend started saying that the husband could find any number of prettier women if the wife didn’t change.

This led me to think about God’s acceptance of us. He doesn’t care what we look like on the outside, He still loved us enough to send His Son to die for. I think that’s pretty great. God never asked us to get new teeth, like Albert did with Lil. He welcomes us no matter what we look like on the outside, whether we’re tall or short, black or white. I don’t think that this is what Elliot was trying to say, it’s just a thought that popped into my head.

Now, back to reading Heidegger, which is making no sense whatsoever! Until next time,

Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit

Meghan Johnston

P.S. I commented on Will's "Lack of Structure"

P.P.S. I just wanted to make you all aware that I might be recording a few classes over the next few months to send to Lucy Beth.

The Wasteland: The Extremes of Halla

*Spoiler Alert* (First off, I'm sorry for those who have never read the Pendragon series because some of this will sound like it’s totally off in left field to you)
I absolutely love it when some I’m reading for school ties in with something I’m reading for fun. Yesterday we were talking about how Eliot’s “The Wasteland” depicts a loss of structure and how each section seems to solve a problem in the section before by turning to the extreme opposite of what causes the issues. Unfortunately, what fixes the problem in the previous section brings doom in the next. I believe someone threw out the phrase, “Turning to the east when the west doesn‘t work.” That discussion made me think of the book (really the entire series) that I’m reading right now, the Pendragon series. As with “The Wasteland”, in the Pendragon series we see that there are both good and bad results from turning to extremes for solving a problem.
The case of the territory Veelox, it was a territory overwhelmed by technology. The world was dying because people refused to tear themselves away from the technology. Once it was clear there was no help for the territory, a group of phaders and vedders decided the only course of action was to start a new society reliant on absolutely no technology at all. For the world of Veelox, extremes worked well. The phaders and vedders for a colony on the island of Ibara and while the rest of their world crumbled and died, Ibara remained a peacefully simple island paradise.
On the other hand, extremes also prove to be a bad thing. The bad guy of the series, Saint Dane, has this grand solution for all mankind. He plans to rid the universe of all those beings who are complacent and people who are not exceptionally excellent - in other words, drains and normal people - by rewarding only those people he deems “worthy” of surviving. His plan of totally wiping out the people he calls the source of the universe’s problems ultimately brings the destruction of each world. The future of our territory, Third Earth is completely in shambles along with every other territory in Halla. Of course, the destruction of Halla was Saint Danes ulterior motive from the get-go, but that’s not the point. Like the use of water to solve a drought in “The Wasteland” only for the water to then cause death by drowning, Saint Dane’s plan ironically turns the territories into wastelands of their own.

P.S.: for those of u who haven't read Pendragon, i REALLY recommend that you read it.
P.P.S.: I commented on "Lack of Structure"

The Whole World In His Hands

"All significant truths are private truths. As they become public they cease to become truths; they become facts, or at best, part of the public character; or at worst, catchwords."
-T.S. Eliot

As much as I would love to write a post about Heidegger (and believe me, I do) I'll save some of that juicy metaphysical awesomeness for class tomorrow and the upcoming paper. For now, though, let's talk about T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land, which I'm sure NO ONE has talked about. Looking at the five stanzas of the poem, there is clearly A LOT to talk about. A scholar could probably spend an entire week digging into The Waste Land and still have things to find. There are contradictions, predictions, double meanings, hope, despair, truth, lies, the elements, and even God Himself in a strange sort of way can be derived from this one poem. I could try to focus in on one particular aspect of this poem like we've done in class so far, but to do so at this point would be superfluous. To try to place my focus on one particular aspect of the poem while there is so much else to discuss would not do the poem justice.

Since my choice to pursue the path of literature as the primary focus of my education and career, I have taken up the ancient art of poetry. I have tried to make it good, I have tried to make it my own, and I have tried to make it truthful, but if poetry is an art that can be perfected I am certainly very far from it. A typical techinque of poets is to focus on one particular aspect of life and show it for what it is through language, which even Heidegger agrees is perhaps the most incredible power in the world. Eliot, however, I'm sure, is the poetic master, because he doesn't just focus on one particular thing in his poetry-he creates an entire world. I have never in my life read a non-epic poem that is as all-emcompassing as this one, one from which can be derived so much, one that is so confusing and unclear that only the most valuable of truths can be derived from it.

Yes, it is incredibly disorienting, but so is the world we live in. It cannot be understood in a simple read-through and analysis because it is a microcosm of the modern world. All its darkness, all its anguish, all its hidden beauty-all in one poem, the wasteland. It may seem like a wasteland as far as poetry is concerned, but there is so much to be found that suddenly, lines like "fear in a handful of dirt" and the imagery of flowers rising from corpses suddenly takes on a whole new meaning. Suddenly, as with all great poetry, what once seemed too incomprehensible and cunning to be understood is life defining. Suddenly, as with all great realizations, our life, which once seemed to dizzying and distressing to be enjoyed becomes something more than just a wasteland but a garden that can be cultivated, a collection of horrors that can be overcome to find beauty, and suddenly the salvation that Jesus died to establish becomes full and complete.

Well, thanks for reading through all of that, I hope you realize I'm not just laying on hyperbole but am sincere in what I'm saying. Please feel free to comment or respond as you please. I commented on Amanda Gaster's Hiking Through "The Waste Land" With Heidegger.

Hiking through "The Waste Land" with Heidegger

“Truth is the manifestness of the essent. To know is accordingly the ability to stand in the manifestness of the essent to endure it.”
While delving into the mystery of Heidegger I came across this sentence, and it intrigued me. It was like finding a pretty flower unexpectedly while hiking through the forest (because it made sense to my head). I think it relates to “The Waste Land” because the people in the poem are slowly dying. They suffer from boredom, sameness, and the mundane. This causes them to stop living passionately and simply exist in the regular, everyday routine. I think part of this descent into boredom and mediocrity was a result of them ceasing to search for truth. Truth gives the strength to stand. Truth gives the will to stand. Searching for truth shows life, and having a quest reveals an inner longing to go beyond the simple and mundane and an aspiration to reach for something more.
“Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist…” Ephesians 6:14
There is a reason why this part of spiritual armor is listed first. If you know the truth then you know how to stand and how to endure. You know this because you know whom your faith is in, and that your faith is in something. Therefore, truth manifests itself through the ‘essent’ or existence of God.
P.S. commented on Will’s “Lack of Structure”

Before we got to class the only thing that stuck out to me about Wasteland was how unique and weird the whole poem was. Not often do you run into multiple different languages scattered throughout a poem, and it seemed as though Elliot had done this only to make things more difficult on the reader. What Mitchell discussed intrigued me though, that the only way the writers of the Modern era could get through to their readers was to distort the language so much that we would be forced to slow down and look for some kind of meaning in the chaos. This thought sparked a long mental tangent in class that ranged from considering deeper meanings for "Fear death by water." to trying to follow the poem as multiple different happenings recorded together to create a connection between them. I found that where I could not find more meaning in a line I could at least find a different meaning that often made less sense but could lead me in a new direction that perhaps was the only meaning the author had truly intended for the reader.

P.S. commented on Adventure Time

Lost in the Wasteland

We actually did a few weeks on the Wasteland in my high school AP English class. Even so, talking about it in class we touched on so many different things...and still none of them were what we discussed in High School. Which is interesting, its always fun to learn new stuff, but frustrating nonetheless.

The only way to sum up what we discussed in High school was that we focused more on the time factor in the poem? that still doesn't sound right but I'l just go with it. It seems that the wasteland is kind of a place where time and everything in it is stuck; where one is caught in the middle and cant move forward or back (which seems rather preferable when you think about what Eliot is saying concerning the present). Every character, I guess you can call them, is trying to pull something from the past, which is why everything seems like broken snippets of memory, and piece them together to try and remember/recreate something that is better than what they are in: a decaying but unmoving wasteland, where "heaps of broken images" are all that is left of the better days. We also talked about how history and tradition played an important part in the poem in showing how the the present, modern is failing and to highlight the past. For back then, a sailor wanted to die at sea like a hero wished to die at war. There was this beauty and heroism in destructiveness, in going out and doing something, anything. The wasteland is a place where people have forgotten how to do that. A place with no obstacles and nothing to overcome, where time is washed over and everything is stuck in a fog with nothing but their memories...where one is "neither living or dead, and knew nothing, looking into the heart of...the silence", where one "can connect nothing with nothing." Structure is also a big part in this. Structure gives one something to hold on to, whether it be the past or an actual object, or the human body itself. All of these seem to be slipping away in the poem. The last thing I remember my teacher saying about this poem in high school is asking us a question which took us in a different direction than what we had learned...she asked us something like: If everything wasn't so fixed, if Achilles never fought and died and the sailor never went to sea, would we be in a wasteland then too, and if so would it be the same as Eliot's or different?
Well there it is. I tried to combine what I learned in High school with some of the stuff that we touched upon and I actually understood in class. It probably doesn't make any sense.

Commented on Ben's Jesus and the Doctor

Waste Land O.O

I wasn’t in class Tuesday, and I wish I had been able to make it because I have been thoroughly confused about The Waste Land. It has me quite jumbled up in my brain. However, I’ll try and write as much on it as possible on what I felt I sort of understood.
“The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed
And their friends, the loitering heirs of city directors;
Departed…”
I think that this whole thing is sort of talking about urban life decaying, or ceasing to exist all together. All of the things listed are sort of modern things that if there was any sort of city life would be in existence. Then he says that city directors are departed I think that just reestablishes that it’s supposed to represent this lack of city life. I’m not positive the significance of this but I so think that’s what it’s referencing in this section.

P.S commented on Brittany Hilburn’s Adventure post.

Chess Queens

The second movement of T.S. Eliot's "Waste Land" is called "A Game of Chess," in which he compares and contrasts two women. The first half of Eliot's "Waste Land" paints a picture of a lonely woman living in richness and refinement:

The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne,
Glowed on the marble, where the glass
Held up by standards wrought with fruited vines
From which a golden Cupidon peeped out

It continues on, stealing lines from Shakespeare and describing the woman's sad existence in spite of her many luxuries. Her husband is absent, though it is unclear where he has gone.

That she is "waiting for a knock upon the door" suggests that her husband is a soldier fighting somewhere. Every time she hears a noise, she worries, though it's just "the wind under the door," and she exclaims "Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?" She is a prisoner in her mind. The second half portrays the plight of a common woman:

He said, I swear, I can't bear to look at you.
And no more can't I, I said, and think of poor Albert,
He's been in the army four years, he wants a good time,
And if you don't give it him, there's others will, I said.

The second woman, whose name is Lil, has a husband who had been discharged from the army. Having borne five children and not desiring another, she acquires pills to induce the abortion of her sixth. The pills cause her teeth to fall out, and though she becomes unbearable to look at, Lil's husband still won't "leave [her] alone." She is a prisoner in marriage.

The rich woman is a queen on the back of the chess board, and her king is out on the frontline. The poor woman is a queen who, in relation to her king, is more like a pawn, used to satisfy his sensual cravings. The irony here is that each woman wants what the other has. The rich woman longs for companionship, and the poor woman wants to be left alone.

EDIT:  I commented on Mallory Searcy's "Looking into the Heart of Light, the Silence." and Brittany Hilbun's "Adventure Time."

Looking into the Heart of Light, the Silence.

In class on tuesday I spoke up before I really had my idea fully formed (typical) and defended The Waste Land as being hopeful. I did a poor job of explaining why, because I didn't know why at the time. Since I haven't been able to stop thinking about it, here is my further explanation of that sentiment.

The Waste Land is hopeful the way Catcher in the Rye is hopeful. It doesn't necessarily point to a knowable, attainable happiness, it's true. It doesn't leave us with a package of neatly resolved concepts for us to go and apply to life like a self help book would. Instead, it leaves me with the overwhelming feeling that "life" as it is, isn't really bearable.

I think trying to move from that moment reaches beyond the bounds of the work. It says to me that T. S. Elliot is watching London and saying "don't you see? you're miserable and you don't even know it."

For me, at least, there is freedom in that declaration. There is a lot of hope in saying "this isn't enough for me." Because if I dare to speak those words, if i dare to say (Like Bono and Ecclesiastes) that I still haven't found what I'm looking for, then it means I can let it go.

It cries for rain, for shantih, for the Lord to pluck us out. At least when I read Elliot, I am moved to acknowledge my futile ambition and my need for a Savior. Life without Him isn't bearable.

I commented on Abstraction

Lack of Structure

We talked in class a lot about the lack of structure that Eliot was pointing to. I would like to expound on this topic a bit more.

He speaks of the rats that drag away bones. I think it is important to notice that rats normally bury themselves in the ignored crevices of man-made objects. They are also rather difficult to find wandering out in the open, as they are easily frightened. I believe Eliot is hinting here that these creatures, viewed as the hoarders of human scum, are a representation of everything we have ignored. Humans have devalued the things of importance. We are not simply looking back on an age enshrined on a Grecian urn as Keats did. We have shoved that urn away to the back of an attic where only the rats could find use of it. We are encouraging these scared rats to build a home in the things in which we once found solace. We allow these rats to come out and steal our structure, scattering it in every direction. By forgetting, we've lost our foundation and allowed ourselves to rot in a back alley after allowing weak, frightened creatures to dismember us.

The head rules the belly with the aid of what, now?

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will

P.S. Commented on Brittany's "Adventure Time"

Adventure Time

Today we touched on some cool stuff while finishing up "Waste Land." The comparison was established between the events in the poem to the events in the works of Shakespeare or the Iliad. One of the questions asked was along the lines of whether or not we would rather have the great Odyssey adventure happen or not? I jokingly said that I'd rather have my man stay home with me, but as the discussion went on I really began to mull over that. I would take the adventure! My gosh, the problem with this generation is that we have lost our sense of adventure. We would seriously rather have the climax of our lives to be marriage and 2 and a half kids. Now all of those things are sweet but there is more to life? What if you had your sweet marriage and then you and your honey spent a few years exploring, adventuring. I'm not saying you have to go Hades and back but come on! MY, I want to see the world!

posted on Rachel's

Baptism

So I have to say I have heard it several times since being at college that baptism is scary... I tried putting myself in other peoples point of view, because it was never really anything that scared me... But when I listen to what people say it takes a lot of trust to know that someone (I.E. your pastor most of the time) is going to pull you back up after "dunking" you. It would be awful if while you were being obedient to God's word by getting baptized the pastor started talking and he held you under, because he was so sidetracked, making you think that the same day you profess to the world that you are a believer that you will also be going to meet Jesus. Don't get me wrong, going to see Jesus is great, but dying in baptism not so great. This whole conversation steamed from the reading of the wasteland, that in its strange way can actually make sense. It talked about the person dying at sea (in water). However, just like Regis said, water is nothing to fear but only something one should be careful around. Sorry, this post is a bit on the random side.

PS -Amanda G

Abstraction

So I am pretty sure what I am about to say, is exactly why Dr. Talmage told me that I am no fun.....I don't work well with the abstract and I really want to equate the reading with application. I am less concerned with real meanings and more concerned with real life. I am not saying this to say I am therefore better, in fact it makes this class a whole lot harder for me.

As I struggle through Heidegger, I seriously want to reach into the text grab him and say,

"Dude, CHILL OUT! We don't need to dig down deep into the understanding of life in one night"

In my spare time you can assume I don't think about these kind of things (Nor alternate realities #Chloe Rush) However, I suppose that is why Honors is good for me it forces me to think outside the realm of what I am comfortable with-

A lot of people approach life with the attitude of wanting to bypass all that is not applicable to them- thus you hear things like "When will I ever use Algebra??" (which in my opinion IS necessary!)

And thus the more applicable question to my life, when will I EVER use Heidegger in nursing? Especially as a practical person who doesn't really appreciate abstraction.

Well, I could use some of his questions to stump my annoying patients into silence but I feel as if that would be the appropriate use of the philosophical struggles I have endured/embraced over the past two years.

So now I must discover an application to my life. Why does Heidegger matter?

In one way Heidegger matters because he represents the same thing Honors represents in my life. His search to answer this question which some may never ask themselves is one of struggle, and one that we cannot enter into lightly. Some people never want nor know to ask themselves, "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" And although a life will not be changed for the worse without asking this deep and meaningful question, what if a life could be more fully understood by really seeking this one out? How many people in our fast paced society reach the end of their busy lives filled with social events, work, church, and stuff just to wonder why?

As I begin to really dive into his deep philosophical questioning I begin to wonder if part of this is a deeper understanding of self. If I begin to understand why I am here and who I am and that relationship to the world, then my interpersonal skills could be better. But more than that I am as a person who has struggled up from the cave a person who has really grappled with reality and such I believe I am ready to face life and the world in a brighter position. I may not have all the answers but an acceptance of that is a better more enlightened place in which I can appreciate poetry, beauty and truth.

I really hope all of that connected as some what ordered. (: