The City that Never Sleeps

Today I was at work, and the lady there was talking about how she for some reason wakes up at 4am every night. This led to her saying that that was about the time she went to bed in Las Vegas (she had just recently returned), and my sister spoke up and mentioned that she loves New York because of the fact that there's always something happening; she announced that it's the City that Never Sleeps as if she came up with a term that would spontaneously resonate within me.

How do we explain this situation?
A 22 year old girl who has lived all her life in Canada, goes to New York for 2 months, and comes back a New Yorker, complete with an American accent and an overemphasizing use of ghetto slang - which she can turn on or off without a moment's notice. She's a native of Brooklyn when speaking to anyone of African decent, when she wants to put on a show, or when she's just in the mood to not be herself - a self which is lost amidst the pursuit of the American Dream, and is only described by the pop culture cliche "I am what I am." Upon returning from New York, she works during the day, comes home and watches movies late into the night, falling asleep under their care.

The City that Never Sleeps.
OR
The City of the "sucks of care" who need endless hours of movement, light, and general engrossment in order to distract them from the aimlessness of their endeavours. Going to sleep when they're not completely exhausted leaves room for the unavoidable processes of thought, which, if left unpinned, can take a man to the horrifying point of refusing the self he's allowing other people to create.

the object of fides|ratio

We are in an 'absurd' situation; we are alive & will die, nothing has any purpose, nothing has any meaning, and yet we were lucky enough to evolve into a species who can reflect on this. We can understand that we're probably determined in a great parade of cause and effect to either choose to commit suicide or to not ever consider suicide as an option. We join with a mass of people to become the mass and thus become nothing, throwing away our reason and reflection so that we don't have to live being constantly aware of our loathed situation. Our scientists and philosophers decide that reason is the king of our being, that anything which can't be reasoned is false, and though reason has developed through the same irrational process as any other part of us, it is the arbiter of truth because it is the only part of us that needs truth to survive. God cannot satisfy reason's rules, so he doesn't exist.

However, to be human is to be limited. Limit seems to be an essential element of being human which humans themselves cannot reconcile themselves with. There is no infinite capacity for anything; not love, not faith, not appetite, not knowledge, not anything. Yet, when we speak about reason, we always want to elevate it beyond this. If reason cannot uphold something, that something is not true; truth is not outside the bounds of reason.

How, over the years, has reason covertly eluded its rank among the rest of human capacities? How do we suppose that reason has no limit in its capacity for understanding? How do we even suppose that reason has a capacity for any understanding? We can't prove thus, because we'd be using reason to do it. Reason cannot satisfy reason's own rules.

What reason has not the capacity for is the object of faith. Reason itself is an object of faith.

the self

The self is getting the most attention in my thoughts and most of the other people I talk to in the class. What the heck is it? Is it just the sum total of all actions and experiences up till death? Does a person become what he does? or is what he does an outcome of who he is? Is there an essence in each self that makes it an individual who is different from all other selves?

I wonder, if maybe we separate the self from the body too much still. We seem to associate the self only with the mind. Not that it is some substance that is totally different from the body, but the mind's processes seem to be in the bulk of discussion; beliefs, intentions, thoughts, perceptions, etc. And so then we look at those and say "Yea, they change all the time, so the self must be constantly changing as well. No part of the self stays the same, thus the self is completely different through time." But many of us want to know that there is something about the self that stays static over time; some defining property of the self that is always there and makes it the individual that it is. Is my self right now a completely different self than my self 5 years ago?

I want to say that, of course, lots has changed, but there is still something that has not changed. I may have different perceptions and intentions and beliefs, but through all that change atleast one thing is uniting these "two" selves. However I don't know what that is if it is anything, or where to start trying to find it.


Maybe it's the way I experience things; I may have different experiences over time, but I experience these experiences in the same way that I have always and will always. We all experience joy, and different situations and different things bring about joy, but my self experiences joy in a certain way, and I will always recognize it as joy and joy will always feel the same way, no matter the changes in my body or mind. And this is so with all experiences. I'll always experience pain in the same way; pain will always feel THAT way, even if there are varying degrees of it or whether I think I should rejoice in pain or try to stifle it. And I experience pain, and joy, in a different way than anyone else. I won't know what it is like to experience joy as person B, and person B won't know what it's like to experience joy as Me. Maybe it's that element of the self which stays the same throughout life and which allows each person to understand that parts of his self has changed or grew, but there is a unifying factor of experience.

I'd like to be able to articulate this in a much better fashion, so maybe after I read it over again and think on it, and discuss it with other people, I will be able to do that. Perhaps this makes no sense and has no plausibility, and I'll figure that out soon enough.

The Aesthetic Person

Last weekend, on the way back from Big White, we (my family) were listening to a radio program on CKNW. I'm not sure what the program was or who the host is, but he was taking calls and for the most part each discussion was government related. However, one lady called, who I assume is a frequent caller (or possibly part of the show?) because the host asked her what she was cooking and for some recipe tips. After she had gone through her dinner list, she started talking about a rumour she heard about something in government (I think something to do with Emerson switching over) and then she said something like "I love gossip, especially when I start the rumours." The host replied that yes, it seems likes every human being loves gossip, but he knows two people, in all his life, that do not gossip. They won't even get close to it, and you can't even trick them into it. To this, the lady responded, "Oh! They must be sooooo boring!" He replied that no, they were in fact brilliant people, and she, unconvinced, asked, "They're not boring???" to which he said, "No, they are very brilliant."

After learning about Kierkegaard's spheres of existence, I recalled this and thought about how this lady caller could fit right into the Aesthetic sphere. Ethics is completely boring to her; gossip is fun. After hearing the conversation I remember thinking that so many people are like that. Anytime a person chooses to hold to some ethical integrity, the first description thrust upon them is "boring." So, although I know that nobody can epitomize the Aesthetic sphere, I think that such a "type of person," who only discerns between fun/interesting or boring, is quite common in our country. An amazing insight by Kierkegaard.

Thought doesn't convert to action.

p. 210 of Lost in the Cosmos: PC3 speaking to the earthship about the C2 consciouness: "It has something to do with the discovery of the self and the incapacity to deal with it, the consiousness becoming self-conscious but not knowing what to do with the self, not even knowing what its self is, and ending by being that which it is not, saying that which is not, doing that which is not, and making others what they are not."

When I try to think about my self, who I am, I don't even know where to start. I'm not even sure I know what a self is. Do I begin to describe my self by saying "I am Jon, who..." or "I am nice, responsible, etc" or "I could be ..." or "I do such and such ..." or what?

And I think that in this book that is pretty much what I discovered. Most of Percy's questions I am undecided upon the answer, and this goes especially with the ones that ask who I most identify with or who I would rather be in such a such a case; this probably being an exact outcome of his own hopes in writing the book.

C2's need to become C3s; they need to be rescued. I think there are a few amazing statements that were made on p.254 which relate to that:
"The modern objective consciousness will go to any length to prove that it is not unique in the Cosmos, and by this very effort establishes its own uniqueness. Name another entity in the Cosmos which tries to prove it is not unique."

Maybe the self is the unique individual?

"A new law of the Cosmos, applicable only to the recently appeared triadic creature: If you're a big enough fool to climb a tree and like a cat refuse to come down, then someone who loves you has to make as big a fool of himself to rescue you."
I don't know what it was about this statement - it's placement in the book perhaps - but it staggered me. I was caught off guard...i'm up a tree, and I know I should come down, but I refuse to. I call myself a Christian, can defend my faith well, and passages in the bible, jesus' words, move me like nothing has ever done before, even music. Yet, at the precise moment I hardly live like a Christian. And it's not like I do terrible things or whatever, but I just don't do things that I should do. Honestly seeking God to know him, being the salt of the earth, etc. But I don't ask God to rescue me. I don't know why.

I think that self-estrangement, alienation from others and the world, comes after estrangement from God. And hence the amazing As Cities Burn lyrics "My Bride, I don't want to know what I'd be without forgiveness brushing these adulterous lips." If I know that I won't know my self without knowing God, what is stopping me from knowing God!

explanation steals

"my bride, I don't want to know what I'd be without
forgiveness brushing these adulterous lips"
as cities burn
-----------------------------

"love, what is love without trust
at my word would you bring your isaac"
as cities burn

"What ordinarily tempts a man is that which would keep him from doing his duty, but in [Abraham's] case the temptation is itself the ethical--which would keep him from doing God's will."

"A man can become a tragic hero by his own powers--but not a knight of faith...Faith is a miracle, and yet no man is excluded from it; for that in which all human life is unified is passion, and faith is a passion."
Soren Kierkegaard
-----------------------------

"awake! awake in the company of men given something to say
give me a servant's heart and a tongue to obey
awake! come wind
awake! come thought
tired head, take up your mat,
take your mat and walk"
as cities burn