Channeling
Two streams of our discussion today peaked my interest, and both seemed to fall into the theme of channeling.Â
Desire, some of us decided, is never satisfied in humans. I agree with this decision. Just as, in a biological sense, our bodies are constantly adjusting in order to achieve homeostasis, I think that we are always adjusting in a more general and external sense (often socially) so as to feel emotionally stable. We often sense some sort of nagging inconsistency within ourselves–a hole that we want to fill or some excess that has built up which we would like to mediate–and we behave accordingly. We might fill one gap or dig through one mound of overwhelmingness, but new holes and mountains appear (we might even have created them in our effort to fix that previous problem). Weird metaphors aside, our pursuit of stability is perpetual. Manayo brought up an interesting point when she mentioned the single force of desire that we inherently assume exists with such a philosophy of perpetuality. I agree with this idea of singularity. We are always working to satisfy our desires, even if our method or particular desire changes–even if we channel our desire in different ways, it is always there.
After Jamie’s presentation it occurred to me that literature lets us channel our thoughts and feelings.  Whether we write or we read, literature can help us explore voids or recall overwhelming points in our lives. I think it is great that the author Jamie mentioned expressed what must have been or represented a traumatic experience in his/her life. And I think there is definitely something to be said for others reading about it. Maybe such controversy surrounds rape because we don’t know how to deal with it. Maybe we don’t know how to deal with it because it is not highly represented in the canon.
So yeah, channels.
hammad wrote:
I think that we, theoretically, know how to deal with something as horrific as rape. The problem is that many people shield themselves and others away from its presence in reality. Shielding is different from liking. Obviously, the vast majority of people consider rape to be an obscene and horrendous crime, but that doesn’t mean that individuals, especially children, should remain sheltered from the concept itself. Although I feel as if the English department in the high school Jamie was talking about could have easily chosen different, less controversial books, I get the impression that there must have been some underlying reason for picking those specific novels. Maybe they have a distinct message or theme that the teacher thought was important for an AP English class. Or maybe the novels reflect something of interest to the teacher or are conducive to his or her style of teaching. There are countless reasons as to why those novels were chosen. Ultimately, I feel that if parents are willing to send their children to school, they should realize that the school may “broaden their child’s horizons†(for better or worse). Whether or not parents approve is, in my opinion, almost irrelevant because they chose to send their child to school. I would hope that most parents aren’t naïve enough to think that school is going to have no effect on a child’s opinions or general knowledge base. Plus, if they don’t like the system, home schooling is an option.
Wow, I digressed a lot from the original post.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 10:08 pm ¶
JakeP. wrote:
I got nothing to say except agreement and superfluous corroboration for your post. Literature, when it is written and read, is always primarily a grappling with one’s unfulfilled desire or pain fro one’s desire (basically, pain from the human experience.) Marxist critiques, gender and queer theory techniques, arguments of over the role of the author and the autonomy of the text, and theory itself always come after; literature is made and read as a beautiful subjective experience. Sorry for waxing poetic, but I’ll try to contribute one little idea: what do Buddhists think of literature? For our class has been using Buddhist language, and so do you here; I wonder what buddhist would say if it were proposed to him that literature could be a coming to terms with desire. A trite questiont aht won’t get answered, but hey, worth asking…
Indeed, channels.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 11:00 pm ¶
Holler wrote:
To touch on a small point that Alison raises, I don’t believe that our pursuit of stability is perpetual. Our pursuit of desire, surely, but the pursuit of stasis is perhaps an epiphenomenon. We are desirous beings, at a fundamental level, continually seeking to satisfy our yens. It seems that the only time we achieve stasis in this pursuit is in the fulfillment of an individual desire. For instance, a woman desires to have a child. The instant she gives birth, she has satiated that particular desire; at this point, she reaches an equilibrium, but inevitably her desires will continue (e.g. the desire to care for/nuture her child). In doing so, we look to quench a desire, not to create stability. Stability may come along in consequence of a satiated desire, but it is not our primary pursuit.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 7:56 pm ¶
alison wrote:
Interesting. I guess it’s very much a matter of opinion. I believe that all of desires stem from a need for stability. I see desires as inherently responding to imperfections (with examples ranging from lacking perfect vision and desiring contacts to wanting to feel happier and searching for affection). A quest to minimize imperfections is a quest for stability…for a state which lacks the uneasiness or more literal incompletion of someone who is not stable.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 10:04 pm ¶
Holler wrote:
You claim that desires stem from the necessity of stability. Is this not expressing a desire for stability?
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:24 pm ¶