(no subject)
No more APs. Forever!
Apparently, Heart of Darkness was *the* most taught piece of literature in universities everywhere (that spoke English). It seems that everybody was rather concerned about the hypocrisy belying imperialism and our facades in general. Everybody in this case refers to the professors in Harvard and Yale and Columbia and wherever who decide what to teach.
Anyway, the message of Heart of Darkness was one of disgust at mendacity, one that echoes down through a lot of literature -- Gatsby, Cat on Hot Tin Roof, Sun Also Rises, Catcher in the Rye... Americans, apparently, have this fixation over their grand disillusionment.
So now I'm wondering what kind of variation on this theme will emerge in our age. I mean, one can't just repeat the same thing over and over; this disillusionment/facades/hypocrisy thing has been gyring for a century.
I think that the next big thing will still involve the conflict between something that's real and pure with mendacity and hypocrisy. However, since we're all a pretty cynical bunch, it'll probably start from a disillusioned beginning, rather than having that come as an ending. This might mean that we'll have people unexpectedly finding their faith, or finding a green light but finding it put out again. Heart of the Matter, by Graham Greene, explores this nicely.
I read the US News article about dreams, and it struck me how there was an immense connotational dichotomy between 'mental' and 'physical.' That seems kind of ridiculous, because all thoughts, memories, and feelings are just special combinations of electrical and chemical impulses. The effort to draw a line between these two seemingly disparate concepts may reflect our persistent belief that we have a soul that is removed from our bodies. Unfortunately, we're only what we perceive ourselves to be, a perception based on aforementioned floods of potassium and sodium and dopamine. (But maybe in the scientific world they have a perfectly reasonable definition that logically sets the two apart, though that's not what I got from the article.)
Apparently, Heart of Darkness was *the* most taught piece of literature in universities everywhere (that spoke English). It seems that everybody was rather concerned about the hypocrisy belying imperialism and our facades in general. Everybody in this case refers to the professors in Harvard and Yale and Columbia and wherever who decide what to teach.
Anyway, the message of Heart of Darkness was one of disgust at mendacity, one that echoes down through a lot of literature -- Gatsby, Cat on Hot Tin Roof, Sun Also Rises, Catcher in the Rye... Americans, apparently, have this fixation over their grand disillusionment.
So now I'm wondering what kind of variation on this theme will emerge in our age. I mean, one can't just repeat the same thing over and over; this disillusionment/facades/hypocrisy thing has been gyring for a century.
I think that the next big thing will still involve the conflict between something that's real and pure with mendacity and hypocrisy. However, since we're all a pretty cynical bunch, it'll probably start from a disillusioned beginning, rather than having that come as an ending. This might mean that we'll have people unexpectedly finding their faith, or finding a green light but finding it put out again. Heart of the Matter, by Graham Greene, explores this nicely.
I read the US News article about dreams, and it struck me how there was an immense connotational dichotomy between 'mental' and 'physical.' That seems kind of ridiculous, because all thoughts, memories, and feelings are just special combinations of electrical and chemical impulses. The effort to draw a line between these two seemingly disparate concepts may reflect our persistent belief that we have a soul that is removed from our bodies. Unfortunately, we're only what we perceive ourselves to be, a perception based on aforementioned floods of potassium and sodium and dopamine. (But maybe in the scientific world they have a perfectly reasonable definition that logically sets the two apart, though that's not what I got from the article.)