The Frustration of Packing so Much Information
It is the Saturday of the end of Spring Break and I have done no physical work on any of my papers. I've been laying the mental foundation, which is just as well, I suppose; I still need to type it all down. The Shakespeare paper has seen some physical life as a very, very, very rough draft during these lulls in Membership answering phones.
The Shakespeare paper is, as fun as it is, a frustrating endeavor. I took on the project of making mine own literary theory with which to analyze/criticize Hamlet. 'Twas the more difficult of the two projects we could have done. Even though coming up with an entirely new "21st Century reading of Hamlet" seems a daunting task, I am quite sure Professor Maisano is not looking for anything professional. We are, after all, undergrads.... However, I take the task seriously, as I intend to have at least some sort of professional career involving lit theory (as well as many other things).
My "new" theory I have dubbed "Super-Meta-Theory." This theory rests upon SO MUCH that I am beginning to think that perhaps I should be saving it for my grad thesis or PhD dissertation... something greater than an undergrad English course midterm paper....
The foundation of Super-Meta-Theory is my theory of the self, which itself rests heavily upon functionalist thinking that has its roots in Aristotle and is exemplified today by Daniel Dennett. Now imagine having to put together a six-to-seven page paper encompassing all that....
The theory itself, I find exciting! It gives equal [figurative] weight and reality to fiction, as our selves are merely abstractions/fictions (as Dennett says, the self is a "Center of Narrative Gravity"). Thus we have super-meta-fiction ("I"). What we call "fiction" is not a creation; 'tis a re-creation of our perceptions into pure symbology. I go so far as to say that the fiction within our personal fictions merely lacks extension (to say, it is just as real).
What the theory does is allow for a plethora of readings of any given piece of literature. There can be no single thesis, since searching for a single thesis is a trap the mind often falls into, woefully stuck inside the paradigms of its own organizational structure (hence asking the question "what is the meaning of life?"). The theory sort of saves deconstruction from those who fear its ability to reduce a piece of literature to nothingness by allowing for multiple theses that each bring to light a significant aspect of the piece of literature.
Ultimately, sure, 'tis nihilist in the way that, yeah, there is no REAL meaning to anything. I must say that the only way to "know" reality is to become completely a-rational and to allow oneself to slip into the Tao... but then, in such a state, you'd never be able to give an account of a state so ineffable. That wonderful fiction that we call "I" removes us from objective reality and, sadly, we'd still only be experiencing reality from the filters of our sense organs, still stuck within the mind's organizational structure. Though it sounds hopeless (and helpless) I always remind that it is a functional fiction. We exist, we're here and it's working (for the most part).
It's just so hard to effectively discuss such a complex view so simply. There is just so much going on and so much material involved. I often times find myself coming up short when trying to effectively discuss my views. I suppose that is why some people find me absurd and hard to follow; I present ideas that haven't come from a vacuum that sit upon so much that, in order to get a quick point across, I am forced to "start from the middle." Sometimes the end. Anyway, that is why I have formulated the bullet-proof "I'm [insert name]!" argument that levels the playing field like an N2 bomb.
This is why I am a student of both English and Philosophy. The training I am receiving is undoubtedly going to lead to my full expression of my very full ideas. I need more information. I need more research. I wonder how long my works will be, considering I'll get to start from the beginning with those?
'Tis a life's pursuit.
The Shakespeare paper is, as fun as it is, a frustrating endeavor. I took on the project of making mine own literary theory with which to analyze/criticize Hamlet. 'Twas the more difficult of the two projects we could have done. Even though coming up with an entirely new "21st Century reading of Hamlet" seems a daunting task, I am quite sure Professor Maisano is not looking for anything professional. We are, after all, undergrads.... However, I take the task seriously, as I intend to have at least some sort of professional career involving lit theory (as well as many other things).
My "new" theory I have dubbed "Super-Meta-Theory." This theory rests upon SO MUCH that I am beginning to think that perhaps I should be saving it for my grad thesis or PhD dissertation... something greater than an undergrad English course midterm paper....
The foundation of Super-Meta-Theory is my theory of the self, which itself rests heavily upon functionalist thinking that has its roots in Aristotle and is exemplified today by Daniel Dennett. Now imagine having to put together a six-to-seven page paper encompassing all that....
The theory itself, I find exciting! It gives equal [figurative] weight and reality to fiction, as our selves are merely abstractions/fictions (as Dennett says, the self is a "Center of Narrative Gravity"). Thus we have super-meta-fiction ("I"). What we call "fiction" is not a creation; 'tis a re-creation of our perceptions into pure symbology. I go so far as to say that the fiction within our personal fictions merely lacks extension (to say, it is just as real).
What the theory does is allow for a plethora of readings of any given piece of literature. There can be no single thesis, since searching for a single thesis is a trap the mind often falls into, woefully stuck inside the paradigms of its own organizational structure (hence asking the question "what is the meaning of life?"). The theory sort of saves deconstruction from those who fear its ability to reduce a piece of literature to nothingness by allowing for multiple theses that each bring to light a significant aspect of the piece of literature.
Ultimately, sure, 'tis nihilist in the way that, yeah, there is no REAL meaning to anything. I must say that the only way to "know" reality is to become completely a-rational and to allow oneself to slip into the Tao... but then, in such a state, you'd never be able to give an account of a state so ineffable. That wonderful fiction that we call "I" removes us from objective reality and, sadly, we'd still only be experiencing reality from the filters of our sense organs, still stuck within the mind's organizational structure. Though it sounds hopeless (and helpless) I always remind that it is a functional fiction. We exist, we're here and it's working (for the most part).
It's just so hard to effectively discuss such a complex view so simply. There is just so much going on and so much material involved. I often times find myself coming up short when trying to effectively discuss my views. I suppose that is why some people find me absurd and hard to follow; I present ideas that haven't come from a vacuum that sit upon so much that, in order to get a quick point across, I am forced to "start from the middle." Sometimes the end. Anyway, that is why I have formulated the bullet-proof "I'm [insert name]!" argument that levels the playing field like an N2 bomb.
This is why I am a student of both English and Philosophy. The training I am receiving is undoubtedly going to lead to my full expression of my very full ideas. I need more information. I need more research. I wonder how long my works will be, considering I'll get to start from the beginning with those?
'Tis a life's pursuit.