greygirlbeast | Breathing in only doubt

Current Mood: cold
Current Location: Drilon Vallis
Current Music: David Bowie, "Strangers When We Meet"

Entry tags:

Breathing in only doubt

Yesterday, I wrote 1,934 words, which makes yesterday my second-most productive writing day during this forced march to THE END. Not bad, nixar. Now, see if you can't do better today.

I've decided to extend the offer of a FREE signed copy of the trade paperback of Silk to new Sirenia Digest subscribers. The offer is now good until midnight on January 31st, as it seems to be attracting new subscribers, and new subscribers are always welcome. Also, new subscribers need to e-mail Spooky (crk_books(at) yahoo(dot) com) their snail mail addresses. Otherwise, we cannot send the FREE book.

A decent enough Kid Night last night. We rented Terry Jones' mostly marvelous Erik the Viking (1989) from Movies Worth Seeing (where it seemed I'd not been in ages). I'd seen the film two or three times, but Spooky hadn't, and I have a soft space for it in my heart. Sadly, Sony canceled the DVD release last year, so we had to go with VHS (pan and scan, urgh) and chase the spiders out of the VCR. Very quaint. Anyway, I'd not realised until last night that Jim Broadbent has a cameo/bit part at the very beginning, when Erik is "raping" Helga. It's a very funny movie, except when it isn't, and that's about the best I can ask of anything these days. Then I played a couple hours worth of Final Fantasy XII, at last managing to escape the Draklor Laboratory in Archades and defeat Cid and his four little robot thingies. Afterwards, we went to bed, and I read Sonya's new story for Sirenia Digest #14 — "A Voice in Caves" — which has turned out to be a very nice counterpoint to my own "The Sphinx's Kiss." For those of you who've been wanting to see more gay male fiction in the digest, this issue's for you. Later still, Spooky made me cocoa. It was after three a.m. (CaST) before I found sleep.

Oh, and yes, as implied above, I did leave the house yesterday, for a full hour or so. I have become quite intrepid.

I see there will be a new VNV Nation disc — Judgment — out on March 7th. Good news I needed.

—————

Honestly, I'm seeing very little in the way of negative criticism regarding Daughter of Hounds. Though I have noticed a few complaints about there being too much dialog (???) and too many "dream sequences." The latter complaint, which I should add my agent has also voiced, follows in part, I think, from a misunderstanding of the nature of "reality" in much of what I write. There are a few genuine dream sequences in Daughter of Hounds, but a lot of what I think some people are reading as dreams were intended as something else. They may appear dreamlike, but only because certain consensus assumptions are held so dear about "waking reality." At any rate, I find both these criticisms rather specious and am paying them little heed.

—————

I have spent almost my whole life living inbetween. It's what I do, mostly, existing in transitional zones and connecting hallways. But lately (meaning since sometime in 2002), I have been struggling with a new sort of inbetween, which has placed me in an especially deep conflict with myself. A tug-of-war between the old rational me and an unexpected me bent upon seeking out and understanding magick (here defined as "the willful invocation of awe," though other definitions may be pending), even when it threatens my comfortably mechanistic worldview. It feels at times as though I am being torn in two, and I know how that feels, having been divided more than once already. Mostly, though, the division does not occur. And neither side gains any ground. So I live uneasily inbetween, like some Matthew Arnold cosmology. Too mystical for the scientists, too skeptical for the witches and magickians. At this point, I would prefer to either move forward or go back. In or out. Shit or get off the pot, as Byron would say. Sometimes, I seem to be waiting on something, something which often seems very near, and other times I seem merely indecisive. Except...decision and resolve are both useless here, or nearly so. I cannot will myself into belief or faith. As Anne Sexton said, "Need is not quite belief." Oh, I have need aplenty, but, for me, belief comes only from experience. And, thus far, my experiences leave me neither here nor there. They leave me undecided and still asking questions.

It's like a season that breeds neither snow nor green grass, neither rain nor drought, but only despair. I know that simple despair is no longer fashionable, but then neither am I.

I did have this thought two nights ago, and it seemed important: One must not be skeptical merely for the sake of skepticism. It is not an end unto itself. Critical thought should have the intent of bringing one nearer truth (even if Truth is ultimately unobtainable). It is not the goal of critical thought to tear down, but to build up, to let in the light, to sweep aside ignorance and superstition and fear.

These thoughts are ill-formed and poorly expressed, and I apologise for my inability to articulate.

—————

The platypus says enough's enough. Them words ain't gonna write themselves.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was at Borders yesterday, and I looked for your books while I was there. Our Borders always places your work in the horror section, and there were three copies of Threshold on the shelf. They were all faced. There weren't any copies of Daughter of Hounds, so I went to the new release section to see if they had it there, but sadly, there were no copies in the store. The computer said that it was out of stock, so I'm hoping that it's just been selling quickly, and they'll get more in. It's brilliant, and everyone should have a copy or three.

Just thought I'd let you know. I'm not sure if this is helpful information or not. I always find myself depressed when I see the selection at the book store. I noticed that there wasn't a single Shirley Jackson novel anywhere in the store.

"These thoughts are ill-formed and poorly expressed, and I apologise for my inability to articulate"

hahahahahahah

As if.

new subscribers need to e-mail Spooky (crk_books(at) yahoo(dot) com) their snail mail addresses

Will get right on it

Do you know what the situation with DoH's UK publication is? I work for Waterstone's and its not even in our system, let alone available to stock order. This may be us and not reflective of the availability nationwide. We're pushing personal recommendations at the moment - we've taken care of Poppy, now we need to sort you out...

Do you know what the situation with DoH's UK publication is?

There will almost certainly not be a British edition. I've never sold British rights for a novel and doubt I ever shall. Online booksellers have made British rights increasingly unattractive to British editors who know readers rely very heavily now on Amazon.com, etc. However, I have heard news that the US edition is showing up in UK bookshops.

Well I'm going to push for the US edition then. You'll sell over here even if it kills me...

You'll sell over here even if it kills me...

Thank you. :-)

One must not be skeptical merely for the sake of skepticism. It is not an end unto itself.

I once had the thought that one could call skepticism "useful cynicism." Cynicism is, I find, usually useless; it can take the worst tendencies of skepticism that you noted and magnify them. I work with a couple of people who are very cynical (as well as several who aren't, thank everything), and I decided that the cynic's way of looking at the world could be summed up as "Only I am smart enough to see eveything that's dumb and wrong in this world, so A) I'll only see what's dumb and wrong, and B) I'll just bitch about it, and thus C) feel superior without having to do anything to actually change things for the better."

I'm trying to sum it up with a poem in progress. It starts: Nothing works, nothing's right, is what we smart ones realize... and later there's the line So never mind, so give it up, and all we'll do is criticize.

I know if I get too cynical, I get wrapped up in a little ball that seems weighed down by the world, like it's the Earth that's on me. I don't like that sensation. I avoid it. I think it's part of why I'm fond of the Lemony Snicket books, where the Baudelaires have to learn how to be skeptical of these hapless or villainous adults, none of whom are really willing or able to look out for the orphans' best interests. Skepticism can be a defense mechanism in cases like that, but again, it should lead to something (and you know how the Snicket books end).

Critical thought should have the intent of bringing one nearer truth (even if Truth is ultimately unobtainable). It is not the goal of critical thought to tear down, but to build up, to let in the light, to sweep aside ignorance and superstition and fear.

You're headed, I think, in the right direction with that thought.

***

And to close with a really happy thought, today is the 175th anniversary of Lewis Carroll's birth!

And to close with a really happy thought, today is the 175th anniversary of Lewis Carroll's birth!

Thank you. I had completely forgotten.

Cynicism is, I find, usually useless; it can take the worst tendencies of skepticism that you noted and magnify them.

Personally, I do not draw such a close association between cynicism and skepticism. Skepticism is a highly desirable and necessary aspect of thought. Cynicism, on the other hand, is an affectation rising not from honest questioning, or even any real questioning at all, but from a need to feel superior to others and perhaps also from repeated exposure to the way that humans often behave towards one another. I detest cynicism, but there are times I do understand how people become cynics.

Personally, I do not draw such a close association between cynicism and skepticism. (*explains why*)

Makes sense. I can see that.

Cynicism...is an affectation rising not from honest questioning, or even any real questioning at all, but from a need to feel superior to others and perhaps also from repeated exposure to the way that humans often behave towards one another.

Describes the aforementioned co-workers very, very well. Unfortunately. (Oh, well; I have my earphones at work and don't have to listen to them...)

That is hardly an incoherent statement, and it is a necessary one.

Thank you for saying so, but I remain frustrated at an inbility to express what I am thinking...or, more correctly, feeling.

Thank you for saying so, but I remain frustrated at an inbility to express what I am thinking...or, more correctly, feeling.

Understood. Even as a flawed expression, then, it's worth hearing—skeptic comes straight from the Greek σκέπτομαι, to look at something carefully, to examine and consider it critically; to let in the light, not pull some predetermined blindness in around oneself.

Have you read Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising?

Have you read Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising?

I have not.

I have not.

It's a young adult series: Over Sea, Under Stone (1965), The Dark Is Rising (1973), Greenwitch (1974), The Grey King (1975), Silver on the Tree (1977). They're probably one of the major influences of my childhood. Something about the way you phrased the need not to make skepticism its own end reminded me of a line from the last book. You might like them.

It's a young adult series: Over Sea, Under Stone (1965), The Dark Is Rising (1973), Greenwitch (1974), The Grey King (1975), Silver on the Tree (1977). They're probably one of the major influences of my childhood. Something about the way you phrased the need not to make skepticism its own end reminded me of a line from the last book. You might like them.

Spooky says she read them during middle school. I need to read some good YA anyway, so I may get these soon.

One must not be skeptical merely for the sake of skepticism. It is not an end unto itself. Critical thought should have the intent of bringing one nearer truth (even if Truth is ultimately unobtainable). It is not the goal of critical thought to tear down, but to build up, to let in the light, to sweep aside ignorance and superstition and fear.

This is a perfect formulation of the proper use of skepticism. Its original intent was aslways to bring us a greater understanding of the world, rather than a lesser one. Most of those calling themselves skeptics, today, are merely tearing down that whicch does not fit with their ready-made views. This does not teach us anything.

Your statements, as others have said, are more than coherent enough, on this score.

And thank you for the extension of the offer.

And thank you for the extension of the offer.

You're welcome.

Most of those calling themselves skeptics, today, are merely tearing down that which does not fit with their ready-made views.

See, I suspect I have not said what I'm trying to say. And I suspect that if we were to talk at length, face to face, you'd likely find me another one of those people shackled to "ready-made views," in that I don't believe there is a need to reinvent the wheel (so to speak). I do not believe that the foundations of Western thought are necessarily mistaken, for example. I'm more about tweaking than tearing down and rebuilding, at least so far as science and philosophy are concerned.

See, I suspect I have not said what I'm trying to say. And I suspect that if we were to talk at length, face to face, you'd likely find me another one of those people shackled to "ready-made views,"

Perhaps. But I think that, in a rush to grab at a familiar feeling, I may have explained what I mean with less than crystal clarity.

I think length of conversation and proximity of physicality might make for the best possible understanding, if you ever have the time and/or inclination.

I'm more about tweaking than tearing down and rebuilding

I think there's a place for all of the above, if a system fails us, but I agree that a series of revisions, structured on the new understandings we gain through investigation and experimentation are the best ways to go.

It always seemed that science cast old things aside, as it found new things, and lost the value of context, and learning over time. Of course, as I got older, and studied more, I realised that this was not necessarily the case, nor was it even the majority; it was simply what got thrown in to schools, and How it got thrown, that made it seem that way.

I think we are far better served by seeking to understand the flaws in our system, and repairing them by applying new understandings and techniques for renovation and revitalisation. But I think that those things that challenge the foundations we hold are worthy of investigation on their own terms, as well as the terms of any other investigative tools we have at our disposal (physics, psychology, anthropology,&c.).

I hope that made sense.

I think length of conversation and proximity of physicality might make for the best possible understanding, if you ever have the time and/or inclination.

Well, perhaps. Though I have found that some people find physical proximity to me unnerving. I think maybe it's all the pink make-up.

It always seemed that science cast old things aside, as it found new things, and lost the value of context, and learning over time. Of course, as I got older, and studied more, I realised that this was not necessarily the case, nor was it even the majority; it was simply what got thrown in to schools, and How it got thrown, that made it seem that way.

Waaaaay back in collage, I studied a good deal of the history and philosophy of science (philosophy was my undergrad minor). At some point I encountered T. S. Kuhn, with whom you are very likely familiar. He proposed, in essence, that the forces driving "scientific revolutions" were neither rational nor the result of an increase in knowledge, but merely a cyclical process. I wrote a great deal about Kuhn, and found it quite simple to demonstrate, based on his writings, that his ideas about how science worked had been derived not from observing science in action, or even from in depth studies of the history of science (the primary example I focused on was plate tectonics in geology), but rather he drew his examples and conclusions from what I termed "synoptic history," the boiled-down stuff you get in textbooks and classrooms. For science, "synoptic history" is problematic. In collage, students must very quickly acquire a great deal of information about a wide range of subjects. This leads by necessity to oversimplification and sometimes even inaccuracies. The problems arise when students to not go on, as Kuhn should have, to see how things actually work.

But I think that those things that challenge the foundations we hold are worthy of investigation on their own terms, as well as the terms of any other investigative tools we have at our disposal (physics, psychology, anthropology,&c.).

I am not opposed to any investigation that might in any way better our understanding of the Cosmos.

Though I have found that some people find physical proximity to me unnerving. I think maybe it's all the pink make-up.

Pink is an unnerving colour. But I'm pretty sure I could get over it.

I studied a good deal of the history and philosophy of science (philosophy was my undergrad minor).

As I think you know (I don't know if i've ever said anything about it, wheree you'd have read), I'm in graduate school for Philosophy and Religious Studies. Have you ever read the work of Dr. Robert Almeder? He was my professor for ethics and philosophy of science. I think you might find his work interesting, even if you end up not enjoying it.

At some point I encountered T. S. Kuhn, with whom you are very likely familiar. He proposed, in essence, that the forces driving "scientific revolutions" were neither rational nor the result of an increase in knowledge, but merely a cyclical process. . .

I've not read Kuhn's work, but I'm definately going to pick up some of it, soon. This sounds like the kind of problematic line of thinking that leads to people misunderstanding all kinds of intellectual and spiritual advancements. Thinking that A) there's nothing new and B) there needs to be some new thing. Not done before will happen, because the person doing it hasn't done it, and their methods will, necessarily, be different. But that's a whole other tangent.

I much prefer the Michio Kaku view that "Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense." The idea that if it's truly new, truly a revolution, there will be resistance to it, by its nature. The job of the scientist, the intellectual, the (cliché alert) "seeker of knowledge" is to test it, examine it, work it to a full and logical conclusion.

It takes a while, because it flies in the face of the foundations we were talking about, earlier. My contention is that we should be a bit more flexible in our foundations. The kind of skepticism you mention, with the ability to amend as necessary, rather than the seeming reticence to deal with new put.

Not on the part of good scientists, mind you, but on the part of the general public and "stodgy academics" who have to digest and disseminate the material into the world.

Sorry, my iconoclast is showing.

I am not opposed to any investigation that might in any way better our understanding of the Cosmos.

Thank you.

amazon uk - Erik The Viking (The Director's Son's Cut) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Erik-Viking-Directors-Sons-Cut/dp/B000FAOB0A/sr=1-1/qid=1169928691/ref=pd_bowtega_1/026-4532352-5677236?ie=UTF8&s=dvd)

It's Region 2 pal, though.

It's Region 2 pal, though.

Ah, well.

...too much dialog...???

I share your puzzlement. I would rather read dialog than big long winding paragraphs that fill up pages and pages with nonsense and gets invariably skipped anyway so that I can get to the action bits.

I'm reading Daughter of Hounds at present, as the copy finally arrived via Amazon.ca. I'm only the Prologue through, and now I need to find more time to read the remainder.

I share your puzzlement.

It just baffles me. Years ago, when I published Silk, people complained there was too much description, not enough dialog. These days I get the opposite. Go figure.

I can very much relate to what you're saying about being in and out at the same time, mostly because I don't believe anything I haven't experienced. (Now that you've been reading my journal a little, you might know what I'm talking about.) And most people who are into the things that I work with do so on faith to some degree. I haven't a drop of faith in my body. I've simply experienced a lot of things and want to give them meaning -- or maybe refine the meaning I might have assigned some years ago.

As a result, I recently started calling myself a "spiritual scientist." I absconded with the word from Sam Harris (not someone I like a lot, but his term I liked immensely). It's a legitimate stance in my world. I suspect it's exactly what your world is about, too.

As a result, I recently started calling myself a "spiritual scientist." I absconded with the word from Sam Harris (not someone I like a lot, but his term I liked immensely). It's a legitimate stance in my world. I suspect it's exactly what your world is about, too.

See my comments above in response to

wolven.

I want to caution people not to align themselves with me. I truly have not done a good job of making myself understood. Here, for instance, I would never refer to myself as a "spiritual scientist," as I do not accept to existence of spirits, in either a broad or narrow sense. For me, this is not at all about spiritualism (though it may have a great deal to do with psychology). And as science cannot yet demonstrate or disprove the existence of spirits, spiritualism is generally something which exists well beyond the boundaries of science. I would therefore call the phrase "spiritual scientist" an oxymoron. At least until such time as there is some means whereby physicists or biopsychologists or whoever can empirically investigate the possible existence of spirits or souls or what have you.

Now that you've been reading my journal a little, you might know what I'm talking about.)

Another example here. Reading your journal, I see that you are an astrologer, and, in all honesty, I must admit that I find astrology to be one of the most unlikely of all occult studies. I know enough about celestial mechanics and astronomy, physics and gravity, etc. & etc., to know that, from my POV and that of science, that there is simply no way that distant galaxies or even relatively nearby planets may affect the fate of human beings. And yet I will not discount that astrology may have great personal importance to you. But, still, this is a good example of why I would caution people not to be too quick to side with me on these matters. I have not made myself clearly understood at all, I fear.

And I would add, I am most emphatically not trying to tear down your beliefs. I'm merely explaining why they are not my own.

Fair enough, regarding definitions and individual pursuits. I don't think Sam Harris means the "scientist" part of that term in a sense like a biologist or chemist, where exact measurements are made and evaluated, but rather in a sociological, psychological or anthropological sense, where behavior is examined. If I'm not mistaken, in this sense he's referring to the gathering of personal experiences and comparison that against those of others, rather than blindly accepting other people's experiences. But I'll take your word for it that you're doing something different. (Incidentally, you have lots of very smart, articulate readers. Wolven included.)

I know enough about celestial mechanics and astronomy, physics and gravity, etc. & etc., to know that, from my POV and that of science, that there is simply no way that distant galaxies or even relatively nearby planets may affect the fate of human beings.

And you would be absolutely right.

The theory I've been playing with (and I don't know if anyone shares it) is that it's got nothing to do with the planets directly, but rather with something else that is finely tuned to the celestial bodies. This something else is the intermediary that bring the "weather" into our lives; it cannot at this time be detected or known, that's for sure. It's important to me because of its repeated accuracy over the years. (As an aside, I was originally a biology major in college before I turned to writing, and an amateur astronomer for many, many years.)

I do hope, as time goes by, we'll get to hear more of your thinking. I'm always fascinated by and delighted to hear the thinking and path forging of highly intelligent, creative people like yourself.

I subscribed. I've been putting it off for ... well, I don't really know why. So anyway, that's done.

And yeah, VNV Nation. Good times. And did you hear they're playing Coachella this year? How surreal is that?

I finished Daughter of Hounds and as usual of your work found it a entertaining read. The characters were good. The story held quite a bit of excitement and twists, leading to a better understanding of the mysteries your universe. I absolutely loved the variant worlds.

My only negative comments on the book are not the "dream" sequences as such, but the fact Emmie constantly derides nearly everything as a dream. (I'm preparing to deal with this.)

That and "bad" guys are too easily dealt with, especially their final battles. I felt only in a few sections of the book was anyone in grave danger. But that's how I felt about LOTR.

Anyways, a good book that I have recommended to all my friends.

"Reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes." --sample from some Thrill Kill Kult song or another. those specious criticisms made me laugh, and i find your Descartes quote from the other day especially relevant.

i'd like to comment on the last portion of this entry. unfortunately, i'm only supposed to be here as a break from my art history reading. so i leave you with an oft-forgotten (at least by me) skeptic's creed: absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

and one final note: if one were, how shall we say, impoverished, but felt that they could not live without a gay male issue of SD, how would one go about ordering this single issue?

how would one go about ordering this single issue?

That's easy. Subscribe. You'll get the issue. Then, simply unsubscribe. Alternately, and much more simply, you may pay Spooky $10 via PayPal (at the crk_books addy above). However, in this instance, I can't afford to offer the free copy of Silk, which I hope you'll understand.

absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

It is, indeed, a very good sentiment. But I think a stress should always be placed upon necessarily, as this bit is too often quoted in an effort to bolster claims of extremely unlikely phenomena. Basically, the sentiment works quite well, as long as it's counterbalanced with a healthy bit of parsimony.

However, in this instance, I can't afford to offer the free copy of Silk, which I hope you'll understand.

not to worry. tis understood. :)

But I think a stress should always be placed upon necessarily, as this bit is too often quoted in an effort to bolster claims of extremely unlikely phenomena.

always. makes me think of Carl Sagan's "invisible dragon in the garage."

not to worry. tis understood. :)

Very good, then. I do hope you enjoy the issue. It's a good one.

makes me think of Carl Sagan's "invisible dragon in the garage."

Indeed!

Have you read much of Robert Anton Wilson's stuff?

Have you read much of Robert Anton Wilson's stuff?

I've tried. It just never worked for me.

It was the inbetween-ness that prompted me, because being inbetween and maybe and never completely certain is kind of his thing. I've had attacks of the same malaise, too prone to all manner of doubt and questioning to either believe like a proper materialist or deny like a proper mystic. I found RAW's material helpful in dealing with the ensuing angst, hence asking.
Are you familiar with General Semantics at all?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Breathing in only doubt

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject