Caitlín R. Kiernan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
greygirlbeast) wrote2007-01-27 11:18 am
greygirlbeast) wrote2007-01-27 11:18 am
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.