The one whose site that Index is on has some books himself, one on artists as thinkers

such thinkers tend to be gifted ministers in the service of the beautiful

Really I’m looking for another study like that Dante one. There are some surprising perspectives on poetry out there.

Huckleberry Finn on Tom Sawyer

in my nature I have always run to pie, whilst in his nature he has always run to mystery. People are made different.

I think of art as the Other. I define myself as not-that. That’s what interests me about it lately. It’s like my twin in a way also. And somehow still my direct opposite. And I think the difference hinges on the other meaning of the word “direct”- that it is an indirect form of discourse, whereas I tend to gravitate toward the most direct discourse. My Other is a mystery to me. Why can’t you just say it? That’s what I want to ask art. Why do you have to put a bunch of FLUFF around it? “It’s not just fluff” – that’s how it’ll probably respond. You gotta major malfunction or something, you can’t be direct? I’m going to throw a fluffball at you sometime and see how you like it.

Anyway, speaking of otherness, out of all the artists as thinkers that he has chapters on, THIS is the one I beeline to

This is a great question

What would we be primarily concerned with if our political, including our economic and international, problems could be put to one side?

This is the truly “useless” in the non-pejorative sense I mentioned recently. What is it TO BE if politics doesn’t matter. That’s actually something I try to talk about in proceeding as if “the theological-political” didn’t matter (which it doesn’t). Walking in a garden with a parasol, what would you say to me if we were in a world where politics didn’t matter?

The Tibetans, protected from “politics” by a fortress of mountains, practiced mysticism.

Back to Austen though- crucial distinction here between human being and citizen

What is truly instructive for us is not how the people of that time lived but rather their opinion of what a virtuous human being (not a citizen) is and what makes one thus.

Are you never not a citizen? It seems like even in people’s private lives they’re expected to be citizens.

This is what really gets me in life, like what am I going to do with a citizen? I’d rather just be a Tibetan monk

“Don’t bring that up again, please.” The social contract is refuted based on this alone. What’s the point of “citizens together”? It defeats the purpose of having a society in the first place. Why does this seem like such a lost cause? Doesn’t this bother anyone else? We all have to be robots with each other and you’re fine with that?

Tying these themes together, it seems the indirectness of art is the closest people can get to not being a mere citizen. And even then, they’re almost always citizens anyway. That IS how it’s possible though, in light of the fact that direct discourse isn’t permitted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: