For this one I chose to go with a prompt start, (41).
"I think, therefore I am"(prompt 41). When I was small I was told what I was, a child. A child: one who may not do as they wish. I was told who I was and what I was by my parents and everyone around me. Now I am told I am a man, a human, an American; I am told I have a responsibility to my fellow man, my society, and that I must work hard to be successful. I've been told that successful means that I make a lot of money, and that I have nice things, and dress nicely; and can afford to. I'm told that I should pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas, and that it's right that I should have to obey certain restrictions placed upon me by others.
The things that I'm told are the things that I slowly begin to believe. After a while I began to believe that I was a child, a human, a man. I began to believe that I should work hard, and that I should contribute to society, and obey the laws of the land. I pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas because I believe that that is the appropriate capitalistic action. I become the the things that I am told that I am; that becomes my identity.
Who taught me my identity? My parents; they were once children, so who taught them, and who taught their parents? My identity is based upon the the identities of my parents; they taught me what was right and wrong, what to believe. What makes Queen Elizabeth royal but the fact that she is told she is royal, and everyone believes it? Did she know she was royal at birth?
The things that I know I base upon the things that I am told are truths. I'm told that killing is wrong. I'm given reasons, religion, morals, justice, fairness. All abstract ideas that I'm also told are right. After a while I stop questioning everything that I'm told and accept certain truths; because those who are wiser than me also accept them. When did my ancestors accept this truth, that killing was wrong? Thousands of years ago, was it as wrong as it is now? Did my ancestors feel that it was immoral to kill, period? Indeed, thousands of years ago killing was a mainstay of culture, doing it gave you power, and I dare say, "happiness". At what point did riding into a village, burning all of the houses, and killing all of the peasants become "wrong"; when did that become a reality? What set of my parental ancestors first told their children that to kill was immoral? Over time, that concept became common, civilization made it common, and now it is wrong, and it is part of my identity to believe that killing is immoral (except for the societal loop-holes that allow us to kill in war, in which case it's not immoral anymore but moral). Part of who I am now, is based upon a reality that is taught to me.
I am a copy of my parents, renewed in their values. A mirror image of their thoughts, now my thoughts. I might disagree with them; even change my beliefs as my life goes on, but the foundation is always there, the foundation of my identity. I will teach what I learn to my children, and they to theirs. They will be a continuation of me, a carrying on of my knowledge and beliefs. I am a copy of a copy.
This world is an illusion, based upon values taught to us by our ancestors. It is a great structure; built for years and years upon the blocks below. It rises into the sky undaunted; the highest blocks no longer see the blocks below them; they simply accept that they are very high, and that the blocks below are solid enough to hold them, and therefore must be right. Indeed, we too assume that we are right, because those before us have lived successfully believing the things that we now believe.
What we are told is simply true because we allow it to be true. I am not royal because I don't believe I am royal, and no one else does. They don't believe I'm royal because no one has told them that I was. What we are told is what we believe. So my question is; who am I?
9 comments:
Hey Mark--I'm sitting in class here without enough time to comment on this for real. Let me just say for now (and I'll be back later): "At what point did riding into a village, burning all of the houses, and killing all of the peasants become "wrong"; when did that become a reality?"
In my opinion, at no point. Check in Darfur or the former Yugoslavia or Poland 1939 and so on. They say about dogs' loyalty that five minutes and a handful of liver is all you need to make a dog yours. I'd say about civilization and how deep it goes: give a demagogue $7.50/gallon gasoline and some funny looking foreigners to blame our troubles on, and it will take him five minutes to get us to mount up and ride for the village, torches already smoking.
PS--sorry about the deletion. NOticed a punctuation problem....
I'd have to agree that the common "liberal" view that most Americans take toward killing is a facade. We kill when what we have is threatened, or what we want. That hasn't changed. I guess I met more generally, that when society started it would have been normal to have just gone to your actual neighbor's house and killed him and taken what he had. At some point that thinking disappeared in our culture (though not in all current cultures). Now it seems that it's only acceptable thing is to kill as a group; rather than individually at a whim.
Instead or "liberal" view I met "conservative".
Yes, I take your point about "individually at a whim"--but those unstructured societies did have one kind of organization. They were honor societies where family and clan honor trumped everything. So, yes, people would kill their neighbor--and then be killed in turn by their neighbor's brother who would in turn be killed by the original killer's nephew, and so on!
Some places, like many of the parts of the world we wish we didn't have to deal with so closely, that's still the way of things and civilized justice is just a fig leaf.
Anyway, I do have some stuff to say about the writing, but I've grabbed a second before supper and so will have to return later or tomorrow to the writing as opposed to the content.
I've been thinking about this for a few hours. It certainly has the widening circles (or contracting ones)the week calls for.
But it's the tone I can't quite figure out--sometimes when I can't figure something out, it's going to turn into a problem for the writer. This isn't like that: it strikes me one way, then another, and the fact that it buzzes around my head like a mean old mosquito probably says something good about the writing.
The writing is simple--deceptively simple (I've just said its effect on me is not simple!), rhythmic, repetitive (the kind of 'repetitive' that's a compliment, not a complaint) almost a chant. All of that is impressive.
What is keeping me off balance is that parts of it I take at face value, parts I suspect I shouldn't. Which is which?
Stuff about war, stuff about gas prices, stuff about what it means to be a man--I take it one way, then I turn it over and can take it another.
An endless puzzle--again a compliment, not a complaint. Perhaps you didn't mean it to be quite that puzzling, but who should I believe? You or the words on the page?
My entire intent was to state with a long breath, that who we think we are is taught to us; so if our teachers happen to be wrong, we wouldn't actually be who we thought we were? I can see what I'm saying when I read it; and I can see what your saying. I really don't think we're that far off. I think I threw a monkey wrench in there when I commented back trying to clarify my point on killing (though it has little to do with the overall moral). If i've learned anything from this piece it's that trying to explain one's own writing can be difficult. I've adapted the paragraph that is causing the confusion a bit.
"The things that I know I base upon the things that I am told are truths. I'm told that killing is wrong. I'm given reasons, religion, morals, justice, fairness. All abstract ideas that I'm also told are right. After a while I stop questioning everything that I'm told and accept certain truths; because those who are wiser than me also accept them. When did my ancestors accept this truth, that killing was wrong? Thousands of years ago, was it as wrong as it is now? Did my ancestors feel that it was immoral to kill, period? At what point did riding into a village, burning all of the houses, and killing all of the peasants become "wrong" to my ancestors; my identity; when did that become a reality? What set of my parental ancestors first told their children that to kill in that manner was immoral? Over time, that concept seems to have became common in certain societies (America); comfort and privilege made it common, and now it is wrong, and it is part of my identity to believe that killing is immoral (except for the societal loop-holes that allow us to kill in war, in which case it's not immoral anymore but moral). Part of who I am now, is based upon a reality that is taught to me."
Does that work a bit better?
In response to your question as to who you should believe; me or the writing, i'll quote the advice you gave me, "Trust your material! (DH Lawrence talked about trusting the story, not the storyteller."
Hey Mark--yeah, I was consciously referring to DHL there! Glad you remembered. English teachers had damn well better pay attention to nothing except what is on the page--that's hard enough to do.
So, I enjoyed reading your rewrite of the killing graf, not that I ever thought it needed more explanation. As far as I can see, your rewrite drives us even further into irony--the writing works so hard to bring us to the point of saying killing is immoral except when the GrownUps say it isn't, in which case, of course, it isn't.
Some people might find that funny. DH Lawrence, for a start....
Post a Comment