This increasingly seems to me like a major and timeless human problem. Human beings need activity-- they need something to do. They need a focus. They also need something to talk about. We require interaction with other human beings, for its own sake as much as for any purpose we might put it too. So what form should those interactions take?
T.S. Eliot famously wrote that modern man is "distracted by distraction from distraction". It's a valid point, but...surely people need some kind of distraction, or at least some kind of occupation. What is it we're supposedly being distracted from, anyway?
The Christian might say "worship". The socialist might say politics, or the improvement of the human species. The hippie (I think that we still have hippies even if they aren't classic hippies) might say "love" or "human connection" or some such thing. Or perhaps we come down to the ideal of pure being-- whatever that is. Whatever anyone might say, people who complain about modern distractions must believe we're being distracted from something.
I'm very sympathetic to the argument made by Wally in the wonderful movie My Dinner with André, when he reacts against his rather hippie-ish friend, who is talking about various workshops he's led and which seem similiar to Sixties "happenings" or modern mindfulness exercises.
Wally says: "The whole point, really, I think, was to enable the people in the workshops, including yourself, to somehow sort of strip away every scrap of purposefulness from certain selected moments. And the point of it was so that you would then all be able to experience, somehow, just pure being. In other words, you were trying to discover what it would be like to live for certain moments without having any particular thing that you were supposed to be doing.
"And I think I just simply object to that. I mean, I just don’t think I accept the idea that there should be moments in which you’re not trying to do anything. I think, uh, it’s our nature, uh, to do things, I think we should do things, I think that, uh, purposefulness is part of our ineradicable basic human structure, and…and to say that we ought to be able to live without it is like saying that, uh, a tree ought to be able to live without branches or roots, but…but actually, without branches or roots, it wouldn’t be a tree, I mean, it would just be a log. Do you see what I’m saying?"
I tend to agree with Wally. We all have moments of pure euphoria or contentment or contemplativeness. But...we can't live like that. We have to do something, to think about something, to talk about something.
(And honestly, for me, those moments have been moments of plenitude rather than moments of pure simplicity.)
No matter how much you believe in the primacy of some particular activity, there's still inevitably lots of time left over. It's impressive and moving to read about great Christian saints who could spend hours on end in prayer. But few of us have that kind of purity, and even those saints seemed to have time and energy left over. Similarly, even the purest aesthete can't really live just for art, even the purest workaholic can't live just for work...
Besides, most art needs to be about something, all work needs to be about something...it has purpose inherent to it. So it can't really be its own purpose, ultimately, although it can to some extent.
And then there's the other problem, the one I started with. What do we talk about? And where can that talk go?
It seems reasonable to me to hold this belief: we should organize society and organize our lives in such a way that there's more rather than less to talk about. We should deliberately avoid simplifying and rationalizing things in such a way that there's less to talk about. Or think about.
(One of my personal bugbears in this regard is the "live and let live" philosophy of life. It's tolerant, yes. But it's very boring. Surely there's a happy medium between the Salem witch trials and all those depressing modern proverbs: "You do you", "Whatever floats your boat", "It's all good"...I don't want to be ruled by bigots. But I'd rather have coffee with a bigot than the sort of person who extends the zero aggression principle to not even criticizing anybody else's choices.)
Ironically enough, I have a great deal more to say about this, but that might be enough for now.
Maybe it’s more a question of how or why we talk about X. The older I get, the more unbearable it is to listen to someone talk in a performative way. That includes regurgitation such as repeating the latest talking points from whatever team you consider yourself to be on (even if that team is supposed to be “team God” or a team I personally support) or “trying on a mode of analysis” picked up from somewhere outside yourself. The latter is something I do *a lot* but I try to do it privately bc it can mislead people in addition to being annoying. Indulgent self-validating therapy talk is another intolerable one. Actually grappling with and trying to really solve a problem is one type of ideal conversation to me, and the performative stuff is like the twisted inversion of that.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also endlessly interesting just learning about other people, even “boring” people: hearing about their likes and dislikes, their experiences, the circumstances of their lives. This is true for me even when a person’s thoughts/thinking/analysis is not particularly interesting or even extant.
Which makes the “what” that we should talk about more like: whatever we can talk about with sincerity.
I wish I was as open-minded or mentally agile as you! For instance: "It’s also endlessly interesting just learning about other people, even “boring” people: hearing about their likes and dislikes, their experiences, the circumstances of their lives." This is a very commendable ideal, I WISH I was like that, but I really struggle to know what to SAY in response to someone telling me their likes-- for instance, when it comes to food. I'm sure they have the same sense of bemusement with me.
DeleteAnd I agree with you about the performative thing, although I do think a certain amount of mutual affirmation is necessary when you're a beleagured ideological minority-- at least, I find it so. I've thought a LOT about how much of our social life is a performance and how far we could even dispense with this...
Thank you for the comment!
I agree about needing to know you aren’t alone, and I don’t mind therapy-talk among real friends who need and rightly deserve affirmation in some area, including politics or valid personal traits that incur some social disadvantage. But it’s hard for me to believe that should occur frequently.
DeleteSome people really are painfully boring, but even when I was younger and less patient and found myself drawn to certain boring people. My philosopher friend called them “the metaphysical limits of boringness” because they were so boring the very fact of their extreme boringness became interesting. But I’m a rather extreme extrovert so maybe that’s why.
I can understand that. I think friendship is sometimes the ability to pleasantly bore each other!
DeleteI do think it’s one of the valid points of pessimism that there is a fundamental “emptiness” to consciousness that constantly needs filling. Consciousness needs an “intentional object” to use the philosophical jargon. Does this mean we are just monkeys caught on an endless hedonic treadmill in need of constant stimulation? But as you say, what is it we’re being distracted from supposedly? It’s all too damn wearisome!
ReplyDeleteI don't actually mind being a monkey caught on a treadmill, although I do see how it could feed into pessimism. But I do mind being lambasted for being a monkey caught on a treadmill-- by my fellow monkeys!
DeleteI'm not sure that NOT needing intellectual stimulation is necessarily something to be proud of. (At the same time, I have a pretty high boredom threshold and enjoy mindless tasks way more than most people.)
Yes, to be smeared by one’s fellow monkeys for one’s activity or lack thereof is genuinely annoying, seeing that no human being has ever been proven to have the “inside track” on reality. That’s why I’ve always struggled with the idea of “wisdom”, it so often seems to signify someone who survived a long time by accident or design and is lauded as a result for no other reason than longevity.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet...we have to talk about SOMETHING...so purveying wisdom, and also pushing back against it, is something to talk about!
Delete