Guest Blogger Available At: http://attic914.blogspot.com/
To my faithful readers and companions-
I tried to post thisto the Blog this evening to no avail. So here it
is in email form. It's a long one, so read when you can. I'll end up
posting it online anyways, but I had to get it out. I was itching my
thoughts into the gnarled twine used tie up bags of potatoes.
9/7/2004
Parts of a Play
So today was the first day of classes. I spent most of it trying to
fix my friend Santas' computer (her name is the Spanish word for saint
and is not followed by Clause or preceeded by MRS. for that matter)
after my morning classes were completed. My mind, however, was not
challeneged til near the very end of my evening Intro to Theatre class.
A young man raised his hand and began spouting of some specific
references to Shaekspere's Henry IV. His question pertained as to how
one creates action with dialogue (as a play MUST DO in order to BE a
play) if the characters names, demeanors and actions are fairly
similar. How does one show through this dialogue that these are
separate characters and not all the same person. This made me think:
Why is he asking such a specfic question to our instructor on the first
day? My initial thought was "he's obviously showing off. It's the
first day, he wants to show that he's here for the right reasons, or
that he knows more than the general population of this class as a
whole. So be it. Allow his ego to inflate. It's not as though I
haven't done that before." But is this truth? Looking at him, one can
lightly make the assumption that he was most likely labeled an outsider
or misfit in highschool (see anyone with scraggly hair completely
dressed in black and knowing alot about art/theatre/music/cars, etc.).
I've been there, i know this, I can recognize it in this person. his
body movements, his questioning is bold and more a statement than a
question. does he really want to know the answer to his query, or is
this his moment to shine in front of an audience who is most likely
made up of those who he couldn't stand when he was younger? I'm still
puzzling this. Although the questioning was pertinant, it ended up so
very specific that it was quite a bit out of line of the direct topic
at hand.
Which lead me back to a written statement on the men's room wall I read
ealrier at our break in class. The statement said something like is:
"God could be playing a trick on us all." Which of couse leads us to
the thought: Are we just dancers in someone's ballet? Pawns in a one
player game of chess. Our ability to live is a gift, but our mortality
is the antithesis of that gift. If we are pawns to some higher up
being, is our attempt at transcending our mortality beyond futile? In
fact down right pathetic? Are those people who are remembered after
their deaths pre-chosen to be remembered? Sure, we are all
"remembered" for awhile, but how long can that last? Is there such a
thing as destiny? If there is then that outrules the thought of free
speech, free choice, or anything free as it's already been determined
for us. Typing this letter and publishing it has been determined.
Some..THING...KNEW i would do this and in fact directed me so. That
young man's questioning...was that the catalyst? Or has every moment
of my entire life, good or bad, been leading up to not only this one
point at which I am at now, but everything after.
Your reading this for a reason then. I emailed you about this list, or
you found it somehow because you were SUPPOSED to find it.
Doesn't that make even ATTEMPTING ANYTHING seem ridiculous? Can you
ever really TRY anything? Sure you can TRY a doughnut, but the only
thing your "accomplishing" is eating your first doughnut which,
according to destiny, you would have done at that moment anyways.
Which leaves you then with the fact that you couldn't NOT have eaten
that doughnut. Can you WIN or LOSE?
Sure, there are two outcomes: WIN or LOSE. In the end, they're both
fleeting moments that will only be remembered in brief, blurred
recognitions to our children or grand-children as a campfire story. A
place far and away from us by then, and at a time when we thought
everything was possible only to find out everything was predetermined.
If you or I are PREDETERMINED TO FAIL, is there such a thing as FAILING
OR SUCCEEDING? Or is it just IS?
- Erik Michael
MY RESPONSE:
Jebus H Christo! You sure caught me off guard with such a heavy dose of philosophy that I have been steadily weaned off of during the past year or two having no one near me to share an indepth conversation of such magnitude with. It most likely goes without saying that I have, at times, been boggled by the same questions you have addressed here. Occasionally I have justified my own actions based on the premise that if I was not "supposed" to do action "A" then I wouldn't have done it. So in this case, philosophic dead-ends are places where I can rationalize getting drunk on a weeknight or the rare occasion I find myself stealing a kiss off the lips of a swell young woman without the guilt of actual decision making. However, these rationalized emotions are always quick to escape and I usually find myself with the resulting guilt or hangover.
Is it all in vain? I don't think anyone can live believing it really is...perhaps those who have chosen to end their lives come to accept that it really is. To expand a bit on the topic at hand I think your question definitely calls into question the idea of what someone "deserves." Destiny would suggest (in my mind) that no one really "deserves" any of the fortune or misfortune they encounter. They simply waltz about life taking the rewards they're given while enduring the pain they receive as well. John Rawls, my favorite philosopher who has dedicated his life to the topic of equal distribution suggests that we must look at ethics in terms of not knowing how we were to be before we were born. We could've been born into families that were rich, poor, black, white, christian, buddist, muslim, republican, democrat, peaceful or violent. As an individual we can have genes that dictate our gender, intelligence, height, weight, strength, health and life span. No one "deserves" any of these demographics or attributes, nor do they "deserve" the positive or negative consequences associated with either of them. Rawls suggests that any rational person would design society in the way to benefit the least well off since we as individuals all had the possibility of being the least well off. Just because we happen not to be is not because we necessarily "deserve" it.
I know I strayed a bit off topic here but you got my motor turning a little bit. Maybe the hampster running on the wheel powering my brain got a bit of the french roast I drank this morning.
-Suspeckted
