I'm debating whether to wake son Sam and his friend up or let them sleep. it's Sunday morning in Washington, we're on college road trip. We're seeing a bunch of schools, yet today we have nothing. And I'm motivated to visit Arlington Cemetery. Could this have anything to do with my fast approaching 50th bday? Needless to say, Sam is totally psyched about it. And his friend James! Can't hold him back! Cemeteries? Where do I sign?!!!
Or I could kick back and read a book. Quite like the binary positions posed by Quinn in Ishmael. Kick back and chill or be a seeker after knowledge? Leaver or Taker? Yet there is a conundrum (or perhaps several) at the heart of Ishmael that I haven't quite been able to sort out, tho I enjoyed the book quite a bit. And that is...
Reading, at least for pleasure, may be a mellow, 'Leaver' type activity. But creating a book-- the concept, the deadlines, the marketing, the paper and glue, to say nothing of the actual research and writing, and indeed the concept of written language itself-- seems decidedly Taker. The book presents this utopian, elysian Leaver ethos through a venue, a product, a lifestyle choice the book is at pains to tell us is destroying the planet. Perhaps, like in Tolstoy's great Kreutzer Sonata story, the solution will eliminate all consciousness of such a problem. Or perhaps we should read more Tolstoy (hint, hint).
Anyhoo, for those of you who don't know what the hell I'm going on about, Ishmael was a didactic novel, a catechism of sorts, kind of an ersatz platonic dialogue on the question of why we live how we live. How did we get here? Why here and not...there? Well, let me tell you a story...so as not to go on for-fucking-EVER, I'll pick out one or two salient points.
Quinn posits there are two types of people in the world, two kinds of societies which he calls the Takers and the Leavers, (trying to be non-judgemental & failing miserably), the Takers being civilized man, kids of 'Mother Culture', busily raping the universe and making it impossible for any life form but our own to hold any dominion whatsoever, and then the Leavers, the unsophisticated, uncivilized aboriginal peoples of the earth, who take what they need and leave the rest, allowing for all creatures to live if not in harmony and peace, at least to live. Rainer was taken with Quinn's brief account of evolution, wherein the jellyfish believes that he of course is the ultimate endpoint of evolution, and that land was created merely to contain the seas in which he reigns supreme. Now, I've talked to a lot of jellyfish, and in my experience found that most subscribe to something more along the lines the Kantian categorical imperative, and wonder why man can't be nicer-- particularly during the summer months off the coast of New Jersey. And they long to play tennis. Alas.
Anyhoo, his take on evolution is interesting-- that Man, in his Taker quest to control EVERYTHING, has effectively stopped evolution in it's tracks. As a corollary (basing much on the story of Cain and Abel), he suggests that the Bible was written by a herder/gatherer culture which was defeated by the nascent agriculturalists (classic primeval land grab), and that it is in fact a Leaver manifesto adopted and reinterpreted, which is to say misinterpreted, by generations of Takers that followed. Essentially that the Bible supports evolution! Creationists, rejoice! Now die!
Another facet I found interesting was his basic belief that consciousness is based not on philosophy or morality or reason, even, but story. Culture is the story we tell ourselves and each other, incessantly, in all media, from cradle to grave. Hey, I'm down. Anything to avoid reading Hegel.
Which reminds me-- cemeteries! look at the time. We'll never get there if we don't hurry!
As far as Gilead goes-- I read about half, quite enjoyed it, but I'll take Patrick's word when he says he kept waiting for something to happen. And he read the whole thing.
Continuing our goatish quest for the meaning of life, and this time with footnotes, we agreed to read Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, which, if any of you have a 10th grader, you should find stuffed under his/her bed. The other is another Steve suggestion, but this time NOT english, and (therefore?) not depressing. But I can't vouch for the latter. No one knew anything about it. Except it's supposed to be funny. About time. Soooo...
Books for next time:
WHEN: Wednesday March 23, 7:30pm
WHERE: ODs in Nyack
See ya there!
dan
as always, your comments, suggestions, rants, insults welcome
Dan - As usual, "Bravo" to a well written diatribe about one of the books in question, mainly Ishmael. Your points are well taken but I think (for those that didn't read it) somewhat misses the point. Sure, Quinn is being 'judgmental' in his categorization of "Leavers" and "Takers", but I think the bigger point is that the "Takers" civilization/culture believe that man is the ultimate controller of the planet and it is his God-given right to be able to manipulate it for his best interests. Therefore, consequences be damned. THAT's the issue . . . Modern civilization is not living in harmony with nature or the "natural state of being". We see this around us every day. At the heart, Quinn tries (and does an excellent job) explaining how we got to be this way. If we are at least aware of this, then, perhaps, we will be more conscious in some of the decisions we make. So I think Ishmael can provide a good foundation for things like the "Global Warming/Climate Change" debate . . . the religious stuff notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteSo I look forward to shifting gears next month . . .
Rainer
The more i think about it, the more simplistic Quinn's analysis seems. Not that any theory so broad is going to be airtight, but...There's an exhibit at the Metropolitan, The World of Khubilai Khan: Chinese Art in the Yuan Dynasty, reviewed by Eliot Weinberger in NY Review of Books. Got me thinking. He writes:
ReplyDeleteKhubilai was a warrior shepherd ruling the most advanced civilization on earth at the time...
and
the khans had so many children with their wives and concubines that successors were normally blood relatives who had defeated or killed their brothers or cousins....
and
His later years were an autumn of the patriarch. He lost his favorite wife and favorite son, became grotesquely fat, suffered from gout and other ailments, and was detached from governing. He held huge and endless banquets of meat and koumiss, fermented mare’s milk, and was in a near-continual state of inebriation. More and more of his time was spent in the summer palace of Shangdu, which was largely a hunting reserve. There, four elephants would carry him, lying on a couch, in a gold-plated palanquin decked with tiger skins, accompanied by five hundred falconers and leopards and lynxes trained to chase down bears and wild boars. He died in 1294.
all of which is to say...what? not entirely sure. but at least that the world does not divide quite so neatly into leavers and takers in practice as it does in Quinn's theory. Perhaps it is simply 'man' himself that is the thorn in the side of evolution, or natural processes. And each of us has to discover his response for himself. like dorothy in the wizard of oz. if quinn had his way there would be no wizard of oz! can't have that! more anon. Perhaps we should take field trip to exhibit. Goat road trip?;)