the Sun, the stars, the wind, and the waves

A year or two ago, I picked up John Edward Huth’s The Lost Art of Finding Our Way at the local used bookstore. It was one of those books that was entirely unknown to me but just called my name as soon as I saw it. (Christopher Alexander’s A Timeless Way of Building was like that, too. I’ve since discovered that Alexander is quite and unsurprisingly well known, though why our local not-used bookstore always has a copy of his A Timesless Way and not his much more popular A Pattern Language is a mystery.) Then it became one of many books that stares at me from the shelf asking, “How about now?”

My ability to commit to any serious reading is lower right now than it has ever been by far, but we’ll see how it goes. 

Here’s Huth in the opening page:

Only a few years ago you would have sworn the commuter next to you was crazy. He talks into the air, as if to an imaginary friend, while playing with a tiny box he holds in front of his face. His whole world is a bubble two feet around his head. If, by a miracle, you get his attention and ask him questions, he can only answer by manipulating his tiny box. He checks the box and can tell you tomorrow’s weather, which way is north, and the name of that bright star in the sky. You hide the box, and he becomes helpless. You ask him, “Why is it warm in the summer and cold in the winter?” By way of explanation, the commuter gestures with his hands in front of his face. His left hand becomes the Sun and his right index finger becomes the Earth as it orbits his fist. He mumbles something about the Earth’s being closer to the Sun in the summer and farther away in the winter. His voice has a rising inflection that begs your affirmation.

Now let’s suppose it is three thousand years ago and you have transported yourself into a fisherman’s boat, far from land. He sings to himself as he hauls in a net from the sea. You ask him questions about the weather and the sky; he thinks you are crazy but humors you anyway. He confidently rattles off tomorrow’s weather, points north, and tells you a story about the bright star in the sky. He has no magic box to hide. You ask him, “Why is it warm in the summer and cold in the winter?” His outstretched arm traces an arc toward the sky, and he says that the Sun takes a high path in the summer, and the days are long; but in the winter the Sun has a low path, and the days are short. His voice has no hint of uncertainty.

Whom would you consider the more primitive of the two: the commuter or the fisherman? 

Of course I love this. It’s practically something of an old saw by now, but the book was published in 2013. He wasn’t waiting for The Cell Phone Studies to prove his point.

He also isn’t actually writing about cell phones (or: cell “phones”) and lower-than-primitive moderns, but about the cultural history of navigation, “weaving together astronomy, meteorology, oceanography, and ethnography,” to quote the back of the book.

But still, or better, this is some wonderfully antidotal shit. I don’t recall if I’ve ever said much about a little back-of-the-napkin theory of mine (I touched on it here), but I believe — or hope, at least — that the excitement of being out in the middle of nowhere — or even out in town! — without any device “connecting” you to some perceived hub of human activity or knowledge or safety, will be rediscovered as its own dopamine rich, morally and psychologically sound reward. No internet, no electricity; just your five senses in a body as a soul in the world.

Huth gives me hope that, as low as we have set the bar, it could still be true:

As information technology has grown, our ability to perceive and think independently without help from devices may be compromised to the point where we, not our forebears, are the primitive ones. Long before the advent of the Global Positioning System (GPS), our distant ancestors traveled vast distances using what seem to us to be primitive technologies. In many cases explanations for the effectiveness of their systems only arose in the twentieth century; some remain a mystery. Systems of navigation developed by different cultures may not have been based on an understanding of science as we conceive it today, but they made sense, and they worked. While the device-addicted commuter may seem oblivious to and clueless about his surroundings, his ancestors proved that humans can absorb exceedingly subtle environmental clues to find their way. […]

By piecing together our knowledge of cultures of navigation, we can begin to appreciate a kinship we all share in the very human art of way-finding. … I will try to convey these techniques to you in this book, but there is no substitute for leaving the bubble and experiencing the Sun, the stars, the wind, and the waves.

Much like the rediscoverable good leisure I talked about in the link above, it’s there — eminently, imminently, infinitely discoverable and waiting.

Sometimes here we are there

I mentioned not long ago that I have a collection of Wendell Berry’s Sabbath Poems that I have been reading for years. In fact, I’ve had it and been picking it up for about as long as I have been reading Berry. That is, I have no memory of knowing Wendell Berry prior to or apart from having these poems. 

And I have lately been stuck on page 201 of that copy of A Timbered Choir. The habit, common with me and poetry, is to open it and read again the last one I read before I turn the page. 

And I just don’t want to turn the page. 

the incarnate mind, the tongue, and the tale

Alasdair MacIntyre:

Our kinship to the dolphin and the chimpanzee cannot be discarded and this is a kinship not only with respect to the animality of the body, but also with respect to forms of life. The greatest students of animal behavior have exercised skills and sensibilities that resemble closely those of the gifted social or cultural anthropologist. […]

… And when a species, such as our own, is able through the use of language to become reflective about its reasons, it is not only the having of reasons that is now on occasion causally effective in guiding behavior, but the having of reasons for taking this set of considerations rather than that to be in this particular situation genuinely reason-affording that is causally effective.

J. R. R Tolkien:

Philology has been dethroned from the high place it once had in this court of inquiry. Max Müller’s view of mythology as a “disease of language” can be abandoned without regret. Mythology is not a disease at all, though it may like all human things become diseased. You might as well say that thinking is a disease of the mind. It would be more near the truth to say that languages, especially modern European languages, are a disease of mythology. But Language cannot, all the same, be dismissed. The incarnate mind, the tongue, and the tale are in our world coeval. The human mind, endowed with the powers of generalization and abstraction, sees not only green-grass, discriminating it from other things (and finding it fair to look upon), but sees that it is green as well as being grass. But how powerful, how stimulating to the very faculty that produced it, was the invention of the adjective: no spell or incantation in Faerie is more potent. And that is not surprising: such incantations might indeed be said to be only another view of adjectives, a part of speech in a mythical grammar. The mind that thought of light, heavy, grey, yellow, still, swift, also conceived of magic that would make heavy things light and able to fly, turn grey lead into yellow gold, and the still rock into a swift water. If it could do the one, it could do the other; it inevitably did both. When we can take green from grass, blue from heaven, and red from blood, we have already an enchanter’s power—upon one plane; and the desire to wield that power in the world external to our minds awakes. It does not follow that we shall use that power well upon any plane. We may put a deadly green upon a man’s face and produce a horror; we may make the rare and terrible blue moon to shine; or we may cause woods to spring with silver leaves and rams to wear fleeces of gold, and put hot fire into the belly of the cold worm. But in such “fantasy,” as it is called, new form is made; Faerie begins; Man becomes a sub-creator.

I’m rereading Tolkien’s lecture-essay On Fairy Stories, or trying to anyway since my printer is not hooked up and that means reading on a… device. I wrote a flurry of notes on Meador’s essay on AI yesterday. While there were things to genuinely praise, I found his use of Tolkien and Wendell Berry to be — well, I’m trying decide if it’s just wrong or if it is as grotesque as my initial reaction found it to be. Or maybe I’m just wrong. Gotsta think a bit.

slant and direct to the wound

John Berger (1984):

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most direct protests against social injustice were in prose. They were reasoned arguments written in the belief that, given time, people would come to see reason, and that, finally, history was on the side of reason. Today this is by no means clear. The outcome is by no means guaranteed. The suffering of the present and the past is unlikely to be redeemed by a future era of universal happiness. And evil is a constant ineradicable reality. All this means that the resolution—the coming to terms with the sense to be given to life—cannot be deferred. The future cannot be trusted. The moment of truth is now. And more and more it will be poetry, rather than prose, that receives this truth. Prose is far more trusting than poetry; poetry speaks to the immediate wound.

Not that Nadezhda can be topped — she can’t — but that is, I think, a pretty straightforward version of what William Carlos Williams meant:

                         It is difficult

to get the news from poems

            yet men die miserably every day

                         for lack

of what is found there.

I have mentioned before the personal significance of a quote from Charles Taylor:

We are deeply moved, but also puzzled and shaken. We struggle to articulate what we’ve been through. If we succeed in formulating it, however partially, we feel a release, as though the power of the experience was increased by having been focussed, articulated, and hence let fully be.

Here’s Berger, a couple pages after the quote above:

To break the silence of events, to speak of experience however bitter or lacerating, to put into words, is to discover the hope that these words may be heard, and that when heard, the events will be judged. This hope is of course at the origin of prayer, and prayer … was probably at the origin of speech itself. Of all uses of language, it is poetry that preserves most purely the memory of this origin.

The right words, as Mrs. Mandelstam put it, “gain strength in the very process of overcoming the obstacles, as they thrust up through the mounds of debris under which they are buried, emerging in fresh combinations to bring out whatever ideas are seeking expression.”

I’m not going anywhere with this right now; just thinking. Dickinson praised the truth-in-slant as a kindness, and it is that. But I do think a significant part of telling or hearing or seeing something slant is in the knowledge that you have no choice but to do so.

“they grazed the sky and sounded the underworld”

John Berger:

Even when working in the forest alone, one has an elusive sense of company. A flat field, a bare hillside, or the steppe are not the same. The trees constitute a presence. They maintain—each according to its species—an extraordinary balance between movement and stillness, between action and passivity. And in this balance, all the while being regulated, their presence is palpable. That they held up the roofs of houses for so long is not surprising. They offer company. But company of a discretion which is indistinguishable from indifference. They roofed not only houses but also courts, tax-collector’s offices, prisons, armouries.

Their presence, if it offers a kind of company, is earlier than justice or the notion of indifference. The company they offer is spatial, and it is a way of measuring, of counting. Long before any numerals or mathematics, when human language was first naming the world, trees offered their measures— of distance, of height, of diameter, of space. They were taller than anything else alive, their roots went deeper than any creature; they grazed the sky and sounded the underworld. From them was born the idea of the pillar, the column. Trees offered man the measure of his upright space, and in this offer—mysteriously still present today as I fill up the chain saw with petrol—there is the discreetest assurance in the world, that we have never been utterly alone.

Each pine at dusk
lodges the bird
of its voice
perpendicular and still
the forest
indifferent to history
tearless as stone
repeats
in tremulous excitement
the ancient story
of the sun going down

At the end of the day when they come out of the forest, their limbs scarcely any longer obedient to their instructions, carrying their chain saws and bottles, the unfiltered light and the panorama dazzle their eyes. Each time they are astounded and, somewhere in the heavy oppressive fatigue of their bodies, there is almost a smile, as if in response to a wink. After hours of the forest, what is winking at them is the space of the valleys below and the unimpeded sky. Each pursues his own path down the slope, led by the weakness of his knees or by his boots that feel their way through the grass without him. Each is going to his own rest. But they are all returning to the world, and its first gift is its space; later, its second gift will be a flat table and a bed. For the most fortunate the bed is shared.

Even after the great separation we shall return to you at the end of the day, out of the unimpeded sky, and you will recognize us by our fatigue and by the heaviness of our heads on your bodies, of which we had such need.

Antón Barba-Kay:

I take it to be obvious that we are living at a moment when all kinds of capacities that had once been shorthand for what’s human are being disconcerted and called into question. And while all digital boosters advertise this as a way for humanity to unlock its true potential—eliminating annoying frictions like working, feeling, and thinking—in order to devote ourselves to a delicious obsolescence sometimes labelled “creativity,” it is characteristic of this line of thought that it invariably defines what’s creative or authentic or human as that which digital agents cannot yet do. This is a winning strategy so long as we have no care to formulate human measure, place, or purpose in other terms. And it is a strategy that leads directly to dehumanization.

We are prone to imagining the threat of dehumanization as one in which murderbots enslave us. Our paradigm for “dehumanizing” speech is one that is coercive or humiliating. These are real threats about the end of human beings, but the gravest threat now is to the human end itself: I mean a situation in which we are so completely successful in mediating and optimizing our tasks into outside-in digital processes that we lose our grip on the question of what we are for from the inside out. The clearest picture of this dehumanization is not being caged or brutalized but spending one’s life in an airport lounge: a non-place in which we are completely safe and comfortable even as we are almost completely desocialized, decontextualized, deskilled, and living in a sort of highly controlled dead zone of meaning; a place in which opaque technologies have come to replace the work of culture itself, and in which each person is absorbed in a parenthesis of screened experience even as all are practically neutralized.

[…]

[W]e need the virtue of living language. According to the Turing test, a computer can be said to be intelligent if it can produce outputs that are indistinguishable from those of a human being. It is a bad test of actual intelligence for many reasons, but it is an excellent test of human beings’ eagerness to ascribe intelligence to machine outputs. The time is coming when the world may be divided into people who are willing to feel that LLMs speak to them and people who are not. Because this will be a matter of practical conviction rather than logical proof, it is only by acquiring the virtue of living language that one might resist.

… Language is realized only by being enacted, whereas the most pernicious feature of digital technology is that it unravels the contexts in which words carry weight. Just as you can know that other human beings are real only through practical conviction, you can know that words are alive only if you have lived them and if they have animated you. Human beings are worded creatures, creatures possessed of speech. But to live by words takes practice.

“like a soldier dismantling his rifle”

John Berger:

Sometimes, I’d like to write a book
A book all about time
About how it doesn’t exist,
How the past and the future
Are one continuous present.
I think that all people— those living,
those who have lived
And those who are still to live—are alive now.
I should like to take that subject to pieces,
Like a soldier dismantling his rifle.

wrote Yevgeny Vinokurov.

ONCE IN A POEM

Poems, even when narrative, do not resemble stories. All stories are about battles, of one kind or another, which end in victory and defeat. Everything moves towards the end, when the outcome will be known.

Poems, regardless of any outcome, cross the battlefields, tending the wounded, listening to the wild monologues of the triumphant or the fearful. They bring a kind of peace.

Not by anaesthesia or easy reassurance, but by recognition and the promise that what has been experienced cannot disappear as if it had never been. Yet the promise is not of a monument. (Who, still on a battlefield, wants monuments:) The promise is that language has acknowledged, has given shelter, to the experience which demanded, which cried out.

Poems are nearer to prayers than to stories…. In all poetry words are a presence before they are a means of communication.

New Christian Nationalist Translation

Bonnie Kristian:

Early in the book of Isaiah, the prophet encounters the Lord, “high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.” Seraphim swirl about, singing, “Holy, holy, holy,” and Isaiah falls into despair: He is not holy, and he knows it.

“Woe to me!” he cries. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

But at this confession, a seraphim descends, touches Isaiah’s lips with a live coal, and declares his guilt removed. Then, in one of the best-known exchanges in the Bible, God speaks: “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And Isaiah famously answers, “Here am I. Send me! I just can’t wait to bomb Iran.”