Ah me!...

Did I drop the lyrics in here yet? Even if I did, here they are again. This is one of my Happy songs and I've been listening to it a lot lately. Today I had an excellent reason to do so again. Share with me, sing along if you know the tune:


Climbing up on Solsbury Hill
I could see the city light
Wind was blowing, time stood still
Eagle flew out of the night
He was something to observe
Came in close, I heard a voice
Standing stretching every nerve
Had to listen had no choice
I did not believe the information
(I) just had to trust imagination
My heart going boom boom boom
"Son," he said "Grab your things,
I've come to take you home."

To keep in silence I resigned
My friends would think I was a nut
Turning water into wine
Open doors would soon be shut
So I went from day to day
Tho' my life was in a rut
"Till I thought of what I'd say
Which connection I should cut
I was feeling part of the scenery
I walked right out of the machinery
My heart going boom boom boom
"Hey" he said "Grab your things
I've come to take you home."
(Back home.)

When illusion spin her net
I'm never where I want to be
And liberty she pirouette
When I think that I am free
Watched by empty silhouettes
Who close their eyes but still can see
No one taught them etiquette
I will show another me
Today I don't need a replacement
I'll tell them what the smile on my face meant
My heart going boom boom boom
"Hey" I said "You can keep my things,
they've come to take me home."

(^_^)

I happened to find in the bowling alley a copy of the newspaper the Granma. It is a Cuban paper. I felt ten or fifteen years younger looking at it and thinking of my more political years. I was an idealist then. Apparently some Cubans tipped off the U.S. Gov't. about a bomb and a plane and subsequently Nothing exploded and Nobody was hurt. Naturally, the U.S., being appreciative, put the poor bastards in Jail! Lesson? Never trust the imperialist running dog lackeys, they will fuck you over for practice. The families of the incarcerated are apparently here in Canada trying to gain support for the victims. Fucking U.S.

Right! I was allowed a one page response (line breaks inserted randomly because I've no inclination to re-format just for xanga):

ENGL 4105EL 02: Theory and Criticism 13 Sept., 2006

For M. Orr, by Jason Simac, 172478

In consideration of excerpts from Plato’s Republic:

Keywords: "Good," "Truth," "Knowledge," "Reason," "Represent: (~ation), (~er)" - also "image,"

Further Keywords: "Yes," "Lackeys,"* "Underlying Assumptions"*

The main speaker, Socrates, under the notion of founding a new community, explores several guiding principles upon which his community should be built. These amount to codes of conduct, including a serious and extensive measure of artistic censorship and related emotional content. This, of course, is for the greater good of the community and therefore the individual, by dint of the fact that it holds with certain "truths" that the speaker holds up.

By trying to establish a notion of forms, the speaker wants us to believe that for any given set of things (e.g. beds), there is what equates to a divine version, called the Form. Taking as given the existance of both God and the gods (which he switches between as fits his argument), he seeks to establish that only their Forms are realities. To be clear, God or possibly the gods, conceived of the Bed, which is in all ways the perfect bed. The beds you and I sleep on are only copies. Furthertheless, any representation of a bed is merely a copy of the copy. The divinely inspired concept is Truth - the Truth of beds, one might say. What we sleep on is removed by some degree from Truth. An image of a bed is quite removed from Truth. His argument rather naively, but completely misses the idea that form follows function, a rather glaring omission, which might undermine his entire discourse were it included.

Since truth (Truth) is a cornerstone of building his better community, it must be preserved. Poets, especially Homer (and poor old Hesiod hot on his heels) are suggested to be completely unacquainted with truth in any of its guises. As such they are direct targets for censorship. The speaker does very graciously (if not convincingly) supply for the continuance of Homer’s work if it can be proved true overall - which it cannot if one accepts the speaker’s argument. Such are the direct ideas central to this writing.

On a higher level, one might infer that the speaker was rather downtrodden, seeking for life to be ordered, easier and "nice." He shrinks from emotion, indulgence and the possiblility of expression. To be fair, the kind of state or community he begins to seek has in various degrees been realized. Such states invariably fail to be the utopia the speaker seems to think he will create.

The word "lackey" is listed as key because it describes the other two characters in these passages. They speak considerably less, but must be acknowledged as just as important. This is so because it is they who continuously assert the veracity of the main speaker, whom supplies the argument. This scheme makes Plato seem as though he were too timid to just say what was on his mind. It is an irony that he uses a source twice removed from the contained concept of Truth to backup what is presented. The non-central characters, (there are two so that nobody can call them the very Form of the yes-man) are so encompassing in their approval, in their lack of exploring any alternative possibilities, that one must wonder if the author believed something very different and sought to prove it by arguing the other side very poorly. Not too charitable, perhaps, but there you go.

The writing is quite engaging, light and even fun because of the informality of it. Nothing is forced on the reader, instead the central character repeats himself "you make up your mind." The unerring capitulation of the secondary characters makes one feel that we are all on the same page, understand each other and isn’t it nice that we’ve solved all that? It has the same feeling of easygoing agreement that one experiences when talking to a politician who is trying to establish that he’s just an average Joe like the rest of us. The imagery tends to be quite common (beds, tables, horses), or at least not fancy or rich (caves). Again, this puts the reader at ease. The assertion of the central speaker’s "logic" and its understandability makes the reader feel as though they themselves are perhaps smarter than they realized. That feels good, doesn’t it?

The problem is that there are serious faults all the way through the main speaker’s reasoning (see Keywords and below). The central character imposes that those who don’t know what they are talking about have no business discussing it. Whether on purpose or not, the writer builds in certain clues that the central speaker is not really qualified in the areas he propounds on, thus ruining any credibility he might have with the power of his own argument. In this sense the central speaker comes off as a little poncy, and a little annoying, and it might do him well to follow Diomedes suggestion to "Sit down, shut up and listen..." Overall, the desire for life to be "nice" stands out as quite significant in the greater scheme of things. Here is an early example of the mentality that likely led to the rise of monotheistic religion over polytheistic religion. This transition was a huge influence on how the West viewed art, Truth, meaning and several other concepts touched on in Republic. Not much else seems particularly significant currently.

Notable fallacies: Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Non-Sequiturs abound

*Not appearing in the actual text, but definitely important.