Going on a Tangent

Discourse

A good friend of mine likes to invent words.  One of my favorites, ‘braingasm’ is used to describe a moment where an intellectual realization makes someone feel nice.  Something similar to what she must feel, happened to me while reading Invisible Cities, specifically, the conversations between Marco Polo and Kublai Khan. 

Imagine.  Imagine reading while already knowing that you have found the coincidence that inspires you.  Those moments when you think that you found the link that connects something abstract to reality.  When you go out on a tangent and find that it is in truth, not so ridiculous.  This has happened to me.  Calvino, in my farcical state of mind, is describing the unattainable art of writing.  When he talks about ‘Invisible Cities,’ he is referring to literature.  Furthermore, his conversations with Khan describe the way that Calvino feels towards writing fiction, and the individual mold that he has undertaken to describe the implausible. 

“'You advance always with your head turned back?' or 'Is what you see always behind you?' or rather, 'Does your journey take place only in the past?'” (Dialogue 2^nd Section)  Calvino feels that as a writer, he is always looking at what has already been written, not innovating, but recreating.  The journey that every author goes through includes analyzing previous works and using them to mold the outcome of their own piece.  Perhaps Calvino feels that by writing about Invisible Cities, by innovating, he is breaking the mold.  He is looking forward. 

“With cities, it is as with dreams: everything imaginable can be dreamed, but even the most unexpected dream is a rebus that conceals a desire or, its reverse, a fear.”  (Dialogue 3^rd Section)  Mr. Calvino fears that with innovation, he is revealing his desire.  “Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspectives deceitful, and everything conceals something else.'”  (Discourse 3^rd Section) He is, at least in my mind, talking about literature.  He is using cities as a parallel device, a sort of analogy that symbolizes his novel.  By including the notes between Marco and Kublai, Calvino is giving himself a space where he can intervene, as Marco, and chip in with underlying messages about the writing of the novel.  Calvino wants to explain his style.  He wants to describe the meaning of his notes, and the recurring symbolisms inside the novel.  For this reason, “Kublai Khan had noticed that Marco Polo's cities resembled one another” (Discourse 3^rd Section) Literary works by the same author resemble one another, the author has a style that delineates throughout all the piece that he/she writes. 

As a writer myself, an amateur, I hope that you, reader, can forgive me for exploring the improbable.  My theory about Calvino’s intentions may be flawed, but, as my friend would say, it was ‘braingasmic.’

( ) v Blogger

Cities and memory

This blogger will attempt to review this book in an uncanny way.  In this allegorical feast, the confusing and ever-so-spooky journal of cities will rule the blog.  Obviously, our writer is know confused and finds himself doubting the value of the literary devices he learned when analyzing Invisible Cities.   Oh well, he’ll give it a shot. 

“Desires are already memories.” (Cities & memory 2)  Marco Polo attempts to describe the not so obviously invisible city.  The blogger is still contemplating whether the memory cities are in actuality one city that has been forgotten in desire.  By saying that desires are already memories, Marco Polo tries to make Kublai grasp the concept that this city/cities lies on another field, that desire drives people to do things that will be accomplished.  But, is this metaphorical?  Some might say that it is obviously metaphorical, for it is part of an allegory.  Others, like this blogger, like to discard perspectives that, in his naiveté, will drive him towards clichés.  He thinks that this excerpt shows that Marco actually believes that desire is a synonym of memory.  Then explain this, blogger…

 “The city, however, does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand, written in the corners of the streets, the gratings of the windows, the banisters of the steps, the antennae of the lightning rods, the poles of the flags, every segment marked in turn with scratches, indentations, scrolls.”  (Cities & memory 3)

With the use of an analogy, Marco wants to bring Zaira closer to Kublai.  He wants him to feel the city in his hand, to look for it, and we he really desires to understand it, he will realize that it is already a memory.  The city that Marco is trying to describe lies on a different spectrum. It can never be visited through description.  That is why, according to this ridiculous blogger, Zaira, Zora, Maurilia, Diomira and Isidora are all the same city, and that they are described by memory and desire.   Why else, he says, would the names “remain the same” and since “It is pointless to ask whether the new ones are better or worse than the old, since there is no connection between them” (Cities & memory 5) Why not assume that they are the same city?  Oh, this blogger, how he yearns to prove his theory, but rumor has it, he forgot. 

Dawkins on the Pillory

“Most of what is unusual about a man can be summed up in one word: 'culture.'” (Pg. 189) For once, I agree with Dawkins.  Culture does not allow man to properly analyze the common misperceptions that are considered 'culture.'  The perception of belief in a higher being, a God, is precisely what Dawkins and I believe impairs humans from seeing science in an impartial way. 

In search of further scientific opinion on the subject of whether God exists and whether culture truncates intellectual growth, I found a rather interesting spectrum.  On Richard Dawkins’ scale of Atheism or Faith, people are classified into seven categories depending in whether they believe in God and how much they actually think that a superior being exists.  A seven is considered a person that is certain that God doesn’t exist; on the other hand, a one is someone who is convinced that God exists.  One can take the example of the book God is Dead, by Ron Curie Jr. where the reality that God existed, came to Earth and then died destroys every aspect of society as we know it.  Of course this book is fictitious, but it promotes the idea that society couldn’t survive with the idea that God is there.  People wouldn’t have panicked if they didn’t know that God had died, but in telling them that the superior being is dead, society loses all sense of right and wrong.  Dawkins (in The Selfish Gene) says that culture provides humans with what they think can be a driving force.  But in reality, he sustains, culture can be a distraction from actually progressing in purely factual biology. 

“Fashions in dress and diet, ceremonies and customs, art and architecture, engineering and technology, all evolved in historical time in a way that looks like highly speeded up genetic evolution, but has really nothing to do with genetic evolution.” (Pg. 190)  Dawkins thinks that people see evolution reflected in fashion.  This may be true in some cases, but that which he deems wrong with a condescending tone is in reality very similar to what he had said in earlier chapters.  He had stated that when animals decide to do something generic, like look for food in a group instead of alone, they are following the orders of genes.  So what separates the genes that decide that it is better to eat amongst friends and family from the ones that decide to build a taller building so that lions can’t catch us?  What Mr. Dawkins apparently doesn’t notice, is that his examples directly disprove his theory.  Furthermore, he relies on the reader not paying close attention to every sentence that he wrote, because if they did, they would notice that he contradicts his previous ideas constantly.  The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong.” (Pg. 199) This sentence hints that the reason that these geniuses’ meme-complexes live on today is because of their genetic complex.  This is false, the ideas people have live on because they are worth listening to, not because they are just better, or different.  This may just be an illustration of my need to ascertain certain goals with these occasional blog entries— no I don’t just do them because I have to— but I think that it is our obligation to criticize and maybe even denigrate the author in order to properly analyze the work. 

Dawkins + Darwin = The Selfish Gene

“Finally, in this rather miscellaneous chapter, I shall mention the important idea of reciprocal altruism, the principle of ‘You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’.  (pg.166)  

Dawkins defines reciprocal altruism as the process of analysis that genes go through in order to analyze that they must get more from “an association” than they put in.  He discards the idea of their being teamwork for altruistic reasons in microbiology, and therefore in human behavior.  It feels as though when writing about the pessimistic output of biology, Dawkins puts the exclamation point on the spirit of the book.  He has portrayed evolution and genetics as something that contradicts the optimistic values that most people are raised to believe.  Some might argue that the book has nothing to do with emotions or values, that since Dawkins claims to be simplifying biology, one can’t analyze the book from a social viewpoint.  One of the final sentences in this chapter disproves that theory.  What may be taken as an analogy is in truth an explanation of the theory of reciprocal altruism that he supports.  “Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism”  (pg. 188) Dawkins theory may be correct in terms of genetics— one gene may result in the formation of blue eyes instead of brown— but the extended analogy that he employs throughout the book suggests a satirical rather than academic tone.  In saying that when a fish swims behind another fish there is a “hydrodynamic advantage from the turbulence by the fish in front.” (pg. 167)  the reader can do nothing but laugh.  What’s next, saying that the reason the world is run by humans is because mocking birds decided to leave it to us?  Promoting the idea that horses don’t kill whoever kicks their side because they want to be respectful? 

The way I see it, Dawkins has taken the idea of simplifying genetics, which by the way he can do*, and turned it into the laughing stock of a tenth grader who hates science.  Moreover, Dawkins has turned Darwin’s theory of evolution, which in the past has been applied to politics and the explanation of the formation of a social structure, into a far-fetched moral explanation for genetic behavior.  Apart from trying to explain genetics and achieving something entirely different in the process, Dawkins has explored the possibility that there is no way that genetic behavior shapes every decision made by the subject.  I would say that the gene has no brain, but that would sound very unsophisticated, so, for the punchline, in the words of the world renowned author:

“The gene has no foresight” (pg.183)

*  “A relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species is called mutualism or symbiosis.” (pg. 181), 

Altruism :)

Textbooks are made to inform the reader, not to entertain them or trigger intellectual debate. Immortal Coils is a portion taken out of a tenth grade grade biology textbook.  Boring would be an understatement as a description for the chapter. In my last blog I mentioned that the author never talks about evolution as something positive or negative. "In any one sex cell, a new chromosome number 8 will be created, perhaps 'better' than the old one, perhaps 'worse,' but, barring a rather improbable coincidence, definitely different, definitely unique." (pg.30) Part of the textbook that makes up all but the last page of this chapter addresses my initial question.  Evolution is not good or bad, it just is.  Boring answer, I know.

Once in a while, however, the author gives a glimpse of opinion that makes the chapter worth reading.  "There we saw that selfishness is to be expected in any entity that deserves the title of a basic unit of natural selection." (pg. 33)  As a prelude to my next point, understand that as far as I'm concerned, the only part of Darwin's theory that is worth understanding in the twenty first century refers to business and the capitalist system that makes monopolies a norm.  With that in mind, the excerpt above is only a display of how in business, the best unit is always the one that survives.  Obviously Dawkins was referring to science and the selection of genes when he said this, but coincidences like this one can't be overlooked.  

"...altruism must be bad and selfishness good." (pg. 36)  Altruism is bad because it stunts progress and it promotes growth.  In business, the failure of a direct competitor is the best thing that can happen.  When a unit is given the chance to ensure success by allowing the competition to die off, the opportunity must be taken without a doubt, the fittest unit is therefore always the last one standing.  As you can probably imagine, I don't care for the explanation of meiosis, gene pools or mutation. What’s more, I despise an academic field that runs solely on facts with no room for interpretation or analysis.  All the excerpts that I analyze are taken into account in human behavior not atoms and recessive genes. 

"But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox.  The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less." (pg. 45)  The moment that every writer yearns to get to is here.  With the inclusion of the sentence above, the link between human behavior and trimmed down biology is ever-present.  A relation like the one that exists between macroeconomics and microeconomics is here as well. The instinct that drives DNA (micro) to survive is exactly the same as the one that drives humans to be the wealthiest and the best in their society (macro.)  The bore of a textbook chapter came to an end with what may have been an involuntary connection from Dawkins, but it revived my interest in the book.  For those of you who still haven't found that clincher, remember: altruism is better than selfishness. 

Mistake... Evolution.

It is easy to see how science is considered by some the most intriguing field of study after reading The Selfish Gene.  At the same time, one would expect that all scientists – if one can call writers like Dawkins scientists – be rendered failures, for not being able to provide tangible results.  Richard Dawkins is not a scientist. He is a philosopher with a tendency to analyze the works of previous experts on scientific fields.  One would expect that he would actually deliver a product that can be used in science for years to come.  But the mistake doesn’t befall on Dawkins.  The reader of literature must have an open mind towards the work they are about to analyze; this obligation is tenfold when it comes to intellectually rigorous scientific writing.  With this in mind, the second chapter, titled: The Replicator, is an excellent way to engender debates in the reader’s brain.

Whilst reading the chapter, the question: is evolution progress, was on my mind.  I find this strange, given that the author mentioned everything from the translation of ‘young women’ to ‘virgin’ to the idea that humans are survival machines.  In order for one to have a basic understanding of the chapter, Dawkins assumes that the reader thinks that evolution is a synonym of progress and that Darwinism in all its aspects is correct.

"Then the replicator would act as a template, not for an identical copy, but for a kind of 'negative'..." (pg 16) Dawkins presents the idea of evolution and the idea of trying to make copies as a factor that has driven humans and all creatures to be what they are today.  But when he does this, he never mentions whether the entire process of evolution, the necessary mistake in the replicating process, is good or bad for the subject of the change.  He says the very basis of evolution is making a mistake in the process of replication.  But how can a recurring mistake result in something positive? Looking ahead in the book, I hope the author can clarify what he means when he says that making mistakes is what causes evolution.