Every time I part with this blog for extended periods of time, which I sincerely regret every time it happens, I always seem to re-enter this place with thoughts on writing. Perhaps it is absence of writing that allows me to appreciate its existence. Writing is one of the few many things in life that never ceases to compel and excite me (this list is increasing, exponentially, hourly). And you have no idea how painful such departures from writing truly are for me. And yet here I am, once more apologizing for doing just that.

To “fix” this problem (or, more realistically, to temporarily remedy this abortion, or to “band-aid” this wound, which is, honestly, just as painful as not-writing, for I would much rather permanently cure this disease), I have, at the moment, four or five specific ideas I plan to write on. For now, these mini-essays will be oriented more to the philosophical partition of my brain, mind, and body, but I intend to prepare more thoughts on art and technology, as well. I want to write again, and here is this place, waiting, for someone to write in it. Perfect, no?

I digress. As I said above, I will (re)start today with writing (hah!).

This, for some reason, reminds me of writing.

Over the past few months and years, I have been more seriously considering writing to be a deep(er) and true(r) representation, realization, and manifestation of my thoughts, my mind, and my body (I am still unsure what writing is deeper or truer than, but bear with me). Without writing, I find that my thoughts never make it out of the depths of my soul. Without writing, I am unable to ascend with Zarathustra to the cave in the mountains. It is only as I ascended, climbed the mountain, and learned to embrace my inner being in my writing that I cried out to the clouds and the sun and the rest of the world, Buh, I have ideas! (This is becoming very Nietzschean).

Writing need not necessarily be polished and completed collections of paragraphs. On the one hand, the act of rewriting and revising a piece of work allows an author the ability to consider again her creation, judging its correctness, veracity, and validity. But on the other hand, simple free-writing, or letting the mind talk directly with the allows raw, nude, and untouched letters to be exposed the way they are. Sometimes, revising an essay, ridding it of errors and reexamining its substance, clothes and masks what was once bare. (This assumes, however, that nudity and innocence is good, which I do not necessarily think is true).

I realize this is turning into a scathing critique of essay revision, which itself is in no way not-free and is, actually, something I am doing right now. This is/was not my intention. I suppose all I really want to say here is that writing-freely is one of the most important tools we, as thinking things, posses in order that we may understand ourselves and others. In the age of technology in which “undoing” requires only the press of a button, writing openly and freely has become under-appreciated and has nearly disappeared. Writing (which is inherently different from typing – writing, here, refers strictly to the relationship between the mind, hand, pen, and paper) is the art of presenting thoughts, ideas, and truths. It is the act of presenting the self. Perhaps contrary to why Socrates did not write, writings are not imitations, re-presentations, or mere appearances of the truth. If anything, writing is who we are. We only become ourselves in action: writing.

Well, shit. I thought that was shorter than it in fact was. But this is good. I will spend more time in this place, in this notebook, and on this webpage. I promise (eek!).

I am giving you an assignment, as well — maybe this will force me to participate more actively in this project. Here it is: Get a blank piece of paper and a pen. And write, for five minutes. Do not allow yourself to stop your hand from moving across the page. Do not edit what you write or cross a word out. And, begin.

I wrote this piece for a course called “Race and the Pastoral: Aesthetics, Landscape, Embodiment.” The course is, in short, about the pastoral. I am fascinated by “difference” and the pastoral, particularly Jewishness and the pastoral. This is a review of the film Avatar. In it, I refer to Francis Bacon‘s New Atlantis and Hegel‘s Philosophy of History. It is intense. It talks about the “white man” and notions of body, self, and identity. It is honest, as well — more on the side of a freewrite. Anyways, here it is.

I saw Avatar after not only reading Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, which itself is an adequate enough preview, review, and analysis of this Christmas 2009 blockbuster (already I’m detecting some bias), but I saw the film after engaging with notions of white guilt, blackness and otherness, and the pastoral. I read one review, before I saw the film, which positioned the film in the same position all alien/zombie/freaky-strange creature movies place the white man and the “other.” But Avatar was all too “real.” While District 9 (I think – I did not see it) made these “others” authentic sci-fi CGI aliens in the traditional sense, Avatar made the others wild savages who were sexually engaged with each other and nature and who resisted the big muscled Western White man. These others took human form and thought with human intellect. The music played while they were on screen, the clothing they wore, the way they spoke English, and even the supposedly “weird” color of their skin reminded me of Africa and its inhabitants. But even then, the Navi people are not really that different – they live in the forest, speak the White man’s tongue, and ultimately embrace the White man.

I saw the New Atlantis operating among among the White men and among the savage others. First, Jakesully, or “Jake Sully.” He was the half-muscled White Marine who’s initial assignment was to infiltrate the Navi people to help America capitalize upon this gorgeous pastoral place. However, he falls in love with the savages. He does not want to let them go. He becomes their savior. He frees them. He becomes their Jesus Christ. Jake Sully reminded me of Joabin the Jew from Bacon’s New Atlantis. Both characters are hated and loved, at the same time. Joabin is the dirty rat who is “different” and deviant from the Christian norm. He is circumcised and physically “deformed.” Joabin is not even really a Jew, he is a bad Christian. But at the same time, he is honored with a position and title in the highly-regarded research institution in Bensalem. So is Jake. Jake is at first an outcast in the Navi culture. The elders distrust him and the people do not acknowledge him. He is dirty. In the end, though, he “becomes” one of them, even though at heart, he still occupies a human body and was raised with human values. He only embodied their form, but was still physically different. Jake and Joabin occupy the same positions within the societies they live in.

Jake Sully is also New-Atlantan on another level, this time among the White men. He is physically different from the rest of them. He was just different enough. He was the one assigned to evacuate the different “things.” Joabin, the Jew, too. In relationship to the greater community of Jews, he is different. He is still a Jew, but is he? One could say the same about Jake – is he inhuman because he does not have the use of his legs?

Avatar can also be seen through an analysis of Hegel’s ideas about history of the world and the philosophy of history. In Hegel’s view, Africa is contained in a loop of itself – it cannot “progress” for it is perpetually imitating itself. On the other hand, Europe and America imitate each other, in a sense, which does create “progress.” The same is true with Earth and Pandora, the Navi land. It is far away and does not progress, it is contained within itself. While Earth and America are propelling themselves into the future, the people of Pandora do not even know the worth of their own land. they need the White man to “save” them.

While science-fiction movies in general position the White man above the other, Avatar made this “other” into the Black man. It explicitly approved the cultural, historical, and environmental rape and colonization of Africa by White men, while at the same time making the audience feel “good” about themselves, for the “other” was saved by the White man. The New-Atlantan and Hegelian views are only two questions and interpretations of Avatar, the film is littered with small things, like language and animation choices. While the film was disturbing on a philosophical level, it was also distressing on a practical level. Why were “earth” and the “earth” people all Marines, all American, and led by White men? Why couldn’t Pandora save itself? Was the audience really unable to relate to the Navi people, and was this why the “figure” who saves the Navi was a White man? And here is my biggest and most immediate problem with the movie: Why did they use 3D technology that not only made my head hurt but forsook the use and necessity of new and emerging technologies?

KfL.

Second Semester has been busy — busier than I had expected. In short, I have been taking five courses (Intro to Psych, Hebrew 101, Philosophy and the Arts, Computing: Simulating Reality, and Race and the Pastoral), and, in addition, have been going through Moderation here at Bard (I will write about this in two weeks). I have also been working at SPARC here at Bard, and have continued to Co-Lead the Bard Jewish Students Organization – been fun, but busy.

Anyways, here are three new essays from two courses and the third is for my moderation (actually, it is a revision of a past essay, but I’m adding this one in addition):

“Free Will”, Revised for Moderation download
“What do you see?”, Philosophy and the Arts download
“Identifying Pastoral”, Race & the Pastoral download
Link to my other essays.

Anyways, I will be writing here more as I go on Winter Break in about two weeks – until then, however, I am swamped – projects, essays, exams, and Hanukkah!

Talk to you soon.

KfL.

Just thought I’d mention I posted two new essays on my website I wrote as final projects for two different classes. The first is called “Free Will,” which I wrote for my Intro to Philosophy class, and the second is called “The Apprehensive,” which I wrote for my First Year Seminar. “Free Will” is about whether or not human beings have freedom of will, using the texts of Descartes, Nietzsche, and Richard Linklater. “The Apprehensive” is about the role of philosopher in society according to Descartes.

Download “Free Will” and “The Apprehensive” as PDF’s. Let me know what you think!

Also, be sure to check out some of the other essays I’ve written – I plan to keep that page updated over time.