2/ These primordial forces can be seen as oppositions or not. They induce anxiety when seen as oppositions, but offer consolation when seen as resolutions. 'Resolutions' is not a great word because it suggests an initial problem to be resolved. In other words, there is an opposition to be confronted. However it 'resolves' if we consider the opposition is not between these forces but between the self (the 'I') and these forces. The resolution comes in 'seeing ' where the true oppositions lie and trying to find an identity between the self and these forces. A kind of unity.
History is not just about describing what people did or what they built or their military victories. It is also about trying to understand how they thought. This is especially true when creating characters set in ancient times. And it's not just about their waking-thoughts, but their unconscious assumptions. I mentioned in the last blog post the concept of 'Chaos'. It it out of Chaos that the primordial deities arise - Eros, Gaia, Erebus. Chaos is the greatest thought that cannot itself be thought by humans. It is what gives rise to existence. In itself, it is such a supreme thought that it is impossible to believe it cannot exist. It is one unitary state that contains all possibilities. Within its infinite set of definitions and possibiities, it must contain the idea of existence.
If you are a student of philosophy you may recognise this as a version of what's called the ontological argument. One could also call it the ontological fallacy. We are all guilty of it - probably every day of our lives. A simple definition would be: 'I have a strong thought that X is the case, therefore X must be true'. We all have strong opinions and beliefs about certain things, and the strength of our convictions leads us to belive these must be true. It can even cause us to disregard the facts. Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Secretary for Defense, expressed it succintly when he said that where the facts and the theory are misaligned, the facts are wrong.
It is worth recalling another quote from Rumsfeld:
"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know."
There are many things to agree with and disagree with here. I'm going to look at two. Firstly, we must have convictions. How can we survive without them? We would not be able to act or brings thoughts/plans into reality without convictions. Convictions arise even though we do not have a complete overview of any given situation. We never have access to all the facts. Sometimes these convictions will clash with the facts. They only tell part of the picture and if we had more facts we might see a different picture. Secondly, the phrase 'unknown unknown' is a contradiction. It is a concept in itself. We know it exists, yet it is a thing we know nothing obout, except that we KNOW we know nothing about it. It is not, therefore, a form of non-being. It has agency. We can look out for it, knowing it may trip us up. It is a hazard on our journey. It has a form of existence, therefore it exists. (Given that something either exists or does not exist. The Law of the Excluded Middle applies here. There is no half-way house.)
Arguably an 'unknown unknown' is truely a 'known unknown'. (Indeed in an Aristophanes' comedy it might be called a 'known unknown unknown'. To which another character will disagree and say it is a 'known unknown unknown unknown'. The infinite regress will only stop with the laughter of the audience.)
'Chaos' is a primordial 'unknown unknown'. No matter how many facts we uncover, the ghost of the 'unknown unknown' will always hang over us. It is a reductio ad absurdum. We can never grasp the complete picture. Socrates takes up this point when he says that true knowledge is knowing what you don't know. It is the basis of enlightened scepticism. Yet in its primordial sense, it is difficult to escape the feeling that it is a dark existential absurdity. Maybe the nearest we can come to having knowledge of it is to believe it is an 'intentionality'. We do not know what this intentionality is. It is hidden from us. Plato and later the Christians believed this first intentionality is supremely good and loving. It is the Light.
I don't get this sense from the primordial version. Darkness in the form of Erebus has an equal say. But if these different primordial forces are not oppositions and the only true opposition is between the self and these necessary first thoughts of nature, then they are not dark if we find a kind of union with them. They have a different presence in thier primordial sense. They are 'heavy' and 'dark' only when we are alienated from them.
Pergamon has a problem with drug addiction. The doctor-priests at the Asklepion have attempted to develop a cure believing the addiction is the result of a spiritual malaise. They create a cinematic spectacle of these primordial powers, making people confront their fears but with the end goal of resolving the self into these oppositions to find consolation. (I have yet to work out what this spectacle is!) A cult of luxury and wealth has developed in the city which has alienated people from their spiritual selves. The ancient asklepions, essentially healing centres, encouraged people to dream. Patients could stay at the healing centres overnight and the atmosphere was such that the dream-cures seemed to work. Again, I have yet to work out how this fits into the actions in the novel. It is an ongoing process... (P.S. An 'unknown unknown' or a 'known unknown?)
History is not just about describing what people did or what they built or their military victories. It is also about trying to understand how they thought. This is especially true when creating characters set in ancient times. And it's not just about their waking-thoughts, but their unconscious assumptions. I mentioned in the last blog post the concept of 'Chaos'. It it out of Chaos that the primordial deities arise - Eros, Gaia, Erebus. Chaos is the greatest thought that cannot itself be thought by humans. It is what gives rise to existence. In itself, it is such a supreme thought that it is impossible to believe it cannot exist. It is one unitary state that contains all possibilities. Within its infinite set of definitions and possibiities, it must contain the idea of existence.
If you are a student of philosophy you may recognise this as a version of what's called the ontological argument. One could also call it the ontological fallacy. We are all guilty of it - probably every day of our lives. A simple definition would be: 'I have a strong thought that X is the case, therefore X must be true'. We all have strong opinions and beliefs about certain things, and the strength of our convictions leads us to belive these must be true. It can even cause us to disregard the facts. Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Secretary for Defense, expressed it succintly when he said that where the facts and the theory are misaligned, the facts are wrong.
It is worth recalling another quote from Rumsfeld:
"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know."
There are many things to agree with and disagree with here. I'm going to look at two. Firstly, we must have convictions. How can we survive without them? We would not be able to act or brings thoughts/plans into reality without convictions. Convictions arise even though we do not have a complete overview of any given situation. We never have access to all the facts. Sometimes these convictions will clash with the facts. They only tell part of the picture and if we had more facts we might see a different picture. Secondly, the phrase 'unknown unknown' is a contradiction. It is a concept in itself. We know it exists, yet it is a thing we know nothing obout, except that we KNOW we know nothing about it. It is not, therefore, a form of non-being. It has agency. We can look out for it, knowing it may trip us up. It is a hazard on our journey. It has a form of existence, therefore it exists. (Given that something either exists or does not exist. The Law of the Excluded Middle applies here. There is no half-way house.)
Arguably an 'unknown unknown' is truely a 'known unknown'. (Indeed in an Aristophanes' comedy it might be called a 'known unknown unknown'. To which another character will disagree and say it is a 'known unknown unknown unknown'. The infinite regress will only stop with the laughter of the audience.)
'Chaos' is a primordial 'unknown unknown'. No matter how many facts we uncover, the ghost of the 'unknown unknown' will always hang over us. It is a reductio ad absurdum. We can never grasp the complete picture. Socrates takes up this point when he says that true knowledge is knowing what you don't know. It is the basis of enlightened scepticism. Yet in its primordial sense, it is difficult to escape the feeling that it is a dark existential absurdity. Maybe the nearest we can come to having knowledge of it is to believe it is an 'intentionality'. We do not know what this intentionality is. It is hidden from us. Plato and later the Christians believed this first intentionality is supremely good and loving. It is the Light.
I don't get this sense from the primordial version. Darkness in the form of Erebus has an equal say. But if these different primordial forces are not oppositions and the only true opposition is between the self and these necessary first thoughts of nature, then they are not dark if we find a kind of union with them. They have a different presence in thier primordial sense. They are 'heavy' and 'dark' only when we are alienated from them.
Pergamon has a problem with drug addiction. The doctor-priests at the Asklepion have attempted to develop a cure believing the addiction is the result of a spiritual malaise. They create a cinematic spectacle of these primordial powers, making people confront their fears but with the end goal of resolving the self into these oppositions to find consolation. (I have yet to work out what this spectacle is!) A cult of luxury and wealth has developed in the city which has alienated people from their spiritual selves. The ancient asklepions, essentially healing centres, encouraged people to dream. Patients could stay at the healing centres overnight and the atmosphere was such that the dream-cures seemed to work. Again, I have yet to work out how this fits into the actions in the novel. It is an ongoing process... (P.S. An 'unknown unknown' or a 'known unknown?)
RSS Feed