So, there I was, enjoying life and savoring a beautiful evening. The little crooked lamp outside my window was shining brightly (New LED-licious bulb, apparently), and I had just sit down with a delicious toffee-and-almondy bit of Hershey’s (Delicious, despite the Hershey process. Look it up.) I figured I’d get some writing done. (And so here you are: Reading what I’ve written.)

At any rate:

I love that feeling when you finally understand something. Before, you didn’t get it. It was some senseless bit of magic that resisted all attempts to be comprehended, like a delicious morsel (both commanding your desire and demanding your concentration) lurking just beyond your reach.

And, then, at some singular moment, it all makes sense. The pieces of the puzzle fall together, as if some invisible hand (your mind) has assembled them. The patterns and questions and condundrums all seem to resolve themselves, in an instant. But of course, knowing one thing merely opens up more questions, more avenues of inquiry, and you’re off to repeat the process.

—-

One of my bat-shit insane professors would invoke Csíkszentmihályi and suggest that this sort of thing is the achievement of a state of “flow.” In all honesty, I don’t buy that new-agey garbage. Flow isn’t some sort of “enhanced state” of “better life experience.” While I’m happy for positive psychology   (and entertained by an interesting critique of it mentioned in Chris Hedge’s Empire Of Illusion [Stop reading here if you don’t buy left-wing garbage, or see no value in entertaining its notions for at least a moment.] which argues that positive psych is an extension of the simulacura/representation/illusurory nature of late capitalism which not only seems to be an extension of positivist categorization of experience but is also an attempt for capital to try and colonize and control the minds of consumers/citizens/workers. [Okay, the coast is clear, conservatives and closed-minded comrades. It’s safe to keep reading.] )    , and I’d love to let it finish, I think it’s a bit off base. It’s a keen idea, and I’ll gladly agree that I have experienced states of “flow” and being “in the groove” with “my head in the game”, but I will not concede any of the other garbage about how I should try to pursue those states like it’s the god of some new-age religion. 

—-

There’s something genuinely cool about that. I feel that, in a certain sense, we try and deform learning into a singular process. “If you take this class, you will have learned X. Once you have learned X and passed the test, you can take this class in which you will learn Y. Lather, rinse, and repeat.” is really, in a very simplified and demeaning sense, the dominant paradigm. 

[Of course, when I say “we,” I mean “we” in the sense of the dominant order. If you’ve never done that, you’re not the majority. As long as tests like the SAT have primacy, that mode of thought about learning will remain dominant. But, that’s another thought for another day.] 

That totally divorces learning from any of its emancipatory potential. To sound really campy: Learning is liberatory. Learning liberates us from the darkness of ignorance and compels us to search in other areas and keep striving for some sort of greater truth in our lives. (If we aren’t compelled beyond the necessity of prerequisites, are we really learning? Or is the learning happening in another site? Why does all of this garbage get “forgotten”? Is it the fault of people, or the people teaching? Or the pedagogy?) 

In addition, it prevents one from asking deeper questions of “Why?” “How?” and “Where do I go from here?” Any of the reasons that a person would naturally choose to learn something are absent from the main-stream perception of learning created by a default philosophy of education ingrained in the zeitgeist and legitimated/supported by the hegemony of high stakes testing and “standardization.” 

I’m sorry for sounding so preachy, but I have a reason for going through all of this narrative/sermony sort of stuff.

Anyways, this one guy, Hegel, had this notion of a dialectic. It’s an amazing idea. I’ve only read about it from other sources, maybe if I want to torture myself I’ll dedicate the time to reading Hegel himself (From what I can tell, it will be torture. :P ) The dialectic was picked up by many other different bright people (Like Marx), who used it for their own means. And, while I wouldn’t advocate a dialectical interpretation of history (“History is inevitably heading towards a utopia of the Proletariat!” *cough* Bullshit! *cough*), I would say there’s a hefty bit of wisdom embedded in the dialectic. It acknowledges the inherent tension between a thesis and an antithesis. These contradictions can be resolved through some sort of synthesis which will inevitably lead to more dialectical artifices which should head towards some sort of “absolute truth” (As Hegel would suggest. But maybe there’s something more like “A better answer” or “A better understanding”) The resolution of one dialectic necessarily entails further questions. 

The whole process realizes the tension inherent within many of the things that we take for granted. Freedom can be understood through a dialectical sense, which allows us to reckon with the exceptions to freedom inherent within our statement of Freedom itself. (National security, etc.) There’s a tension between freedom and un-freedom, between two things that we must try and understand to get a better sort of insight. 

But, any ways, tying it back to the stuff I was mentioning earlier…

I finally got more of a grasp of how brilliant the Dialectic was just a day or two ago. It was one of those brilliant AH-HA! moments that felt sincerely wonderful. (Consider, for a moment, that I had read far too many authors that dismissed the dialectic as useless, and even I had self-professed that something so arbitrary could have no use.)  It all made sense in a brilliant way. Woohoo! :D

In a really silly way, the way that I have been feeling lately has been inherently dialectical. I can’t deny that (Thesis:) I feel wonderful. I’m confident, I’m at college, I’m studying in a field that I’m recently more motivated to go into than ever before (Seriously. Computer engineering: It can enable someone who can move only a few muscles to communicate with the world. How cool is that?) I have access to a huge library with all sorts of books, I live in a dorm room with a comfortable bed and internet access. I know a whole bunch of wonderful people with interesting stories (some of those people also have interesting thoughts). In a way, I’m home. (And home is just where your bags are, right?) 

But, then, on the other hand (Antithesis:) I have never felt more doubtful about myself, my future, or even how I feel this very moment. So very many things are swirling about, and I don’t know if I’m really safe from the storm. While I can still feel confident, it also feels like my confidence is shaken, my self esteem is a leery tower swaying in the wind. I’m studying in a field I love, but I also wonder if the other things I love are worth pursuing. Will I leave them behind if I do not pursue them hard enough? Am I good enough to do what I want to do in an ever more competitive world? I feel like I’m home, but what is it but a lonely post-modern home full of consumption, images and representations and simulacrum (all the more painful because it is that which you can desire but never have? :P)

But, at any rate, forget all of that last half. It’s too angsty. ;) The Synthesis is that it’ll all work out in the end. Hopefully. And if it doesn’t, well, it’ll still work out.

But, yeah. That’s exactly how I came to understand the Dialectic. 

And now you know.

Well… Gig ‘em!

Tom.

1. mulberry------outlet liked this
2. sothereiwas posted this