A LOVE SUPREME

I am now blogging at a new blog: erdman31.com

If you post comments here at Theos Project, please know that I will respond and engage your thoughts in a timely manner.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Yearly Depression

I am in the midst of packing my junk for the big move. Although I am not a sold-out suburbanite, I still have what I believe is an excess of useless crap. Because I have a few weeks of downtime before I must move, I am making it my goal to throw out all things unnecessary or unhelpful and to organize all of the rest.

Bank statements.

The past few years have been rather hectic. Therefore, this particular former-accountant has not kept his own personal records very organized. My bank statements were basically all in a pile in no discernible order. The solution for me is to sort them (as I have done) and to put them in manila folders in a file cabinet. Each year shall have its own manila folder.

Next comes the existential moment.

I was labeling the years of each manila folder. I then thought to myself, "Hhhhmmm....perhaps you should label several folders going out several years so that your manila folders will be good and ready for each new year." Ah, I thought to myself (now switching back to my dominant personality), that's a good idea. The manila folders have tabs in different places (left side, center, and right side), so it would be nice to have them all organized and ready for each year.

So, I began to label them, but as I was labeling the new year (2008) and the years beyond I found myself with a sinking feeling of despair. Each year became more difficult to write and the sense of depression deepened; it was painful to write out the future years. I could only label through 2010 because going into the next decade was just too depressing.

Why is this?

Why a sense of depression over the upcoming years? I thought I had a lot to look forward to. In fact, I really do. I have goals, a direction for my life, and I feel more authentically me than I ever have at any time previously. I have a great job as an editor and am doing something I love. I've got great friends - even better than I deserve.

Why depression about the future? I am looking forward to it. It quite possibly may be the best years of my life. But I don't want 2010 to come. I don't want 2009 to arrive. Heck, I don't even want to see 2008, even though it is only weeks away.

I anticipate and embrace the future, and yet the thought that it will occur depresses me.

57 comments:

samlcarr said...

Hmmm, I think Dr. Doyle would be the right person to consult. Strangely, I have exactly the same problem with my past. I try to preserve as much of the evidence of what has been happening and have sort of organised it into, recent past, older than that, and really ancient.

Every time I move, which is too frequently, I have to decide whether it's worth lugging this real junk round any longer. I mean, I never do anything with it anyway, so why bother? Then my compromise is ok lets get rid of all that's really nonessential, and as I start sorting through I get depressed. I don't know why. There have been so many good things to think of and there have been disasters too.

From a distance the disasters take on harder edges and either become funny or become 'how could I ever have been that stupid?' episodes. But for some reason, by the time I have fruitlessly failed to prune much of anything, I'm depressed.

Emily said...

I can get that way to. So right now I'm not thinking too far ahead.

blueVicar said...

John mentioned your post and I immediately thought of the reading from this morning's "Forward Day by Day"...it keeps running through my head; perhaps it will mean something to you...

"Is this a time for you to live in your panelled houses, when this House lies in ruins? Yahweh Sabaoth says this: Reflect carefully how things have gone for you. You have sown much and harvested little; you eat but never have enough, drink but never have your fill, put on clothes but do not feel warm. The wage earner gets his wages only to put them in a purse riddled with holes. So go to the hill country, fetch wood, and rebuild the House: I shall take pleasure in it, and be glorified there, says Yahweh. Yahweh Sabaoth says this: Reflect carefully how things have gone for you. The abundance you expected proved to be little. When you brought the harvest in, my breath spoilt it. And why?--it is Yahweh Sabaoth who speaks. Because while my House lies in ruins you are busy with your own, each one of you."
Haggai, 1:4-9

Meilleurs voeux!!

ktismatics said...

Do you feel more depressed about the unpredictability of the future or its predictability? It sounded more like the latter, the getting rid of useless junk only to replace it with a different set of junk, the commitment to a house (are you buying?), the lining up of folders representing a series of years each of which looks like the one preceding it. I have a good job, good friends, a good life, and yet... ?

Melody said...

I blame it on the bank statements. Bank statements are depressing. Period. I bet even Bill Gates gets depressed looking at bank statements...or does he pay someone to look at them for him?

Sorry, not really trying to make light of how you feel (unless you laughed...then that was my plan all along).

I guess the idea of the future can be depressing sometimes...maybe you should think about it in smaller steps...like next week or tommorrow. How are you feeling about tommorrow?

I think I'm kinda like Em, I try not to think too far ahead. The only manilla folders in my house have ambigious headings like "Tax Stuff" or "Sketches". I've been putting stuff in them for the past seven years - I have no idea what they contain. Probably better that way.

Jonathan Erdman said...

Doyle (both of you), I think you are on to something.

I think that some of the sense of dread came from thinking that I would be locked in to the same pattern and that I would become monotonous and repetitious without meaning: Filing away the same bank statements in the same folders. Will my life be a series of filing the same sorts of experiences away in the same way. That does scare me. I want to stretch and grow.

I wonder if that is why people don't like to organize their houses. Subconsciously it is depressing because it means that the future will be so predictable and regular. Maybe that is why Emily and Melody don't like to think about it: better to just plow forward with life and grab the gusto; try not to let the same old bank statements pull you down.

I take it as a warning, though, perhaps along the line of the Vicar's suggestion: Don't get too comfy with the same house.

Melody said...

Don't get too comfy with the same house.

Of course not, you fix it up, sell it when the market's good, and buy a bigger one and repeat.

ktismatics said...

Well remember, Jonathan, that in the book Frodo didn't get called onto his big adventure until his 33rd birthday. That's a ways off for you yet, isn't it? If that one doesn't do it there's Bilbo, who I think was 50 when he went off with the dwarves to fight the dragon.

Jonathan Erdman said...

Melody:
Of course not, you fix it up, sell it when the market's good, and buy a bigger one and repeat.

That's a good idea. Allow the entirety of my life to be dictated by the ups and downs of the housing market.

Now I'm really depressed!

Daniel said...

Its not about being to comfy with the same house, but with the wrong house.

Melody said...

That's a good idea. Allow the entirety of my life to be dictated by the ups and downs of the housing market.

Hmm, yes, I thought you'd like that.

I guess you'll just have to ignore the Vicar's suggestion then and get cozy in the house you've got.

T Michael W Halcomb said...

where are you moving to?

Jonathan Erdman said...

Halcomb,

I'm moving to a little house in Winona Lake, Indiana. It is in the town of Winona, but it is right next to a wooded area and 50 yards or so from the Winona beach.

(You should turn your profile on so we can get to your website. It is, after all, a place that is worth the read!)

Jason Hesiak said...

Erdmanian (and all others too :)

A) I still exist :)

B) MERRY CHIRSTMAS!!!!!

C) Now that I'm not in LA...I have a chance/opportunity to maybe buy a house in the decently near future. I've been mulling it over for the last couple of weeks. Last night I hung out with some old family friends who have known me since I was two...and they've been in the same house for like 20 years now. They are to the point where their house is "depreciating" and if they sold they would have to spend a bunch MORE money to buy someting much SMALLER. Pooh on that. It made me all the more just want to build a concrete house and keep it..."forever"...adding on as needed.

Jason Hesiak said...

Oh and I almost forgot...Erdman...you're MOVING!!?? Where to?? Why (new job...as an editor...of what?)??

Me want to know...

Jason Hesiak said...

OK I just read your latest comment on where your moving. Derr. But WHY?? Editor of what?

:)

Jonathan Erdman said...

Hesiak,

It's good to have our Golden Ass back!

I am a copy editor at Eisenbrauns. I proofread and edit manuscripts for books that we publish. The subject matter is primarily ancient Near East studies.

Build a concrete home??? Don't those lose a lot of heat????

Emily said...

But why did you move?

Jason Hesiak said...

Interesting. Sounds more up your alley than financial whatevering.

Concrete homes...yeah. But...

A) Thomas Jefferson said that if there was a 10 degree difference between inside and out then you had a well tempered home. Meaning that its a matter of proportion between solid and void, wall and glass in the exterior walls...and as well its a matter of how well-built it is. Also meaning that you wear sweaters and sit by the fireplace in the winter.

B) These days if you have a concrete home its exterior walls are usually double walls with rigid insulation and an airspace in the middle. Example:

http://www.wgclark-architects.com/croffead.html

But my professor has also recently LAUGHED at the idea of a concrete house in America these days. Concrete is "ugly" (supposedly...what that really means is that its not "cute") and its actually meant to last a long time...no one actually LIVES in a house these days. They just buy them. Melody should like that.

But I'm not really "back", unfortunately. Still real busy at work. Just stopping in for Merry Christmas and of course found some interesting stuff going on everywehre again.

Jonathan Erdman said...

Hhhhmmm.....why I moved was to own rather than to just rent. I found a place in a nice part of Winona Lake--by the beach and next to the "forest"--so I bought it.

Next time I'll have to build a concrete house! I that's a great idea.

Jason Hesiak said...

I'll design it! Corbusier called "concrete" "plasique"...meaninging "to give form to the formless" (in reference to Plato's chora...which Carl Raschke over at churchandpomo's latest post referenced as the "key to deconstruction" :) It'll be like what Corbusier called "visual acoustics." Architectural music. Proportion, harmony, mathematics...Florensky and beauty!! We'd be a great team, Erdman!!
:)

Melody said...

My grandfather or great uncle or somebody used to build concrete houses. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but they lived in Miami, so it was supposed to be great protection from hurricanes.

Anyhow, my grandmother refused to have one - because they're ugly. But when a hurricane hit...well her cute house got the top taken off it and they all had to stay in my great uncle's ugly house.

no one actually LIVES in a house these days. They just buy them. Melody should like that.

I don't follow your logic. If a person didn't really live in their house then who would care what it looked like? It's when you spend time in it that you want it to be attractive.

For example, I work all day and then I come home and spend my evenings in the living room...and that's the only room that really looks nice. The rest are just there.

Jason Hesiak said...

My grandfather or great uncle or somebody used to build concrete houses. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but they lived in Miami, so it was supposed to be great protection from hurricanes.

Anyhow, my grandmother refused to have one - because they're ugly. But when a hurricane hit...well her cute house got the top taken off it and they all had to stay in my great uncle's ugly house.


Melody...are you going to try to tell me that concrete houses are just "practical"...and that beauty and practicality have no inherent connection through a connection to the laws of nature? Are you going to try to tell me that practicality has to do with the dreary necessities of life and that beauty is an escape from that like a vacation the French Riviera? How romantic. And are you going to try to tell me that the following are "ugly"?

(the links are broken up to make sure you get all the info)

http://www.vitruvius.com.br/arquitextos/arq000/
imagens/324_09.jpg

http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/rprestia/1301/
images/IN233%20Ronchamp.jpg

http://www.classic.archined.nl/
news/0104/india1.jpg

I know they're not THIS:

(http://www.bathandbodyworks.com/home/
index.jsp)

...but sorry.

Well here's what I have to say about what most people in our time and place mean by "not ugly"...on Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho...

He has been hooked by the "aesthetics of consumerism" enthusiastically explicated by Daniel Harris in Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic. He's the epitome of "coolness" (Harris 51-78) and "glamorousness" (209-232), detached from the life he's leading, above the event and the people, disinterested from everything but getting another fix: "I wander aimlessly around the Puck Building's first-floor ballroom, bored, sipping bad champagne (could it be nonvintage Bollinger?) from plastic flutes, chewing on kiwi slices, each topped with a dollop of chèvre, vaguely looking around to score some cocaine" (126). Bateman's an indifferent narcissist, as anyone trained by the aesthetics of consumerism must be. His life engenders nothing more than a search for sensory pleasure through goods, which, Harris points out, readily provide: "If such soulless insentience is any indication, cuteness is the most scrutable and externalized of aesthetics in that it creates a world of stationary objects and tempting exteriors that deliver themselves up to us, putting themselves at our disposal and allowing themselves to be apprehended entirely through the senses" (8-9). Harris theorizes the aesthetics of consumerism play on the desire to be an individual in this world of mass-marketed products. He observes a dark side that the aesthetics hide: the underside of the cute and desirable is the anti-cute and the grotesque (12-15)."


from (link also broken up for same reason):
http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/
articles/fall_2002/blazer.htm

Then you said:

I don't follow your logic. If a person didn't really live in their house then who would care what it looked like? It's when you spend time in it that you want it to be attractive.

For example, I work all day and then I come home and spend my evenings in the living room...and that's the only room that really looks nice. The rest are just there.


First of all...most every single house in America is ugly, tacky, over-done, stupid, and...dumb. Careless. Commodified. Disjoined from reality and life and all that is meaningful and good. Shit on sticks...quite literally. Filled like pieces of corn in a good healthy shit with a bunch of useless cute nick-nacks that cost a bunch of money.

Second of all:

http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heidegger.html

It starts by asking:

1. What is it to dwell?
2. How does building belong to dwelling?


The truck driver is at home on the highway, but he does not have his shelter there; the working woman is at home in the spinning mill, but does not have her dwelling place there; the chief engineer is at home in the power station, but he does not dwell there. These buildings house man. He inhabits them and yet does not dwell in them, when to dwell means merely that we take shelter in them. In today's housing shortage even this much is reassuring and to the good; residential buildings do indeed provide shelter; today's houses may even be well planned, easy to keep, attractively cheap, open to air, light, and sun, but-do the houses in themselves hold any guarantee that dwelling occurs in them? Yet those buildings that are not dwelling places remain in turn determined by dwelling insofar as they serve man's dwelling. Thus dwelling would in any case be the end that presides over all building. Dwelling and building are related as end and means. However, as long as this is all we have in mind, we take dwelling and building as two separate activities, an idea that has something correct in it. Yet at the same time by the means-end schema we block our view of the essential relations. For building is not merely a means and a way toward dwelling -to build is in itself already to dwell.

Interestingly "building" is usually considered to be only and separately "practical". Whereas "dwelling" is...first of all not even considered...but subconsciously romantically longed for in some funny way that causes all sorts of disharmony.

The point of my original comment was that houses that are originally, primarily and essentially market commodities are not and cannot be "homes"! "Dwelling" is inherently connected to the full span between life and death. If one were to truly dwell in a home, then to sell it is to die. Hence that idea of "selling your soul."

Jason Hesiak said...

Melody,

I forgot to include a few things from the "ugly" world of concrete:

(going to try this without breaking up the links)

http://karlseder.lab.googlepages.com/courtyardfog.jpg/courtyardfog-full.jpg

http://darimonline.org/uploads/2459MYARCH4.jpg

http://www.mapability.com/travel/blogs/images/060505/nat_assembly.jpg

http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2005_06/alexyork/Final-Render.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1354/1023166741_ecf1eb12ee.jpg

http://www.club-off-ulm.de/msg_images/ando05_R6.jpg

http://www.c4des.com/c4desgaleria/albums/userpics/10198/normal_seminariovitra-full.jpg

http://www.arcspace.com/camera/Zugmann/gallery/images/4SCARPA.jpg

http://www.traveljournals.net/pictures/l/6/61141-brion-vega-cemetary-chapel-by-carlos-scarpa-vicenza-italy.jpg

http://www.archimagazine.com/bscarpa3.jpg

http://www.tbstudio.eu/opere_file/ottol1.jpg

http://www.architetturaorganica.org/architetturaorganica/OPERE/casasullacascataWright1.jpg

Jason Hesiak said...

One of the chapter titles in Corbusier's architectural treatise is "eyes to see". I think maybe Jesus mentions that a time or two...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbarnhart/29583437/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_mch/1085059354/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorcasino/1122510209/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorcasino/1122509885/in/set-72157601774930890/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorcasino/1122625647/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krispy/311324560/in/set-72157594401303553/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krispy/311324552/in/set-72157594401303553/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krispy/311311573/in/set-72157594401303553/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jw_nyc/23956879/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbarnhart/29583485/

-------------

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67035552@N00/22392269/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krokaa/1261143350/

------------

http://www.flickr.com/photos/koppenhoefer/88026943/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/koppenhoefer/34536052/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/koppenhoefer/71301575/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/koppenhoefer/34536072/

-------------

http://www.flickr.com/photos/josheli/472637437/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikealexander/359153303/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenkuhl/1537401478/

----------------

"Beauty is the splendor of Truth." -St. Thomas Aquinas

Melody said...

Melody...are you going to try to tell me that concrete houses are just "practical"...and that beauty and practicality have no inherent connection through a connection to the laws of nature?

Nope. I just think it's a funny story. I never saw the concrete house and my grandmother and I seldom have the same taste, so it's possible that the concrete house was lovely. My grandfather did promise her that she could have a pretty concrete house, but I never saw it so I make no judgement on the aesthetic quality of the house.

First of all...I think most every single house in America is ugly, tacky, over-done, stupid, and...dumb.

Fixed.

The point of my original comment was that houses that are originally, primarily and essentially market commodities are not and cannot be "homes"!

Well not the wonky way you describe it, but if we went with that no one could ever be "home".

If one were to truly dwell in a home, then to sell it is to die. Hence that idea of "selling your soul."

You can keep your "hence", selling one's soul 1. Does not refer to selling a home 2. if it did the phrase would be absurd because to die is not to lose one's soul even if selling one's home were to be death.

Jason Hesiak said...

My guess was that the promise made to your gramdma of a "pretty" concrete house was a hollow one. Or maybe he was exactly right and it would be "pretty" like a "cute" picture frame. Even here in VA folks are building some "concrete" houses...but they look exactly like all the others (all of which suck). Its not that hard to do (crappy stuff is always the easiest route in life). You just build it one way and make it look another. Hence my previously referenced "disjoined from reality" and from "all that is meaningful." Hence my reference to Heidegger and the relation between building and dwelling. Hence the reference to American Psycho's "disinterest."

And words placed in my mouth sure do taste good. Don't forget the: Careless. Commodified. Disjoined from reality and life and all that is meaningful and good. Shit on sticks...quite literally. Filled like pieces of corn in a good healthy shit with a bunch of useless cute nick-nacks that cost a bunch of money. How would you like to shape those to say what you want me to say?

In reference to my - The point of my original comment was that houses that are originally, primarily and essentially market commodities are not and cannot be "homes"! - You said: Well not the wonky way you describe it, but if we went with that no one could ever be "home".

Jesus does say he's building a home for us "in heaven." Incidentally the notion is strongly joined to the idea of eternal life and to the reality of actually being in his presence.

Then in response to my - If one were to truly dwell in a home, then to sell it is to die. Hence that idea of "selling your soul." - you said: You can keep your "hence", selling one's soul 1. Does not refer to selling a home 2. if it did the phrase would be absurd because to die is not to lose one's soul even if selling one's home were to be death.

I didn't say anything about "losing" your soul, much less when you die. I referenced the idea of selling it.

And you say that the notion of "selling your soul" does not refer to selling your home. To what, then, does it refer? Taking a job you hate...for a larger salary (in which case apparently you "soul" is you "desire"...yeah, OK)...and a nicer car and a bigger home that you will buy and sell and subsequently then upgrade again? Aaahhh...OK, so its clear now. To sell your soul is to take a certain job or do a certain thing for a living, not to buy/sell/whatever a certain house! Gotcha. Huge difference.

Melody said...

How would you like to shape those to say what you want me to say?

I just want you to admit that it's your personal opinion and that just because you think something is ugly doesn't mean everyone else has to.

OK, so its clear now. To sell your soul is to take a certain job or do a certain thing for a living, not to buy/sell/whatever a certain house! Gotcha. Huge difference.

Think Faust. Aligning with something/one immoral. That sort of deal.

Jason Hesiak said...

Aaah yes because aesthetics are sujbective, morals are objective, and neither have anything to do with natural law. OK. I forgot. We're American. Pamdemonium is the rule that holds everything together.

Think Faust. Aligning with something/one immoral. That sort of deal.

I am thinking of that sort of "deal". See above. If the basis of morality is nature...and if aesthetics have the same basis...and "the housing market" violates the nature of man and the end of building which is to dwell (which corresponds with man's nature)...then...well...

Melody said...

Aaah yes because aesthetics are sujbective, morals are objective, and neither have anything to do with natural law.

No of course not. A Kurt Halsey piece is not equal to a Vermeer in composition or quality and never will be, but that neither lessens my enjoyment of Halsey nor increases my joy in Vermeer. The fact that something is technically correct does garuntee it's beauty.

Natural law on the other hand - I'm not really sure if you mean scientifically or morally or both. Scientifically I would agree that there is such a thing and it does come into play in art. Morally I'm not at all convinced that such a thing exists, though there are some who make an elloquent case for it.

I am thinking of that sort of "deal". See above. If the basis of morality is nature...

That's a big if - one I don't agree with...plus, you already know we are in complete dissagreement about the housing market. Especially as of late, I can't imagine what your vision of a home costs, but surely with the recent housing crisis you can see why being able to afford home/house/shelter is more important than it's appearance being in line with idealist aesthetic codes.

Jason Hesiak said...

I'm not an idealist.

One of my favorite buildings ever had one of the cheapest budgets. That's not the issue...

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/latourette/tourette1.jpg

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with the choice between an expensive house and no house. My point had to do with the difference and irreconcilability between a home as such and the object of the house as a good on the housing market.

The fact that something is technically correct does garuntee it's beauty.

Were you being sarcastic?

To be clear...if you weren't being sarcastic...I wasn't suggesting that the objective measure of a piece of art is technique. That's as American as it gets there. Lets boil everything down to the lowest common denominator please!! That we we can communicate and exchange goods properly.

Natural law on the other hand - I'm not really sure if you mean scientifically or morally or both.

I meant both.

Scientifically I would agree that there is such a thing and it does come into play in art. Morally I'm not at all convinced that such a thing exists, though there are some who make an elloquent case for it.

I suspected that that was exactly your position. Like I said - that's rather American of you.

Further - I meant to suggest that the primary measuring stick of "aesthetics" is also natural law. I suspect that I mean something different by that from when you say that "science" "comes into play in art." For me it has to do with what is "right" (as in upright, or harmonious...similar to the ancient Jewish notion of "righteousness"). And I'm not a pantheistic taxonomist, so there's no reason for me to separate the "rightness" of the "scientific" laws of "nature" from moral "righteousness" from aesthetic "harmony".

Morally - yes, I forgot - you have an evil nature.

And being into marketing, I'm not surprised that you like Vermeer. He fits right in with "American Psycho"...a world of stationary objects and tempting exteriors that deliver themselves up to us, putting themselves at our disposal and allowing themselves to be apprehended entirely through the senses"...

Melody said...

My point had to do with the difference and irreconcilability between a home as such and the object of the house as a good on the housing market.

Oh. Well that makes a lot more sense. Not sarcasm - it makes much more sense phrased that way.

Were you being sarcastic?

Not exactly, but I did leave out a key word...I meant to say,

The fact that something is technically correct does not garuntee it's beauty.

That does rather change the meaning.

I suspected that that was exactly your position. Like I said - that's rather American of you.

I do happen to be American.

I suspect that I mean something different by that from when you say that "science" "comes into play in art." For me it has to do with what is "right" (as in upright, or harmonious...similar to the ancient Jewish notion of "righteousness").

Well...I don't really know what you mean by that...I guess in a lot of ways I'm thinking more of math (the golden rule,the Fibonacci curve, etc.) but the two intertwine so...

I'm not surprised that you like Vermeer. He fits right in with "American Psycho"...a world of stationary objects and tempting exteriors that deliver themselves up to us, putting themselves at our disposal and allowing themselves to be apprehended entirely through the senses"...

Oh my, and I'm not in the least suprised that you've taken my random choice of artist and turned it into a slight. I'd be much more suprised if there were an artist I could like without earning an essay on my shallow soul.

Jason Hesiak said...

You quoting me: My point had to do with the difference and irreconcilability between a home as such and the object of the house as a good on the housing market. Then your response: Oh. Well that makes a lot more sense. Not sarcasm - it makes much more sense phrased that way.

OK cool. So we're closer to understanding each other there, then. So does that mean you're saying "you see my point." Like, maybe even...you sort of agree a little...??

I did leave out a key word...I meant to say,...The fact that something is technically correct does not garuntee it's beauty.

OK that makes more sense. So, then...if science "comes into play" in art (golden rule/section, fibbonaci curve/sequence, ect.)...is natural law the primary measuring rod for aesthetic "rightness"?

I do happen to be American.

And is there an "objective" standard of measure of the "rightness" of moral action? If so, what is it?

Oh my, and I'm not in the least suprised that you've taken my random choice of artist and turned it into a slight. I'd be much more suprised if there were an artist I could like without earning an essay on my shallow soul.

I didn't mean it as a personal jab. Its more like a much more general path/mission, and you happened to have been on the path by a combination of chance and your own free choice to be in a romantic relationship with marketing.

On top of that, Vermeer does demonstrate the point I was making quite well. I don't think its "just a coincidence." You can't market an image that's not completed and packaged like an image painted by Vermeer. Marketing an image that's not so "realistic", "complete" (as I referenced it) and "fixed" (from a fixted point of view), however, would be difficult to market. Think Miro. After all, people want to buy exactly what it was that they saw in the add and not something different.

Vermeer, btw...would be an excellent subject of discussion in light of one of The Doyle's rather penetrating post/series of posts...along similar lines

http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/through-the-veil-crosby-continued/

Melody said...

So does that mean you're saying "you see my point." Like, maybe even...you sort of agree a little...??

I see your point, I don't know if I agree. A lot hangs on the definition of "home".

Even then...anything can be sold - I'm not saying it should be, but it can.

.)...is natural law the primary measuring rod for aesthetic "rightness"?

Eh, I suppose. I work alot with vector art and you know...certain curves can go together to make shapes and others simply cannot - it isn't right. I do alright with that, but mostly blending math and art gives me a headache...I certainly wouldn't consciously evaluate someone else's art that way - and I would never be able to think my own art through that way.

You can't market an image that's not completed and packaged like an image painted by Vermeer.

Or DaVinci or O'Keefe or Pollock or any other artist. Except for actually sketchy half done stuff is kinda in right now.

Jason Hesiak said...

I see your point, I don't know if I agree. A lot hangs on the definition of "home".

Well the basic point of that link that I provided before in this thread is that "to dwell" is basically the same as "to be." And not "to be" in the sense of some endless and directionless argument over "being and doing" (although that conversation is related) but "to be" in the sense simply of being alive (as opposed to dead).

Example...the author of that link relates his German words for "to dwell" (which I forget), "to build" (like "bauen" or something) and "to be" ("ich bin" or something of the sort).

This whole thing, btw, is why I think that the model "dwelling" is God's "dwelling" on earth (either in the Temple or the Church). God is the God of the living. But "being there" (being in some PLACE) is essential/fundamental to any and all being. That's why even God like has a place to be...sort of kind of in a sense. Well...I guess I said that backwards. What I mean is that I think that the essential nature of "to dwell" hinges on the essential character of God...in that even God "is" in some place or thing or whathaveyou.

All in all, then, what I mean to say about "home" and the market is that a human being can't just dwell anywhere. His life (his "being") is dependent on his being somewhere...that somewhere being his home. So then selling your home is like selling your "being"...which previously I referenced as selling your "soul". Not exactly or literally the same thing in one to one fashion...but you get the point...I think. I mean I would think that your "soul" fits in with your "being". No "being", no "soul."

...mostly blending math and art gives me a headache...I certainly wouldn't consciously evaluate someone else's art that way - and I would never be able to think my own art through that way.

Well...but the faces and bodies that we (all of us...or at least the vast majority of us) find sexy (OK, "beautiful :) are the ones that are well PROPORTIONED (like, yeah, mathematically). And that certainly doesn't give us a headache :)

We get those kinds of stressed-out-whats-going-on headaches when we are in analytic mode. When our "being" is being pulled apart from the flow of the grain of the universe. In other words...when we are looking at something in nature or the world and desciphering or analyzing it to see if there is some mathematical ratio, proportion, series or geometric shape that is involved or overlayed with it...as opposed to actually seeing how something is made.

"Actually seeing" in the sense of like going with the flow of the universe rather than being ripped out from it or looking at it from the outside. Like...the Renaissance folks believed that the mathematical ratios and proportions that are the "reasons" for our thinking a face is sexy were actual things that were sort of like tools or mediums by which a thing in nature is made (like...how God "made"...everything).

Like...when I use geometric proportions to organize my buildings...its like a tool to make the building...a tool that itself flows "rightly" with the grain of the universe...thus the tool itself...while I'm actually using it...is a way of knowing that my building is "right". I don't lay it out and then afterwards analytically check to see if its "right" using my special super analytic power of intuition or by checking it mathematically. Well, I sort of do that sometimes...I go back and forth...but you get the point.

But anyway...its after I've already layed it out and I'm going back to check things (anayltically) that the process feels all tedious and burdensome. When I'm actually in the process of doing it its just fun and exciting and inspiring.

Me: You can't market an image that's not completed and packaged like an image painted by Vermeer. Then your response: Or DaVinci or O'Keefe or Pollock or any other artist. Except for actually sketchy half done stuff is kinda in right now.

Ummm...that wasn't my point. Like, in marketing you actually package and display an "image" as that image that you are marketing. A digitized image of a Pollock-or-whoever-else painting that is meant to market something ELSE...USING that image...is different from an image of a Pollock painting as such...and especially different from a Pollock painting itself. And by "is different" I mean "its a whole different thing."

OK, so what? Then why did I make reference to a Vermeer painting as having some special relation to marketing that sets it apart from any painting by anyone else (I gave the Miro example)? Well that's partially why I referenced The Doyle's post on perspective and Crosy - "Through the Veil".

To quote The Doyle: We think of realistic art as the visualization of a scene at a single instant in time — kind of like a painted snapshot. Medievalists tended to paint whole stories: a single painting might, for example, depict Paul’s ship going aground, Paul struggling to shore, and Paul preaching to the pagans. Even the single moment is depicted “on the move”: the artist might show three sides of a rectangular building, which can’t be seen by standing in one place.

Later in the post The Doyle references Giotto as the first to embark on this new "realistic" style. Renaissance paintings are generally more "realistic" still, but then in Renaissance paintings you see things like arms that are longer than they "really" are (for various purposes) or you see very male characteristics on a female Sybill on the sides of the Sistine Chapel (for mythological reasons rather than because Michelangelo was trying to make it look like a transvestite). Vermeeer came later...after this new "realism" was generally how people thought about and saw the world.

Vermeer is like the epitome of this new "realism" (or at least a really really good example). It is the visualization of a scene at a single instant in time — kind of like a painted snapshot. And it "looks realistic." Oddly enough...that...in a sense or for the most part...could or would serve as a really good description of any marketed "image". A more accurate description of a marketed image, however, is in terms its "completion". Example...you could have a commercial for a new beer that tells a whole story (sort of like how a medieval painting tells a whole Paul story from acts), but yet its meant to present that whole thing as one completed - and marketed - package...unlike the Medieval icon or painting...which is fundamentally meant to be a very incomplete thing that itself only opens doors to a greater and bigger world beyond the senses.

So then when you are dealing with a marketed image...even sketchy half done stuff [which is] is kinda in right now....it is ALWAYS and fundamentally a "whole" and "complete" image that is to be presented and marketed as such...along the very same lines that a Vermeer painting is a complete and whole image of an accurately depicted scene frozen in time. You could go so far as to say that there could be no contemporary marketing without the Vermeers of the world. And there when I say "the Vermeers of the world" I don't mean all the paintings by Vermeer but all the "realistic" pieces that came to pervade the art scene in the Enlightenment and thereafter.

So then earlier when I said - A digitized image of a Pollock-or-whoever-else painting that is meant to market something ELSE...USING that image...is different from an image of a Pollock painting as such...and especially different from a Pollock painting itself. - I didn't mean that they are different just because one is a digitized image and the other is some paint on a canvas. I didn't mean that they are different becuase of the different materiality (camera or T.V. or canvas) or the different medium of the image (light or paint/canvas). I meant to say that they are different simply because they actually are two different things.

If an image is marketed as such, and then later at a different time and a different place one is to go buy that "image" (and not even really so much the thing that its an image of, but people are really buying the image)...then you're dealing with a completed thing. Its being completed...done, finished, dead, only analyzable and not seeable or flowable-withable...is in a sense fundamental to what it is in its very essence (if death has an essence). For if the image were alive then the people would be going to the store to buy something different from the image that they saw on TV and decided they had to have. The actual Pollock painting is an actual thing. Incomplete, really...like still being made, in a sense...and in a sense alive...alive in terms of what it is...as a painting (the completed, end, "real" thing is "really" only known by God). The marketed image of the Pollock painting used to market something else is only AFTER the actual Pollock painting (just as I only analyze the proportions of my bulding after I've already layed it out using the rules of ratio and proportion)...and at that point the Pollock painting itself is done, over, dead, see-ya-gone bye-bye. The marketed image of the Pollock painting isn't "the real" Pollock (which God knows and "brings out") but is in fact quite the opposite; its the most unreal Pollock, the dead one. Meanwhile the actual marketed image OF the actual Pollock comes to life. Its like a ritual sacrafice.

And btw analysis (Descartian notation) is essential to Enlightenment "realism" in art (and to Vermeer). They are inseparable (ironically...lol...separation (to analyze is to pull apart whereas to make is to put together - Jesus "holds everything together") is inseparable from modern art).

Melody said...

I read part of your last post outloud to my sister - she said it made her want to die.

Mostly it sounded like you were taking a long time to not say anything, but I see that there's much more, so maybe one day I'll finish reading it and sufficiently understand to respond.

I think you might consider being a little more concise. You make a lot more sense when you're concise.

Melody said...

Ok - serious comment now - it actually did get a lot more comprehensible a few sentences down.

I don't know about dwelling and all that. Dwelling implies being somewhat settled somewhere. Just because I happen to be alive at the mall doesn't mean I dwell there.

But you said that being is the same as dwelling and while I can be at the mall - I can't dwell there.

And home seems like another thing entirely. Home implies some sort of belonging. I dwell at a certain street address. It's the place I come back to every night. But it isn't home. I don't know where home is, but it isn't at that address; it isn't even in Indiana.

That's what I think anyhow. But I don't have any German authors to back me up.

In any case home doesn't have much to do with architechture, ugly or otherwise.

when we are looking at something in nature or the world and desciphering or analyzing it to see if there is some mathematical ratio, proportion, series or geometric shape that is involved or overlayed with it...as opposed to actually seeing how something is made.

I don't really know what you mean by this.

Ummm...that wasn't my point.

I know, but you so seldom make it clear what your point is. Linking to other people doesn't count. I don't have time to read them and even if I did I would hardly be able to know what particularly you were referencing - now would I?

I never liked Medieval stuff much. Especially not iconography. I had a water color professor who was obsessed with it. We had to design our own icons. It was not a good day.

I do love the Renaissance, mostly because I couldn't paint or draw that way in a million years. I appreciate the skill it takes.

The great thing about realism is that it isn't real at all. You can play with light (Vermeer, Rembrant - got to love the Dutch) and color and space and change it into something it never was. It's the ultimate story telling. That's one thing I love about Vermeer, the pictures are stories. People are doing something, going somewhere. You can almost see their next step, or hear what they're telling someone.

Medevial stuff - it just sits there. Some distorted face, twisted towards heaven in agony forever - symbolizing this, that or the other.

A bit of a rabbit trail, but I don't really understand what you're getting at.

This image is dead, that image is alive - who knows what it means?

Pollock's painting seems to be alive only because it is open to decay - and that seems a rather odd way of looking at life.

Jason Hesiak said...

Length and being concise or not...I was trying to be generously explanatory.

Ok - serious comment now - it actually did get a lot more comprehensible a few sentences down.

Let me ask...the part about God's dwelling some PLACE...was that the comprehensible or incomprehensible part? That's pretty much the key to the whole thing.

And home seems like another thing entirely. Home implies some sort of belonging. I dwell at a certain street address. It's the place I come back to every night. But it isn't home. I don't know where home is, but it isn't at that address; it isn't even in Indiana.

OK. So wouldn't you say that you have a desire for your "home" to BE your "dwelling"? And where WOULD you say your "home" is? Heaven? Florida Keys?

In any case home doesn't have much to do with architechture, ugly or otherwise.

HUH!!!??? Architects don't build homes? Are you THAT market driven? Architects only build houses...physical objects...no homes. OK.

Me: when we are looking at something in nature or the world and desciphering or analyzing it to see if there is some mathematical ratio, proportion, series or geometric shape that is involved or overlayed with it...as opposed to actually seeing how something is made. Then your response: I don't really know what you mean by this.

Well, of course not. That's why I tried to be generously explanatory further down in the comment:

Like...when I use geometric proportions to organize my buildings...its like a tool to make the building...a tool that itself flows "rightly" with the grain of the universe...thus the tool itself...while I'm actually using it...is a way of knowing that my building is "right". I don't lay it out and then afterwards analytically check to see if its "right" using my special super analytic power of intuition or by checking it mathematically. Well, I sort of do that sometimes...I go back and forth...but you get the point.

But anyway...its after I've already layed it out and I'm going back to check things (anayltically) that the process feels all tedious and burdensome. When I'm actually in the process of doing it its just fun and exciting and inspiring.


Then you later on:
I know, but you so seldom make it clear what your point is. Linking to other people doesn't count. I don't have time to read them and even if I did I would hardly be able to know what particularly you were referencing - now would I? I never liked Medieval stuff much. Especially not iconography.

Maybe if you took the time to learn about things you don't understand, then you wouldn't make ignorant comments like "I never liked Medieval stuff much. Especially not iconography." I didn't say "I don't like Vermeer." That would be a relatively pointless and valueless statement for public discussion.

Medevial stuff - it just sits there. Some distorted face, twisted towards heaven in agony forever - symbolizing this, that or the other.

Another ignorant comment. I wouldn't say that except for the fact that in this very discussion I (through The Doyle) just recently explained explitly to you why Medieval images appear the way they do. And it happened not to have anything to do with "distortion." The fact that you...even after a discussion on what lies behind "realism" and also behind the Medieval image...STILL referred to a Medieval image as "distorted" (due to your own influence from "realism"...which, yes, actually isn't "realistic" at all, in the sense that you describe)...makes ME think that this conversation has been a waste of time. Are you THAT stubbornly set in your ways? Are you THAT incapable of seeing past the tip of your nose?

This image is dead, that image is alive - who knows what it means?

Those who are alive know what it means.

Pollock's painting seems to be alive only because it is open to decay - and that seems a rather odd way of looking at life.

Huh? Are you summarizing my view of art/Pollock's painting? Or are you offering your own? If you are summarizing mine, then I don't recognize it as such. If you interpreted my words about the death of the Pollock painting through the idea of "decay"...I didn't say anything about that. If you want to talk about the differences between various means of death...I was referencing murder.

The marketed Pollock image (or the marketers...whatever) actually kill the actual original Pollock. That's why I referenced sacrafice. Its actaully violent. But we don't recognize it as such because our eyes aren't looking there. We don't actually see anything (I explained that above...on the difference between actuality and analysis), much less the violence that underlies our society's operation.

Jason Hesiak said...

And anyway...to actually see...anything at all...we have to be alive. And if we aren't actually seeing things, then we aren't alive. So how would we recognize murder anyway if we ourselves aren't alive?

And just so you don't think thats a trick question...the answer is: we don't.

Melody said...

Length and being concise or not...I was trying to be generously explanatory.

I know, but when you do that I tend to have no idea what you tried to explain.

Let me ask...the part about God's dwelling some PLACE...was that the comprehensible or incomprehensible part? That's pretty much the key to the whole thing.

Mostly incomprehensible. I mean, I get that God has to be/dwell somewhere, but I have no idea what that means for the rest of the discussion.

OK. So wouldn't you say that you have a desire for your "home" to BE your "dwelling"?

Yeah, I guess.

And where WOULD you say your "home" is? Heaven? Florida Keys?

Eh, who knows? I mean, heaven on a technicality, but since being there presently would involve slitting my wrists I don't know if I could say that's where I belong now. So...not really. Maybe that doesn't make sense. Home is an odd concept to me.

HUH!!!??? Architects don't build homes? Are you THAT market driven? Architects only build houses...physical objects...no homes. OK.

Ok, this isn't long, but it's still confusing. Are you saying the architects do or don't build homes? Try and remember this conversation started over something about architecture, I was just referencing that.

Maybe if you took the time to learn about things you don't understand, then you wouldn't make ignorant comments like "I never liked Medieval stuff much. Especially not iconography."

lol, harsh words. Maybe I shouldn't write at two in the morning - I get off track more when it's early in the morning. I told you, it was a rabbit trail.

Anyhow, Doyle's post didn't tell me anything I wasn't already aware of.

makes ME think that this conversation has been a waste of time.

Oh I'm pretty sure all our conversations are a waste of time, but that's never bothered you before, so why should it bother me?

Are you THAT stubbornly set in your ways?

lol, oh less than most people think, but I'm not going to change with the wind either.

Those who are alive know what it means.

So cryptic. Not at all useful.

Huh? Are you summarizing my view of art/Pollock's painting?

Mmm, yes - as best I understand it.

So since you don't think my summary is accurate I think what I need to better understand is what you mean by "alive". What makes the orginal painting alive? Are all orginals alive and the copies all dead?

Mostly I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

Jason Hesiak said...

I know, but when you do that I tend to have no idea what you tried to explain.

Not sure what to say to that. Sorry? Oops? Shit I dunno. But I'm glad "you know" (that i was being generously explanatory).

Me: Let me ask...the part about God's dwelling some PLACE...was that the comprehensible or incomprehensible part? That's pretty much the key to the whole thing. Then you're response: Mostly incomprehensible. I mean, I get that God has to be/dwell somewhere, but I have no idea what that means for the rest of the discussion.

Well if God is God of...everything (and of us)...then we owe who we are to...God. So if God "has to" (in a sense) be (home) "somewhere"...then so do we. That doesn't mean that we always ARE (truly and fully), I don't think. But that's just the whole point, I think. Its one of those fundamental aspects of nature that was ripped apart with sin.

Me: OK. So wouldn't you say that you have a desire for your "home" to BE your "dwelling"? Then your response: Yeah, I guess.

OK, so considering your desire for that in light of who God is (that He "is"..."somewhere")...would you say that this desire of yours owes its existence both to who God is in the first place and also His placing of that desire in the depths of your heart?

Ok, this isn't long, but it's still confusing. Are you saying the architects do or don't build homes? Try and remember this conversation started over something about architecture, I was just referencing that.

I'm saying that a house is meant to be a home. So HELPING (a family) to build a "home" is fundamental to what an architect does.

I would think you could identify with the following moving words from that old German guy I referenced previously:

If we give thought to this threefold fact, we obtain a clue and note the following: as long as we do not bear in mind that all building is in itself a dwelling, we cannot even adequately ask, let alone properly decide, what the building of buildings might be in its nature. We do not dwell because we have built, but we build and have built because we dwell, that is, because we are dwellers. But in what does the nature of dwelling consist? Let us listen once more to what language says to us. The Old Saxon wuon, the Gothic wunian like the old word bauen, mean to remain, to stay in a place. But the Gothic wunian says more distinctly how this remaining is experienced. Wunian means: to be at peace, to be brought to peace, to remain in peace. The word for peace, Friede, means the free, das Frye, and fry means: preserved from harm and danger, preserved from something, safeguarded.

I think this kind of stuff is why the ancient Roman architect who wrote the first ever treatise on architecture said that an architect must have a wide range of education...including in the field of philosophy.

Me: Maybe if you took the time to learn about things you don't understand, then you wouldn't make ignorant comments like "I never liked Medieval stuff much. Especially not iconography." Then you're response: lol, harsh words. Maybe I shouldn't write at two in the morning - I get off track more when it's early in the morning. I told you, it was a rabbit trail.

When you said "it" was a rabbit trail, I wasn't sure if you were referring to my "point", your "point", or the conversation in general. sorry i should have asked. but then at the same time, if you were referring to the conversation in general...then what's the point? do you really think that? are we not talking about anything important? or do you or i have nothing of value (or intelligibility) to say?

and i'm glad you didn't get angry, because i seriously wasn't trying to be mean. actually i have in mind a certain love for "medieval stuff"...as a particular of kind of "all stuff"...and especially all art.

Me: Are you THAT stubbornly set in your ways? Then you: lol, oh less than most people think, but I'm not going to change with the wind either.

OK, I said that wrong. That wasn't what I meant. I wasn't referring to the idea of stubbornness vs. flightyness. I was referring to your being stuck in the framework for your thinking as determined by modern "realism"...to such a degree that you would refer to medieval images as "distorted". I think that's different from "stubbornness", although I guess if one is stubbornly set in their ways it would be more difficult to understand medieval images well enough...ON THEIR OWN TERMS (and NOT on our modern/contemporary terms that fit within the framework or influence of "realism")...to not refer to them as "distorted."

Me Those who are alive know what it means. Then you: So cryptic. Not at all useful.

So was it at all cryptic when Jesus said: Those who know me will recognize my voice. Was it "useful" to say that if those who heard it were utterly confused...mostly? If so, how? If not, then why did he say it?

So since you don't think my summary is accurate I think what I need to better understand is what you mean by "alive". What makes the orginal painting alive? Are all orginals alive and the copies all dead?

Yeah pretty much. At least sort of. I would say it like this (although putting it like this sounds kind of wierd and analytical to me)... The copy is dead when considered in light of and reference to the original. When considered in its own light and in reference to the audience that will be viewing only the copy without ever having seen the orignal, the copy is "alive" and the orignal is actually "dead" (at that point the orinal "is dead" "to the audience" of the copy, kind of like how we might say that a long-gone friend "is dead to me").

I think you could follow a similar logic when you think of the two completely different purposes of the original Pollock and the Pollock used by marketeres to market something. At that point the issue isn't so much that you're dealing with a copy (although thats part of it) as much as the fact that you're dealing with a whole different and newly fashioned "image". I think the purpose is part of the image. Our "purpose" in life is certainly part of the "image" we portray.

Melody said...

So if God "has to" (in a sense) be (home) "somewhere"...then so do we. That doesn't mean that we always ARE (truly and fully), I don't think. But that's just the whole point, I think. Its one of those fundamental aspects of nature that was ripped apart with sin.

Hmm, maybe.

OK, so considering your desire for that in light of who God is (that He "is"..."somewhere")...would you say that this desire of yours owes its existence both to who God is in the first place and also His placing of that desire in the depths of your heart?

I suppose so...

I'm saying that a house is meant to be a home. So HELPING (a family) to build a "home" is fundamental to what an architect does.

Maybe so, I've never been on either side of the house building experience, I just find that odd.

In some ways it doesn't seem right that home should be dependent on a building.

When you said "it" was a rabbit trail, I wasn't sure if you were referring to my "point", your "point",

Oh my point, absolutely. Less a point than my personal feelings towards medevial artwork, with which I have never been friends.

I was referring to your being stuck in the framework for your thinking as determined by modern "realism"...to such a degree that you would refer to medieval images as "distorted".

I don't know. I don't like them. Just my personal feelings towards them.

So was it at all cryptic when Jesus said: Those who know me will recognize my voice. Was it "useful" to say that if those who heard it were utterly confused...mostly? If so, how? If not, then why did he say it?

Context?

I still don't understand the dead paintings and live paintings. It makes little to no sense to me. I do kind of see what you mean about it being different to see an actual Pollock than just to see a print. There's nothing like seeing the real thing, but beyond that you kinda lost me.

Jason Hesiak said...

Me: I'm saying that a house is meant to be a home. So HELPING (a family) to build a "home" is fundamental to what an architect does. Then you're response: Maybe so, I've never been on either side of the house building experience, I just find that odd.

You "just find that odd"? This, along with your two previous less enthousiastic responses make me think that this is less of an intellectual issue and more of a hope/faith one. Which I can't really help you with. I think that's something faced in the presence of God (and people). But I could be wrong, b/c I'm not too sure why "you find that odd", and nor am I too sure what to make of your two previous responses.

I don't know. I don't like them. Just my personal feelings towards them.

Well...you aren't interested in anything beyond your own personal feelings?

Melody said...

But I could be wrong, b/c I'm not too sure why "you find that odd", and nor am I too sure what to make of your two previous responses.

I don't know, I don't have real definitive thoughts on this, which is probably why they're a bit jumbled/incoherant.

I mean, I've been thinking about it, but I'm having trouble reconciling my different thoughts on home.

Well...you aren't interested in anything beyond your own personal feelings?

Yes, of course, that's why we're having a conversation.symbolic meaning...while

Jason Hesiak said...

I mean, I've been thinking about it, but I'm having trouble reconciling my different thoughts on home.

Glad you're thinking about it. That's better than not. I'd be curious to hear what you're trying to reconcile, actually. The house as a market good vs. as a home thing?

Yes, of course, that's why we're having a conversation.symbolic meaning...while

I think that got cut off...??

Melody said...

I'd be curious to hear what you're trying to reconcile, actually. The house as a market good vs. as a home thing?

Everything is a market good, the two don't have to be reconciled.

I think that got cut off...??

Yeah...I think I wrote it somewhere else and then cut and pasted it in, clearly my cutting and pasting skills could use some work.

It was something about how having an interest in things outside my opinion doesn't mean changing my opinion. Something like that.

Jason Hesiak said...

Everything is a market good, the two don't have to be reconciled.

A) So what are you trying to reconcile in your thoughts about home.

B) Once you sell a house its not a home. "Everything is a market good" is the message and mythos of capitalism, which has not concern for "home."

Melody said...

A) So what are you trying to reconcile in your thoughts about home.

Not important.

B) Once you sell a house its not a home.

Not yours, but someone else's.

Even if it did change into something else, that wouldn't change the fact that you'd sold your home.

That's like saying you can't freeze water, once it's frozen it's ice.

"Everything is a market good" is the message and mythos of capitalism, which has not concern for "home."

Oh don't be silly. Of course capitalism is concerned with home. Home and family are very powerful marketing tools. If Pilsbury cookie dough reminds you of Saturday afternoons with Mum, you're much more likely to keep on buying Pilsbury. If daddy was a Ford man, odds are you will be too.

Mmm, now I want cookies.

Of course that's more a marketing angle, but capitalism gives us the chance to make our home where and how we wish, and that's worth something.

Jason Hesiak said...

That's like saying you can't freeze water, once it's frozen it's ice.

Good point...which brings up a key and important issue. The difference is that the transformation from water to ice is a natural process in accordance with the laws of nature. Selling your house and up and movin' isn't quite like that (at least not often-times). When there are no limits placed on what can be marketed, capitalism extends beyond its bounds and violates nature. That's part of the point I've been making.

Case in point: Of course that's more a marketing angle, but capitalism gives us the chance to make our home where and how we wish, and that's worth something.

It just doesn't work like that. Part of the nature of home is that a man (or woman) is king (or queen) of his (or her) castle. But its simply not true that its still a home no matter where its built or how it appears.

I learned the lesson of location the hard way by moving to LA for five years.

And the following, for example, appears as neither a dwelling nor a home (I broke the link up so that all the info. would fit...I tested it the other way, and it didnt' work):
http://www.designstylesinc.com/Images/
0103FalasiriImages_r1_c1.jpg

And yet on the market it would be very highly valued. Illustration number 1 on why there is in fact a certain measure of difference and irreconcilability between a house as either a market good or a home or dwelling.

Oh don't be silly. Of course capitalism is concerned with home. Home and family are very powerful marketing tools. If Pilsbury cookie dough reminds you of Saturday afternoons with Mum, you're much more likely to keep on buying Pilsbury. If daddy was a Ford man, odds are you will be too.

See, that's my point. Home is not a marketing tool. That's backwards. The more right-side-up way to say it is that the use of "home" as a "marketing tool" would not be possible in marketing if it weren't in man's nature to be "home" somewhere. But that's PRECISELY the (proper) ORDER (in accordance with nature) for which capitalism has no care or concern. And that's why you end up with houses that are high in market value and yet do not appear as homes or dwellings at all.

The most important question is never asked: is capitalism in accordance with man's nature or not? How so; how not? When, when not? Instead, we BEGIN - in a disorderly fashion - as capitalists (rather than as human beings) - and ask how we as human beings can best buy and sell...anything at all.

Melody said...

The difference is that the transformation from water to ice is a natural process in accordance with the laws of nature. Selling your house and up and movin' isn't quite like that (at least not often-times).

Why not? Your needs cease to be met at a certain location and you move.

For example, the first time my family moved was so my father could have gainful employment, fairly natural. The second time was because our family outgrew our house.

When there are no limits placed on what can be marketed, capitalism extends beyond its bounds and violates nature. That's part of the point I've been making.

I'm not advocating the sale of anything and everything, just saying that it's possible.

It just doesn't work like that. Part of the nature of home is that a man (or woman) is king (or queen) of his (or her) castle. But its simply not true that its still a home no matter where its built or how it appears.

Of course not, but that doesn't negate my point that capitalism lets us choose.

And yet on the market it would be very highly valued. Illustration number 1 on why there is in fact a certain measure of difference and irreconcilability between a house as either a market good or a home or dwelling.

Well certainly a house may have a different value as a market good than it would as a home, just as a sandwich may have differing values as a nutritious meal and a tasty meal - though it could be both at the same time even thought it was highly nutritious and only marginally tasty.

See, that's my point. Home is not a marketing tool. That's backwards.

I was being a little bit sarcastic.

The most important question is never asked: is capitalism in accordance with man's nature or not? How so; how not?

Are we humanists now? Man's nature is kinda twisted, where-as capitalism is neither good nor evil.

Jason Hesiak said...

Why not? Your needs cease to be met at a certain location and you move. For example, the first time my family moved was so my father could have gainful employment, fairly natural. The second time was because our family outgrew our house.

The idea specifically that I'm referencing as unnatural is that of buying your house originally as a good on the market to make a profit and then later to move and buy another...as opposed to circumstantially buying a house wit the primary purpose of dwelling in a home. This unnatural way is the general way that it works in our culture.

If it wasn't, then a family that outgrows their house is much more likely to add on to the one where they have established roots and accumulated memories than to up and move. To paraphrase Baudrillard: "Home is the place of memory accumulated over the course of time." Memory is not just mental. Its actually part of the formation of who you are as a human being. That's why its called "re-membering."

I'm not advocating the sale of anything and everything, just saying that it's possible.

The point I've been making is that the idea described above...of buying and selling houses for a profit...is one of those situations where you are selling something that should not really be sold and especially not in that way. Its a situation in which consumption extends beyond its natural limits...a home has a lot to do with limits.

Of course not, but that doesn't negate my point that capitalism lets us choose.

Capitalism would have us believe that we choose. But like I pointed out before, for example, I "chose" to make LA my home. But the fact is, LA is simply not my home. Its not determined by me. As an extension of a similar idea from that German guy who understood some of the whacko effects of the capitalist mythos:

"It is language that tells us about the nature of a thing, provided that we respect language's own nature. In the meantime, to be sure, there rages round the earth an unbridled yet clever talking, writing, and broadcasting of spoken words. Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man. Perhaps it is before all else man's subversion of this relation of dominance that drives his nature into alienation. That we retain a concern for care in speaking is all to the good, but it is of no help to us as long as language still serves us even then only as a means of expression."

Notice the word "alienation" there. We are talking about home, and that quote comes from "Building, Dwelling, Thinking", by said German fella.

Well certainly a house may have a different value as a market good than it would as a home, just as a sandwich may have differing values as a nutritious meal and a tasty meal - though it could be both at the same time even thought it was highly nutritious and only marginally tasty.

Generally I've found that houses that appear more like homes don't or wouldn't appear as desirable on the market. Why would anyone want to buy a house that is truly someone else's home. That's some freaky crap there. That's like some creepy guy stalking a chick. Its like some psycho knowing all your inner most thoughts. Its like someone else's wanting to live your life instead of their own.

I was being a little bit sarcastic.

Oh. OK. That's a relief. Interesting. Not long ago I wouldn't have believed you. But I do. I think maybe you've been thinking about this stuff a bit, eh...

Me The most important question is never asked: is capitalism in accordance with man's nature or not? How so; how not? Then you: Are we humanists now? Man's nature is kinda twisted, where-as capitalism is neither good nor evil.

No I'm not a humanist. And I didn't know it was man's nature that was evil. I thought it was his "sin nature", supposedly. Slightly off topic, but whatever.

The way the sin nature thing relates to the conversation, though...you could say that the reason why a good "homey" house wouldn't necessarily be so good on the market, and visa versa...is because of the greed in man's sin nature that causes a market-driven house to look so gaudy and goofy and un-homey (kinda like a person who isn't very down to earth but who makes lots of friends precisely because that's their great effort in life). But you could just as easily say that such a phenomenon is not owed to man's "sin nature" but simply to sin in a "man" who is originally "good", as God declared back in early Genesis.

Melody said...

The idea specifically that I'm referencing as unnatural is that of buying your house originally as a good on the market to make a profit and then later to move and buy another.

Well those people kinda got it the shorts - I've read a lot of articles recently on how it's an unreliable plan, bad pay-off, etc.

And honestly, until those articles started appear a couple months ago, I had no idea it was such a huge trend.

I've known a few people who did it before, but generally unmarried guys who can't stand to not fix something. Once they get married and feel the need to settle down they fix cars and build tree forts.
Not usually people with families who are going to be traumatized by leaving their memories behind.

If it wasn't, then a family that outgrows their house is much more likely to add on to the one where they have established roots and accumulated memories than to up and move.

I'm going to roll my eyes at you now, if that's alright.

1. Frequently there isn't room to build on to a house. Growing up we had a yard roughly the size of other people's swimming pools. We joked about putting one in and diving in from the windows.

2. Home is more than the house you live in - it's the area, the town or city. So you move into a bigger house in the same area and no biggy.

When I moved as a kid I didn't lose any of my friends. It was the same general area.

When I drove home from college I didn't start feeling at home when I walked in the door, it was when I drove into the city and could see the lights. When my parents moved to the country after I got out of college - that was the first thing I knew I'd miss.

So, I don't really see how selling the house is selling one's home. Home's a lot more than the bloody house, even if the house does happen to be home - and not just where you're staying.

The point I've been making is that the idea described above...of buying and selling houses for a profit...is one of those situations where you are selling something that should not really be sold and especially not in that way.

I don't know, I just don't think I see it that way. I think it's weird. Seems like there are easier ways to make a buck, but it's not exactly the same as selling - oh I don't know, selling your integrity or another person or whatever else one might sell that shouldn't be sold.

Capitalism would have us believe that we choose. But like I pointed out before, for example, I "chose" to make LA my home. But the fact is, LA is simply not my home.

Ok - so you've realized LA isn't your home - but capitalism gives you the option to find home wherever it is.

If you were living in a fiefdom or under communists or some fascist dictator you very well could be without that option.

Generally I've found that houses that appear more like homes don't or wouldn't appear as desirable on the market.

Well I don't know much about that. I also don't know what you feel would make a house look more like a home than not.

That's like some creepy guy stalking a chick. Its like some psycho knowing all your inner most thoughts. Its like someone else's wanting to live your life instead of their own.

I'm not really seeing the similarities.

Oh. OK. That's a relief. Interesting. Not long ago I wouldn't have believed you. But I do. I think maybe you've been thinking about this stuff a bit, eh...

Not more than usual. I'm almost always sarcastic Jason - you just can't tell and I usually just let people think whatever they want to think.

No I'm not a humanist. And I didn't know it was man's nature that was evil. I thought it was his "sin nature", supposedly. Slightly off topic, but whatever.

Well I don't know what you mean by man's "nature" exactly, but everything about us is a bit twisted since sin got introduced.

Our nature is to not have good impulses - so it seems like a bum kind of measuring stick.

Jason Hesiak said...

I'm going to roll my eyes at you now, if that's alright.

FYI I wasn't saying you guys shouldn't have moved. I didn't know your situation.

When I drove home from college I didn't start feeling at home when I walked in the door, it was when I drove into the city and could see the lights. When my parents moved to the country after I got out of college - that was the first thing I knew I'd miss.

Right. Part of the idea of home is something you return to (like the cyclical pattern of paradise to zion). And the actual house isn't all of it, but it is certainly part of it. What's it mean to return to your hometown if you have no home base to return to in your home town? And what it mean to return to your house if the town somehow suddently isn't there? What's a context without a text?

Ok - so you've realized LA isn't your home - but capitalism gives you the option to find home wherever it is. If you were living in a fiefdom or under communists or some fascist dictator you very well could be without that option.

Actually no that's backwards too. The illusion of choice in the capitalist mythos is part of the grander modern mythos that man is in control of...everything. Its not that we think we have control because we don't live under communist rule or as surfs; instead we think we have control because moderns think they have control...and capitalism is part of that thought pattern.

Well I don't know what you mean by man's "nature" exactly, but everything about us is a bit twisted since sin got introduced. Our nature is to not have good impulses - so it seems like a bum kind of measuring stick.

So its a twisted desire or urge in man to be home some place?

Melody said...

FYI I wasn't saying you guys shouldn't have moved. I didn't know your situation.

I know you weren't. I just found your comment unrealistic for almost anyone's situation. I've never known anyone to build on to their house. Ever.

What's it mean to return to your hometown if you have no home base to return to in your home town?

Familiar people and places?

So its a twisted desire or urge in man to be home some place?

No...but I think that desire gets twisted so that it's something it wasn't supposed to be...as do the desires to eat or to be loved or to succeed or to laugh. Not bad in of themselves...but it's a screwed up world and so those desires are usually screwed up as well.

Jason Hesiak said...

Me: What's it mean to return to your hometown if you have no home base to return to in your home town? Then you: Familiar people and places?

They wouldn't BE "familiar" (in that way) if you didn't actually HAVE a HOUSE there. That's my point.

Me: So its a twisted desire or urge in man to be home some place? Then you: No...but I think that desire gets twisted so that it's something it wasn't supposed to be...as do the desires to eat or to be loved or to succeed or to laugh. Not bad in of themselves...but it's a screwed up world and so those desires are usually screwed up as well.

OK so the desire to eat can become gluttony and the desire to be loved can become Britney Spears (nuff said) and the desire to succeed can become Donald Trump (Greed). But what is it when the desire for "home" is "twisted"? A cock block? Kidding...lol. But seriously...what are you talking about?

Melody said...

They wouldn't BE "familiar" (in that way) if you didn't actually HAVE a HOUSE there. That's my point.

But they are and I don't.

But what is it when the desire for "home" is "twisted"? A cock block? Kidding...lol. But seriously...what are you talking about?

Well when I said it you were talking about asking if capitalism is in accodrance with man's nature...so my thoughts were more along the lines of, since man's natural desires are twisted it seems silly to want the "natural" thing, because it's going to be a twisted thing.

We have to conciously avoid making love lust, hunger gluttony etc. - that's what's natural.

As for home...I don't know...but that's not really what I was talking about orginally because we were talking about capitalism.

Jason Hesiak said...

But they are and I don't.

But you DID.

As for home...I don't know...but that's not really what I was talking about orginally because we were talking about capitalism.

Actually no we were talking about home in relation to capitalism. And I said something along the lines that capitalism "twists" the nature of "home." Actually I said that when the house becomes all about the housing market then "capitalism" has extended well beyond its "natural" boundaries.