Monday, May 3, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
"Soul Making" and Paradigm of the Immortal
"Soul as distinguished from an Intelligence-- There may be intelligences or sparks of the divinity in millions--but they are not Souls till they acquire identities, till each one is personally itself." ~Keats
This comment I find most intriguing, granted what I find intriguing about it is not directly related to Keats and what we have been discussing in class per se, but it does hold relevance to my final essay topic, if I do end up continuing with my original plan. (Also, this is several days late as a post... apologies! Many. My brain is... well not back to "normal" but... back to functionality, at least, after... he who mustnotbenamed's thesis assignment.)
Immediately when reading through this remark it made me think of the aspect of Vampire folklore that says that they do not hold a reflection. (I have seen in recient Vampire stories where this notion is considered a lie created by the Vampires themselves to protect their identies as Vampires while among the living. Which I thought was ingenious... haha.) However, if we want to continue believing that they do not have reflections then Keats' comment (atleast how I am perceiving it) implies that the vampire/immortal would not know themselves and so therefore has no reflection, for as to know thyself and thy reflection (oh... crud... Milton thesis reference.... God's creations as images of the self via Lacan and Freud to define "others" and "self-hood") is to know the "self". Before I get too far on this tangent... in Anne Rice's the Vampire Lestat, we see firstly, a narcissistic immortal however, he does not know himself. He spends his immortal undeath searching for the answers as to WHAT he is supposed to be doing, and WHAT existence means when you live forever (I know it sounds cliche now... but in 1985 that was GOLD). Keats' comment suggests that Lestat, and his Vampire aquaintances, do not have a soul for the reason that he does not have an identity.
To me, being fresh from my thesis concerning "othering" and identity, this suggests that Lestat has some how re-entered the (oh the pun!) "Mirror-stage" (the mirror stage is where the child first associates the image it sees in a mirror, with itself and that image becomes the "self" This is also where "othering" begins.... but I dont want to talk about that ANYMORE! Haha.) For Lestat, or ANY vampire to be lacking a mirror image, definitely (at least in my sore mind) indicates a lack of identity and association with the "self"
Coming back around to the original quote by Keats, a being does not have a soul until it forms identity. In the case of the visage-challenged Vampire, identity will NEVER be actualized in the terms that Lacan requires in infancy, and by Keats' musings, will NEVER again have a soul. Which, at least to me, poses a very valid theory as to why the vampire cannot see himself or be seen reflected in a mirror and is considered soulless. (One, if not both, cause and perpetuate the other condition.)
This comment I find most intriguing, granted what I find intriguing about it is not directly related to Keats and what we have been discussing in class per se, but it does hold relevance to my final essay topic, if I do end up continuing with my original plan. (Also, this is several days late as a post... apologies! Many. My brain is... well not back to "normal" but... back to functionality, at least, after... he who mustnotbenamed's thesis assignment.)
Immediately when reading through this remark it made me think of the aspect of Vampire folklore that says that they do not hold a reflection. (I have seen in recient Vampire stories where this notion is considered a lie created by the Vampires themselves to protect their identies as Vampires while among the living. Which I thought was ingenious... haha.) However, if we want to continue believing that they do not have reflections then Keats' comment (atleast how I am perceiving it) implies that the vampire/immortal would not know themselves and so therefore has no reflection, for as to know thyself and thy reflection (oh... crud... Milton thesis reference.... God's creations as images of the self via Lacan and Freud to define "others" and "self-hood") is to know the "self". Before I get too far on this tangent... in Anne Rice's the Vampire Lestat, we see firstly, a narcissistic immortal however, he does not know himself. He spends his immortal undeath searching for the answers as to WHAT he is supposed to be doing, and WHAT existence means when you live forever (I know it sounds cliche now... but in 1985 that was GOLD). Keats' comment suggests that Lestat, and his Vampire aquaintances, do not have a soul for the reason that he does not have an identity.
To me, being fresh from my thesis concerning "othering" and identity, this suggests that Lestat has some how re-entered the (oh the pun!) "Mirror-stage" (the mirror stage is where the child first associates the image it sees in a mirror, with itself and that image becomes the "self" This is also where "othering" begins.... but I dont want to talk about that ANYMORE! Haha.) For Lestat, or ANY vampire to be lacking a mirror image, definitely (at least in my sore mind) indicates a lack of identity and association with the "self"
Coming back around to the original quote by Keats, a being does not have a soul until it forms identity. In the case of the visage-challenged Vampire, identity will NEVER be actualized in the terms that Lacan requires in infancy, and by Keats' musings, will NEVER again have a soul. Which, at least to me, poses a very valid theory as to why the vampire cannot see himself or be seen reflected in a mirror and is considered soulless. (One, if not both, cause and perpetuate the other condition.)
Labels:
1985,
Anne Rice,
immortality,
Keats,
Lacan,
Lestat,
mirror-images,
Othering,
Vampires
Monday, April 26, 2010
Chameleon Keats #2
I find Keats' description of the Chameleon Poet (sorry, I can't spell it his way) relatable in my own attempts at writing, so I guess I'll look into that.
My own philosophy is that "personalities" for real people are a fiction - the illusion, character, is formed by a combination of natural desires with social rules that a person attempts to self-impose based on their experiences and their current setting. Those rules bend depending on where a person is, who they are with, etc. Like Keats, I find myself mirroring people I am around, to a degree. Basically, I think the illusion of personality would be one of the easiest parts of making an Artificial Intelligence.
So when I write a character, I take a limited selection of rules and desires of my own or of others, and jack the levels up, which in its oversimplification creates the illusion of a "personality" that seems more realistic than if I tried to document every contradictory fragment of my own mixup of desires and rules. They're also more fun in extremes - as Keats points out, there's "as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen."
How Keats seems to interpret this "no identity" experience is that I have been reflecting so many characters - every person I speak with or that I read through or dream through - that I lost track of my identity. This seems just as valid an interpretation as mine; in fact, maybe I like it better and will adopt it as my own from now on... : )
As to how Keats employed the feeling in his own work... it seems to work most clearly in the Lamia, where characters are continually shifting. The Lamia seems to have been a bodiless spirit, was cursed to become a snake (which sort of has that connotation of being treacherous...sorry, guys), then after her transformation into a woman shifts in character from nearly a goddess to a lover to a submissive wife - delighting in all her roles. When she is pinned down she is destroyed. Lycius also shifts from worshiper to lover to dominating husband, roles that he can't seem to reconcile with his former role as student. Apollonius never changes, but he shifts in the reader's eye from epic hero to epic spoilsport and murderer.
As far as the conception of the characters, the principle works as well because none of them seems to have a single motivation.
The only thing that seems strange to me is Keats' deeming the protean nature of a Poet "unpoetical," Why does the "Poetic" have to be unified? It seems there are often matters of high contrast that are poetic...
My own philosophy is that "personalities" for real people are a fiction - the illusion, character, is formed by a combination of natural desires with social rules that a person attempts to self-impose based on their experiences and their current setting. Those rules bend depending on where a person is, who they are with, etc. Like Keats, I find myself mirroring people I am around, to a degree. Basically, I think the illusion of personality would be one of the easiest parts of making an Artificial Intelligence.
So when I write a character, I take a limited selection of rules and desires of my own or of others, and jack the levels up, which in its oversimplification creates the illusion of a "personality" that seems more realistic than if I tried to document every contradictory fragment of my own mixup of desires and rules. They're also more fun in extremes - as Keats points out, there's "as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen."
How Keats seems to interpret this "no identity" experience is that I have been reflecting so many characters - every person I speak with or that I read through or dream through - that I lost track of my identity. This seems just as valid an interpretation as mine; in fact, maybe I like it better and will adopt it as my own from now on... : )
As to how Keats employed the feeling in his own work... it seems to work most clearly in the Lamia, where characters are continually shifting. The Lamia seems to have been a bodiless spirit, was cursed to become a snake (which sort of has that connotation of being treacherous...sorry, guys), then after her transformation into a woman shifts in character from nearly a goddess to a lover to a submissive wife - delighting in all her roles. When she is pinned down she is destroyed. Lycius also shifts from worshiper to lover to dominating husband, roles that he can't seem to reconcile with his former role as student. Apollonius never changes, but he shifts in the reader's eye from epic hero to epic spoilsport and murderer.
As far as the conception of the characters, the principle works as well because none of them seems to have a single motivation.
The only thing that seems strange to me is Keats' deeming the protean nature of a Poet "unpoetical," Why does the "Poetic" have to be unified? It seems there are often matters of high contrast that are poetic...
Regaining Meaning Through the Loss of Identity - Blog for Keats
The Camelion
I had to take a step back in order to think about Keats' view on the lack of identity of the poet. In context, I suppose Keats is attempting to get the reader to ponder the very question that all writers fear in their quest for creation: are the words on the page merely just a copy of what I deem the world through my eyes, or is my writing a construct of what I see at any given moment; therefore, making it authentic and true? This is my interpretation of Keats' purpose for calling a poet "the most unpoetic of all God's creatures." Keats' "Lamia" is a relevant example in considering this because the work as a whole seems to be dealing with the very nature of philosophy and its attempt to separate the life of reason (cold, destructive, fatal) against the emotional life (unreal) -both turn out to be fatal attempts as we continue on through the reading. If the Poet gives up his illusions he will regain personal identity, but losing them would destroy the very nature for his passion of creating in the first place. It is a trap -- a paradox. Perhaps this was the purpose of Keats' letter. Anyone who attempts to separate the two spheres will indeed be disappointed.
I had to take a step back in order to think about Keats' view on the lack of identity of the poet. In context, I suppose Keats is attempting to get the reader to ponder the very question that all writers fear in their quest for creation: are the words on the page merely just a copy of what I deem the world through my eyes, or is my writing a construct of what I see at any given moment; therefore, making it authentic and true? This is my interpretation of Keats' purpose for calling a poet "the most unpoetic of all God's creatures." Keats' "Lamia" is a relevant example in considering this because the work as a whole seems to be dealing with the very nature of philosophy and its attempt to separate the life of reason (cold, destructive, fatal) against the emotional life (unreal) -both turn out to be fatal attempts as we continue on through the reading. If the Poet gives up his illusions he will regain personal identity, but losing them would destroy the very nature for his passion of creating in the first place. It is a trap -- a paradox. Perhaps this was the purpose of Keats' letter. Anyone who attempts to separate the two spheres will indeed be disappointed.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)