Dante

The vision of a Catholic universalist perspective is achieved through the tripart Commedia of Dante, which follows Dante from hell to heaven. In this work Dante explores the nature of truth, which he finds to be divine in its nature, rather than being composed of secular and spiritual truths. Do scientific untruths, (mis)informed by the science of Dante's day, challenge the totality of his work since so much emphasis, indeed the life-force of the Commedia itself, relies upon its truthfullness? Adam Roberts's essay "Contra Dante" (1) argues just this:

"The presence of untruth in the Commedia is corrosive in ways that it would not be in a differently-configured text. It’s not that Dante is speculating about the nature of the spots in the moon, and happens to speculate wrongly. The explanation the poem offers is not Dantean speculation; it is a rigorously argued-through application of the entire logic of the poem. If it is untrue, then what is called into question is not Dante’s speculative powers but the truthfulness of the whole."

One problem with this is that if we observe the fallacy in the geographic description of Jerusalem as having a mountain that reaches into the heavens, why not wonder whether Dante really believed he travelled to hell and met famous dead people there? While many people wondered at the time whether Dante's work was true or not, there does not seem to be any indication that he saw it as anything besides a deeply meaningful fiction. The quote Roberts takes from Harold Bloom sheds light: "no other secular author is so absolutely convinced that his own work is the truth, all of the truth that matters most." Is it possible then, that Dante both believed his work to be the truth that mattered most and it still be a work of fiction? Or did he believe the literal truth of his work, and was therefore probably mentally ill? I seriously doubt the latter. Dante is too self-aware throughout the text to be open to the charge of being the victim of a hallucinating mind. If Dante did then believe his fiction was capable of expressing the truth, then Robert's observance that "If the Commedia is not true, then what good is it?" is predicated upon a misunderstanding of Dante's grasp of truth. While Roberts makes an interesting argument for the corrosive effect of scientific untruths expressed in the Commedia, he amplifies their importance. When he asks what good the book is if it is untrue, and overstates his case. If far more scientific assumptions couched in the work prove to be false, the inventiveness and profound humanity of the Commedia make it an important work now and for the foreseeable future. One of the reasons it remains vital is the treatment of the suspension of belief involved in a work of fiction, and how that relationship between author and text is vital to understanding the relationship between God and his creations.

Roberts criticism of Dante can been seen as veiled flattery of Dante. It is true that Dante's vision belonged to a pre-Copernican world, in as much as Gravity's Rainbow belongs to a latter-twentieth century world. What cannot be challenged is the terrific power of invention, erudition, humanity and humor which make Dante such a rare species of author. Of course these are important values important in today's social paradigm, unlike religious devotion, which Dante may well have viewed as the great triumph of his art. Among these inventions was the dialectic relationship of Dante and Virgil, or the ghost of Virgil. Relegated to Virgil's role in Robert's essay is Dante himself, who, while wise and great in many ways, could not possibly be valid in our contemporary culture simply because he existed before it. Virgil similarly was cast into hell because he was not Christian, although he died before Christianity arose. Roberts acknowledges this fallacy in the beginning, writing " I have no comeback to the obvious objection—that I am merely attempting to foist my own, arbitrarily modern-day moral schema." He does reveal this bias when he states:

"It is a trivial observation that Dante’s poem does not take place in our cosmos; but in a Dante pre-Copernican one. Trivial except for the single destructive fact that the pre-Copernican model of the cosmos was untrue"

But the problem is not simply that he is foisting a "modern-day moral schema"; such a schema would also value Dante for his invention but be dismissive of his Catholic trends toward homophobia and anthropocentricism. The problem is that Robert's assertion that

"It’s not that Dante is speculating about the nature of the spots in the moon, and happens to speculate wrongly. The explanation the poem offers is not Dantean speculation; it is a rigorously argued-through application of the entire logic of the poem. If it is untrue, then what is called into question is not Dante’s speculative powers but the truthfulness of the whole."

This is the heart of the essay. Beatrice's revelation concerning the moon is that Dante's (correct) view, that the moon is spotted due to varying density of materials (a view he vigorously supported in the Convivo), Beatrice corrects him, saying the true reason is:

"The uniform divine power, distributed among the stars, is unfolded and multiplied down through the heavens. The compounds formed from different powers joined to different planetary bodies then display varying luminosity not only among the stars but also within the Moon (and presumably the other planetary bodies as well)." (2)

This section of text explicitly addresses the issue of a need for "alternative theory of knowledge in Paradise." Does this mean secular and spiritual truths then, living on different sides of town? Not neccesarily. Beatrice's arguement, while pseudo-scientific in parts, addresses the need for metaphysical truths in the world. The moon as an example may be no idle object for stargazing, but a deeper poetic analogy. The mutability of the moon is called into question, much in the same way mutability of truth is being called into question here. If science, an ideally rational process can arrive at so many different conclusions, then is there a different sort of truth. This text concerning the moon points that possibility, positing that scientific truth is like the moon, ever changing, while some stars more illiuminated by heaven are purged of their mutability. And just as Dante speculated correctly in the convivo, Roberts appropriately speculates early in his essay:

"Dante was perfectly well aware of the different valences of ‘truth’. The Commedia does not operate only on the level of ‘poetic’ or allegorical truth. It does operate on that level, of course; but it also strives—explicitly, at length, and with a dedicated dialogic energy—for all the other sorts of truth as well. These various truths include: moral truth; scientific truth; doctrinal truth and aesthetic truth. All these quantities have true and false explanations, or aspects, or figures, and in a thousand various ways Dante’s poem exhorts us to choose the truth, and turn away the false."

When choosing between a scientific and allegorical truth, as I think happened in this case, Dante chose the allegory, pointing toward the mutability of science's understanding. Both truths are made conscious through divine light. In making this choice, perhaps Dante meant to bring the poem itself closer to the celestial light of which the moon is so lacking.

Notes:
1 http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/contra_dante/
2 http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/paradiso/01moon.html

Birth of a Democratic Nepal

After weeks of protesting, thousands of injuries and fourteen confirmed deaths, King Gyanendra announced that he would reinstate Parliament and end his rule as absolute monarch. The international community, not to mention the Nepalese people, have reactions varying from relief to exultation. The US state dept. has called for the King to adopt a strictly ceremonial role and leave the politics to the elected officials. Aid packages have been readied by India and Norway has lifted sanctions, easing the fears of economic collapse following the change-over. It's exciting to see this sort of internal regime change happen in this day and age and to see the international community celebrate and give aid a people's movement. It is however easy to be carried away in the euphoria of a dictatorial ruler's concession power to the people of his country. The Nepali people fought together, but were brought together by an oppression they all could put their differences aside to fight. But who are the people in Nepal to be represented by next, and is positive change really on the way? Can the differnces among the newly empowered constituents be reconciled or will the new democracy falter?

King Gyanendra announced that he "is confident that the nation will forge ahead towards sustainable peace, progress, full-fledged democracy and national unity." He plans to reinstate the parliament and it is probable that elections will also be held for a president. The first step will be the revitalization of the constitution and appointment of an interim parliament to preceed elections. The seven parties (which does not include Maoists) are calling for a constituent assembly elections which will lead to the first elected parliament and president, which will in turn probably draft a new constitution.

While a majority (47.8%) (1) of the Nepalese people believe an all-party government is the best way of dealing with the conflicts that have troubled the nations for the last two decades, it is possible the Maoists will be cut out. That they were not to be party to the new democracy was a point of contention in tke King's Friday night speach. In that speach the king declared he would conceed power, but the Maoists were not to share in the democracy or be met with. The Kathmandu Times had this to say about the Friday address:

"The international community's euphoric reaction to Friday's royal address is ludicrous, to say the least. It also shows how shallow is their reading of Nepali history and how far removed they are from the present ground reality. The foreign envoys' suggestion to the parties to break with the rebels and to take the royal offer is fraught with two serious problems. First, it does not address the Maoist insurgency, the main problem of the day. Breaking with the Maoists at this point in time and rejecting their legitimate demand for a constituent assembly means more bloodshed and more chaos for several years to come. Second, it denies the Nepali people their sovereign rights to decide --- through peaceful means --- the future of monarchy." (2)

What seems probable is that the Maoists, Monarchy and other parties will all have a roundtable discussion, as this is by far the most popular resolution among the people of Nepal.(2) This sentiment was echoed by the United We Stand blog:

"Finally, [Gyanendra] has addressed Seven Party Allegiance’s road map that talks about reinstatement of lower house, formation of all party government and eventually conduct CA poll. This will be on the basis of dialogue and agreement with Maoist. Only such election will end the conflict, establish loktantra and restore people’s sovereignty and state power."[sic](2)

It seems likely that the military will have a considerable say in the amount of Maoist involvement in the government, and were ready only days ago to form an agreement with the Seven Party Allegiance (SPA) to deal with the Maoists. Just today the head of the military, Pyar Jung Thapa anounced that he is optimitistic about merging the Maoist forces with the national guard. This would be a signifigant step toward solving the problems which have claimed over 13,000 lives since 1990. At present, the Maoists control roughly 70% of Nepal (though only sparsly populated areas which make up a small percentage of the electorate.)(3)

The term Maoist is confusing to many people internationaly. While Maoist in name, the goal of the Maoists is to overthrow the Monarchy and establish a democracy. Officially opposed by the Chinese People's Republic, the Maoists advocate using democracy to eliminate caste and gender inequality. The US has opposed the Maoists in the past, considering them to be a terrorist group, and has given $20m in aid to King Gyanendra to fight them. The EU has condemned the Maoists for using child soldiers and the they have been further criticized for commiting rapes and gunpoint-conscription. If democracy is established and the Maoist troop forces were absorbed into the national guard, it seems many of these abuses would be addressed more efficiently. The national guard would not permit children into the army, and children do not form military squads by themselves. The reduction in internal warfare would allow for a reduction in personel who would otherwise be holding ground in areas scarcely populated areas where soldiers are hard to find.

***

According to blogger Paramendra Bhagat (4), who runs a website called Democracy for Nepal on which he proposes a Nepali Republican Constitution (5) Girija Koirala is the "undisputed commander" of the people's movement in Nepal and probably the next president. Although he is in his eighties, he is popular enough to justify his being Nepal's historical first president. Besides Koirala, Madhav Nepal, currently the Nepali Congress General Secretary is second in running. Though he doesn't have the political pull that Koirala does, he is much younger and this may have an impact.

Well, just as I was writing the above paragraph it came over Kantipur Online, that Koirala was named President of the Interim Parliament, and is to be named Prime Minister of the Nepali Congress (NC). He was nominated by Madhav Nepal, no less. This still gives him the oppurtunity to be elected president through constituent elections.

***

Another important factor in the new Nepalese democracy is the address of civil rights equality for the Nepali inhabitants of the Madhesh region close to India, the Madheshi (freq. misspelled Madhesi). In Nepal there are two main cultures, the Madheshi and the Pahadi. While the Madhesi are nearly forty percent of the population, they live on a vastly unequal economic plane than the Pahadi. Of the Pahadi, Bhagat writes "Their most vicious feeling is on this question, and they will tell you the identity called Madhesi does not exist."[sic] (6) On Bhagat's site the most "contoversial" page, as he puts it himself, is his blog entry concerning the possibility of Madhesi finally achieving greater equality by becoming involved in Nepalese politics at this time. The letters he recieved in response, posted on his site, present strong feelings against this idea, partly because they believe Madheshi demands would gum up the works of establishing a new government, but also the implication is presented that they would not like to see Madheshis holding political power.

It is too early to see racial and gender equality discussed thoroughly; that will come with the drawing up of a new constitution or the revision of the existing one. What has been decided in a historical seven parties meeting today is that all unconstitutional decisions made by the monarchy are no longer in effect, that anyone found guilty of crimes against the people's rise to power will be investigated and prosecuted and the families of victims compensated. Meanwhile the streets of Kathmandu are still dizzying with people celebrating the birth of their new democracy. It only came with painful contractions that stained the streets with blood. Now mixed with the debris and wounded are the memories of 1990, when blood was similarly shed for freedom, and the memory of the time between then and now, when that freedom dimmed, crackled and went out. Now that the power rests with the SPA it is necessary the international community help to support the newly elected officials however they can. This will minimalize the retaliation that often comes after a hard fought battle, and empower not only the Nepalese people, but all oppressed people who can look to Nepal as a place where Democracy is the means by which oppression and backlash can be reconciled and peace begin.

Notes:
1 http://demrepubnepal.blogspot.com/2006/04/himal-survey.html
2 http://www.kantipuronline.com/
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Nepal_%28Maoist%29
4 http://demrepubnepal.blogspot.com/
5 http://demrepubnepal.blogspot.com/2006/01/proposed-republican-constitution.html
6 http://demrepubnepal.blogspot.com/2006/04/madhesi-rights-total-equality.html

Theory and the Blog

Amardeep Singh has posted a characteristically insightful article on theory and blogging on his own blog. In trying to draw a connection between theory and blogging (before digressing into Spivak-bashing) he defines blogging as:

"a frequent practice of quasi-public expression, which is as comfortable deflecting the self (borrowing, quoting, linking, and anonymity) as it is in expressing it (i.e., your basic confessional blog post). It is also fundamentally interactive..."

That's to say, it both offers escape and provokes a response. This is an interesting observation about blogging because it takes into account the listservs and webpages which are not interactive and draws an important difference between the two. Blogs are important because they both provoke response and serve as example for response, either by mimesis or reaction. Singh earlier in his essay uses Jonathan Culler's definition of theory as denoting works "that succeed in challenging and reorienting thinking in fields other than those to which they apparently belong."

Blogs may serve in a similar way, but are quite different than theory in that theory at least tends toward distinct fields. Blogging is a flexible format in which one can create a constantly evolving Macluhanesque collage of image, video, and writings both expressive and deflective. Because blogging is a "more fundamental approach (in psycho-social terms) to writing" than publication writing, the imperative in blogging is on the individual blogging and what they are trying to conceal/reveal rather than upon any particular field of study. While fields are constantly breached and reshaped, it is the measure of the success of a blog in its ability to contaminate other blogs.
***
My favorite quote of the article:

"Partisan blogging has become more and more prevalent, and is always threatening to turn blogging into an extension of the corporatized world of mass media-entertainment-news-politics. Perhaps I'm referring to the "spirit of blogging" here more than material reality..."

It is nice to hear Singh talk about the the spirit of blogging, the way one might have talked about the spirit of printing when Ben Franklin was young. With bloggers impacting everything from politics to the party down the block, maybe the internet has reached a point where people will start being impacted as they were with printing presses. Back then all one needed to do was read or be read to, while today considerably more sophistication is involved to search for blogs that may be important to you. Maybe enough people are becoming computer-savy enough to make that leap, in which case blogging may well be the next press, the next establishment.

If Kim is Menaced by a Cougar....

Its been nearly a month since last post; between switching jobs, travelling and accomodating the new feline roomate, Grizzly, its been a bit busy at times. I';ve had the last several days off though and have been reading Moby Dick with a desire to write about it but no launching point that hasn't already been covered over and over again. I was bored and reading Valve blog when John Holbo gave me an idea:

"I’m bored out of my mind and watching 24, season 2, half-sized, in the corner of the screen. Drinking game: if Kim is menaced by a cougar, you have to drink a 6-pack. But why have drinking games only for TV and movies? What about great literature and philosophy?"

So here it is, my version of:

The Moby Dick Swilling Game

Begin @ chapter 1
1 sip-When Ishmael uses the phrase "Go to Sea..."
1 sip-Ishmael uses a verb connected with the organ of sight.
1 drink-Mentions a captain or boat's name
Everybody drinks except you-If you can relate a detail as foreshadowing Ahab's doom.

Begin @ chapter 36
1 sip-Anyone says "White Whale" or "Moby-Dick"
1 drink-Anyone in the text drinks

Begin @ chapter 119
1 sip-Someone {in the group} yells "lightning!"
1 sip-Ahab seems to address the devil
1 drink-Stubbs tries to make a joke.
1 drink-Lightning actually strikes in the text

"Short draughts--long swallows, men; 'tis hot as Satan's hoof. So, so it goes round excellently. It spiralizes in ye; forks out at the serpent-snapping eye. Well done; almost drained..."