Exchange On Robert Kelly’s Poem Looking

 Looking 

Robert Kelly, 1935 –

Once when I read the funnies

I took my little magnifying glass

and looked too close.

Forms became colors and colors

were just arrays of dots

and between the dots I saw the rough bleak

storyless legend of the pulp paper

empty as the winter moon

and I dreaded it.

I had looked right through,

when I wanted a universe

that sustains

looker and looking and the seen

forever, detail after detail

never ending. And all I had found

was between. But between

had its own song:

Find it in the space between—

it is just as empty as it seems

but this blankness is your mother.

R:

Interesting, since I like to look "too" closely at paintings and the paint becomes a painting itself, abstract but its own little world.  Many are even more interesting looked at closely.(Riopelle is an example.)   So I thought I understood up to "its own song."  And liked it. 

But why then "empty?" And the last line is completely baffling. What is the "blankness," and how is it "your mother?"  

If he just means that looking closely means one loses the 3-D illusion, that doesn't seem either expressive of anything.

Me:

Isn’t it in effect, or like, the inversion of Pascal’s 'The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me'? It captures some blend of the experiences like looking so hard at something it becomes as nothing as it loses all sense of anything, or repeating a word over and over till it loses all sense and is just meaningless sound, or staring at a blank page wanting to write something but being stuck or mired in the blankness. 

But then, as you note, you see something, hear something, think something in and amidst all that meaninglessness, which is an emptiness, and creating begins, whether it’s in apprehension or the making of something. 

And so, the blankness is likened to your mother. IE, the poem reframes this emptiness as something significant and nurturing, and, so, again, the "blankness" is likened to a mother. The emptiness becomes a source of origin and potential, like the creative void from which new art, ideas and perspectives come forth.

R:

You are very generous in your idea of what is implied by "your mother."  Perhaps my problem is that a common insult where I came from was "your motha," as in motha fucker.  To which the standard reply was "at least I got a mother."  But even without that it comes as an utter surprise.

And the "your" sounds like the speaker is talking about another person's mother.  It seems weird to me, and your explanation goes quite a way beyond what it will imply for most readers---I would guess. 

Me:

The poem feels conversational, but like an immediately initial casual conversation that quickly grows serious and thoughtful. The speaker works something through. He starts with how he read the funnies, as innocuous as he can get. 

And then, poetically, he thinks things through, culminating from the reversal on to his final summarizing insight. And now, having that, he addresses the reader, who he’s been “talking to”. The “your” is just that. I can’t see any plausible connection to “motherfucker”, “your mother”, as in the dozens, “you mother”, or anything else along those lines.

This may be just me extrapolating too much, but really I don’t think so. I think it’s a plausible reading of the poem and its final metaphor.

Exchange On Israel As Apartheid And Related Issues

 I got this from M in response to Coleman Hughes dismantling the idea that Israel is an apartheid nation and I answered him:

M:

“Itzik I'm not sure if I have a counter argument per se, but it seems to me that there are two somewhat separate issues being touched on here.  One is whether or not Israel can be described as an 'apartheid' state and the other is whether African-Americans should line up with the Palestinians using the same measure as the civil rights movement in the U.S.

 

I think I'd mostly agree with Hughes on the first (although I'll add a rider below) and on the second -- whether black Americans should take the Palestinian side as a matter of racial solidarity against European colonialism -- I'd say that it's a difficult question to answer as it depends a lot more on feelings and emotional reactions than the first issue does.

 

So, leaving the West Bank aside here, I'd say this:  although I don't see Israel as an apartheid society, I do think that there are unresolved issues and an actual worsening of the situation in respect of Arab Israelis.  A few years ago the Netanyahu administration lowered the status of Arabic from being an official language of Israel (for 70 years!) to a secondary language, which was a noticeably contemptuous move to indicate to Arab Israelis that they are tolerated rather than standing on the same footing with Hebrew-speaking fellow citizens.

 

I've just begun reading a very interesting book by the historian Schlomo Sand called The Words and the Land, which looks at the relationship between Jewish writers and intellectuals and the creation of an Israeli national identity that developed exclusive rather than inclusive assumptions.  He says that the peculiar thing about Israel is that its Arabic-speaking inhabitants (presumably mostly Muslim with some Christians) aren't really represented by the nation that they are citizens of.

 

That doesn't make it an apartheid state, needless to say, but it does suggest a problem that is sharpened by decisions made at the beginning of the modern Israel e.g. the religious veto over marriage, exemptions from military service etc.  Can you be an equal citizen of a country that draws its circle of national identity in such a way as to emphasize that you stand outside that circle?

 ———

I answered him thusly:

“M, sorry for the delay. I meant to respond sooner but it slipped my mind till just now when I reminded myself to.

I think there are more than two issues. The context of all this recent focus on Israel has been generated by 10/7. It triggered and crystallized the outpouring of nearly global anti Israeli, anti Semitic vehemence. 10/7 cannot be separated from Hughes’ analysis. And in my view what underlies his piece is his outspoken rejection of Hamas and what it did, which is undergirded by his view of Israel as a liberal democracy, an imperfect one to be sure, with, presently, that exacerbated by the right wing extremists in her government.

But, in my view at least, what animates Hughes’ full throated dismissal of Israel practicing apartheid, being white supremacist, a colonizer needing decolonization, is that these canards are trotted out, nay galloped out, by many to sympathize with, justify, identify with, with Hamas’ 10/7 medieval barbarism. He’s confronting an ideological consensus, most prevalent on university campuses, held by academics and students alike, that sees "10/7 as the righteous apotheosis of Jews’ evil. 

So, I agree with you that Israel is not an apartheid state. And it as an ostensible ground for what I’ve just described amongst those cheering on Hamas must be rejected. It just ain’t so.

I note you say, “leaving the West Bank aside”. Why leave it aside? Here, a whole host of issue come screaming forth. It’s not part of Israel. It’s part of the occupied/disputed territory waiting for resolution, and brimming with wrong doing from both sides in its seemingly permanent state of intractable irresolution. 

The problems range from the blurry line between Fatah and Hamas, legitimate Israeli security concerns, the Hamasian spectre of what would happen if Israel didn’t maintain some sort of West Bank occupier status, deeply embedded and widespread Palestinian irredentism and rejectionism—there was in the West Bank much Palestinian cheering for 10/7 and next to nothing, if any, in the way of criticism of it, with apparently Abbas denying what Hamas did on 10/7 and raising conspiracist claims of Israeli complicity: once a Holocaust denier, then forever one, I guess—the fanatics in Netanyahu’s coalition and a rising numbers of incidents involving fanatical right wing Israelis against innocent Palestinians. 

So I say, it’s right to leave the West Bank aside, not because it’s a case of shadow apartheid or some such but because it’s irrelevant to the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. 

Now, only respectfully, it strikes me as an odd and unhelpful way to frame your second issue as you have: 

…and the other is whether African-Americans should line up with the Palestinians using the same measure as the civil rights movement in the U.S….

and 

…whether black Americans should take the Palestinian side as a matter of racial solidarity against European colonialism -- I'd say that it's a difficult question to answer as it depends a lot more on feelings and emotional reactions than the first issue does…

I say skin colour ought have nothing to do with anything here. Your framing replicates the general problem with racial identitarianism, the obsession with which now bedevils American society, and less so but Canadian society as well, and feeds into the false imposition of the terms of this American racial problem onto Israelis and Palestinians. 

Half or nearly half of Israelis are Mizrahi and are visibly indistinguishable from most Palestinians. Some Palestinians are whiter than many Israelis. So where does race come into it; and where does European colonialism come into it? After all, Jewish indigeneity to these lands goes back millennially and a big bulk of Israeli citizenry is the outgrowth of her neighbouring countries making themselves effectively judenrein after 1948. 

So to my mind African Americans as a racial bloc should feel nothing about whom they should line up with, and even putting it as “line up with” is reductive. The racial bloc should be an irrelevance. Individuals regardless of the hue of their skins should take their own positions on these issues, and should reject any pull coming from the fact of their skin colour. The “line up” way of seeing this only fuels a false divisiveness, where any resolution that is to come must be borne of some kind of a not-yet conceived of form of compromise that must needs beggar lining up, ie be in toto, with one group or another. 

I wasn’t aware of the devaluation of Arabic as an official Israeli language. If so devalued, then that is an internal Israeli issue to be dealt with internally. As are other issues involving Israeli Arabs. Every county has its problems. There is plenty enough to criticize Israel about, with of course much more to praise her for, without the former forming the basis of canards about what she is and what she isn’t, and certainly without raising what may be problematic in her internal politics to the heights of international obsession, let alone concern, and let alone the conflagrating pervasive anti Semitism generated by the international fetishizing of Israel as the paradigm of all that is evil, which, as noted, finds expression in the bizarre amplitude of support that 10/7 has garnered, all the while example after example of Muslims doing terrible things on grand scales to other Muslims, and other nations and groups doing terrible things on grand scales to others gets such relatively little mention.

Rich Lowry’s Great Takedown Of Ta-Nehisi Coates in 2015

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-toxic-world-view-of-ta-nehisi-coates-120512/

My Discussion Of A Definition Of “Power” With AI

 Me:

Is this a good definition of “power”: ..the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place…?

AI:

The definition you provided, "the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place," is somewhat abstract and may not fully capture the broad and nuanced concept of power. Power is a multifaceted and complex idea that can manifest in various forms. 

While your definition hints at the idea of influencing or controlling outcomes, it might be a bit too abstract and difficult to grasp without additional context.

A more common definition of power is: "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way." Power can be political, social, economic, physical, or psychological, and it often involves influencing or controlling the behavior or actions of others.

Depending on the context and the specific domain you're discussing, the definition of power can vary. It's important to provide more context when discussing power to ensure clarity and precision in your communication.

Me:

Doesn’t your conventional definition of power include, for example, my ability to wash dishes or fold pieces of paper (as stand ins for any set of innumerable trivialities) in a “particular way”?

AI:

The conventional definition of power, "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way," is indeed quite broad and can encompass a wide range of actions, from trivial everyday tasks like washing dishes or folding pieces of paper to more complex and significant actions. 

However, it's essential to note that when we discuss power in the broader societal or philosophical context, we often focus on power dynamics between individuals, groups, or institutions and their ability to influence or control outcomes in a more substantial and consequential manner.

In everyday language, we may use the term "power" to describe our ability to complete simple tasks or actions, but in academic, political, or social discourse, it often pertains to the ability to affect change, exert influence, or make decisions that have more significant implications. 

The context in which the term "power" is used determines the scope and significance of the actions it refers to.

Me:

Doesn’t your conventional definition include my ability to wash dishes or fold pieces of paper or crack my knuckles (as stand ins for innumerable like trivialities) in a “particular way” and is therefore over broad?

AI:

You are correct that the conventional definition of power, which states that it is "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way," is indeed quite broad and can encompass even the ability to perform trivial tasks like washing dishes, folding paper, or cracking knuckles. 

This definition, in its broad sense, is intentionally inclusive and can be applied to actions ranging from the mundane to the profound.

In most practical conversations and academic discussions, the term "power" is used to refer to more significant and consequential forms of influence, control, or authority, such as political power, social power, or economic power. 

The broader definition can include trivial activities, but the significance of power in any given context depends on the specific actions, their consequences, and the relationships involved.

So, while the broad definition can encompass trivial activities, it is often important to consider the context and intent of the discussion when interpreting the meaning of "power." 

In more scholarly and substantial discussions, it typically refers to the capacity to influence, control, or shape outcomes in a more meaningful way.

Me:

But if the definition includes the ability to do trivial things in a unique way that common sense and reasonableness wouldn’t see as examples of power, snap my fingers, say, then isn’t it a flawed definition?

AI:

Your point is well-taken. If a definition of power is so broad that it includes trivial actions like snapping fingers or other mundane activities, it may indeed be overly inclusive and less useful for understanding the more meaningful and conventional concepts of power as they are typically discussed in academic, political, or social contexts.

A definition of power should ideally focus on the capacity to influence, control, or shape outcomes in a way that has social, political, or economic significance. 

While the broad definition encompassing even trivial actions is technically correct, it can be considered overly inclusive and may not capture the essence of what people generally mean when they talk about power in a broader societal or philosophical sense.

In practical discussions, it's important to provide context and nuance when talking about power to ensure that the term is understood in the intended way. 

For more rigorous or academic discussions of power, a definition that focuses on influence, control, and authority in a meaningful context may be more appropriate.

Me,

Why does power have to focus on “ social, political, or economic significance”? What if I can lift a car, an obvious example of power that doesn’t have any of these significances? 

AI:

You're absolutely correct, and I apologize for any unintended limitations in my previous responses. Power doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to social, political, or economic significance. It can manifest in various forms and contexts, and physical strength, like the ability to lift a car, is indeed a clear example of power.

Power is a multifaceted concept, and it can encompass a wide range of abilities, including physical strength, which has no direct social, political, or economic implications. The significance and context of power depend on how it is being discussed and in what domain.

So, while social, political, and economic significance are common aspects often associated with discussions of power, it is not the only dimension. 

The ability to perform extraordinary physical feats, for example, is another valid representation of power. It's important to consider the specific context and the type of power being discussed when determining its significance and implications.

Me:

So while power can manifest itself in any number of situations, I’m trying to think of concrete counter examples to my original definition that disprove it. I’m not married to it. Can you think of any?

AI:

Your original definition, "the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place," is certainly open to interpretation and discussion, but it doesn't necessarily have concrete counterexamples that disprove it. 

It's a somewhat abstract and philosophical way of looking at power, and there may not be straightforward situations where it clearly doesn't apply.

However, you can find instances where this definition might not be the most suitable or precise way to describe power. 

For example:

• Physical Strength: As previously mentioned, the ability to lift a heavy object or perform physically demanding tasks might not fit well with the notion of "causing an occurrence resistant to taking place." This is because it doesn't involve resistance in the same way that, say, influencing a political decision does.
• Artistic Expression: An artist's creative abilities, while a form of power in their own right, may not neatly align with this definition. Artistic expression isn't about causing something resistant to taking place; it's about creating and expressing.
• Scientific Discovery: When a scientist makes a groundbreaking discovery, it's more about uncovering a truth or a phenomenon rather than causing an occurrence resistant to taking place. It's about understanding the world rather than directly resisting something.

Your definition, while intriguing, might be more suited for abstract philosophical discussions rather than capturing the full range of power in practical situations. It's essential to consider the specific context and nature of the power being discussed when evaluating any definition.

Me:

To take your headings:

if I can lift something extraordinarily difficult to move, as just one example of physical strength, then isn’t resistance or the quality of being resistant built into its innate bulk;

I wonder if artistic expression also involves  resistance in at least two ways: 

creating something artistic from nothing involves overcoming reality in that prior to its creation there was either nothing there or something was there that you have by your will and effort transformed into art; 

the second way might be what you create might elicit in the audience for it, laughter or exhilaration, or catharsis or any range or deep going responses to your creation;  and I’d raise this same kind of reasoning mutatis mutandi to scientific work. 

What do you think?

AI

You bring up some interesting perspectives, and I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Let's delve into these ideas a bit further:

• Physical Strength: You're correct that in lifting something extraordinarily difficult to move, there is an element of resistance inherent in the object's bulk or weight. In this context, your original definition, "the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place," could be seen as applicable.
• Artistic Expression: Your interpretation of artistic expression involving resistance in terms of creating something from nothing is intriguing. The act of transforming a blank canvas or an empty stage into a work of art does involve overcoming the initial absence or void, and this is a form of resistance. Additionally, the second point about the emotional and intellectual responses that art can elicit is also valid. The artist's work can indeed resist or challenge the audience's preconceptions or emotions, leading to a kind of resistance or transformation.
• Scientific Work: Similarly, scientific discovery can be seen as resisting ignorance or a lack of understanding. Scientists work to uncover truths and phenomena that were previously unknown, and this process can be be regarded as a form of resistance against the unknown.

Your insights highlight the complexity of power and how it can manifest in various forms. They also demonstrate that your original definition, while abstract, can be applied in diverse contexts. 

It's important to recognize that the concept of power is not limited to one specific definition, and it can take on many dimensions depending on the context in which it is discussed.

Me:

You have been stimulating to discuss this with and have provided me much food for thought. Thanks.

AI:

You're very welcome! I'm glad to hear that our discussion has been stimulating and thought-provoking for you. If you ever have more questions or topics you'd like to explore, please feel free to reach out. I'm here to help with any inquiries or discussions you may have. Thank you for the engaging conversation!