Wittgenstein at the Movies

Once I heard Wittgenstein (LW) liked to go to the movies and sit on the front row so the movie would wash over him. This activity assisted in his escape from the perplexities of his philosophical investigations (perhaps)—as it were. Or, conceivably, it allowed him immersion into the perceived public culture. Did it ease his internal conflict? Was it a place for chance meetings? Did the content of the movie matter to him? Does it matter to us? If we form our opinions based on the Tractatus, then we might say the content only matters if we have thought of it previously. Does that mean we cannot change our mind or learn a thing from nothing? No not really. I say it more to say, we have already had many of the thoughts of others—if only subconsciously. The difference, say, between your similar thoughts and mine are how we say/think them. My thought/idea might be a mere feeling, which I cannot verbalize. Yours, conversely, might be a well thoughtout discourse on the meaning of life-history-and-the-universe. To which LW says, "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." This is not exactly what he meant, but it is how we act at times. We feel we cannot speak of something so we do not. By not doing so, we deny ourselves the ability to learn, to engage and, most importantly, to express the fullness of what we feel and know intuitively.

For some unspeakable reason, I have always found LW's love of the movies unique. Is this because such an analytical bloke would seem to disparage such a subjective and emotive activity as the movies? Maybe. Maybe not. Could it represent the dichotomy of our twospirits or the ethereal nature of our souls? Clearly we could come at this question from many angles, but would any one be right or would they all be correct. It is much like the discussion of what music you like, and why music affects us as it does. Do we throw up our hands and talk about the weather or do we change the direction of the content discussed. Based upon our inability to understand LW's attraction and attendance of movies, we cannot determine what kind of movies he would like. Likewise, we cannot infer if he would like First Blood, Lord of the Rings, or Slumdog Millionaire.

Setting aside for a moment the leisure activities of our philosopher, let us look at our own love of the movies. Danny Boyle and Slumdog, as you may know, won an award or two including "Best Motion Picture of the Year". Was it really? Who knows? Any movie aficionado knows much of this award comes from the publicity and campaign. Arguably it is one of the best and I have no alternative. Could that be the real reason? Unforgiven won "Best Picture". Was it? No way to know. Because it did win, though, it became the best picture. Not by merit, per se, but by exposure. You could offer the suggestion that what is best depends upon how the film is crafted and the state of our culture at the time. "Hey, I like that!" Let's go back to Slumdog. If it was "BP", then is it Danny Boyle's best film?

My viewing of SM came after the awards and all the talk had settled. I usually watch movies outside the hype (and reviews) lest it inflates/aggravates my opinion of it. Fortunately, I was able to watch SM with a mostly unadulterated perspective. While I will not review it hear, I will say it was well defined and envisioned. Surely it deserves high marks as movies go. Some moments I even found to be quite brilliant. Still it was predictable in its being good. It was a good film—which I enjoyed—but it failed to ask something of me. While he won, and we all rejoice, how far did it go to question our involvement into alleviating discrimination in our communities? This, obviously, is not completely true only close. Masking the good-ness or bad-ness of an artistic piece is prevalent in all aesthetic creations. With motion pictures, the masking comes from talking it into our consciousness. The more common a film might be the more it is publicized and drilled into our brains from every bus we ride to each cup o'joe we lift to our lips. So let me ask this again, "Is Slumdog Millionaire Danny Boyle's best picture?"

(Part 1 of 2)

Know Your Neighbor

The beauty of community is it can be any where. Often, though, we look beyond our local one to the more elusive and exotic ones. We sojourners often travel six thousand miles to help people of alien culture, language and modes of thinking. When we return, we are proud and feel accomplished. We find it quite compelling to give to children in Africa or to adopt children from China. But what of next door? We look at our homeless friend and feel sorry for him, but do we help? "No," is the usual honest response. We find thousands of impediments as to why we cannot or will not. How is it we can find compassion abroad but not at home? If this is a fair question, you might reply with, "compassion abroad is impersonal." To help the persons I see everyday or know live in my city is grossly personal. This manner of helping requires love. The depth of suffering we endure emotionally, in our society, has hardened our altruism toward the others of us. Worse still is a rising hatred or demarcation between what one believes and what another believes. Right "wing" vs Left "wing". Muslim "terrorist" vs Christian "fundamentalist". Buddhist vs Communist. Gay vs Straight. We forget each human being is us and we are them. By reading articles on Obamahate and passive Elderlyabuse, we have examples of how easy we find it to arouse animosity toward another person or kind.

What then is the criteria for love? Perhaps the better question is what obstructs our path to love? Selfishness perhaps. That, of course, cannot be all. Is it some force which interferes with our connectivity? How often do we want to do thing "A", but in fact do thing "B". What makes us do thing "B"? Is it the mere move toward modernity. Jacques Ellul suggests technology will rise to tyranny over humankind (if it hasn't already). You might see from this an argument toward a new tension within ourselves. We struggle—but with what? The improbable conquering of our technology returning it to a subset of human living. Is it too big? Are we instead struggling to be apart of it? You could say by addressing ourselves in the light of new communication standards, we are creating pockets of protection. We speak with many, but love none. I can satisfy my need for human contact while, simultaneously, blocking their ability to harm me. I need only turn to my new socially mediated "friend". "I will hurt no more," we say.

Our lives have become unbalanced. We have no room for love because we have no room. We choose that which is safe for us. The psychology of our imbalance overwhelms our sense of the other. This statement precludes our ability to love—or not—ourselves first. We are personally overwhelmed, so we invent new satisfaction separate from what is true. Truth here is love. Love of my fellowbeing. A respect for life and the betterment of you. If I watch out for you as much or more than myself, then I open a window into what is transcendental about life. How real is that statement? Let us accept we cannot be God. Let us suppose we can, however, reach an individual divinity. What use is it  if we arrive there alone? Only when we are at peace can we truly began to love ourselves and others. It is at such a time when we can build new communities (even if idealist in nature), new relationships, new love.

Namaste.