Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:08:17 -0400 (AST)
From: Stacey Maxine Armstrong <armstrsm-AT-is2.dal.ca>
Subject: Re: Yevgeny Zamyatin


Faizi,
I know you dont expect me to reply.  I never expect you to reply either.
That is part of the gift of departure we have been talking about.

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Marsha Faizi wrote:

> Stacey,
> 
> This is a very long post. I had the day off from work. I certainly do not
> expect you to reply. 
> 
> >
> >Funny, I never think of myself as an academic.  But, I suppose some of the
> >ways I move through the world might suggest this.  This is the first year
> >of my life I have tried/been able to even contemplate studying without
> >working full-time at some kind of unstimulating job. Yes, I do often
> >wonder at times why I get the opportunity to do this.  Why should I be
> >stimulated when so many other people do not either desire this choice or
> >or unable to make this choice.  But guess what, I wasnt willing to stack
> >cabbages for the rest of my life as some kind of statement.  I don't mean
> >to imply that these two choice are exclusive.(ie. study or stack cabbages) 
> >There are other reasons why I moved to Halifax from Victoria.      
> 
> Then, you know your good fortune and, because of your opportunity to stack
> cabbages, you are appreciative of your opportunity to study. 

Yes, appreciation doesnt begin to describe how I feel about this
opportunity.

> Most jobs, in the real world, do pretty much amount to some sort of
> cabbage-stacking thing, even if you are not, literally, stacking cabbages.
> You can make more money at pharmacy, for instance, or doctoring but, once
> you get into the routine of it, it is not much more than stacking cabbages.
> You count pills or you write prescriptions. You enjoy more status than one
> who stacks cabbages but the essence of the job is not much different and, if
> you have loftier notions such as discussing Lacan or Bataille or Zamyatin,
> you will find that your collegues are not any more knowledgable about
> literature than most cabbage stackers.
> 
> Therefore, you may find that, in order to have yourself surrounded by
> persons with like interests to yours, you may have to enter the world of
> real academia. That could be the best thing except that it cuts you off from
> the world at large and, once the gloss wears off a bit, it may get to be
> like stacking cabbages somewhat. Maybe, not. 

Yes this is a definite fear I have.  As you say Maybe, maybe not.  I try
to have other influences in my life so that there can be less of a
distinction made between "real life" and "un real life"

> I think that, when you come right down to the crux of the situation, all
> jobs are about cabbage stacking. You have to make your own way if you want
> more than that. 
 
Do you see a job as something you are paid to do? or something you choose
to do? I dont understand what other way besides "my own way" that their
could be.  What are the limits of originary and the original for you?  

 > 
> >I have to make compromises all the time and I become more aware of my
> >motivations. 
> 
> I hope that you don't have to make many. It is all right as long as you
> don't make mental compromises or compromises that can destroy you.

What do you mean by destroyed?  Unable to think anymore?  How do you know
when you know something?
 
> >I am trying to trust in this process.  In the past there have
> >been varying degrees of compromise; I almost got married once but you are
> >right I didnt want to wear cocktail dresses and be a hostess/cypher
> >person.  I wanted a room of my own (actually still want).   
> 
> I want that, too. Children really have a way of taking everything completely
> over. By the time that they are finished with you, you are fortunate if you
> can manage to hold onto a single article that is your own, let alone a room.
> Very destructive little things, kids. Life with children is like having your
> home infested by large but rather cute rodents. 
> 
> Some children are more tame than others. They sit around and color and read
> and play with little toys. I was blessed with these two creatures who never
> did any of that one single day of their lives and they never took naps. Had
> I realized how it would be, I would never have bought furniture. I would
> have padded the floors and the walls and installed gym equipment. Climbers
> from birth. My first winter alone with them, my arms were sore from pulling
> them down from the curtains and from the top of the refrigerator and the
> stove and the cabinets. I had posters on their bedroom walls in very nice
> little frames but they destroyed them so that they could use the frames for
> sword fighting. I used to wish that I could have some blow-darts filled with
> chloral hydrate. 
> 
> And kids attract other kids. For that reason, I did have an electronic
> megaphone for awhile. I got tired of screaming and the electronic voice
> commanded a lot more respect. There would be about fifteen kids in the yard
> so, instead of screaming, I could turn on the megaphone and intone, "You,
> near the sliding board, no hitting or hair pulling." or "Jacob Black. Down,
> please, from the top of the swingset before you break your neck."
> 
> Crowd control. It worked.  
 
> >Or maybe that
> >is what you are saying. 
> 
> That is what I am saying. Misery loves company. That is why people with kids
> keep after other people to have kids. I am not that selfish or mean. I never
> miss an opportunity to warn people. Maybe, you don't require such warning.
> Maybe, you are smart but I warn you anyway. It is very, very easy to think,
> "Well, my kids would never be like that." or "I would use very firm
> discipline." or "My life won't be like that because I will have this nice
> husband who will take care of everything else so that I can bake cookies and
> teach Junior to play the cello."
> 
> Rots uv ruck.

I cant picture myself ever getting married.  Kids arent really an option
for me either.  You have very strange ideas about what you think my
expectations or ideals might be.  I have friends in school with me right
now who want to have kids soo much, I have tried to get them to explain it
to me; but for them it really is a ground zero.  It is what they want.
 
> >But again why do I get to make this choice... what
> >kind of responsibilities and obligations does this put me under (any?)
> 
> None. You should make of your life something that is as fulfilling and
> pleasurable as you can possibly make it.
> 
> >Whatever you say Faizi, you must have some kind of sense of community.
> 
> Of course, I do. I live in a very small, tight community where people wear
> several hats. Your patient may be the very one who saves your life here. The
> firechief is your kids' coach. Your son is friends with the son of the man
> who comes to fix your air conditioner and he is also your patient and you
> know all about his testosterone shots and whatnot. The mayor lives down the
> street from you and he does the town mowing in the summer and bakes muffins
> which he puts in a basket and delivers throughout the town.
> 
> Then, under the surface, there are all these people having extra-marital
> affairs and nearly everyone is kin to everyone else. That's community.
> 
> 
> >I actually learned a lot from it.  So I guess I lied when I said  I dont 
> >learn. But you know that sounds like some kind of rhetoric to me.
> >Again, thinking seems like an empty word when I use it. Perhaps you can
> >tell me what you mean by it?  
> 
> Thinking is introspective thought that leads one to reason. 

Will you tell me more about what you mean by *introspection* and *reason*?


> >So then you are saying that men as well as women possess feminine
> >traits? 
> 
> Yes, they do. Some men are quite feminine.
> 
> >Repetition to some extent interests me.  I think I may have been
> >wrong in assuming that it interests you too, even though you seem to have
> >the same conversations sometimes.  
> 
> I do. I have a one-track mind.
> 
> >Why dont you tell me what interests you
> >then? 
> 
> I am interested in things that are below the surface of things--motives,
> drives, intentions. I am interested in color and form. I am interested in
> light and darkness.

You know that all of that is metaphor right?

 
> >Do you think you can risk all the time without being disappointed?
> 
> No. Not unless you do not expect anything.

I am rarely disappointed or bored.
Surprised sometimes.
 
> >So you risk nothing from engaging with other people? In this way you are
> >autonomous?  
> 
> I am autonomous because I have been fortunate enough to see the benefit of
> such a state of emotional autonomy. 

Are you emotionally autonomous from your children?
Don't they have expectations of you?
 
> >But what changes you then? Or do you not change?  Change
> >might be some kind of compromising or weighing or choosing. 
> 
> I have had a particular year of upheaval and change. Great change. Enormous
> change. More change than I could have wanted but, now that it has been
> forced, I can see the value of it. I learned quite a bit in the past year. 
> 
> >I would
> >have to say that I wouldnt give up financial or spatial autonomy at this
> >point.  In my experience I would rather be poor and have my own bed.     
> >Do you think that if you compromise a little it is actually
> >compromising everything. I think of it as more of a continuum.
> 
> If you are speaking of a relationship, yes, I say that, if you compromise a
> little, it is compromising everything. You said that you think of it as more
> of a continuum. I used to think that, too, until the past year. 
> 
> > Yes, they fulfilled their chosen purposes. It was their clear intention to
> > Therefore, it would be carelessness on my part if I die by my own
> >> failure to anticipate something. 
> >
> >I am still thinking about intentionality.  I dont think I can anticipate
> >that many variables without becoming a hermit.  I am still surprised
> >sometimes and perhaps this too suggests my inability to anticipate/read
> >people and situations.  But I dont think that this is so much an inability
> >as so much swirling.   
> 
> I am not all that great at reading people either. I tend to be overly
> optimistic. However, through experience, I am no longer disappointed. 
 
> What do you mean by "swirling?"

I just mean so many variables that I cant always predict. I was thinking
about the weather actually.
 
> >So in your opinion, how would one begin to think?
> >Or perhaps I should frame that more personally. How did you begin to
> >*think*?  Or perhaps you think this question is me just gathering more
> >examples?
> 
> I have always thought. I was just that kind of person from the beginning. My
> mistake in life was my attempt to "fit in." There were many times, as a kid,
> when I was just completely alone. I liked that fine, in many ways. I stayed
> completely to myself and I read and I stayed in my room to think and I wrote
> or painted or drew. I was not attractive. I was a nerd and a weirdo. 

We are very similar in this respect.
 
> The trouble started when I became more attractive. Plus, the fact that I
> mistakenly reasoned that, since I did not know anyone like myself, I should
> learn to compromise and to fit; to make myself socially acceptable and as
> much like everyone else as possible. So, more or less, I attempted that. I
> had the two marriages and the kids. Even after my second husband died, I do
> not think that I was aware enough of myself to believe that I did not need a
> relationship to survive. I stayed alone for three years with the kids after
> his death but, finally, entered into the same old delusions. I had a
> relationship with a man that was, at least, distant and not based on getting
> married and blah, blah, blah. But it was still quite a compromising
> relationship. I spent two years writing his book for him.

Do you remember the first time someone looked at you in an objectifying
way?  I do.  It was a terribly disappointing moment.  I sensed that things
were never going to be the same.  My mom is one of those "celebrate the
difference" kind of women.  This made the thirteenth year of my life the
most excrutiating thing I have ever experienced.  I was in denial a lot of
the time about what the implications of being a *girl* in a small
middle-class town meant.  My mom only made it worse by insisting that I
not only *get* the implications but that I participate in them as a good
thing. I was very angry and definitely a freak. I worked at the library in
town and read my way through a lot of books. I use to write a lot then and
wanted to be a writer. After awhile though I was worn down by the endless
gifts of *pink*, *curling irons*, *make-up* passes to aerobics classes, I
remember very clearly my mom taking me to see the movie _pretty woman_
and her talking to me about it in terms of the romantic.(YIKES) 
This is around the time I considered getting married, and then came to my
senses.  I had cooked dinner for my dad for father's day
and my boyfriend at the time was there as well.  He said to my dad "I
didnt know stacey could cook? *appreciative smile* to my dad.  It was all
over. I have/had no desire to be an object of exchange.  As you can
imagine Faizi, this is very difficult for my parents to accept. They still
want to give me away.

  
> This is all jumbled and I can tell you in bits or pieces as things occur to me.
> 
> When I was in art school, I think that I did meet a young man who was more
> like me but, at that time, I was not ready to see myself that way. He was
> one very gorgeous human being. Black hair and pale skin. He used to come to
> my apartment and we would read Rimbaud together. I never did like Rimbuad
> all that much and I figured that was something amiss with me. Probably was.
> I was real, real stupid when I was twenty two years old. So, I had these
> other boyfriends who were painters. John was not an art student. He had gone
> to school to be a priest and gotten out of it. He played piano and he worked
> at a factory as a switchboard operator. I don't think that he was ever aware
> that women found him to be extremely attractive because of his physical
> beauty. He was still doing the battle against going back to the seminary. He
> seemed priestly, I reckon. He was reclusive. Didn't go to parties and stuff.
> Never went out with women much. He lived next door to me and stayed in his
> apartment writing most of the time. But, once in awhile, he came over and we
> read or he read and I sketched. Once, he asked me if I could write something
> for him from a series of photographs that he had and I did that for him.
> Another time, he said that he had had a dream in which he was playing the
> piano and someone was going to put the top down on the keyboard to smash his
> fingers but I stopped the person from doing it.
> 
> Anyway, the point of all this is that, in hindsight, I can see that John was
> much more like me than anyone else I encountered. But I was so busy being
> Ms. Artist and Ms. Artist's Girlfriend that I could not see it. It is just
> as well because I do not think that I was smart enough to have learned
> anything from him at the time. I was too busy trying to force myself into
> fitting into the social things. I liked John, certainly, but I was too full
> of shit to really be his friend and I greatly regret that. I think that part
> of the reason, too, was that I knew that he was this dazzlingly handsome
> person. Breathtakingly beautiful. I remember a female friend remarking, "You
> are the only girl John ever speaks to. He is very shy." and I thought that
> that was nothing. I was too stupidly blind to see the worth and I do not
> mean worth in terms of forming a sexual relationship with him but the true
> worth of what a friendship between two very intropsective people could mean
> and not as a marriage or a thing forced into some kind of permanence but,
> really, something that could have been far more special than that.
> 
> So, I went off with my painting boyfriend and eventually married him. Doing
> so was a complete denial of myself, Stacey. I was trying to hide.
>
> I have often wondered whatever became of John. I have wondered if he finally
> gave into his training to enter the priesthood. That training began from his
> birth. His parents decided that he would be a priest and they groomed him
> for this from the time that he was born. From the time that he was a small
> boy, he knew that he had to grow up to become a priest. He rebelled against
> it, finally, but I have always wondered if, in the end, all that grooming
> for it just got him. 
> 
> Not that it matters. I had to learn what I had to learn and I am not saying
> that I wish that I had married him. God, no. I have no wish to screw up
> anyone's life. The point is that, much later, I learned from our friendship
> what I wish that I could have learned then--that I am more interested in
> interiors than exteriors and that, though there are fewer people like this
> in the world, it is a fine thing to be that way.   
> 
> How does one begin to think? 
> 
> One begins to think when one no longer wishes to hide.
> 
> You may be smart enough to know this already, Stacey. But I wasn't when I
> was your age. I was real dumb.

Yes, you know the dilemna.  But which one of me was hiding do you think?
The one reading or the one cooking?  Which reality is the reality?  This
is mostly rhetorical.  I am both of those girls and neither of them.    
 
> > I have no connection with either the illusion of belief
> >or the illusion of non-belief.
> >
> >I understand this position, but I am unable to imagine it.
> 
> I think that it is a matter of questioning everything. 

Don't you think I have been accused of this?
> 
> >> In short, I don't give a shit.
> >
> >But you enjoy some things right?  
> 
> Yes, I enjoy what I can enjoy. I enjoy writing, even if it is just to a list.
> 
> >You said that you would rather not die?
> >What does it mean to have a preference to you? Are they that
> >inconsequential?  
> 
> I do prefer to live. If I don't write, I am not living.
> 
> 
> >> What, exactly, is a metaphor and why is it valuable to explore one? 
> >
> >Alot of the time I think that everything is metaphor.  It is a direct
> >comparison of one "thing" or "concept" to another and for me it is the
> >connotations and resonances which occur within the juxtaposition.  How do
> >two things become related to each other in this way?  What does this mean?
> >Make up a story.
> 
> I am not fond of making up stories. I become bored, like when I have to sit
> through a movie. I do not mean to imply that I think that there is something
> wrong with making up stories. A lot of people love to do that and they write
> some very nice fiction. But I get bored if I attempt it.

I think telling a story or using metaphors involves anytime you
attempt to push an experience through into language. You tell stories all
the time.


> >> Stacey, it does not matter to me, in the least, who coined the term "hopeful
> >> monster." I am more interested in how such abstract thought applies to your
> >> or to anyone's perception of the world. 
> >
> >This is what you mean by academic practice?  I guess for me it is a form
> >of respect...a kind of recognition of influence.  See how well I have been
> >trained?  I understand your point, however.  A way of not pretending
> >authenticity.  I know that I am symptomatic.
> 
> It is a fine thing to read. I have been influenced by what I have read, too.
> But I have come to the point that I no longer require influence. I think
> that there comes a time when you either cut the cord or you decide that you
> will continue to read and writing will become a minimal exercise.

This is a difficult leap to make.  I am not ready yet.

> >> It is a wonderful thing to be well read and to possess a fine memory. I do
> >> not mean, at all, to denigrate or to belittle that but what do you do
> >> otherwise? Anything? Can you think?
> >
> >I am not well read and my memory is actually quite poor.  I have other
> >interests.  I am working on a short film; I run; I volunteer at a
> >foodbank.  Yes, I do have some qualms about my highly text based
> >existance.  Not enought to stop reading though.  
> 
> Then, you should not stop reading. It is not that I have completely stopped.
> If I had a lot of time, I would read. I cannot imagine what I would read but
> I would read. I am not interested in fiction and, to me, if it is a matter
> of Nietzsche or Kirkegaard whose writing I admire, things become redundant.
> 
> >> I can see no value in such fabled tension. I think that it is destructive.
> >> Additionally, I have doubt that such tension exists. I think that it is an
> >> intellectual hoax perpetuated for the purpose of making those who believe it
> >> feel good about themselves. Such a notion of tension can serve to make some
> >> people believe and actually enact such illusion of individuality while they
> >> continue to participate in the behavior of "the herd."
> >
> >I am not understanding this.  I thought you just said that mutants exist
> >or that we are all potentially mutants 
> 
> I could not have said that we are all potentially mutant. 
> 
> >and now you are saying they are not
> >individual?  
> 
> No, I could not have said that either.
> 
> >What do you mean by individual?  
> 
> A human being capable of thinking for himself.

You said you were born this way.  Do you think that all human beings have
the potential to be individuals or do you think it is somehow
pre-determined?

 > >So you think there is no
> >*difference*?  What kind of distinction are you implying here.
> 
> I am implying that, though there are human beings who are, truly
> individuals, there are also others whom, though they may appear to be
> individual by their acts are not much different from those whom they claim
> to be reacting against. This is how today's revolutionary becomes tomorrow's
> dictator or today's radical politician becomes tomorrow's stock market tycoon.
> 
> That is the nature of the societal "tension" that you cited above and that I
> say is a fallacy because it does not support the individual human being but
> does support group cohesiveness and will, ultimately, support those who
> *seem* to be heretics as long as such heresy can be contained.

Can you imagine a society that would support the kind of individuals you
are speaking of? What do you think it would be like? Or by being supported
would they no longer be individuals?  
 
> >What do you
> >mean by reality, mental construct, fail-safe?  
> 
> Reality is life as it is with no pretense otherwise.

I still dont know what this means.  How would you define life?  Would you
say an acceptance of reality "as it is"  would involve not ever trying to
change things?

> Mental construct is what we use to build delusion that life is other than it is.

How do you think language helps us to build these delusions?
Do you think there is thought before language?
  
> Failsafe is the falling back onto what we have been taught will protect us
> from reality.
> 
> >By pain, I only meant extinction.  yes, heaven and utopia both no place at
> >all.  But often a useful way of imagining what you value or dont value.  I
> >can already feel your response.  What do you value?
> 
> Life is valuable to me and life is reason and the thought to come to reason.
> Perfectly. 

What is reason?
Is it about having a one track mind?
 
> 
> >> >Most of the time, I would
> >> >have to say, I am a fatalist.  At what point do we begin to say that what
> >> >someone else desires is okay?  Can it be as simple as "I want what I
> >> >want."     
> 
> >> It can be that simple. But it does not, logically, follow that you will get
> >> what you want or that anyone will get what he wants. How could anyone's
> >> desire not be okay? Desire is nothing.
> > 
> >I know that it doesnt logically follow.  I will think about this.
> >
> >I am not trying to sway you.  Do you think I would be that presumptuous?
> >But perhaps sharing and exceeding do not exist in your world?
> 
> I do not call it sharing, however. I call it communication.
> 
> >Do you really, honestly believe in a division between body and mind?
> >Why? Why priviledge one over the other?  Why is duration so important?
> 
> I don't believe in either the separation of the body and mind or in the
> concept of body and mind being the same. It's a toss up and it does not
> matter to me how it works out. I do tend to see things as more mental; that
> the mind can consume the body. That is my natural way of sensing.

But dont you agree that the body sometimes within your sense also can
consume the mind. Is this not reality too?
 
> >> >Genius does not only not exist, but it can
> >> >never eliminate the barriers of time.  
> >> 
> >> Then, how can you define a heretic, so called, who can span one hundred
> >> fifty years within fifty years or ten or fifteen or twenty or three? Your
> >> Zamyatin speaks of such a man and praises him, even if rather off-handedly.
> >
> >Time in this instance is being used as a metaphor to suggest a
> >*noticeable* difference.
> 
> But, to me, it cannot be a metaphor. If the difference is noticable, then, I
> cannot see how it can be fiction any more than this computer upon which I am
> typing is fiction. If both are fiction, then, there is no discernable
> difference. Therefore, I do say that time can eliminated.

Metaphors are not fictional.
 
> >> >> What is the point of citing timelessness and genius in books if we do not
> >> >> choose to learn by example?
> 
> >I dont think anything is timeless. Genius is some kind of romantic concept
> >used validate difference.
> 
> I do not think that genius is a romantic concept. Not at all. It is
> realization. 
> 
> 
> >> well. Why, indeed, would you choose to go beyond that? The virtue of sex is
> >> an easy thing. You oil the machine and it can last several years. 
> >
> >*laugh*
> 
> But it is true, Stacey. A woman, especially, has this opportunity to use sex
> for gain. She may gain a warm home by such use and she can gain security.   

I already told you that this doesnt interest me.  I am lucky. I dont have
to rely on anyone else right now to provide me with what I think is
necessary. At the same time, I rarely ever feel secure or certain. I am
becoming okay with this.
 
> >> >You are
> >> >not an example to me but engaging and moving; you are a constant
> >> >beginning.   
> >> 
> >> If I am--and I truly doubt that I am such a thing--a constant beginning,
> >> then, what is the merit of your desire in the form of what you call body
> >> memories? I can guarantee that you can have no body memory of me because I
> >> am not an object of your desire. There is no way that I can serve you. I
> >> cannot be your subject. 
> >
> >Please, can we move past the conventional platitudes of subject and
> >object. 
> 
> Is that possible?

I think that it is. But not on every occassion. I think that perhaps
through what you call communication it might be possible.  But this may be
unrealistic of me.


> >That isnt it at all. Body memory has very little to do with other
> >people.  Do you ever wear a scarf and then take it off and still *feel*
> >that it is there?  Don't you have body memories when you dream?  The body
> >isn't just about sex.   
> 
> It is that I do not consider such things to be important. I reckon they are
> phenomena that occur but I attach no meaning to them. I almost never dream. 

But phenomena occur in reality right?  

> >> If this is so, then, how could you wish to communicate on such uninteresting
> >> terms? I could not. What could be, then, the point of citing quotations from
> >> Zamyatin if one is satisfied with conventional platitudes? Does one merely
> >> quote for the sake of quoting or for the sake of impressing others or does
> >> one seek knowledge for a deeper purpose?
> >
> >Yes, precisely that is where you have to begin though, with convention
> >if you are going to communicate anything.   
> 
> If you mean the convention of language, then, this is so. However, my desire
> when communicating with written language is the removal of barriers. If it
> is a matter of description, then, I am interested in the most intense
> adjectives that I can possibly use for the given subject so that, when one
> reads that passage, the visualization becomes startling real, so that the
> words become all but meaningless. In order to achieve this effect, one does
> defy convention. 

But where do the adjectives get their weight and texture from Faizi?
Why do certain words work and other not work? So
you think then that reading is in and out of the body at the same time?  
 

> The vision is the word and the word is the vision. 

 
> >> >The impossibility of freedom, or being neither quite dead nor quite alive,
> >> >is bound to be caught up in relationship. Thus, what is necessary for an
> >> >ongoing partnered expression, or any coherent solidary meaning, is some
> >> >corrigible rules for definition.
> >> 
> >> Then, if one is caught up in relationship, freedom is an impossibility. 
> 
> >Yes, I said freedom in the way you mean it is impossible.
> 
> But I do not think that it is an impossibility. Not at all.
> 
> 
> >I don't like rules, Stacey, and I do not abide them well. For the sake of my
> >> own survival, I must conform to some societal rules but I will never bend to
> >> the rules of human relationship. To me, such ideations spell conformity and
> >> compromise. I don't do that. I will not participate in an ongoing partnered
> >> expression. That's bullshit.
> >
> >So you are part of no herd. I get it.  But I dont think I want to settle
> >here either.   
> 
> Then, you should not, of course. You should enjoy everything until it is no
> longer enjoyable.

maybe.
  
> Free will is a very limited thing.

yes, it is.
 
stacey