Goldfish
one mississippi, two mississippi, three mississippi...
A moment's despair seems like an entire lifetime.
Bounty is endless. Famine is forever.
Einstein said that everything is relative. How can one interpret a single moment without understanding the relation of surrounding moments? What meaning does one piece have without the rest of the puzzle? Where does one step next when there is no discernable purpose behind forward momentum? Without reason do we become masses of kinetic and stored energy?
Eventually we won't get up that next hill. Slumped in a dip of the tracks. Taken by inertia. Awareness only reaching as far as a single breath.
A gust of wind. A wave of cool water. The flip of a fin towards the top of a mountain. All I can remember is motion. All can feel is now one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand...
now.
posted by Kara Alison @ 1:46 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Well, if I were to disect myself, I would argue that motion is meaningless without some relative purpose. If I found myself barreling down a hill, I don't think I'd stop running, but when I got to the bottom, I would only run as far up the next hill as the kinetic energy took me (unless perhaps another purpose revealed itself - being chased by a wolf might do it). In terms of inanimate objects, this is the only motion that will occur unless pushed by some other force. I believe that I will keep moving though because of my perspective and internal motivation. I'm suggesting here that motivation does not exist without reason. Without memory or perspective, reason is hard to come by.
I believe you're making a separate (and highly valid) point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that emotional (read:irrational) ties to the past may limit our motion in the present. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm just glad that I have the past to look back on when I want to place a little sense into my decisions. I liked the concept of a goldfish because of the extreme example of life without real memory or purpose beyond survival.
Thoughts?
Interesting point. I have another question though:
Would a person who has "ground to a halt" be able to feel anything aside from instinct? How would they suddenly feel freed if they had no basis for comparison? Even the use of the word freed implies a past of imprisonment. What past?
It is a painful freedom where the being who is now free knows no reason to do anything besides eat, sleep and poop. That's my answer to your question: The person who has this new found freedom would survive. This person would act, uninhibited, only on instinct. They would not care about consequences or reason. Empty shells.
Forgive this little piece, I mean no harm. I am probably anti literary – John Keats , David Hume yes James Joyce, Anthony Burgess no.
I live very close to Hay on Wye which has a big literary festival each year, you may have heard of it?
The point is that this kind of writing and talk about writing fills the whole town for a week and in the main it makes no sense to me there either. So this is not a criticism of your writing rather literary works in general.
Bounty is endless. Famine is forever. What does that mean? The statements are almost mutually contradictory. I am inclined to take things literally.
Are these, I know of no other way of putting this, the thoughts or motivations of the Goldfish?
I have noticed recently that scientific metaphor is the in thing.
I don’t think but could well be wrong that Einstein said that everything was relative especially as a major principle of his theory of relativity is that the speed of light is the same for all observers.
As kinetic energy is the energy of motion if a body in motion ceased moving it would cease to possess kinetic energy.
Take no notice of me though for I am not in the words of one the star trek episodes ‘of the body’, I am a non believer.
No offense taken whatsoever. I quite appreciate the chance to improve what I love. I also love ripping things into little pieces so that they'll be built more solidly the next time.
As for the "Bounty is endless..." piece, the two sentences are actually meant to be read as two completely separate moments in time. The goldfish has no memory, therefore the goldfish will feel as if each moment is the only thing that has ever existed. He will be unable to comprehend that there will be an end to his hunger even though five minutes ago he had food to eat.
I didn't know that scientific metaphor was the "in" thing. That almost makes me hesitant to use it. I've always been sort of a science buff (although embarrasingly understudied) and that's why I like the comparisons. The whole relativity concept refers to the idea that one concept does not make sense without surrounding concepts for comparison. Highs seem higher in contrast to lows...etc...
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Don't downplay your understanding either. Your perspective is certainly worthy of consideration. My goal is not to bewilder, rather to provoke.
I have re- read this piece and it makes a good deal more sense to me now that you have explained the two moments in time matter. That was my bad reading of it - sorry.
I wonder did T S Elliot get asked these elementary questions?
Nevertheless while I recognise that there is more to Goldfish than first I noticed the question must be asked of literary pieces generally what is added to the meaning of words by giving the ideas represented a literary coat?
Now I can see the value of something in addition to the ordinary meaning of words in an artist like Keats or Shakespeare. But they and other writers that I rate are not what I would call ‘literary’. There are countless other artists though that the world rates who are unintelligibly literary so far as I am concerned see below.
When I say scientific metaphore is ‘in’ I am really in no position to say what is fashionable in literary circles since I don’t subscribe. I assumed it was ‘in’ because
1) I heard the author Anthony Burgess at Hay a few years ago talking a lot of nonsense about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and applying it to human beings.
2) We have a radio program here chaired by somebody called Melvyn Bragg who is really an arty type but I have noticed in the last couple of years he seems to be taking a lot of interest in scientific subjects.
Interesting observations (on science in lit). I'll have to stay aware of that going forward.
I'll also be pondering your questions on literary writing. I have to say that there's something beautiful in a well formed sentence. One has so many choices as to how they wish to say something. It's interesting what might influence a person's choice given the message they wish to communicate.
This is good stuff...thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home