A fairly old Adage
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:39 pm
"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."
Oscar Wilde
I'd like to interpret its meaning.
I'm not interested so much in what the sayer meant by it, as what it means to me...or to you, and I don't really believe in inherent meaning, or inherent anything for that matter.
It's self evident why not getting what one wants is a tragedy, but why would getting what one wants be one?
I don't think we can ever absolutely get what we want, but we can relatively get what we want/an approximation of it.
This is because in one sense, existence is infinitely more complex than our ideas about it.
As much as we know something, there's potentially infinitely more to it than what we know...and as much as we know ourselves, and what we want, there's potentially infinitely more to ourselves, and what we want, than we know.
Furthermore, existence is always changing, what's good can transform into bad, and what's good in one situation can be bad in another.
So existence is tricky then, we may get a hold of something we thought we wanted, but not sufficiently comprehend it and its many entailments.
It could be that all the bad about it and its implications that we didn't see, may outweigh the good that we saw.
Now, let us delve a little deeper.
There's a lot of sayings like this isn't there?, there's only two kinds of this in life, or that, two kinds of people and so on.
Why divide life into two kinds of anything at all, why not divide it into many, or leave it undivided (an aside: do we, leave, things undivided, for that matter, or do we unite them, why should unity, or division be the default state of things?)?
I suppose sometimes it can be useful to divide things into two in various ways, but not necessary, for our comprehension, and, because sometimes things can be more two like than three or four like.
We do this with little things and with big things, like apples, we might say there are only two kinds of apples, red ones and green ones, or only two kinds of substances, matter and mind.
What the sayer is offering us is a simple, binary way of understanding tragedy.
How far we take it is up to us, do we glance at it, ponder it briefly for a moment or two, or do we gaze into it?
We might call the first sort of tragedy, not getting what one wants, obvious or overt tragedy, because it obviously sucks not getting ones way, and the second covert tragedy.
Another thing, what would it mean, to always get what one wants, what would the implications be?
Every time we act, we act with ends in mind...goals, motives, objectives, and being life forms, it could be said that we do indeed act, of our own accord and volition (some of us more than others), and not merely react, passively, the way more inanimate, inert and primal things do.
If one were totally fulfilled, then there would be no need to act, as all vital action entails dissatisfaction with the way things are, is an effort to change them, more in alignment with ones will, and would that not be a kind of tragedy, to absolutely get what one wants, to have ones animation eternally suspended?
Are we not at least in part, if not wholly defined by what we do, aren't all things, by their cumulative affects and effects?
Anyway...
If first form of tragedy is overt and the other covert, could it be that we spend most of our lives, trying to avoid the first form, while neglecting the second form?
Imagine a man's life filled to the brim with the first form of tragedy, deprived of all the things most consider desirable.
A bitter, meager life of poverty, spent alone, without the aid or company of friends or family.
Now imagine a life overflowing with all the things most regard as desirable, a life of nonstop cake, drinks, parties, fame and fortune, song and dance.
Tragic, isn't it?
What's worse, a life of poverty, or riches?
A life of starvation, or morbid obesity?
Of sobriety, or drunkenness.
Of Isolation, solitude, or expectations and pressures, greed and envy?
I suppose if you're going to go, may as well go out with a bang, rather than a whimper, it's been said.
Who's better off in the end, the poor, nameless hobo who dies by the side of the road, or your Marylin Monroes, Elvis's or Michael Jacksons?
To desire all, and to have nothing, or to have everything your heart desires?
If there are two tragedies, not getting it, and getting it, what is triumph, and how many sorts of triumph are there?
Might triumph, real success be having half of what you want?
Saying yes to some things, sometimes, and no to others, othertimes?
50/50, give or take?
Most of the voices out there are telling us, all day long, how to get more out of life, but where are the voices, telling us how to get by with less, how to makedo without?
Some of the consequences of having more are acknowledged, but it seems like modern man is always trying to find a way around these, or out of these, rather than accept them, and deal with them, or say no to himself, and repress his desires, or divert them, channel them elsewhere...well, at least when it comes to many things, I'd say.
You might even say that not only individuals, but societies, and even species decay, and die for two reasons, one is deprivation, scarcity, and the other is abundance, morbid obesity, overpopulation and so on, which is not only the scourge of man, but is something that routinely occurs in 'nature', or in nature that hasn't been thoroughly anthropomorphized.
Scarcity is the norm, and abundance is a rarity, which is why animals have a tendency to overshoot, rather than under.
This is probably especially true of man, both his nature and the way he's been nurturing himself, particularly as of late.
I think there came a time in our species recent history, when the second sort of tragedy, of getting exactly what you want, and more than you bargained for, became our chief problem, and no longer merely the problem of the upper classes.
I think that you, can have too much of any good thing, perhaps even of knowledge, or more especially information, and that what's pleasant isn't always or even fundamentally good, that sometimes our passions must serve our reason and not the other way.
I think if individuals, and indeed our entire species as a whole wants to survive this century, it has to relearn the virtues of abstinence and asceticism, of living well within our means, of acknowledging our many, many limitations, that more material, more pleasure, more crowds, even more science and technology, can be an evil, or our tragic demise will surely follow.
Our discovery of modern Science, technology and western 'civility' was like nature handing a kid a loaded gun, and as we mature, if we are to mature, we better learn if and when to use it, sooner than later.
Oscar Wilde
I'd like to interpret its meaning.
I'm not interested so much in what the sayer meant by it, as what it means to me...or to you, and I don't really believe in inherent meaning, or inherent anything for that matter.
It's self evident why not getting what one wants is a tragedy, but why would getting what one wants be one?
I don't think we can ever absolutely get what we want, but we can relatively get what we want/an approximation of it.
This is because in one sense, existence is infinitely more complex than our ideas about it.
As much as we know something, there's potentially infinitely more to it than what we know...and as much as we know ourselves, and what we want, there's potentially infinitely more to ourselves, and what we want, than we know.
Furthermore, existence is always changing, what's good can transform into bad, and what's good in one situation can be bad in another.
So existence is tricky then, we may get a hold of something we thought we wanted, but not sufficiently comprehend it and its many entailments.
It could be that all the bad about it and its implications that we didn't see, may outweigh the good that we saw.
Now, let us delve a little deeper.
There's a lot of sayings like this isn't there?, there's only two kinds of this in life, or that, two kinds of people and so on.
Why divide life into two kinds of anything at all, why not divide it into many, or leave it undivided (an aside: do we, leave, things undivided, for that matter, or do we unite them, why should unity, or division be the default state of things?)?
I suppose sometimes it can be useful to divide things into two in various ways, but not necessary, for our comprehension, and, because sometimes things can be more two like than three or four like.
We do this with little things and with big things, like apples, we might say there are only two kinds of apples, red ones and green ones, or only two kinds of substances, matter and mind.
What the sayer is offering us is a simple, binary way of understanding tragedy.
How far we take it is up to us, do we glance at it, ponder it briefly for a moment or two, or do we gaze into it?
We might call the first sort of tragedy, not getting what one wants, obvious or overt tragedy, because it obviously sucks not getting ones way, and the second covert tragedy.
Another thing, what would it mean, to always get what one wants, what would the implications be?
Every time we act, we act with ends in mind...goals, motives, objectives, and being life forms, it could be said that we do indeed act, of our own accord and volition (some of us more than others), and not merely react, passively, the way more inanimate, inert and primal things do.
If one were totally fulfilled, then there would be no need to act, as all vital action entails dissatisfaction with the way things are, is an effort to change them, more in alignment with ones will, and would that not be a kind of tragedy, to absolutely get what one wants, to have ones animation eternally suspended?
Are we not at least in part, if not wholly defined by what we do, aren't all things, by their cumulative affects and effects?
Anyway...
If first form of tragedy is overt and the other covert, could it be that we spend most of our lives, trying to avoid the first form, while neglecting the second form?
Imagine a man's life filled to the brim with the first form of tragedy, deprived of all the things most consider desirable.
A bitter, meager life of poverty, spent alone, without the aid or company of friends or family.
Now imagine a life overflowing with all the things most regard as desirable, a life of nonstop cake, drinks, parties, fame and fortune, song and dance.
Tragic, isn't it?
What's worse, a life of poverty, or riches?
A life of starvation, or morbid obesity?
Of sobriety, or drunkenness.
Of Isolation, solitude, or expectations and pressures, greed and envy?
I suppose if you're going to go, may as well go out with a bang, rather than a whimper, it's been said.
Who's better off in the end, the poor, nameless hobo who dies by the side of the road, or your Marylin Monroes, Elvis's or Michael Jacksons?
To desire all, and to have nothing, or to have everything your heart desires?
If there are two tragedies, not getting it, and getting it, what is triumph, and how many sorts of triumph are there?
Might triumph, real success be having half of what you want?
Saying yes to some things, sometimes, and no to others, othertimes?
50/50, give or take?
Most of the voices out there are telling us, all day long, how to get more out of life, but where are the voices, telling us how to get by with less, how to makedo without?
Some of the consequences of having more are acknowledged, but it seems like modern man is always trying to find a way around these, or out of these, rather than accept them, and deal with them, or say no to himself, and repress his desires, or divert them, channel them elsewhere...well, at least when it comes to many things, I'd say.
You might even say that not only individuals, but societies, and even species decay, and die for two reasons, one is deprivation, scarcity, and the other is abundance, morbid obesity, overpopulation and so on, which is not only the scourge of man, but is something that routinely occurs in 'nature', or in nature that hasn't been thoroughly anthropomorphized.
Scarcity is the norm, and abundance is a rarity, which is why animals have a tendency to overshoot, rather than under.
This is probably especially true of man, both his nature and the way he's been nurturing himself, particularly as of late.
I think there came a time in our species recent history, when the second sort of tragedy, of getting exactly what you want, and more than you bargained for, became our chief problem, and no longer merely the problem of the upper classes.
I think that you, can have too much of any good thing, perhaps even of knowledge, or more especially information, and that what's pleasant isn't always or even fundamentally good, that sometimes our passions must serve our reason and not the other way.
I think if individuals, and indeed our entire species as a whole wants to survive this century, it has to relearn the virtues of abstinence and asceticism, of living well within our means, of acknowledging our many, many limitations, that more material, more pleasure, more crowds, even more science and technology, can be an evil, or our tragic demise will surely follow.
Our discovery of modern Science, technology and western 'civility' was like nature handing a kid a loaded gun, and as we mature, if we are to mature, we better learn if and when to use it, sooner than later.
