Time to think

Time to think

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

On Haiku

Matsuo Basho
Just as I was falling asleep on a recent evening I found myself musing about the images that can be captured in the form of haiku, just 17 syllables long, three lines of 5 then 7 then 5.

As I relaxed into sleep, the following fully formed haiku simply materialized:

Morning moon shines bright.
My dog stretches and yawns. Damn!
We missed garbage day.

Not great poetry, I admit, but interesting enough for me to turn on the light and write it down.

It surprised me to discover when I re-read my silly example the next morning that it somehow managed to capture all the traditional Japanese elements necessary for traditional haiku.

First of all, haiku seeks to convey everyday scenes, crystallizing them into two distinct but linked images. These images are usually scenes containing an oblique reference to the season ("kigo" in Japanese). The seasonal reference is often achieved by use of a metonym such as a frog for spring or rain for fall. In my example, a sleepy dog stands for winter.

Second, haiku always contains an abrupt transition from the first image to the second ("kiru" in Japanese). This transition can be accomplished by use of a word ("kireji" in Japanese) or by other ellipsis. It usually occurs at the end of a line and separates, while linking, the two images. In my example the word "damn" at the end of the second line is an obvious kireji linking the image of a cold winter morning with the chore of putting out the garbage.

Finally, haiku should have the traditional 5-7-5 syllable structure. Surprisingly, my automatic poem almost achieved this structure. The next morning I found my original effort had 6 syllables in the last line until I substituted the word "missed" (1 syllable) for the original "forgot" (two syllables).

Basho by Buson
Haiku emerged as an independent poetic form in 17th century Japan. In its earliest forms a haiku was only the first verse of a longer collaborative linked poem known as "renga." Stand alone haiku was popularized in Japan by Matsuo Basho (1644 - 1694). Basho and his students wrote a great many stand alone haiku and Basho also used haiku to provide vivid images for longer prose works and travel diaries. This sub-genre is known as "haibun." Basho's most famous haibun is the Japanese literary classic, "Oku no Hosomichi" (usually translated as Narrow Roads to the Deep North or to the Interior or as Back Roads to Oku). 

I first encountered haiku in the 1960s in undergraduate school when I was required to read an English translation of Basho as part of a course in Japanese culture. I immediately loved Basho's vivid images of old imperial Japan. I even memorized his most famous haiku:

Old pond . . .
A frog leaps in
Sound of water

Haiku remained mostly unknown in the west until the middle of the 20th Century. This is not surprising given that Japanese culture in general was not well understood by westerners until well after the Second World War. A few poets such as Ezra Pound and Amy Lowell recognized the beauty and potential of haiku in English in the early decades of 20th Century but it took a long time to really catch on. When it did catch on, it went totally viral, as we like to say in the Internet age.

Why? I think the answer can be found in my frivolous example. We think in images. We remember in images. When we sleep, dream or meditate, these images rearrange themselves in our mind in accordance with our personality. When two clear images collide in an interesting way, we can turn the result into poetry.

Basho's gravestone






Saturday, March 7, 2015

On dentists


I recently changed to a new dentist. As I was lying there, trying not to obsess about the high-pitched whine of the scaler wielded by Candy, the dental hygienist, I reflected on the differences between the various dentists I have encountered over the years.

My former dentist is clearly a Republican.

He is a solo practitioner, totally his own boss. He owns his own building specifically designed to attract up-scale clients. The furniture in the waiting room is comfy and new. A flat-panel, wide-screen TV is tuned to the local news with the sound off. Undistinguished light classical music plays in the background. There is an impressive model of a four-masted schooner with all that complicated rigging in a glass case. According to the little plaque, he made it himself.

All his dental equipment is new. He is proud of his wiz-bang integrated computer system, the milling machine that makes flawless crowns while you wait and the fancy dental chair with a very bright non-glare LED light.

He knows what treatment is best for me, so he doesn't bother to ask me or waste his time explaining. He recommends I use a $100 toothbrush, toothpaste and non-alcohol mouthwash that I can only buy from him. It's all part of the package. He employs a marketing firm and has a billboard on a major highway near downtown. He doesn't participate in any insurance plan. I'm guessing the new Mercedes SUV in the parking lot is his.

His idea of how to motivate me to take better care of my teeth is to scare the daylights out of me. On my x-rays he points out areas of plaque and bone loss. He assures me with more frequent visits he can possibly save my teeth for at least a little longer, but there is no guarantee. He points out that my periodontal numbers are not good. He says he may be able to prevent the need for me to see a gum specialist. Do I remember to floss? Maybe, if I just paid more attention to his directions, my teeth would be in better shape. I always leave the office depressed and convinced my teeth will eventually rot and fall out.

I stopped going to him when he fired a dental hygienist who wanted to reduce her hours somewhat. She worked for him for ten years or more and had a loyal following due to her sunny disposition and gentle hands. He explained firing her was nothing personal, it was just business. After I stopped going to him I received a series of form letters advising me to make an immediate appointment and reminding me of the importance of regular dental care. When his office called to inquire why I had not made an appointment, I told them it was nothing personal, just business.

I'm guessing my new dentist is a Democrat.
His rented office in a unremarkable brick medical building on the edge of an older city neighborhood is nondescript. The furniture in the small waiting room is standard issue doctor's office sturdy. There is no soft background music, just the mandatory TV showing local news with the sound off. He is in partnership with three other dentists who fill in for each other when needed. All the dental equipment appears to be up-to-date but there is no showy cutting-edge technology in evidence.


After my first dental exam this new dentist immediately told me how good my teeth look and the only thing I needed to do was to get back on a regular maintenance schedule. He discussed the advantage of one small repair to a filling and left it up to me whether I wanted that done. No unrequested services were included. The bill was reasonable and the office submitted it to my insurance for reimbursement.  All the office staff were friendly, accommodating and paid attention. I left feeling up-beat and encouraged about the prospects of maintaining modestly healthy teeth for the foreseeable future.

My bet is my new Democrat dentist drives a late model Subaru with little decals representing the family on the back window.

I imagine there must be some Socialist dentists somewhere in the world. I expect they have almost all the same characteristics as the Democrat dentist, except the Socialist dentist accepts all insurance plans including Medicaid. He or she also volunteers at a dental clinic two nights a week and every other weekend. The Socialist dental office is a cooperative venture with a several dentists and a rotating staff. All of them are co-owners of the business. He or she drives a first generation Prius with 150,000 miles on it that has to last forever or at least 250,000 miles. I swear I would go to such a dentist in a heartbeat, if one actually exists.

I suppose there must be a few Libertarian dentists out there. If so, they would not need an office. Such dentists do all their dental work on themselves and think you should too.

Then, there is Orin Scrivello, D.D.S. Check him out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOtMizMQ6oM



Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Old books versus the Internet



I suspect everyone tries in their own way to make sense of their life. The day-to-day parade of events does not come with a built in explanation. Birth, childhood, a job, marriage, children, retirement, death – well, that’s it - or is it?

Many folks rely on religion to provide the framework necessary to give life meaning. I tried that route, but it did not work out so well for me. In fact, I was still in grade school when I first discovered I needed to somehow decide life’s meaning for myself. Back then I was that kid in Sunday School who asked questions usually followed by a long pause from the teacher. I was not purposefully trying to be difficult. I hope Mrs. Abendschein appreciated my sincerity. Questions of consistency and logic posed by the requirements of faith just puzzled me. I wanted a more consistent rational framework.

So, if one plans to discover life’s meaning on their own, what is the best way to go about the investigation? Once I got to college and discovered the world of philosophical discourse, I quite naturally concluded that studying the philosophical classics was the best way to discover what I was seeking. This is probably not the best course for everyone. I quickly found most great philosophy is not written so that the average person can easily grasp the concepts.

For some reason I was inspired by the murkiness. Each philosophical system was a new mystery waiting to be solved. As I unraveled each book, I felt I was broadening my understanding. I struggled on, trying to find a way of thinking I could fully embrace. As an undergraduate I read a good deal of American thought, tried to get some grasp of Eastern religion, and first encountered the exciting existentialists. In graduate school I tackled the Greeks, brushed against the scholastics, then immersed myself in modern European thought. I stumbled through Hegel and cursed Kant for his archaic style. By the time I earned my PhD I could credibly claim a fair acquaintance with a wide range of philosophical thought. I am also now able to say with a fair degree of certainty which major philosophical system I find most helpful in understanding the meaning of life.

Rather than struggle as I did through a library of nearly incomprehensible books, today's philosophical seeker can and probably will, turn first to the internet. If you search Google for “Which philosopher am I?” you will discover dozens of short quizzes that make some claim to provide philosophical clarity. Because I was curious, I decided to take six of these tests and compare the results to the outcome I achieved after years of study.

The most commonly searched tests break down into two general types: silly and not silly.

On the silly side are three tests that pose simple questions based on personal taste and popular culture, requiring little more than a good knowledge of characters on prime time TV.  Here's my results:

Buzz Feed: Which Philosopher are you?

My result = Michael Foucault

Quiz Social: Which Philosopher are you?

My Result = Epicurus

All the tests: Philosopher Test

My results = Plato 40%, Kant 33%, Nietzsche 27%

These three results could not be more divergent or more incompatible with my actual views on philosophical subjects. Other than being slightly entertaining, these three are just plain silly.

To my surprise, there also exist a number of “not silly” tests. The next three tests I took were clearly designed by people with a very good grasp of the key differences between various philosophical schools. The results also identify a range of agreement which acknowledges that most ordinary people do not possess a completely worked out coherent philosophical system.

Go To Quiz: Which Philosopher are you?

My results = Aristotle 77%, Kant 63%, Early Positivists 57%, Nietzsche 30%, Plato 26%, Existentialists 20%, Quine 12%

Select Smart: Which famous philosopher do you most agree with?

My results = Kant 100%, Aristotle 85%, Hume 66%, Plato 60%, Aquinas 35%, Sextus Empiricus 27%, Protagoras 24%, Augustine 20%, Nietzsche 0%.

Hello Quizzy: The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

My result = N-A-O [Metaphysical Non-reductionist 67%, Epistemological Absolutist 67%, Moral Objectivist 78%] After reading the extensive analysis, my results would be a mixture of Aristotle, Dewey and Kant.

I was astounded that all three of these “not silly” tests identified Aristotle and Kant as the philosophers most compatible with my own views. It is even more astounding that I reached exactly the same conclusion after years of advanced philosophical study.

So, could I have skipped all that labored reading and just used a good Internet quiz (had the Internet existed back when I was in college)?

Well, no. Throughout my philosophical studies I felt that the key to my search would probably be found in enlightenment thought. As early as high school I was excited and convinced by the writings of Thomas Jefferson. He was clear, certain and optimistic. I knew he read widely and admired French and British thinkers of his time. This led me to read Voltaire’s Candide, but as a high school student I was not then equipped to understand it.

I later had the chance to more carefully study the main enlightenment thinkers. I greatly enjoyed reading Rousseau and Voltaire, both of whom look at the human condition as it is not as it should be. Hobbes and Locke do the same thing but none of them seem to capture the spirit I feel motivated Jefferson’s optimistic liberalism.

When I finally got around to reading from the works of David Hume (1711 - 1776) I found what I was looking for. Hume starts at the same point as other enlightenment thinkers but unlike the others he finds a way to remain optimistic and fairly humble throughout his life, even when dying at age 66 of cancer. His writing is clear and convincing. He takes a simple proposition, i.e. that everything we know or can know originates in the senses, and carefully builds his theory of knowledge and his ethics on that foundation. He rejects all ideas that do not have an empirical source in the world. His conclusions are rational and comport with common sense. He was branded a sceptic and atheist by his contemporary critics, but he had a deep influence on thinkers such as Adam Smith and Charles Darwin as well as on other philosophers, most notably Immanuel Kant. Today, Hume is recognized as a thoroughgoing exponent of philosophical naturalism, as a precursor of contemporary cognitive science, and as an inspiration for contemporary ethical theory.

Hume’s thought is quite compatible with the views of Aristotle and strongly influenced Kant. Hume's optimism stands in stark contrast to the more gloomy views of other enlightenment thinkers. So when I'm asked which philosopher best expresses my overall philosophical view, I answer “David Hume.”

The “Select Smart” Quiz knew that.