Some thoughts

This is really old, but I came across it and thought you all might enjoy it anyway :-)

I participated in an online discussion about a collection of texts known as Interstices (the honors summer reader). Below are the parts I participated in, having compiled them for another assignment, I thought they might interest you all. The poem below is actually one I really like, not because I like it, per se, but because I appreciate how well it conveys its meanings - its artistic communication, I suppose.

The Pool Players: Seven at the Golden Shovel
By Gwendolyn Brooks

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon.


In response, I wrote:

Consequences are an important part of our lives. We cannot escape the results of our decisions; if we are wise, we will learn from them. For the seven pool players, it may be too late. Too far along the path they realize “We/die soon.” The poem offers no hope. That is the end. Their moment of self-awareness, of knowledge that all the little steps they took led them to this point of desperation, comes too long along the path. Yet perhaps we can learn from their mistake.

“We real cool.” How often, it seems, sad stories begin so! As always, trouble begins in the heart: the desire for acceptance no matter what is the downfall of these seven. Notice it is their self-proclamation: “we real cool.” Is it bravado, or do they really believe it? Or are they just trying to achieve whatever they consider “coolness”? Whatever it is, it has bad results: “We/left school. We/lurk late. We/strike straight.” They leave school, evincing a lack of commitment, disregard of authority, and quite possibly, willingness to deceive. ‘Lurking’ never has positive connotations: loitering with devious intent or, at best, boredom, in dark places. In this context, “We/strike straight” seems incongruous with its connotations dexterity, plain dealing, precision, and honesty – but it is only in pool that they do so, for “We/sing sin. We/thin gin.” Perhaps they realize the crookedness of their ways despite the straightness of their shots. In the words Gwendolyn Brooks gives them, “We/sing sin.” They know better. They know their ‘church stuff.’ They know what is good and what is bad, and they choose the bad – openly and gladly, for they ‘sing’ it. Why? It is fun. “We/thin gin. We/jazz June.” They’re having the time of their lives, ‘living it up’ with no restraints. It sounds like most peoples’ ideal life: freedom to enjoy ourselves however we like. But then too late they realize: “We/die soon.” They cannot escape the consequences of their own stupidity.

Are these real people? We are not told. The specificity of the title, giving the number and place, would indicate these are youth observed by the author and encapsulated in the cautionary poem, but perhaps they are invented for our instruction. Yet is this a didactic poem primarily? It certainly has things to teach, but its most definite function is simple storytelling. Here is what happened: here is what will happen. Actions have consequences have actions have consequences. In telling their tale, Gwendolyn reminds us, and makes us remember: Never forget.

A classmate wrote this in response to Plato's Allegory of the Cave:

It’s about perception. It’s about deception. It’s about realization. Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave, in my view, comments on the fact that humans can often misconstrue perceptions due to the way something appears instead of accepting that there is an alternate reality. Plato sets up an image in a cave where people are chained in a manner that they can only see shadows on a wall. These shadows are puppets, held by people, that reflect images due to the incoming light from the cave’s opening. Then, one man is freed to go outside and after he has had time to adjust he sees what is truly reality. He has been deceived.

During discussion night, my table was able to comment on multiple stories and how they dealt with perception; such as Deresievicz’s The End of Solitude which implies that the “loner” appearance means they are not amiable. However, to paraphrase Dr. Maisto’s idea, if you like yourself enough to be alone, then you are ready for relationships. I apply this to friendships as well as dating relationships. Thus one can seem anti-social, like a shadow, yet when you get to know them, are freed from the cave of darkness, you see that in reality they are extremely more lively and vivid than the shadows.

Our society today focuses very much so on appearances, and as Deborah Brandt says, “Our economy has shifted from manufacturing things to manufacturing symbols.” Companies, institutions, etc. have learned over time how to deceive (for lack of a better word) people. They put chains on people in order that people may only see what the companies want them to see. For an oversimplified example, in the early 2000s, banks conceived the notion that certain people could afford loans which in reality they could not. When the people saw that the shadows were actually not tangible, they became distraught with confusion. The outcome was the housing bubble.


In response, I wrote:

I liked your summary “It’s about perception. It’s about deception. It’s about realization.” I thought it was clever. However, I have a reservation with part of it.

“It’s about realization.” Yes.

“It’s about deception.” I differ on this point. It is, perhaps, arguable that this allegory treats of self-deception, but the deception of others imposed upon us, as you referenced, is not what Plato is after here. In fact, where does deception appear in the story? It is not with intent to deceive that whoever holds the prisoners sets their faces to the wall.

In fact, this story was used by Plato to illustrate his idea of Forms. These Forms are ideals of shapes and objects that exist in a far-off world of ideas. In his idea, we call something ‘round’ because it reminds us of the Form (or Idea) of Roundness. We call something ‘horse’ because it reminds us of the Idea of Horseness. Etc. (History-of-philosophy sidenote that may help with this concept: Aristotle, Plato’s protégé, believed the exact opposite. He thought that the aggregate of all things we call ‘round’ becomes an ideal of roundness. The common characteristics of what we call ‘horses’ make up our Idea of what a horse is. Etc) So Plato’s point is primarily that reality exists beyond our perception, but that we see the shadows of reality – this is not deception, just human limitation. This human limitation is possible to overcome, however, we most often choose to remain ignorant and cling to the familiar.

“It’s about perception.” Exactly. Moreover, it is about the inherent flaws of our perception, and the fact that they are both in some ways inescapable and in some ways self-imposed. We are chained; we are chained in a cave. We have only the fire. We are limited by our senses. And even when we have the chance to learn the truth, we are at first unable and in the end unwilling. The light is blinding; our senses are overwhelmed. And then when we bring our new knowledge to our fellow men, they will not believe, they cannot understand. And in this way, our flawed perception is more or less inescapable