visiting the james - jan 19, 2007

it was a sunny wintry day. i went with juzi, whom i got to know through cnd. the cemetery was beautiful, quiet and receptive. the flowers were bought from a nearby supermarket; the idea, though, was prompted by another friend.

i have read only two books by the brothers: william's psychology (jimmy) long time ago and henry's the portrait of a lady a few years back.

"jimmy" didn't leave me much impression, because, for the more scientific part, my knowledge was much more advanced by training; and for the more personal aspect, i didn't connect with my limited capacity for understanding at the time.

"the portrait" , on the other hand, is one of my all-time favorites:

"Rarely does one get to read a story that touches just the "right' emotional pulses. Rarely does one gets to read something so elegantly written. I was delighted by the carefully depicted characters and deeply impressed by the author's sophisticated mind. Life doesn't look a bit easier even when human beings are free of material burdens; life doesn't look much different either. I was slightly disappointed, however, by the unexpected and abrupt turn of events towards the end of the book. "

"knowing them" was still earlier, when i first read a sketch about the james family in "touched with fire" (by kay redfield jamison), relating to their remarkable lives of accomplishment and painful struggles against severe mental distresses (pic. 1).

since then, they have often been in my thoughts and in discussions with my net friends. i was glad to have had this chance to visit them.

a point that's (not) proven

i have an aversion to fictional writings that start (or end) with one or two strong points. i call them "art work charged with a mission". i am so allegic to it that it's almost an instinctive reaction. thinking more deliberately, however, i've come up with a few reasons to justify my intuitive negativity against such practice.

first though, how do i know? easy. my own observation is that life is never neat; yet these stories often feel artificial, with the characters awkward and the plots coincidental and, more importantly, the points are unequivocally "proven". the former makes unpleasant reading and the latter raises suspicion: if the stories can "prove" something so elegantly, either it is too obvious (like we shall all die) or the stories are fabricated to suit the agenda. simple as that.

the paradox here is that when people read fictions, they instinctively do the opposite - they accept the stories first and then "draw" their own conclusions, which, in these cases, are the author's propaganda. so such writings mislead and are more or less equivolent to cooking scientific experiments to fit one's theory. it's falsehood. it's phony. though not necessarily intentional. :-)

these books are not satisfying also because it shows that the writer is probably too simple minded to grasp the complexity of life, which to me, is THE truth. the stronger the writers push their opinions, the more evident that they don't know better. it might even suggest that they are too arrogant, with no patience to observe the trivials (the essence) of life and to be sensitive of the vast unknowns. instead they seem to have figured it all and are eager to teach (or preach).

such writings are more likely very sensational or dramatic, so to swing readers (and probably themselves). for a receptive mind, if one is moved, touched or disturbed, it's got to be real, right and true. how false.

i am not saying that a writer can't have opinions or emotions, it's just that he has to be foremost honest or modest to draw from life, sometimes by simply recording or documenting the true happenings (feelings, thoughts), which in turn, believe it or not, will illuminate a point or two, if not more. it may inevitably be messier but honest; more confusing yet truthful. and this is already much better.

a good writer can not only express opinions, beliefs and feelings beautifully through writings, he is also able to recognize, differentiate and grade such matters; and realize their limitations, too. his writing would then appear somewhat detached, reflective, analytical, and, ultimately, impassioned - with passion. a kind of resigned melancholy or pity, towards human existence and its nuances. now this should be a good one.

(and a good reader is one who matches the writer, with equal sensibility, intelligence and knowledge and with the extra luxury of lashing out criticisms freely. :-)

Writing is about self - Labyrinths, by Jorge Luis Borges

Labyrinths
selected stories & other writings

Jorge Luis Borges

...I repeat that we should not be alarmed and that we sould feel that our patrimony is the universe; we should essay all themes, and we cannot limit ourselves to purely Argentine subjects in order to be Argentine; for either being Argentine is an inescapable act of fate - and in that case we shall be so in all events - or being Argentine is a mere affectation, a mask. - pp 185

Can an author create characters superior to himself? I would say no and in that negation include both the intellectual and the moral. I believe that from us cannot emerge creatures more lucid or more noble than our best moments. - pp 215

intelligence? may i have some?

(another old one)

The Bell Curve-Intelligence and class structure in American life

by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray

From what i could gather, this book basically dealt with one question "is IQ different among different ethnic groups, in particular between the white and the black?"

Obviously an extremely sensitive issue to discuss in this country, the authors, with a clearly positive answer in their minds, therefore spent painfully lots of time and effort to compile all data and perform all sorts of statistical analyses available in order to convince anyone else. Several interesting points stood out. a) The authors were both harvard professors and were very proud of that fact (high IQ, that meant). b) they tended not to draw conclusions or show their opionions directly although it was pretty apparent what they were leading to, making them a little bit deceiving. c). they did have a very strong social agenda: they were in favor of the tests.

Not necessarily disagreeing with them, but I had been only vaguely interested in the topic before and therefore, not sophisticated enough to form clear and final opinions. This book did raise some interesting questions I enjoy thinking and learning more about.

How is IQ measured? This question was not dealt with in the book (I suppose every native-born American knows so it is not necessary to describe it). I checked out some IQ tests. An IQ test is similar to an "intelligence contest questionaire" we had had back in China when we were kids. It has a few word games; some number crunches; several visual/spatial questions and a couple of logical reasonings.

Is IQ equivalent to intelligence? I thought this over after reading the book. It seems to me IQ does measure some aspects of intelligence; however, with all these years after school, I hesitate to say it is all that matters. In other words, there are other aspects of human intelligence not as easily measurable but as important, if not more important, as what IQ is able to show; and it is not clear to me that they correlate with one another.

Then what is intelligence? I do not have a satisfying definition yet. I will surly include language mastering, number crunching, and logical reasoning; but I would also emphasize creativity, imagination, capability of independent thinking and probably common sense. Another sticky point is that some people excel in one particular aspect or two; while some are pretty good overall. A comprehensive test would probably favor the latter while in real life, the former could simply do wonders. From a totally different perspective, intelligence might be difficult to define and harder to test, but one can usually "feel" all these qualities through human-human interactions.

Is one person's intelligence comparable to another? If one believes in IQ, the answer would be "yes", because it gives each individual a particular number (and it is mostly within 200 points). I am not so sure. Just like any other human behaviour traits, to me, individual intelligence is remarkably complex, diverse and unique. Every individual is distinctively unique and intelligent in his own way - so I believe.

I am also interested in how intelligence or the attempt to measure it plays its roles in a given society. Is it fair to determine one's destiny by exams or one exam? Is it fair to select people based on criteria other than exams, or besides exams? What is an ideal society, a "made fair" or a "natural one"? Well, I know too little to say. I do know this book represents one of many many opinions on these issues.

celebration of a sound mind - A Man for All Seasons

A Man for All Seasons, movie, 1966

how i love this movie and the story about thomas moore! not so much for the moral strength of his character, but for his incredibly logical mind, the capacity of knowing oneself, and others, knowing the truth of matters, and making decisions of own choices. to me, such is what humanity is all about, the kind of human spirits that endure, inspire, and enlightening.