A. Aesthetic Realism
is the study of reality as an aesthetic proposition: this includes oneself.
B. In reality opposites
are one; art shows this.
The Ordinary Doom
By Eli Siegel, founder of Aesthetic
Realism
He never spoke out.--Matthew
Arnold on Thomas Gray
If we judge from history, we are doomed not
to show our feelings; not to have them known. There have been many, many
persons who have lived rather long lives, and who have been in many conversations;
who yet did not show what was in their minds, what feelings they truly
had. When people can't show their emotion, they are disappointed
and resentful. So disappointment and resentment have been big things
in social history; which means the history of individuals.
There are three
large reasons, which are in close relation, for people's not having shown
their feelings. The first is, feelings are hard to know; we don't
know a feeling just because we have it. The second is, there
is a kind of triumph or satisfaction in not showing the feelings we may
know--in making them our own secret property. The third is, people
have not been adequately interested in seeing, thoroughly, how we felt.
It is by now
pretty well accepted that we are just as unknown to ourselves as something
else may be. We may not know the mind of George Washington or Stendhal
or Cleopatra; but we may not know our own mind or self so well, either.
The phrase once so much used of our minds--"the dark continent"--is not
so often heard these days, but the truth in the phrase has hardly gone.
To know ourselves is hard; and to say just what it is we feel is, therefore,
hard. A person who knows just what he feels is as rare as a
person who knows both Sanskrit and jazz, fully. Besides, we are afraid
to know our feelings; we don't know what awaits us. So what with
the difficulty in knowing and the disinclination to know our feelings,
we go through our lives quite far away from what is in our minds; from
what we wholly feel about specific things, the world and ourselves.
This means that the doom I have talked about is in the making: our not
knowing our own feelings is certainly no assistance to their being known
by others.
I have mentioned
the disinclination to know our feelings, because we fear the result.
Fear is a great motive. But there is also a triumph in having our
feelings out of circulation, even as to ourselves. Moreover,
there is a triumph in withholding the feelings we may be aware of. Concealment
is equated, unknowingly to ourselves, with individuality: the more we conceal
the more it seems we are asserting our very personality, resisting a somewhat
repellent, unwelcome intrusion of other things into ourselves. The
desire for secrecy is a deep thing in a child and in a grown-up.
Through secrecy, we can be defying the world and deceiving it.
That is attractive to the profound, if spurious or evil, tendency towards
autonomy or separation in us. With this going on, it is even harder
for our feelings to be seen.
Yet, even though
there is a triumph in keeping our feelings apart from external existence,
the situation is sad. In our triumph we become lonely. Our
achievement is our curtailment. And, even in our triumph, we are disappointed;
we have a sense of failure; we feel we have been thwarted. There
is a certain relation between affirmation of life and the desire to be
known as we are; so if this desire is not honored, our being alive is that
much interfered with or defeated. We live not only in our minds,
but in other minds; our minds depend for their full existence, on being
apprehended by other minds justly, beautifully. If this does not
happen, there is misfortune.
Thirdly, other
people are not too interested in knowing us. It is true that we don't
ask enough that they do; but at any one time the desire on the part of
most people to know the feelings of another is rather sluggish, and it
is impure; for where there is a desire to know, it is for the purpose of
using a person, not for the purpose of knowing a person so that the knower
feels his awareness is greater; his experience of reality deeper; his pride
in his own existence surer.
Consequently,
there is a tepidity in the matter of minds knowing minds, people knowing
people. So far in history, individuality has meant a curtailment
of interest in other instances of individuality. There is a good
deal of subterranean fraud in the matter; people act as if they were interested
in knowing others, but the interest could not bear rigid, comprehensive
examination.
And so, there
are many mothers lying in their graves, whose feelings were not known by
their sons or daughters. Husbands lie in their graves whose
feelings were not known by their wives. Wives unknown to husbands
also lie at rest all over the world. It is very disappointing.
In the greatest
moments of literature, we feel we know someone or something (the difference
between knowing a person and something else isn't as big as may be supposed).
When we know another person, we meet another way of taking the world.
This can bring form to our own. When we feel that our own way of
taking the world is seen by another, that way, here too, is encouraged
to take on more form. One great advantage in knowing ourselves
rather honestly is, that we have an idea of what another person would feel
if he knew us. Meanwhile, we can use the manifestations of
another person, even if they do not arise from adequate knowledge of ourselves,
or are not accompanied by adequate knowledge, as a means of knowing ourselves
better.
The self wants
to be an object. It participates, but it wants to be participated in.
Awareness helps it. The self is a to-be-known reality. If that
knowing does not take place, the deep and ordinary doom I have mentioned
occurs.
Our desire
for praise, so common and often so hurtful, is really a substitute for
our desire to be known as we are. It is quite clear that if we are
praised and we do not feel we are known, that praise cannot be satisfactory.
It is true that most people seem to prefer being praised without being
known, to being known without being praised; nevertheless, our greatest
desire is to be known first. If we are praised without being known,
no matter how intense and multitudinous the praise may be, we are not wholly
alive. To be taken for someone else is hardly a way to be alive in
one's own right.
This is why
authors, painters, composers, actors, and others have not taken, often,
the praise they have received as happily as they might. They could
not see the praise as entirely of them. Certainly they accepted it, but
the acceptance was not entire. Anyone who praises us without knowing
us confuses our fundamental selves. To be known is to be seen in
relation with all things: and when we can see our relation with all things,
we like ourselves. The largest purpose of every person is to
become what one is, entirely, by making accurate relations between what
one is and all other realities.
We do not fight
enough to have our feelings known. We are like Gray, poet of the eighteenth
century, of whom Arnold says so often in the essay on him: "He never spoke
out." The cemeteries consist of people who never spoke out. The streets
are everywhere walked on by people who don't speak out.
To be able
to show our feelings and to have them seen, is full expression. We
cannot express ourselves in certain specific situations of moment or unusualness;
but there is an insufficiency of expression which is constant. We
early come to feel we are not seen right, and it appears we never will
be. So we accommodate ourselves to this. It is dull, basic
tragedy. In the long run, it is unnecessary.
Some of the prettiest lines of Shakespeare
are about one's feelings not seen. Viola in Twelfth Night (II.
4.) describes a woman not esteemed, or not loved
. . . She never told her love,
But let concealment, like a worm i' the bud,
Feed on her damask cheek. She
pined in thought,
And with a green and yellow melancholy
She sat, like patience on a monument,
Smiling at grief.
We can presume that the woman here didn't wholly
want her feelings, or herself, to be known. There is something admirable
about the easy, though enduring way, she takes being seen badly.
But really we could not love a person who did not want to see us justly.
We in some way collaborate with the person not seeing us truly. We
may not see how we do, but the grief we get from someone's not appreciating
us, partly arises from our not wanting wholly to be known.
However, whether
we are "smiling at grief" or not, there is an intangible sense of doom
in us, where, we think, our feelings are not known. That doom is
so customary, so ordinary, we do not see it as doom. But it
is. It has befallen many, many men and women. The aim of this
paper is to have us more against it.
*
Reprinted, with permission, from Definition 2. A Journal of Events and Aesthetic Realism
©1961 Definition Press |