Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Chandler Chandler Glint in Sight

“Glory be to God for dappled things—

            For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;

                        For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;”

 

                                    ---‘Pied Beauty’ by Gerard Manley Hopkins

 

 

            I generally romanticize nature.  Much like Hopkins I praise its beauty and use it as a source of inspiration.  “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.” (God’s Grandeur by Hopkins X164)  But this idealistic approach is far from an accurate depiction of nature. Nature is not only lush and beautiful, but also cruel and harsh.  Plants and animals are in a constant Darwainian battle for survival and often nature is an indifferent parent who takes no empathy or compassion on her children.  I don’t normally like discussing this part of nature, I would much rather focus on its pied beauty, but this past winter break; I had a vivid encounter with nature’s ferocity.

 

 La Vernia becoming stark and barren...

            La Vernia has been in a serious drought.  We haven’t had a good rain in over a year and as a result the landscape has become crumpled and brown.  Black mesquite trees stand gnarled glaring over ailing fields that shrivel from the indifferent sky.  Home was not the lush Serengeti of my childhood, but rather a painting of dehydration and exhaustion. Winter emphasized the stark realities with a bleak, gray sky and an incessant howling wind.

            I try everyday to take our two dogs, Chandler and Avalanche on a walk down to the Cibolo Creek, which borders our property.  Both dogs are your classic family pets.  Chandler is a wired-haired fox terrier, spoiled, spunky, and extremely lovable.  Avalanche is a Great Pyrenees, I often feel pity for her, she never gets her just reward, totally loyal and brilliant, but left outside in the cold.  When I returned home I was in major trouble, because the dogs had to go almost the entire semester without a proper pastoral patrol. So of course that was one of my first priorities upon my return.

Chandler and Avalanche

            The walk went as usual, I philosophizing about the world’s problems and the dogs scouring the brush.  Normally the dogs don’t find anything, occasionally they will scare up an armadillo or spot a lone coyote, but rarely do they have face-face encounters with La Vernian wildlife.  We were poking around the creek when we met perhaps the most vicious animal in Texas.  When one thinks of dangerous Texan critters rattlesnakes or coyotes are the first images, but I would assert that the most aggressive and dangerous animal on the Texas prairie is in fact the wild pig.  Many of you may be laughing, but feral pigs are shameless. In La Vernia Junior High, kids didn’t tell ghost stories, they told epics of their fathers, brothers and cousins, driving out at midnight to wrestle with these fierce beasts.  The jr. high had a teacher named Mr. Land, who was the utter embodiment of a hog hunt.  He in many ways resembled a hog, he was short and squatty, but his skin was tough and leathery and his squinty, little eyes made every student on campus’ blood freeze.  He would come to school often with the remnants of a dead hog in his pick up, and spend half the class describing his near death experiences.  In La Vernia, hog hunting was the most respected way to prove manliness, because hogs were the Grendels of Wilson County. 

This guy would fit in, in La Vernia

            I had not had much exposure to wild pigs before, but as the dogs and I were walking around the pecan orchard a huge heard of the beasts came storming through the trees. It was clear that the hogs were as scared of me as I was of them.  They didn’t run towards us, but away as fast as they could.  I counted about forty of them, untamed and wild.  They were barging towards the other side of the creek when Chandler decided he should prove his manliness and took off after the heard.  I was horrified.  “Chandler!” I yelled. “Come here!  Bad Dog!”  But it was too late, Chandler went tearing of through the brush, determined to catch a hog. Avalanche is normally reasonable, but she succumbed to pack mentality and followed the charge with a bombardment of barks and growls.  Growing up on Hog Stories I new what a full-grown hog could do to a dog, there were tales of people losing their best hounds to a mother pig protecting her young.  I had to stop them.  I ran after them, through the brush calling out hoping they would stop long enough for me to catch up. 

            I climbed up a hill to an oak grove, where I saw most of the pigs squealing in fright as they disappeared on the other side of the pasture, but one loan pig was struggling behind.  In a second Avalanche and Chandler leaped into the air and brought the pig crashing down.  Dust obfuscated the scene.  A combination of growls and squeals clashed in the air.  I ran over pleading for the dogs to stop.   When I reached the pig the dogs stepped back, letting their alpha survey the spoils.  I stared down at the “beast” gasping for air.  That noise still haunts me to this day.  That awful, desperate gasp for air.  Saying “Please end this pain, take me to my family, I don’t want to die.”  I remember the crimson.  That grey landscape of a winter drought was stained with that vivid crimson oozing from the gasping lungs.  I looked disappointedly at the dogs.  How could they do this, we were not in serious danger, they were well fed, what motivation would drive them to kill this innocent being?  I stared into Avalanche’s eyes, normally so quiet and reasonable; they had the same crimson glistening in them, but not a crimson of pain, a crimson of victory.  She was panting excited for the hunt.  Her eyes possessed this wild, glint or wicked joy. 

            

The dogs had become Harrigan's and Blake's ferocious tigers

In the end I couldn’t really blame the dogs.  They were, at their core just like the tiger Stephen Harrigan writes about in his book Commanche Midnight.  In the end “a tiger is a predator, its mission on the earth is to kill, and in doing so it often displays awesome strength and dexterity….Even a well-fed tiger in a zoo keeps his vestigial repertoire of hunting behaviors intact.” (X153-4)  This is what was so haunting, though, no matter how trained and disciplined I thought my dogs were, they still possessed that primitive instinct to kill.  They didn’t kill out of hunger, or protection, they killed because it was this natural instinct they had no control over.  When they saw those pigs they became savage and no amount of coaxing or treats would keep them from their dirty business. They “had a predators indifference to tragedy; they had killed without culpability.” (X155) I guess what makes this more eerie is not that a dog will resort to its basic instincts, but that all animal will do so, including people.  Whether it be Mr. Land barreling down a boar or David Lee Powell gunning down a police officer, it seems like humans too can succumb to this uncontrollable savage reality of nature.

            “And what shoulder and what art

            Could twist the sinews of thy heart?

            And, when thy heart began to beat,

            What dread hand and what dread feet?”

                        --William Blake, “The Tiger”(X146)

            And so I reach this awful since of terror, expressed in Blake’s poem “The Tiger.”  How is it that the creator who could make the peaceful lamb also create the vicious, snarling Tiger?  How can humanity be so loving and compassionate and yet possess these wild uncontrollable capabilities.  I have no resolve to this question, but I fear the day that I meet my symbolic wild pigs, will I heal to my master of ethics, or partake in the hunt?

spaceball.gif

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?” (X146)

Will I become a Tiger?

Monday, February 2, 2009

The "Magic" Test?

So this is a video of the Northwestern University Production of Mozart's The Magic Flute.  This clip is an hour long, so I don't blame you if you don't want to watch it, but if you so desire, it is a really stunning production.


“Papageno: ‘My child, what should we now say?’

Pamina: ‘The truth.  That’s what we will say.’

 

            Leaning forward and peering, Rick studied Pamina in her heavy, convoluted robes, with her wimple trailing its veil about her shoulders and face.  He reexamined the poop sheet, then leaned back, satisfied.  I’ve now seen my third Nexus-6 android, he realized.  This is Luba Luft.  A little ironic, the sentiment her role calls for.”

                                                            --Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep pg 98

 

            This section of ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric,’ in which Rick finds his third android performing as the lead to Mozart’s The Magic Flute, really sparked my curiosity.  Why did Philip K. Dick use opera to introduce this android?  And why The Magic Flute? After reading this section I looked up the opera online, where I read a synopsis and watched parts of the Northwestern University production.  The basic plot is the story of Tamino, a young attractive man who befriends the comedic buffoon, Papageno.  In the first act the Queen of the Night shows Tamino a portrait of her beautiful daughter, Pamina, but tells him that Pamina is trapped by the evil sorcerer, Sarastro.  She promises Tamino that if he rescues Pamina, they can be married.  Tamino and Papageno set off on the quest to defeat Sarastro, but soon discover that in fact Sarastro is a kind, benevolent sorcerer who is protecting Pamina from the evil nature of her mother.  Sarastro and the Wise Men of the Temple agree that Tamino and Pamina can be married, if they both prove their moral purity.  They are tested throughout the play to demonstrate that they are ethical and will be kind and compassionate towards one another.  Eventually the two pass the test, get married and live happily ever after.

            I think the link between the opera and the book becomes clear: in both cases the “wise” officials are testing the people around them to see if they possess the proper amount of “empathy” and “compassion.”  Does that not seem totally wrong? Who are these wise individuals to decide what is deemed moral?  Who decides the proper empathetic reaction to a test? 

            During the times in the novel when Rick was giving the Voigt-Kampff test, I tried to monitor my own reactions, to see if I would pass. 

Question 1:

            “You are given a calf-skin wallet on your birthday.” (Dick 48)

Reaction:

Hmm… well honestly I don’t know if I could tell the difference between a calf skin wallet and one designed to look like one.  I have always cringed when my aunts got fur coats for Christmas, so my inclination is that I wouldn’t approve, however I don’t know if I have enough courage to embarrass the person giving it to me.

 

Question 2:

            “You have a little boy and he shows you his butterfly collection, including his killing jar.”(Dick 49)

Reaction:

I have always enjoyed looking at butterfly collections.  I remember in fifth grade when we were responsible for insect collections.  It was a morbid sensation watching the beetles poison from the cotton ball drenched in finger nail polish remover.  And as grim as I felt watching the insect die, I soon forgot the feeling, plucked the bug out of the jar and relished in posing it creatively on the bug collection board.  Does that mean I am un-empathetic?  Am I an android?

 

Question 3:

            “You’re reading a novel written in the old days before the war.  The characters are visiting Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco.  They become hungry and enter a seafood restaurant.  One of them orders lobster, and the chef drops the lobster into the tub of boiling water while the characters watch.” (Dick 49)

Reaction:

Ok, I have to make a confession.  In high school, our speech and debate coaches told us that if we made it to state we could go eat a fancy restaurant and have whatever we wanted, “Steak, or lobster, your choice,” she said.  As a freshman my eyes brightened “LOBSTER!”  I had always seen the lobsters at seafood restaurants, but our family could never afford them.  I was so excited to pick out my own personal lobster from the aquarium.  When the day came when I finally got my lobster I was so excited.  I thoroughly enjoyed describing to my fellow speech and debaters how the cook dropped the lobster in the steaming pot, how it screamed.  Then when it was served, I took one of its claws and jabbed it at one of the vegetarians at the team.  Writing it out makes me sound like a monster, however I wasn’t being morbid because of lack of empathy (well maybe lack of empathy for the lobster) but more because I was having fun, enjoying the moment.  I guess I didn’t fully realize what I was doing…..

 

The reason why I go through the test is to show that I am not sure how well anyone could truly measure a person’s ability to care.  I think I would fail this test, but I don’t think I am an android.  (Of course I could have been given a false memory.)  I care very much for people, and animals for that matter.  I remember raising my goats for 4-H.  Upon the day I had to sell one of them I cried, I couldn’t imagine the idea of him, being ground up into Cabrito.  Everyone around me said it was a fact of life, but I could not imagine life without Soda Pop. 

This Actually not Soda Pop, this is my other goat Rocky, who live a long life, before my Dad took him to the slaughter house....

            So if I do not get outraged at the idea of a lobster dropped in a scalding pot, but do feel a huge amount of guilt when my goat is sacrificed to the 4-H gods, where would the empathy test put me?  It seems like part of the point of these empathy tests is not to label people androids and blast them with lasers, but rather to better know thyself.

 

“That I have much ado to know myself.”

         ---The Merchant of Venice I. i. 1 by William Shakespeare

By better understanding our emotional intelligence we should be better able to extend that compassion to our fellow living beings.  One of the most riveting pieces of information I found in the readings was the data on those with alexithymia.  In Goleman’s article he discusses how the average person, like Eric Eckardt, is unable to maliciously injure someone without a certain amount of guilt.  However a “psychological fault line is common to rapists, child molesters, and many perpetrators of family violence alike: they are incapable of empathy.  This inability to feel their victims’ pain allows them to tell themselves lies that encourage their crime.” (Goleman 66)  What the article does not describe is the idea of finding oneself before isolating those who cannot feel empathy.  So often society is willing to imprison or put to death those who murder, rape and molest, however it seems to me that to be a truly empathetic society we must have compassion for these people, as the data seems to point out that it is not there fault, they cannot control it. 

So I guess the basic principle I am trying to communicate is that the idea of the empathy test, seems to be misused.  It should not decide whether two lovers should get married, or whether or not you are an android.  The idea of these tests should be to help find ones own areas in which he or she lacks compassion and develop those areas, so that hopefully they can achieve the most challenging goal: share that empathy, to those who cannot share it back.

Can those able empathize with those who can't?