I've been thinking about thinking lately. This self-inquisitive process has probably been influenced by my current reading, film seeing, and DVD buying. I recently began To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, which, so far as I can tell, is an experiment in perspectives and individuality. Woolf's modernist style reminds me of Faulkner though I don't believe he was an influence to her. Frankly, I'm unsure if they even lived in the same era (I'll look into it). Shows what I know. It's more the way dialogue and narration seamlessly blend into eachother (think Sound and the Fury) but the effect can be jarring as well because one tends to lose their bearings in the story. I'm still in the first part of the novel and don't know how it will evolve but, so far, both Mrs. Ramsay and Lily Briscoe have been given the most prominence and the deepest insight into their perspectives. Thinking about what other people may be thinking about themselves and their thinking. Confused? We'll see how it unfolds.
This past Friday, I went to see I Heart Huckabees, which is billed as an existentialist comedy. Going in, I didn't really know what to expect beyond a fine cast and the kind of loose capsulation only a critic can give. After seeing the film, which I thought was brilliant, I decided to brush up on my understanding of philosophical ideas, especially existentialism. I consulted my handy dictionary of philosophy. Everyone should have one of these reference guides, afterall, these days philosophical ideas are bandied about and tossed into regular conversation as if adding an ism to any word can make it an original thought. I'm not convinced people always know what they're really talking about. Evidentaly, existentialists believe in the "existence" of things and man as two separate types of being. Man is separate because he has choice over his destiny. Everything else is predetermined. Look at the way we (mankind) refer to everything that isn't part of mankind. It's every "thing," whereas other people are every "one." Interesting. Also, I believe there is a subtextual element that every thing is what it is and cannot be anything else. Meaning, things, no matter what they are, cannot symbolize or be substituted for anything other than exactly what they are. However, man can, because of choice he is changeable. This subtext helped me to understand the title of the movie. I Heart Huckabees, not I love Huckabees, which is the way most people would read it. To an existentialist, the heart symbol does not equate love but only a heart. I think it would be hard to think like an existentialist, all that separateness, not to mention consciously giving up universal symbols like hearts for love.
Lastly, I watched Donnie Darko on Saturday night. Trippy. If you haven't seen it, you should. I can see why it has become a cult classic. It makes one think. It makes one think about sanity. It makes one think about family dynamics. It makes one think about self control. It makes one think about the nature of reality . It makes one think about following one's destiny, literally. It reinforces the idea that things are not what they seem to be. And, yet, in the end, it makes our minds cramp at the thought that the universe does have a kind of chaotic structure that can drop airplane engines on one's house from the future.
How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am?
How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am?
How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am?
How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? How am I not who I am? . . .
