Sun 10 Oct 2004
Dear All,
I’m sitting in the Gardens at New College right now. I just got out of the breakfast in Hall that always follows Chapel on a Sunday morning. The air, cool and moist, brings with it Autumn and the changing of the leaves. This is how I am starting my doctorate.
The term officially starts today, and already I know that I am doing too much. There are funding concerns, a number of jobs I am holding down, my commitments to the Strategic Studies Group, and, of course, my research. It’s all a bit too much at the moment, and yesterday my body told me it was time to take a moment for myself. So I put on my cleats (or boots, as they’re called here) and ventured forth onto the soccer (football) field (pitch). My asthma is much worse these days because I’m not training regularly, so I wasn’t able to do too much exertion, but it felt good to kick the ball around. My housemate Michael joined me and as he took shots on me, I acquired all of the scrapes and grass marks that are the reasons I love this game.
Last night was the first bop of term. New College has once more lived up to its high standards of gyration incitement; the ancient stone walls were sweating as the bodies, beautiful, danced the night away.
And today, there was Chapel. Many of you know that I am continually testing and questioning my faith. I have found, however, that in this past year, I have done much less of it, not out of satisfaction with my position, but rather out of complacency. My first year here I had little to lean on apart from the institutions. Last year, I developed strong friendships that provided a source of strength. This year, however, I realise that my life here is created by me, and I can choose the emphasis it takes.
A doctorate from Oxford includes the pleasure of complete freedom to research. My only commitment to the University is to hand in my thesis in three year’s time. The ordering of my day is therefore up to me. This, I think, is fantastic. Each year, I am learning something about structuring the hours that I am given in a day. Last year, the epiphany came when I understood how to put my studies first. This year, I hope to sort out the rest of the lot. This weekend has taught me something very valuable in that regard. Exercise and spiritually, as I have often heard my mother say, are crucial parts of a balanced life.
I look back on my undergraduate days at St. Olaf. I can’t say that studies always, or even most of the time, came first, but I did feel a balance there that has been noticeably lacking since I crossed the pond. St. Olaf trains the whole person, and Oxford trains the mind. It is up to me, therefore, to fill out those other parts of my being that I know need attention, particularly through exploring my faith and exercising my body.
It seems funny that early last week I gave a talk to all of the new MSc students who are starting on the course I did last year. Mine was the practical talk, laying out in plain words (and without any faculty present) what they needed to do to survive the year. Studying was important, I made sure that was clear. Late nights will be had in the library. But there is much more to life here (anywhere!) than that thing you call a job. You can spend it in front of the TV, surfing the net, or putzing around, or you could carve it up, feed your soul and your body as well as your mind. I might do well to heed my own advice.
~Sam
P.S. At the moment, you may notice that my old website is down and my new website (www.ponderingmind.org) is not fully up and running yet. I’ll let you know when it is, and then all of these emails will appear in journal form there.
November 23rd, 2004 at 10.22 pm
Mind and body questions!!
I also heard that it was only after much discussion and debate that he was rewarded an honouree doctorate at Cambridge.
the one view inevitably seems to bring along a little bit of pessimism while the other one brings along a little bit of optimism. Hence I personally favour to read and write about the last perspective (=language has potential for change, boundaries are constantly negotiated and re-negotiated). One reason why I like this perspective is also because it gives some room to agency. Because if we are negotiating and re-negotiating our views on the world, then I can try and make a small bit of difference, without knowing if one will actually succeed, one can at least attempt to help carving out ones path and perhaps even help others carving theirs.
One of the most interesting topics if you ask me, is exactly this distinction! It’s quite a tricky one too, I think. Because one inevitably comes up with new questions, asking oneself where does the one end and the other begin. I am afraid that I don’t have any splendid insights to share here, apart from the idea that body and mind are social constructions through which we make sense of ourselves, others and the world in which we live. Usually that idea on itself already lends itself to a whole range of new questions.
Because whatever –Western- mankind has been so kind as to carefully separate from each other through his particular use of language, must surely have some others aspects to it as well. So let’s put on the head of the true dark and evil deconstructionist and see where it gets us. If I remember this well, the main idea of these dark and evil deconstructionist people is that languages are constructed around dualities and hence deeply embedded in centres of truth. The next thing they argue is that these centres of truth will shed light on some parts of society while excluding others. So our language allows us to see some things (because we have particular words, grammatical constructions, stories, in one word: discourses for them) while it deprives us from seeing other things. These ‘other’ things, the ones which are below the surface, even though we cannot see them easily, they keep on living there. It is relatively easy to get swept off ones feet by these ideas. At least some people do. Evidently not everybody does (just heard recently, when Jacques Derrida died, a couple of weeks ago I think this was, that in fact his writing was still rather contested in mainstream philosophy, something of which I had no idea, probably that must be because I have been having out too much with those dark and evil philosophers
Anyways. If one would conceptualise the idea of democracy as a place where as many voices as possible should be heard, I suppose that deconstructionist philosophy could be one interesting angle to look at things. It has been said that some deconstructionists have been rather keen on simply tracing dualities and then swapping them around. So for instance, the duality of man/woman, culture/nature, mind/body could be swapped for woman/man, nature/culture, body/mind. Hence re-storing a new centre of truth by trading in the old one for its dual. Some deconstructionists have been accused of that and I think it is a fair point to make. I suppose it all depends on what sort of particular view on language one favours. On the one hand there is the perspective which tells us that language is a relatively rigid system, a fixed system that holds society and how we live in it together by privileging some powerful groups over some other inferior groups. On the other hand one could also say that language and the boundaries we construct in it provide a potential for change. One could say that dilemmas and tensions in language involve the negotiation and re-negotiation of these boundaries.
Having said this, without trivializing the matter (we all know it is a little bit of both, don’t we?
I think I have sort of lost my train of thought here. Because I set off writing about the duality of body and mind. Well, here we go! Coming back to what you wrote in your journal entry, about the mind being sort of privileged over the body in your time in Oxford… well, I guess one could say the duality of mind and body was constructed in the particular situatedness of its time and place in history. Apparently it served some purpose. I am not well read enough in this area to say too much clever things on that. In an intuitive simplification I would say: apparently for some reason or other this duality seemed to keep things in place in society. (would be interesting if one could compare this to Eastern societies where there was no separation between worldly powers and religious powers –I mean no kings and priests to take care of things separately but all of those power united in one person, for instance Chinese emperor. These cultures also have whole other constructions of body and mind related things, probably is a very interesting area, should read about this really).

We on the other hand, in the West, seem to have very keenly build entire societies, sciences and education systems on this particular divide of mind and body. We construct our worlds and our place in them on the basis on those –in postmodern thought often contested- concepts. I for myself have no clear understanding of how exactly the boundaries between both get blurred. But I would be quite keen on trying to assume that they do get blurred. For instance any physical implication on the body might have an implication on the mind as well and the other way around. So one might wonder about how adequate the distinction is anyway, in trying to understand phenomena. Really sort of depends on which phenomenon one would be interested in.
I just found myself tempted to now go off and write about activity theory and a Bakthinian perspective on language as a possible useful tool for understanding. But also just realized that all of this may seem very theoretical (in other words: boring) and far distanced from practical reality. And I am rather tired too, see body interfering with mind once more!
So I don’t have any answers to these questions, but I find them one of the most interesting things to muse on… interesting too that UK government recently seems to have launched some sort program in order to make people reflect on how many cigarettes they smoke, how much fat and sugar they eat and how much hours they exercise! It’s all over the news and in the papers. People should do this and this and definitely not this or that. Being the ignorant yet rebellious individuals we are, we obviously wonder about these things and are tempted to make comparisons with other countries and cultures…
One comes across all sorts of weird people. Some refuse to eat something unless it has ‘low-fat’ on the package, some refuse to eat any meat tout court, others voluntarily go for surgery to get some or other uniqueness of their bodies adapted. Then there are others who capture it all on camera and broadcast it under the label of reality television.
When I was fifteen I used to get up early every morning to run those famous five kilometres up and down hill before dawn. Well, what can I say. I’ve kind of lost the habit!
And the current state of this body definitely does not allow for challenges of a comparable nature. Think I’ll go and have an other cup of tea.
October 16th, 2005 at 4.25 pm
[…] eed. Matriculating, that is, actually becoming a member of the University, took forever. Last year, I ‘arrived’ for what may be the last time. From no […]
October 16th, 2005 at 7.55 pm
[…] eed. Matriculating, that is, actually becoming a member of the University, took forever. Last year, I ‘arrived’ for what may be the last time. From no […]