I posed the question not to say there’s an answer, but rather to point out the ambiguity… So (as is our pattern I’m realizing ;)) we’re on the same page, we’re just reading in different directions.

Re thinking under things–that is poststructuralism!!

urlgirl:

See, and that’s exactly where I was before you brought up The Question.

The notion of thinking under things, however, that’s fascinating.

thingsilikemorethanpeople:

For me, *not* resolving the paradox is more comforting. Hell, he could have been talking about something as micro as merely his family. Ambiguous things are often more comforting to me, anyway—maybe, particularly when things are maudlin and seemingly-hopeless-at-face-value, because you always have the potential for thinking around them, or through them, or, my favorite, under them.

urlgirl:

Well yes, knowing that would resolve the paradox (maybe? would it actually?) but the thought is ultimately maudlin either way, which makes me push away the whole notion. But, I’m easily distracted that way.

thingsilikemorethanpeople:

The question is, is he referring to us as humanity, or us as particular humans of a given cultural origin and/or a given period of history?

urlgirl:

I’m not sure anyone ever accused Kafka of being a cheerful lad, but still…

thingsilikemorethanpeople:

“there is hope, but not for us.”

— (apocryphal) kafka (via Jean Gregorek)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *