"As a rule, ... [law] is not a prevailing problem in criminal and civil law dealing with clear-cut infractions. In the gray area of morals and mores, however, law can be tenuous. Yet at the same time individuals and sub-societies prone toward cults and lifestyles can be just as authoritarian and dangerous."
Copyright © 1972, 2002 Richard R. Kennedy, All rights reserved. Revised: March 30, 2002 .
{from Philosophic Presumptions
A Note on Adultery
In defense of adultery the male-chauvinist advocates that man is by nature a polygamist and that modern mores have denied him this bent. To expect a man to remain faithful on physical terms when he contracted to remain faithful only on spiritual terms is asking him to deny that he is essentially animal. After all, if he still loves his wife after an affair or a stay at the house of prostitution is he not still faithful? Moreover, is not the man now released of unnecessary tension and better able to renew his relations at home without undue demands on his tired old wife?
Somewhere the argument breaks down when the woman pursues the same premise that she too is a polygamist [ here, of course, intersperse the term promiscuous] by nature because the mores of thousands of years have repressed her natural tendencies through servitude which erroneously led to the presupposition that she is a one-man dog. Obviously the pride of the peacock would not permit his hen to have designs on another. This double standard, then, leads to a unilateral contract and therefore is invalid. In a sense, there is no contract. Assuming there is a legitimate one, however, adultery is morally wrong except when one [at least] wills to terminate the contract as a result of the act. In this respect there is an air of integrity to divorce. Should either refuse to agree to divorce out of a sense of self-righteousness, then he or she must be prepared to face the consequences of further waywardness of the other party.
Besides there is a health problem, other than the mental anguish implied above, in face of the statistics of V.D. among the indiscreet. The freedom of playing the field is the domain of the incurable romantic and in this sense his health would indeed be jeopardized in much the same manner the health of an Irish-setter would suffer under the conditions of city-dwelling.
This, of course, is not the domain of philosophy, but is at the door of the Department of Health & Welfare — unless we wish to get morality in step with bureaucracy and subsume all activity under it. In a prudish sense, I suspect, all should live under Kant’s categorical imperative, Mill’s quality of happiness, Confucius and Christ’s golden rules; but where would be the adventure? You see, viewing everything under the aspect of morality is logically indisputable, but the trouble with that is it is equally logical to view everything under the aspect of immorality or amorality as well.
The Student
Home  |
Index 2  |
Joan's Page  |
Though essentially a monist, the heavy hand of his professor’s Ideas invoked in Aristotle the necessity for a pluralistic view of nature. Aristotle was constrained to see nature as matter, motion, form, purpose; it was inconceivable to accept things simply as being in flux — whether in or without matter. [And the Greek myth said unto the Hellenes: In the beginning there was Knos until Logos stepped in.] Obsessed with observation and the wonder of things, Aristotle had no desire to grasp his teacher’s poetry; as result, his metaphysics is without imagery, together with being somewhat superfluous. However, he had no choice; the wisdom of his master was challenging as well as common-sense. If Aristotle had stuck to his monistic tendencies, he might not have been able to transcend Democritus; thus, he chose to dissect Plato’s grandiloquence without altering the syntax: first cause and final cause equals the realm of Ideas. The unmoved mover and its teleology are precisely the dialectic abstraction his predecessor was “guilty” of, except Aristotle substituted psyche whose function was to push-out from matter as opposed to Plato’s demiurge that imposed a will onto stuff.
Descartes, too, was a product of Greek thought in addition to the strong influence of the early Renaissance embodied by Telesio, Galileo and Bruno, all of whom actually returned to Thales, Democritus and Lucretius, rather than Aristotle and Plato. [This implicit revulsion was later climaxed by Francis Bacon who claimed the barbarians did not burn the works of Aristotle and Plato, thinking the works inferior. More accurately, it would seem, the writings could not be understood, dismissing the scrolls as done by harmless mystics.] Descartes unable to rid the self completely — I think I am — he separated mind and matter as disparate entities while unfurling an analytic approach to understanding the material object without knowing what it is since the epistemology deals only with attributes of subsistence or God. His explanation of refraction points out this uncertainty of empirical knowledge. Even though the immediate sense of touch without the fusion of the intellect satisfies our doubts concerning sense-impressions; it does not satisfy the curiosity of how that sense-impression comes to be, unless fused with intellection. Acceding to matter as unknowable, he nevertheless criticizes Aristotle for thinking motion and change as potential flux striving for actuality.
It is Aristotle’s contention that because motion is potential it has elbow room and a” reason”, as it were, to strive, to seek change. Even though Descartes admits of the unknowable, since we are but attributes of God, the true Knower, he misses Aristotle’s point that we do not know precisely because we are dealing with possibilities, subject to intelligible entities, though never the “sterner stuff,” which is unintelligible, without possibility and therefore dead, pointless. For example, the trajectory of a ball makes more sense to Aristotle than the destination of the ball itself since the path marks the work being done — to him it is more important to know what a thing does than to know what it is, or what it can do. To sit back and analyze what a thing is, rather than what it is now that it has done it and what further possibilities can be derived there of is the key to scientific inquiry — what it means to know. To dismiss motion in the Cartesian mode as simply a transfer of actualities denies the dynamics of Aristotle and Galileo. A case in point would be Kohoutek’s comet: at one time an insignificant chip of ice, unnoticed in the substratum of becoming, now it has upstaged the cosmos with its dramatic surge of realizing its full potential. The symbol of man’s will to be something more than what he is, traced even to the inorganic, the thrust of evolution.
The stifling analytic view of motion as the transporting of actuals from place to place ad infinitum without questioning how is the difference between a good and bad billiard player. The latter takes one shot at a time while the good one is thinking of several in advance and must know how the shot is done to position it for the next. Therefore the actual motion of the first ball is potentially the motion of the next so that how it moves is more significant than where it moves, which is its final cause of the first cycle.
Had Aristotle’s first mover been able to leap from the material cause to the final cause, that is, with nothing in between. It would be the same as not moving at all. For, we are at once in the unbegun and unending without the essential process or dialectic. Therefore, the traverse marks are as equal ad object alighting from place to place.
Brief Note to the Atheist
I don’t have a problem with atheists — each to his own comfort level — nonetheless, it is ridiculous for one of that inclination to get rattled to the extent that others of belief are denied their comfort. Atheism by definition is free from religion. Theists are free to believe as they see fit; atheists should look upon these “ misguided” as pathetic but have the right to the “wrong” path. If, however, atheist take on the passion of “religion” in their belief that there is no God, they in reality are in the business of propagating their non-faith as feverishly as the old Marxist line. In this respect they are as trapped in “belief” as the rest of us pathetic old fools. They should therefore lobby for a limited currency series that states “In “God we do not trust,” or a postage stamp that shows a black hole with the inscription “Godless.”
1972
The First City Planner
The city state, according to Aristotle’ political philosophy, is the highest form or community. Having the capacity to meet all the needs of its citizens, it aims at the highest good. Men first formed this widest or communities to secure a bare subsistence which eventuates into the final cause of a good life.
What does this city consist of? It consists of households founded on the very natural relations of male and female. (And of master and slave!) The aim of the household is to satisfy man’s daily needs. In addition, the city envelops villages which meet wider needs because of the variety of artisans needed to aid man in his aim for the good life of which leisure is an essential ingredient.
Ownership of property is a must for the household. This is in direct conflict with Plato who advocated the abolition of private property since it would contribute greatly to his view “the greater the unity of the state the better.” His pupil, however, the analytic scientist, observed the sprawling differentiation as a law of nature:
Since the nature of a state is to be a plurality,...we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the state....A state is made up not only of so many men, but of different kinds of men, for similars do not constitute a state. [Aristotle]
Believing that private property makes men happier, enabling them to cultivate the virtue of generosity, Aristotle, however, would restrict accumulation of wealth and property in order to relieve the wants of others. The economy was to stay within the limits of the natural order; artificial or “coin” wealth, he wanted strict limitations on.
The political matrix of Aristotle’s city-state is very definitely constitutional government, administered by the middle class — consisting of the “deliberative body” (legislative), “distribution of offices” (executive) and the judicial body — a mean between democracy and oligarchy. This middle class is what constitutes the citizenry. The citizen is more than a denizen.
Obviously he possess political power. How he wields that power depends on how closely he attains the ultimate objective of the state. He knows both how to rule and how to obey. Citizenship is thus moral training, leading to the “good life” of enlightenment.
The physical matrix of the city is foremost the size of the population and the territory. The population should be as small as possible without sacrificing independence and the potential for a moral life. If such be the case it would be better had it remained a village until the time were ripe for a more prolific merger. Territory, on the other hand, must be large enough to supply Its citizens with the means of lived space:
A state, then, only begins to exist when it has attained a population sufficient for a good life in the political community: it may indeed, if it somewhat exceeds this number, be a greater state...clearly then, the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purpose of life and be taken in at a single view. [Aristotle]
In appraising the territory, Aristotle claims it must be:
...all producing; for to have all things and to want nothing is sufficiency. In size and extent It should be such as may enable the inhabitants to live at once temperately and liberally in the enjoyment of leisure.
The land too should be “taken in at a single view.” The position of the city should be determined by its relation to sea and land; and of easy egress to the inhabitants and difficult access to the enemy. The city should be a trade-center as well as a citadel:
It [city] should be a convenient center for the protection or the whole country; and suitable for receiving the fruits of the soil and bringing in of timber and any other products that are easily transported. [Aristotle]
Even though Aristotle was fully aware of the disadvantages of a city located by the sea, he felt its advantages took precedence over “the introduction of strangers brought up under other laws.”
The Increase of population will be adverse to good order; the increase arises from their using the sea and having a crowd or merchants coming and going. Apart from these considerations, it would be undoubtedly better, both with a view to safety and to the provision of necessaries that the city and territory be connected with the sea. [Aristotle]
In spite of this, the site of the city must be chosen with regard to public health, to political convenience, to strategic requirements. The ground plan should be regular as to make defensive warfare difficult. Walls are a practical necessity “but care should be taken to make them ornamental as well as useful.” He, of course, did not neglect the “sacred spot,” on the contrary:
[The Religious] site should be a spot seen far and wide which gives due elevation to virtue and towers over the neighborhood. Below this spot should be an agora...a “freemen's agora” [Mine: Restricted to Citizens!] [Aristotle]
This exclusive agora or marketplace is an assembly area for the gentry to spend their leisure time. Separated and below would be the trade and craft agoras. Some buildings should be arranged irregularly as “husbandmen plant their vines in what are called ‘clumps’.”
[However] the arrangement of private houses is considered to me more agreeable and generally more convenient if the streets are regularly laid out. The whole city should not be laid out in straight lines but only certain quarters and regions. Thus security and beauty will be combined. [Aristotle]
He further suggested that there be an abundance of springs and fountains or great reservoirs for rain water to sustain the health of the city-state. He also stresses the importance of temperate climate. He also mentioned the element of air: but he had no reason to believe then that it could become polluted.
Is this “first city planner” an anachronism in the modern world? Though his city-state is extremely exclusionary and was evolved for the ultimate good life of those whom he called citizens, unwittingly his indifference toward artisans and slaves serves as justification for the continuance of the good life for the jet-set; for the continuance of the haves and have-nots. His one defense, however, is haunting and worth striving for:
A city can be virtuous only when the citizens who have a share in the government are virtuous. [Aristotle]
Still, he did not extend that share to include everybody. Unfortunately apropos to his time, he failed to take in account that all of us are entitled to the pursuit of a good life — no agora in which to dwell among things, persons and ideas. In all probabi1ity Aristotle in our times would have had a different slant on things, but one of his chief contributions would have been immutable: the need for city planning — moderated by simplicity, utility and beauty.
Law, Morals and Mores
Law and order, based on the principle that the law exists for the protection or society’s institutions and not based simply on the protection of the individual, can lead to authoritarianism and self-righteousness dictated from above. As a rule, this is not a prevailing problem in criminal and civil law dealing with clear-cut infractions. In the gray area of morals and mores, however, law can be tenuous. Yet at the same time individuals and sub-societies prone toward cults and lifestyles can be just as authoritarian and dangerous. In this sense, law must be invasive, not so much in behalf of accepted institutions but for the protection of duped individuals within the narrow scope of their sub-existence leading to irreparable harm to themselves and possibly others. Furthermore, the sub-institution may be criminally negligent. The problem, of course, is determining the imperative to action.
An argument against legal morality or moral legality setting up law — as indeed is the case in institutional and national history — as a function to perpetrate and perpetuate racism, political and religious persecution, holier-than-thou fundamentalism, and whatever rooted whim brings forth. The rule of justification for legal enforcement of morality is prima facie in face of the perversions in society. However, with justification springs qualification. How can legal enforcement , which has two aspects bearing on punishment deprive a homosexual of life and liberty and still be justified? — inasmuch as punishment would not be commensurate with the private act of fornication or whatever else it is they do in private, particularly in light of the homosexuality running rampant in our prisons. Surely, no reasonable person would advocate castration, besides which the attitudinal posture of the homosexual, I suspect, would remain unchanged. The other aspect, and by far the most lethal consequence is the fear hovering in virtue of this deterrent forcing the weaker into obedience, submission and by exposing them to totalitarianism in all endeavors. For, however repugnant homosexuality may be to general rationale today, tomorrow the rationale may find pre-marital sex, marriage for aging widows, masturbation, academic freedom cause for legal oppression. How many hid behind their fears twenty-odd years ago and proclaimed Senator McCarthy a reasonable man?
Moreover, the utilitarian distinction here raises the question of which morality is to be enforced rather than the question should morality be legally mandated? For the rule of utilitarianism is that the punishment is justifiable only if the act of morality is harmful to others and not a question of punishment or justification irrespective of consequences. Therefore, in arguing that homosexuality jeopardizes a society’s existence by offending some blest with the knowledge of universal morality is citing the concept of justice as utility, even though there can be no justification in punishing private sexuality affecting the overt community of ideas; unless, of course, one is engaged in the act against his will or is a minor, but this would be enforcement of a criminal act. The awkward position of a formalist arguing inconsistently with the tools of the utilitarian attempting to raise the question of morality by addressing the question of which morality to the righteous leaves the question of morality at the mercy of one who at any given time judges which action is moral or immoral.
Such righteousness, it would seem, generates the principle that the privacy and freedom of the individual is as sacred as the protection of the institutions designed for that very end. Dostoevsky wisely coined crime and [then] punishment. An act in itself is not retributive, but its dire effect on the other is.
And what do we do about this diversified society that has as many mores as law on the books? Any society which presupposes that mores are necessary to promote the health and stability of a nation is back to the 17th Century bending to the will of the Puritans. Mores and cultural sects have no place in the philosophy of law. As abrasive as it may be to public opinion, respecting the cultural relativity within each society must endure just as a parents must grimace over the latest fad of their children. Though all of us to a degree wish not to be at odds with the world, we do not reside in a perfect world and some acts that deviate from the mores are not morally right or wrong necessarily. Twenty years ago if I chose not to wear a tie I would have been seriously reprimanded, though I would have been wrong in the context of the white-collar world; the act in itself cannot be taken seriously and morally however rightly construed as an act of mild rebellion against the facade of peculiar mores. A beautiful girl in a sorority of ugly ducklings is certainly upsetting to the stability of that institution but her wilful act of applying for acceptance cannot be considered wrong. The practice of killing the agéd in an Eskimo village is to promote the health and stability of its tribe, but to accept the continuance of this practice in light of another alternative offered by the influx of affluence, say, by the discovery of oil, would — though consistent with the practice whose original motive tends to be forgotten — would unquestionably have to yield to the higher principle of life, relegating the ancient practice to immorality.
If it were true, for instance, that seventy-five percent of Italians attend church on Palm Sunday only, is one to assume, though attending every Sunday, the safer practice by not going to church during one's summer visit to Rome because of the hospitality of a family devoted to the mores of the seventy-five percent? Or would the argument turn to the higher institution of the Catholic Church that indeed urges all Catholics to attend every day, even though this practice in reality appears limited to nuns, friars and old ladies. Of course I could appeal to the mores of tourists for help, after all, when in Rome I would like to see the inside of St. Peters. There is a time, however, when one must take the bull by the horns by appealing to a principle within oneself and run the risk of insult and injury.
Still the practice of borrowing from one another seems to have a utilitarian value, if, not essential, in developing a "better" world. Surely, the United States owes a great deal to Britain’s sense of justice and its philosophy — I suspect, it is not fashionable to admit to the latter. If neither case, one cannot deny the value of the Beatles to America's institution of modern music, and what would Tom Jones be without the Afro-American “soul?”
And though it is true that human nature dictates that one must eat and the Italians dictate by enculturation what and how one must eat, one whose relative culture dictates that spiced spaghetti sauce alarms the stability of one’s functions, might discover that his health and well-being surpass the well-being and stability of his hostess. Therefore one’s ethical and epistemological theory will determine the significance one will attach to cultural relativity.
On the other hand, the cultural relativity of cutting classes and illegal absences are serious violations of policy in the school where I teach. If a student cuts a particular class ten times during a ten week grade report he/she automatically receives an F irrespective of the work made up. If one is illegally absent for the entire day, tenfold he/she receives F’s in all classes. [The student is encouraged by the staff to bring in notes for past absences, encouraging forgery, or perjury by the parents.] Moreover, when a student is chronic in either cutting or illegal absence, usually thrice, he is automatically suspended for three more days!
Further down in the "bag of virtues” a student is to respect his peers and teachers; yet if a student is assaulted by another it is “too difficult to determine who threw the first punch” even though there may have been only one punch! They are simply branded combatants and sent home for three days. When a student verbally abuses a peer or a teacher, aside from the disciplinary action taken by the teacher, there is little action on the part of the administration.
Dozens of memos have come back from the desks of administrators with marvelous witticism: “Nathaniel promises never to call you a 'mother-fucker’ again." or “Have spoken to Mary and she’s been uptight lately owing to her morning sickness. Have patience,... promises she’ll be on home tutoring when she’s five months." And “Harriet’s mother is simply appalled by the mere thought of inter-racial dating; therefore, Harriet is not allowed out at nights. Your class is the only chance they have together. George promises not to 'fool around’ with her anymore — in your class.” There is obviously, in light of the inaction by the staff, no summary rules and certainly no rules of practice, other than virtually anything goes.
There is not only an inconsistency in procedural injustice, but an absence of understanding in the principle being violated. Absence is a self-administered injustice as a rule. Where a student is wilfully kept home by parents nothing whatever is done in the way of administering justice to that parent. The procedural injustice adding fuel to the fire by preventing a student from coming to school because he/she does not come to school seems rather lacking a rational strand somewhere. The interpersonal injustice exhibited by the defiance of authority and disrespect for others is transformed into administrative procedural of hands off. Permissiveness toward those who attend school but do not know how to act when they are there and the negative procedure against those who seldom attend suggest that the administration becomes paranoid anytime a student shows an unwillingness to join the chaos of the rest of the school. What actually has happened by the time a student reaches high school is that he has exhausted "the bag of virtues” and has realized the contents to be without substance. A student is starving for virtue in action and by example; virtue is not a slogan on the wall or a forgotten plaque in a lobby; it has to be seen in the harmonious action of others and the harmony of the soul within. But as long as a school exists for the perpetuation of itself and a way of life subsumed by corporate and political control of what actually is moral education is a canary in a tiger’s cage.
The rule that all should attend classes may well be justified; the curious thing here is that it is seldom justified. Students complain that missing a class here and there does not mean anything since little learning appears to take place in the classroom. Justification, therefore, does not rest with the student's action, but with the teacher and the administration as to why the student belongs in class. If the teacher insisted the student make up work lost from being absent, the student may soon begin to realize from the degree of difficulty in doing; without the benefit of classroom dynamics that in the teacher to student to student to teacher exchange lies the key to learning. Moreover, he should be made to return to school immediately without a suspension interlude, and the retributive make up should be more than enough. On the other hand, one who shows evidence of being unable to cope with the social dynamics of a school, may need to be removed from the scene for a while. But unsupervised suspension and without some rehabilitative therapy during the interim would seem to be but a period of sulking in Achilles’ tent.
Absence from school and cutting are not prevalent among those who have insight into moral development. Nevertheless, they too may never see any justification for going to classes other than for the simplistic "rule of practice" in acknowledging authority. However, they could find ample justification for not going to class if thoroughly turned off by uninspired teachers. There reasoning is that they feel more at home with themselves or with those with common intellectual interests wherein they uncover worlds not tread on in a classroom. True these cases are rare; for moral education is sorely lacking in the schools, nay, everywhere, and few students have had the chance to develop disobedience for the right reason. Still, there are many like young Hamlet who suspect that much is not right with the world and turn to themselves for a sense of right.
Perception’s The Thing
Though phenomenologically there are things out there because we perceive them, it is equally true that we perceive because there are things out there. Neil Simon may very well write what is inside him but they got inside because of what’s outside. It is not a question of how we perceive as much as how we perceive our perceptions. Thomas Jefferson conceived of his Declaration from the way in which perceived events of his day — with revulsion and hope. I, on the other hand, may perceive the declaration as the rambling of a Don Quixote. King George perceived it as a dangerous manifesto.
Incompatibility of perception results from varying perspectives generated from different postures out there in the real world. Feelings from the inside are spawned by native waters unique to the individual’s vantage point, not from any uniqueness unto himself. It is in the conception of what is perceived that releases the potential poetry within. One must first think on perception, hammer it out for the world and no longer is it his; for it is now there in the public domain awaiting the perception of the other and completely alienated from the originator. The further it centrifuges from the original base perception, the richer is its poetic value. The Greeks labeled their poets, makers — not in the sense of craftsmen who imitate but in the sense of the maker of destinies that inspire. I would trade in all the work of Neil Simon for the Gettysburg Address; for Simon utters a thousand and one clichés — however neatly arranged — of reportage. Lincoln, on the other hand, cuts through to the essential tragedy of humankind grappling with its animism and dreams.
Linguists wrapped in incestuous jargon often omit from the hierarchy of writing the intermediate stage I call fun-writing — the dilettante, the playwright of no consequence, the Ogden Nashes, the pundits, the porno-writers, the rappers, the Rock lyricist — all of whom rob the perceptions of the world and emphasize them in accordance with their egocentric pockets of peculiarities.
Poetry is man’s crowning achievement — whether prose or verse — that truly creates new perceptions. Freaks unquestionably are out there; the question is why.
TAKE THE “EL” TRAIN
Distant indeed is the twentieth century from the space in time of Academia where and when Plato stood tall facing his eager pupils gathered round the tree of pure knowledge that stretched its fragile limbs upward to the realm of ideas — the soul’s yearning for dwelling among the stars. Surely, Plato’s choice of site was no accident; though some would argue that Olympus would have been more appropriate, Plato would not have tolerated the vulgarity of Homer’s gods under the same roof. Surely, he — the metaphysical poet that he was — must have mulled over the leasing of the Parthenon until his nervous monad obsessed with the betrayal of art, intuited the “fourfold principle”. Surely, revulsion was imminent: the vileness of such earth works would gravitate his pupils ‘ flight into a sense & presence, obviating the call of “fly me” to the sky within.
Nevertheless, Plato had had to realize reluctantly that to sustain his disciples high motivation — lest it be dampened, lest his lesson plans be rained on — shelter had to be sought. Even for a Platonist Heidegger's primal principle applies:
To be a human being means to be on the earth as a mortal. It means to dwell. [Heidegger]
Thus, the Western schoolhouse was conceived, whence a continual progression. or regression of architecture took hold. From inspiring temple to drab monastery; from the red schoolhouse to sprawling dragons of modern times, one common theme is apparent: to reflect the style of living and learning of respective space and time:
Dwelling is the manner in which mortals are on the earth....we do not dwell because we have built, but we build because we dwell. [Heidegger]
As children my friends and I used to crawl under the turnstile and ride the El in the city. To us, in truth, though, of course, subliminally, it meant dwelling: the great piles firmly imbedded in the cobblestones below were Herculean legs that held us up to the sky and rails we viewed from the roaring front car gave us the perspective of gods vaulting the dwellings of mortals. Small wonder we never stole a ride on the subway, for we were mortals on earth, not moles in it.
Apparently the EL did not measure up to Heidegger’s categorical imperative:
‘On the earth’ already means ‘under the sky.’ Both of these also mean ‘running before the divinities' and include a belonging to man’s being with one another.’ By a primal oneness the four — earth, sky, divinities and mortals — belong together in one. [Heidegger]
For where is man's brilliant work — the El? — scrapped, hauled out to sea or shipped to Japan. The fourfold had been violated: man’s works are to be under the sky, not in it. Yet was this principle offended really? Those dwelling below could not savor its lofty pleasure, could not experience its exhilaration, could not sense its Olympic majesty. To them it was noisy, ugly and offended the city sky and the sun’s play of light and shade. What is left to recapture this primitive presence? I merge with my children’s excitement — their sense of unique presence — when they ride the roller-coaster at Rye Beach. Do I indeed sense dwelling when they wave as they climb the impressive apex and I drink in the beautifully and divinely sinuous structure lighted under the dark skies of the concealed divinities?
Surely, the early dwellers of the city felt the magnificent presence under the El as well as on it. This was dwelling. It was every city kid’s temple. What else could so perfectly capture the Greek order? Old Sol’s fingered rays finding their way through the rail ties to extend into infinity the unique pattern of full light and abrupt shade and then changing to blinding flashes when the divinities roared along their free sky. There was a sense of belonging, a sense of “preserving” owing to the strong vertebra overhead and the magnificent legs behind which one could cling to escape the intrusive trolley the taxi, the cop on the beat. “Staying with things” was the joy of the city kid; for here under the El, under the sky hearing the boisterous arguments of the divinities, and the comfort of “being with one another” — the great tribe along the temple’s avenue, feeling mortality because the fleeting gods overhead reminded the primal tribe of its insignificance, its inhale of life, only to exhale death; the presence of earth, of dwelling — everywhere in its iron and steel, its rust and fungus, its great trees lying horizontally overhead, the smell of burning rubber and gasoline, its rain and snow buffing its mighty cobblestones, its great heaps of garbage and produce paying homage to its proud structure — yes, the mother of us all had bestowed her presence to her children.
But there is more than the fourfold theme to dwelling; there is the accident of changing time through which there are those who move and feel not the presence or a sacred staying with things: they exploit and plunder, thereby disjoining the fourfold of those who care, of those who are at one with the earth, the sky, the godhead, their fellow creatures. The school building that really belongs to a community is by accident — the architect stumbled onto Heidegger.
For, it is the architect, not the community, not the dwellers, that may feel a presence. In the cities, nay, anywhere in modern society, dwellers have little or nothing to do with earth works. It is Heidegger turned upside down; “We dwell because we have built.”
Thus, man, just as I as a kid in the city, adapts to a sense of presence.
