Mark Li

10-12-2023

The limitation of language that humanity cannot surpass is one of the fundamental causes of human suffering. Yet, humans have never stopped using the limited tools we have to illustrate, in various degrees of truth, the reality that we live in. These illustrations enlighten the vision of one, as one can see in not only his perspective, but also in the perspective of the internalised “writer”, such that one sees the world differently since. Yet, by Hume’s “is/ought to” problem, objective truths have no correlation to morality, and from my experience, I further extend the claim that subjective realities illustrated in literature have no more, or no less correlation to morality than that of objective truths, but humans, are nonetheless, influenced by it. Below is a faithful report of the course of life that literature has greatly influenced. “one” is used as the pronoun, as it is my opinion that one, as a consciousness, has no innate traits, thus the experience can apply to all consciousness. Influences before the TRA 3107 course are to be included to provide a more holistic narrative.

Before literature
In the limited span of life, one tries to find the most optimal way to live. At first, one was troubled by the social order and its enormously unexplained yet enforced presuppositions, it is relatable to that of Kafka’s The Trial, yet it is without the criticism of the absurd society, as one is learning the world, that rules are not questioned but internalised, as if one was learning a language. With further observations and thought, one realised that rules are not absolute, but based on the baseline of rationality, as the mother of one said, “Think of three questions before you commit to an act, will it get you into danger? will it embarrass your parents? will it hurt others?”, this principle is repeated every time one violates the social order. Soon, one learned not to act on desires that violate the protocol, and with that one gets into way less trouble than before, yet the assumption that one would still violate social order remained, and on multiple occasions one found himself guilty for acts he did not commit, or that the punishment is greatly disproportionate to the crime committed, and this contributed to the later inclination to the presumption of innocence. So far, one is introduced to Just and Unjust, and internalised or perhaps innate concept of philosophical hedonism.

On literature
Literature was introduced in the forms of Chinese classics, the Bible and occasional poems and prose within the first few years of secondary education. 「不以物喜，不以己悲」from 岳楊樓記, 「何必曰利，亦有仁義而已」from 孟子．梁惠王上, and the teachings of the Bible influenced one to internalised the concept of “embodying the Great order to carry out the greatest good”, for it be “the interest of the country”, or “仁義”, or “Tao”, or the “rules by God”, or the “sinless example of Jesus”.

Literature also introduced one to vastly different perspectives of reality and ways of life. In particular, romanticism, in its irrationality and desire-driven nature, was introduced in 詩經．狡童, and in that, one was fascinated with the way of life that one has no responsibility to be rational or reasonable, but can dramatically express the emotions of life caused by mundane events. Through that, romanticism was embodied. And yet, in the chaos of premature romance, one has experienced much suffering and possibly caused much suffering for both the partner and its associates. In turn, not only was one faced with the ultimate betrayal of romance but was also condemned by the environment he was in. While in solitude, through reflections and meditations on past events with the aim of finding the fundamental cause of suffering, one has reached a conclusion similar to that of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, that one is suffering from his own acts, or the passivity towards evil that nurtures it, thus one deserves one’s suffering. Further constructing the theory of suffering, one categorized two types of suffering, Objective suffering and Subjective suffering. Objective suffering is suffering that is not related to the person, in other words, if another person is put in this situation, he/she will also suffer the same suffering. In this case, one is suffering because one is in that situation at that time, and one has nothing to do about it. One reacts to Objective suffering using Stoicism without being introduced to it. That objective environment has no necessary correlation to emotional state, even being put in a situation of suffering, one can choose not to suffer. One then chooses to react to Objective suffering with indifference. On the other hand, there was Subjective suffering. Subjective suffering is suffering that is related to the person, in other words, another person in the same situation, as the other person has different attributes and actions, may not have resulted in suffering. To put it simply, “you suffer because you are you”, whether it is one’s ignorance putting one in the pit, or it is another’s act of revenge for the act of one. In that case, one needs to reevaluate one’s attributes and actions, altering parts that caused such suffering accordingly, thus changing oneself to be “a better person”, whether it is regarded as “morally better” or just “more suited to the situation”. One has constructed a system of determinism at roughly the same period, that one is only acting according to the input he is given, and that he is responsible for his actions not necessarily because he wills it, but that the actions are done by him, or through him.

Luckily, one was not in total solitude but found his non-romantic male soulmate during this time. This soulmate has introduced one to literature, history and philosophy. One was yet again fascinated by the fact that many ideas of one were also thought by great names in history, and the notion of “I can think of such ideas of Giants, the only difference being they are born before me” solidified as more matches of idea emerged. Then, one started to read Murakami Haruki under the influence of a female tutor and found a level of resonance incomparable to previous literature and inputs. The romantic narrative is accompanied by the tone of destiny, with a great stare into the romantic intentions without denial or exaggeration, a gentle nod of acknowledgement and rational actions based on irrational experiences and feelings, as seen in On Seeing the 100% Perfect Girl One Beautiful April Morning, has tempted one in embodying Murakami and develop a sentimental thought system within one. Roughly chronologically, one then extensively read Murakami’s short stories after the first “contact”. Having finished with his short stories, one proceeds to his novels. The first one is Kaze no uta o kikeI, continuing with its “confessional” language, one has installed the hope that partially resonates with Sze Wing Ki’s quote, if one can fully understand another, suffering would be gone. With this rational reaction towards irrational desires and motives, one has seen success in friendships, with disclosure of motives and living truly both in language and in actions. In this period, one finished the majority of Murakami’s novels and started to produce works of his own. The effect of Murakami was so big that when one read Akutagawa Ryūnosuke’s Rashōmon afterwards, one was not only shocked by the self-justification of humanity and unreliableness of reality, but the hope that “through confession and honesty one can reach a consensus with another” was greater than the shock. Later, one read Nietzsche’s Also sprach Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality, with the farfetched resonance of disdain for Slave morality seen in Christian culture, and more so the frustration towards dogmatism tendencies in Christian culture, one meticulously re-evaluate the Christian culture and the teachings of the Bible, and thus leading to the “re-birth” of one’s morality system. One also read 莊子 in the same period and was then surprised at the unbelievable similarity and compatibility of the two philosophies.

Throughout TRA 3107, countless familiar names were introduced and read upon. In particular, Virginia Woolf’s self-projection on the Moth strikes one differently, in a way that dreadfulness was depicted in such warm and beautiful language, but then the author soon took her own life. While Akutagawa Ryūnosuke’s death is seen by one as both dramatic and true to his art, thus somewhat reasonable in his narrative, Virginia Woolf’s death is seen by one as undramatized, that hope was simply exhausted and life was voluntarily ended. The death of Virginia Woolf sat deep in one’s conscience, as through her literature, one logically and like-empirically agreed with her death, but at the same time, one is horrified by the fact that he agreed, and the possibility that one would have done the same under the same situation haunted one’s dream.

Franz Kafka was introduced both in the lecture and in references from Murakami’s Kafka on the Shore, yet one was not so amazed by the narrative of the Judgement as one saw it as part of something that he already assessed, overcame and came to terms with. Instead, after re-reading Kafka on the Shore, The Trial and Metamorphosis in one sitting, one was absorbed by the degree of influence Kafka had on Murakami both in macro literary content and micro literary style, and consecutively, the degree of influence Murakami had on one. This was most blatant in one of Kafka’s short stories, The Passenger. The doubtfulness of his being, the mesmerization of some passing female, and the rational language for irrational feelings echo in Kafka, Murakami, and one’s writings. The synchronization in frequency brought great joy to one.

Post literature
Yet, starting from the part of “Literary Movement through History”, one is utterly disturbed by the fact that throughout the Eurocentric narrative, starting from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, mankind had not the liberty of the mind, but was shifting through ideologies as each ideology emerged as a reaction to the former ideology. From then on, dogmatism to humanism, feudalism to populism, collectivism to individualism, capitalism to communism, and reading through the actual atrocities that humans brought to each other in each and every ideology and ideology change, one cannot comprehend the chaos he fell into, the horrors that humans unconsciously and consciously unleashed without remorse had one question if himself was possessed by ideology. To add to the chaos, one was yet again condemned for the damage he caused, and in an attempt to explain he had no malicious intentions, one was ripped of his right to speak and was announced guilty of self-righteousness and selfishness. The presupposition of mutual interest in understanding was taken from the bottom, regarding attempts of confession, reconciliation, communication and understanding futile. The “Judge” states, “You are the cause of my suffering, thus you are responsible and I don’t care what your intentions are.” One had lost all evidence of literature making one’s action better, both logically and empirically, and David Hume’s “is/ought to” problem reminds one of the cruel truth that through literature, one can see the world in infinitely diverse perspectives, yet no interpretation is canon, no way of life is “the best”, one is cursed with the responsibility to figure it all out by himself, and there is no practice run, every action has its consequences and one needs to pay for every mistake along the way.

One has been condemned throughout his life, but ultimately, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it, “One is condemned to be free”. For it be determined or that one has free will, “人非生而知之”, for one does not innately know how to live, for all narrators are unreliable narrators, for one has to constantly monitor the id in the subconscious but also question the superego, for it is now impossible for one to be alone but simultaneously at the risk causing suffering. One was confronted with Camus’s Absurdism, yet one refused to surrender to it, as there is consciousness other than oneself, and one did not want to disregard another, as one did not like being disregarded. For being disregarded is being denied of existence, and one sees that as the ultimate sentence one can serve.

One, concludes,
“One’s a lone sail in the dark,
under spinning stars and murky waters,
on the high seas a distant spark,
wonder angel’s light or fierce marauders,
drift away in the waves, surge ahead in the wind,
no ancient map nor sweet Polaris,
no where or when or why do this,
with creaking sounds source unknown,
O ship or man or flesh or bone”