This is a 13,000-word essay that I submitted for my M.A. Dissertation in EFL University, Hyderabad. It's about amending T.S. Eliot's problematic, yet prophetic vision of the world. This chapter is massive - I wouldn't recommend reading it in one sitting.
Read Chapter I and Chapter II here.
Critique of T.S. Eliot’s Absolute, Modernity and the Rabbit Hole of Rationality
CHAPTER 3
THE AMENDED ABSOLUTE
A Jew, an atheist, a woman or anyone indifferent toward modern poetry (which would comprise of most of the world’s population) may need to practice several cognitive dissonances to accept Eliot’s Absolute purely on his terms. In addition, the parameters of Eliot’s Absolute may be difficult to ascertain, since they changed subtly over a long period. It was also opposed to those broader ‘isms’ that are, in dominant discourses, touted to be closer to achieving utopia. Therefore, this chapter shall simplify, amend and make Eliot’s Absolute adjustable for all individuals.
The Thinking Side
To reiterate, this term is a purely linguistic construct to express the phenomena of thought that is universal to all sentient beings to varying degrees. It acts as the dialectical opposite to one’s base emotions, passions, feelings, etc. i.e. the feeling side. Critical, skeptic, rational, abstract, mathematical, logical, causal, etc. faculties describe, in short, the thinking side. Of course, this term loses its centrality of meaning if one explores its blurry boundaries. For instance, are precise articulations of deep-seated traumas in therapy sessions an example of using the thinking side or the aforementioned feeling side? Therefore, it is necessary to note that the aim is to illustrate and make apparent the existence of the extremes, not to argue the impossible task over where the fine lines are drawn.
As the various parameters of what constitute rationality and emotion have been debated over the years, definitions have understandably become more precise and, as a consequence, more exclusive. A word, once merely meant to describe a hazy locus of identifiable qualities, added boundaries and turned sensitive to usages in transdisciplinary contexts. The ‘thinking side’ and the ‘feeling side’, attempt to unite some of the disparate set of terms that have floated around academia’s history, which is why they have been afforded a more fluid license. Therefore, the thinking side is also the superego, is also natural philosophy, science, math, logic, logical positivism, pragmatics, the epistemological impulse and the scientific impulse of linguistics. Similarly, the feeling side is also the Id, passions, feelings, emotions, the Romantic impulse, subjectivity, the Will to Power, the essence of the Noble Savage, etc.
With regards to the thinking side, it is important to note that if the rational supposition during the period of Ptolemy was that the earth was flat, in that period it would be considered perfectly rational to conclude that the world was indeed flat. Of course, with better means, Copernicus would prove Ptolemy and the rationalists of his own time incorrect. This has also been the case with superstitions, theist notions, false equivalences, etc. where previous notions assumed to be true, or rational, have been falsified in the future.
A natural property of the thinking side, then, is that it must require a suspension of any judgement. Any rational judgment of any era i.e. any inference of the thinking side, simultaneously incorporates the fact that it can be nullified, inverted or reversed by a superior rationalist, mathematician, scientist or philosopher in the future. Some may stand the test of time, some may not. The thinking side tends towards the most probable truth, but it can never plant its flag on an unquestionable truth.
Of course, this is already a naturalised notion in the 21st century, which exists after the contributions of Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, etc. and in the midst of popular existentialist television shows, surrealist forms of theatre, etc. The acceptance of the fundamental absence of the final answer on any level is much easier to do today than it was in monarchical or theological supremacy.
However, in the contemporary world, this realization has not led to any inertia. Whether one is a conformist or an agent, whether one’s actions are the result of destructive obedience, propaganda or free will, the modern human being continuously acts upon the world. Discussions over what is truth have not for a second paused the startling rate of advances in online, technological, industrial, political, ecological, psychological and entertainment trades in the 21st century alone. This is a world not at all caught in the Eliotian throes of skeptic inertia, but rather is discovering, inventing and innovating at an unprecedented pace.
One reason is because the thinking side, in its absence of an absolute rationality, offers room for the creation of different paradigms of rationality. After all, it was not until rational minds interrogated the injustices inherent to slavery, monarchy or patriarchy that alternate ideologies and bodies (in this case, democracy and feminism) were created. One cannot objectively suggest that there are wholly ‘good’ schools of thought and wholly ‘evil’. Camus articulates this sentiment in The Human Crisis, an essay ceremoniously re-read by Viggo Mortensen at Columbia University, 2016, and it is from this speech that the quote is taken.
For if one believes in nothing, if nothing makes sense and one is unable to affirm any value, then everything is permitted and nothing is important. Hence there is neither good nor evil, and Hitler was neither wrong nor right. One could lead millions of innocents to the crematorium as easily as one may devote oneself to curing leprosy […] It is all the same. And since we thought that nothing made sense, we had to conclude that the man who succeeds is in the right. And this is so true that even today plenty of intelligent skeptics will tell you that if Hitler had by chance won the war, history would have paid him homage… (Camus)
The absence of the ‘general truth’ in human existence has become the motive force behind the creation, sustenance and purchasing of any and every form of truth—including theology, psychology, psychiatry, chemistry, alchemy, quantum physics, flat-earthism, racism, communism, patriarchy, feminism, socialism, etc., all of which battle for relevance. One is reminded of Eliot’s sly jibe in The Boston Evening Transcript: “The readers of the Boston Evening Transcript / Sway in the wind like a field of ripe corn” (Eliot 28).
The second section of Eliot’s The Waste Land, is titled ‘A Game of Chess’, and metaphorically elaborates on the conflict between emotions and rationality. It begins with a couple playing chess in eerie silence. Even if this couple do not appear to be happy, it is almost certain that they were once lovers, given the allusions to Antony and Cleopatra or biographical references to Eliot and Vivienne’s marriage. Eliot, in this section, depicts the malaise behind the loveless relationship of a modern couple. The man and the woman are silent, trapped in their thoughts and uncommunicative with each other. They play chess, a supremely rational game, one that requires the optimum use of the thinking side through the accounting of all probabilities on the chessboard. Chess is a game of one-upmanship, of outsmarting the other side. This game has left the couple estranged from each other’s company. “The ivory men make company between us,” Eliot had written in an earlier, omitted draft (Armitstead).
At one point, the woman demands to know what the man is thinking. It may be coincidental, but this demand is precluded with the woman admitting her incapability to handle her nerves, her base emotions.
“My nerves are bad tonight. Yes, bad. Stay with me. Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak. What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think.” (Eliot 65)
In modernity, receipts, warrants, copies, red tapes, layers of verification, etc. exist since, ultimately, an individual insulates themselves from potential reprisals than trust the word of another human being. Therefore, no appliance is purchased without the best possible discount, no gadget without warranty, no bank transaction without an OTP, etc. The intent is to ensure that no one can cheat a consumer in the rational world of one-upmanship, where hawkers, thieves, hackers, employees, family members, etc. await to pounce at every opportunity. Camus is critical of the detrimental effects of such a system upon basic humanity:
This crisis is also about replacing real thing with printed matter, that is to say, the growth of bureaucracy. Contemporary man tends more and more to put between himself and nature an abstract and complex machinery that casts him into solitude. Only when there is no more bread do bread coupons appear. (Camus)
To summarize, the ‘mental activities’ that the modern individual and their civilization has prioritized has led to cognitive indulgence, intolerance and one-upmanship. Due to the amplification of the thinking side, no longer is the intent to converge toward common agreements. Instead, the intent is to build individual paradigms of rationality, lobby their own versions of truths across the fence and win arguments on rhetoric alone, rather than practice tolerance toward the inevitable difference in opinion.
The Feeling Side
The feeling side cannot be understood without understanding the thinking side, and vice versa. Actions stemming primarily from emotions such as anger, envy, exhaustion, joy, laziness, love, trust, etc. are actions primarily driven from the feeling side. While Freud terms his ‘Id’ the pleasure principle, and posits the existence of sexual undertones, these are not necessary elements to be incorporated for the feeling side.
Despite the thinking side, in theory, accepting that nothing can be stated for certain, real humans continually think and act based upon assumed truths. They make decisions based on truths that the sun rises in the east, eggs contain protein, rain is the result of water cycle, flights are quicker than trains, two and two equal four, etc.
Of course, truth is subjective and can vary from person to person. Yet, even at this subjective level, the process of forming individual truths can be a common one. It is a process that requires the implementation of both the feeling side and the thinking side. Let’s explore with an example: if an Englishman wants an informed opinion on Winston Churchill, he will find a variety of sources at his disposal. He can explore Churchill’s notable contributions in World War II. He can explore his racist treatment toward Indians or his complicity in the Bengal famine of 1943. He can read books ranging from Churchill’s A History of the English-Speaking Peoples to Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. His opinion may be informed from nationalist or immigrant friends.
It is impossible for any individual to garner all possible information on someone even as famous as Churchill. Reading context only breeds more context, and it is not long before one must read about the history of Indian mythology to understand Churchill’s denunciation of the Hindu ‘beastly’ religion. To understand Indian mythology without lapses in translation one must perhaps understand Sanskrit, and so on. In addition, there can always have existed an extinct document, a private conversation, a twisted anecdote, etc. that can completely invert one’s opinion on Churchill. Therefore, in this example, the Englishman must select a finite number of sources from the infinite sources at his disposal. These sources will inform his thinking side, and construct his own paradigm of rationality.
However, the Englishman must ultimately rest at a final opinion—even if that opinion is subject to change a week, or year, from now. He must at some point conclude whether he thinks Churchill an imperialist, a nationalist, a racist, a war hero, an expert politician or a mixture of some, or all of these archetypes. Thought halts at some point, for some point. That halting can be out of convenience, laziness, boredom or ready conviction in one’s research, but the effect is that the halting of thought entails the trusting of the existing thought.
There is in truth absolutely nothing rational about the Englishman’s final decision of trusting his interpretations. To be perfectly rational would be to persist in the research on Churchill and continually suspend judgments. To trust in any truth, even temporarily, becomes fundamentally irrational to the laws of rationality. However, where rationality demands a suspension of opinion, trust demands a submission toward said opinion.
Trust, faith, etc. are elements of the feeling side. However, one may reach conclusions when thought is clouded with hatred, faith, greed, love, etc. A Christian can construct a deep paradigm of rationality to defend their love for their religion. An atheist can construct a paradigm of their own to defend their dislike for all religions. Feelings, then, not only colour thoughts, they are also its root. All thought first emerges from a feeling: this must be stressed at all costs. Given enough time there shall of course occur a circular, poststructuralist relationship between the two extremes, where thought influences feeling and feeling influences thought. However, in nascent stages, when the thinking side itself cannot have a root, it must attach itself to subjective feelings, which offer the soil and minerals for thought to nourish.
Therefore, the thinking side becomes an elaborate dressing of the feeling side. Facets of the thinking side perhaps initially developed as authentic attempts to precisely articulate one’s base emotions, or to quench curiosity and understand the world in mathematical and scientific terms. However, over attempts at objectivity, they went on to build dialectical worlds of their own.
The Amended Absolute
Eliot’s Absolute was private. It espoused the necessity of trusting a private conception of the Absolute, while recognizing that one may never converse with it. In the material world it espoused humility, a giving and compassionate nature, a love for humans and faith in the integrity of the present moment. The amended Absolute initially needs to examine the world at large. A cursory glance shows it fragmented into infinitely competing narratives, all of which claim rational validity. The amended (or public) Absolute requires a unity of all these estranged paradigms of rationality—or, at least, an absence of hostility in their relation.
In the 21st century of factionalized groups, it is easily forgotten that Protestants, Puritans and Christians were once members of the same religion, that nationalists and seculars together fought for the independence of a singular India, or that the Berlin Wall was broken after it was built. This is to say that unity from dialectics is practically perfectly possible.
Let’s take Eliot’s private Absolute in relation to the public sphere. Humility, compassion, generosity, love and trust are all feelings which can reunite disparate groups and halt the multiplication of dialectics. In fact, all five of these emotions are not even absolutely necessary for this realization. Indeed, from the five emotions, trust in a common conclusion is perhaps the most necessary, since it is not only inherent to the five aforementioned emotions, but is also an inevitability of the thinking side. If a materialist and an idealist make the conscious decision to trust in a common conclusion, that is enough for the dialectical relation between them to theoretically disappear.
Trust requires description for the thinking side; therefore, let us list some of its salient features. Firstly; trust must be two-way. One individual following the amended Absolute while the other individual remaining as dialectic, overly rational as they were, will not germinate a public Absolute between the two. The very possibility of trust being misplaced, betrayed or actively disadvantageous in modernity is part of the reason individuals attempt to out-think and out-argue the other. This needs immediate correction. To trust someone must be viewed as a transcendental moment, a delicate point of vulnerability. One by one, everyone needs to trust in a particular conception of a utopia—whether it is a socialist policy, a dictatorship or the rule of the wolf—and everyone needs to trust that the other party has also made sincere and similar efforts to do so.
Secondly, trust must take priority to the thinking side. This does not mean a total dispensation of the latter. Despite the thinking side creating an illusion of truth and encouraging hostility among estranged camps, it has also led to inventions, discoveries, better education, etc. It has made life simpler. Therefore, the thinking side is best-placed to inform the individual’s opinion on which points of view deserve to be trusted over the other. However, at the same time, the relationship between trust and the thinking side needs to be reversed. The thinking side must be used as a tool to develop the feeling side—to hone and cultivate the raw emotion of trust—not the other way around. Trust must be informed from the thinking side, but it must never be sourced from it, or else it will lose its essential character. Ultimately, the intent is to practice and develop the multiple facets of the feeling side with the same intensity as the thinking side has been developing for centuries, so that emotions like trust, love, generosity and humility are as easy to regulate and express as logical reasoning. Consider Krishnamurti’s words from his collected essays on Individual and Society:
…to lay the foundation you must shatter society. I mean by society […] the psychological structure, the inward structure of our minds, of our brain, the psychological processes of our thinking; those need to be completely destroyed to find out, to create a new mind. (Krishnamurti 10)
Thirdly, trust must be consistent. There is no virtue in trusting in a government, ideology or mathematical postulation for only a week, before being disillusioned by its inevitable flaws and forming an oppositional dialectic. However, where interrogations of the thinking side are inevitable, so is the necessity to rest upon a final conclusion. When trust can be consistently shared by all members of the public sphere—regardless of their individual opinions—then the governing political or economic system becomes automatically absent in conflicts, and dialectics cease to retain its hostile character.
Lastly, trust needs to be accompanied with tolerance. Ideally, a nationalist and a secular must trust in a common conclusion after an appropriate amount of debate. However, if this were not possible, then tolerance at least ensures that the paradigms of rationality do not adopt a polemic attitude. The secular then trusts in the validity of the nationalist’s points of view (even if they may not agree with them), and so does the nationalist with the secular. There will then germinate between the two a mutual acknowledgement, a mutual respect for the origin and modifications of their individually complex routes to perfectly rational conclusions.
Conclusions
The search for utopia, on a personal and public sphere, has caused reforms, revolutions, genocides, holy wars, whole healthcare systems and miracles in gadgetry, and has been orchestrated by the thinking side. These changes have been in multitude, and its rate is only increasing by the day. Whether civilization, since the recording of folklore and history, has progressed or regressed is of course at the service of the reader’s interpretations; yet what is undeniable is the fact of tremendous change, and that the thinking side has been the reason. The democratization of knowledge led to the creation of entirely subjective schools of thought, where humans tended to explore and develop individual rationality.
Eliot was raised in a modern world, in which there was great emphasis on seeking answers through rationality. He found faults within this purely rational mode, and instead attempted to devise a philosophy with would logically formulate a method for the individual’s spiritual regeneration. Through documentary analysis, it has been observed that some of his prescriptions are too prejudiced, and an attempt has been made to amend them. In addition, some of the essential components of Eliot’s Absolute—strewn across several of his texts, instead of being unified in a singular text—have been simplified by, primarily, understanding the oppositional, complementary nature between an individual’s cognitive operations as well as their innate instincts.
Along with recognizing the faults of rational thought, Eliot also recognized the faults in emotion. Indeed, Eliot once attempted to renounce feeling along with thought. In his early poetry, Eliot explored the underbellies of the feeling side. Apeneck Sweeney is a hallmark character in this regard—a half-man, half Neanderthal, a mockery of Rousseau’s noble savage, and emblematic of the most reprehensible emotions modern humans can carry. In Sweeney Among the Nightingales, he out-thinks the prostitute Rachel nee Rabinovitch and the lady in the cape’s plans to ambush him. In Sweeney Agonistes, he makes Doris and Dusty uncomfortable with his predatory nature.
Eliot would, for a long time, also explore non-emotion. The third section of The Waste Land is titled ‘The Fire Sermon’, referring to Buddha, who had identified desire to be the root of all suffering, which was why his solution was to renounce all feeling. Eliot was also taken by the Gita, which characterizes Krishna in a similar way. Eliot was known for his impersonality and careful concealment of emotions. However, as illustrated with Churchill and the Englishman, Eliot was later confronted with the inevitability of emotion, which cannot be eradicated by pure logical philosophy. At some point, he had to have faith in some postulation, no matter how rational or absurd, which was why he turned to marriage, religion and later marriage again.
After documentary analysis, Eliot’s personal search for the Absolute can be summarized as follows: live in the moment and do not worry of the abstraction of time, submit to the Absolute that transcends dialectics, accept that the Absolute shall not communicate with you, in the material world be humble, giving and compassionate, love human beings, and do not think but do.
Ironically, Eliot’s Absolute practically manifested only at the end of his years, and around a decade after completing Four Quartets. This was either because he confronted the possibility of an unhappy death, or because of the influence of Valerie (or both). It certainly seems as if Eliot’s realization that he would not communicate with the Divine led to a lot of changes in his life. His sense of guilt, which he tried to palliate with self-imposed duty, gradually evaporated. He gave up celibacy. Love emerged not exclusive to the divine, but for humans. Eliot, who had in 1911 dreamed of the soul bursting out ‘ingenuous and pure’ in his 2nd Debate Between the Body and the Soul, had finally found it. Gordon writes:
Reality, now, is not transcendental: it is human contact. It is enough to confess the truth to one person even if it must remain concealed from the rest of the world. Then his ‘soul is safe’, and then ‘he loves that person, and his love will save him’. (Gordon 504)
Of course, unlike political and economic philosophies, the amendment of Eliot’s Absolute may not make a tangible difference to legislature, market forces, the public sphere or the dominant discourse. However, it may make the reading of Eliot’s poetry and philosophy easier, and ensure that the timeless messages are not lost amidst his prejudices.
Originally written: May 2021
Comments