Cityscape Paradox
The daily trip into the city is one that I thoroughly enjoy. I sit relaxed, instinctively shifting to compensate for the jolting of the bus, reading, contemplating–looking out the window meditatively digesting the shifting cityscape. We live in an ambivalent world, and evidence of this is seen in nearly everything. If ambivalence is ever lacking it is because one is far too close to what is being examined; or, conversely, because one has succeeded in getting far enough away so as to have a perfect, eternal perspective. It is in the mean, the not-too-close and the not-far-enough-away place, that paradox is born.
Cityscape is filled with paradox, yet the one on my mind at the moment is that of Beauty in Ugliness. I’m sure you’ve seen it; the dead grey cement rising into the sky adorned by dull glass square eyes. Starch-shirted business people bustling along next to weary-eyed vagrants; both praying that it doesn’t rain. The city is monolithic, and it is for this very reason that it is loathed, avoided, and passionately loved. The same decay that sends droves to the suburbs fascinates urban adventurers set on experiencing the downward evolution of the design of man.
It is this very decay, rotting materialism, that is beautiful–and ugly. It is the Tower of Babel on a more horizontal scale; spreading like a magnificent virus; inspiring awe and dread, and yet perhaps not always in its right place.
And so we build through dialectic, shifting esthetics with the seasons, ambivalent as college freshmen–because we exist in paradox, we live our lives in the mean. And yet, there is access to something more; kind of…
Sep 22nd 2005
“We live in an ambivalent world”
Good thought. And “ambivalent as college freshmen” - nicely put. The world draws us inevitably toward ambivalence and we must counter this tendency.
So here’s my question: What’s at the root of this baffling “beauty in ugliness?”
Am I corrent in assuming this is your first explicit paradox post?
Sep 23rd 2005
>> The world draws us inevitably toward ambivalence and we must counter this tendency. < <
Actually I disagree with this. I’m not sure ambivalnece should or can be countered; but it may be tolerated and it need not have control.
>> What’s at the root of this baffling “beauty in ugliness?” < <
The root most likely will escape total definition–after all, it’s a paradox; but somewhere near the center is the beautiful idea of community and creativity and pervasive in all of that is the levity of mortality; it’s something beautifully tragic, and when you get too close it tends to lose its beauty.
This is my first explicit paradox post.
Sep 23rd 2005
Apparently I’m misreading you’re approach to “ambivalence” - which I take to be a fairly undesirable quality. If you care to, explain why you think it should not be countered.
“the beautiful idea of community and creativity and pervasive in all of that is the levity of mortality”
I like that.
Sep 24th 2005
Ambivalence means mixed feelings; it means not being absolutely sure; ambivalence entails the presence of apparent contradictory ideas–perhaps held in unison or tearing at each other for primacy.
Ambivalence means life–for we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling, and to hold to something too strongly means to raise one’s self understanding to a Divine level.
Fools have a complete lack of ambivalence about things; so do gods; this is why Christ was either the son of God or a fool.
Sep 26th 2005
did you mean Tower of Babble … or Tower of Babel?
SEAN
Sep 27th 2005
uhmm, I think you got me there. Babel is probably correct
Oct 3rd 2005
Ok, I can dig your explication of “ambivalence.” I was thinking of the word in the more casual usage, as in, “I don’t really care; I could go either way; whatever.”