Knowledge

I want to talk about two things today.

1. The nature of my own subjective 'knowledge' and understanding
2. Realisation vs knowledge

1. I think this is more about associations than anything else. Let's just start from what I'm most familiar with - international relations theory.

Realist theories have always felt linear to me, with straight, simple lines. They're very solid, like the walls of a corridor. But if they're walls they're cement walls without windows.

Liberal theories come with a sensation of a 'network', countless of little interconnecting lines that envelope one. Liberal theories are also always in black and white.

Constructivist theories have a sort of translucency and a delicate mix of colours, and they feel very light and insubstantial, but they're also quite pretty. There's also a humming, vibrating sound like the echo of a bell to Constructivism.

Critical theories are always very angry. They remind me of myself when I get angry, because I tend to be very irrational and I strike out at whoever's nearby. But even though critical theories are always very angry, they're also not prosaic.

Postmodernist theories smell of rubber and over-heated wires, but they don't smell disgusting. Just interesting. Postmodernism reminds me of computers and technology, especially the Internet. I think it the 'virtual-ness' and disorientating effect and 'massiveness' of the Internet that is so postmodernist.

So that's international theory. But I also understand other things in similar ways. Take for example writing.

Policy papers remind me of the images I associate with realist theories. They're linear and progress inevitably from one point to the next. It's very hard to find surprises in the flow of the paper - no side-roads, no sudden obstructions, no stairs or windows - it's just a long straight corridor.

I remember an essay on Keats I wrote that reminds me of Constructivist theories. It was somewhat light and pretty and had the same colours too.

Political theory papers (the good ones) remind me of Postmodernist theories (whether or not the political theory paper is on postmodernism.) They smell like an over-heated computer, and they're not linear. They're almost dizzying and nauseating and almost seem to reach out in many many directions at one time.

For me, a badly written political theory paper is the one that reminds me of realist theories - a corridor with high, windowless walls.

But then again, a good realist theory is one that has many straight, windowless corridors in a huge meandering maze.

Sometimes my political theory essays feel very light-hearted to me, even though the subject matter could be very serious. Perhaps because I know what I'm trying to do with the argument, sometimes the essay seems sneaky and playful, and slightly guilty about not being serious (like a heavy, colossal museum with classical columns and greek words) enough.

Humour.

LSB's humour is of two different varieties. Sometimes his sense of humour like a hammer. It's unsubtle and hits really hard. This is the type of humour I usually associate with beefy jocks watching soccer and drinking beer, and is the type of humour that makes me roll my eyes at him. Sometimes his humour has such an unexpected turn, I'm truly surprised, and it reminds me above all of books - huge academic tomes - and the Internet. This is the type of humour that makes me giggle girlishly and fawn over him in the way that all of you are unanimously disgusted by.

My sense of humour (as I see it anyway) reminds me of the greedy snatching of a child at overhanging grapes. I don't really know why either, but when I'm trying to be funny, I sometimes feel as if I'm unrelentingly snatching at ideas hanging above me.

My mother's humour hovers over one spot on the ground and plucks that one piece of soil and lifts it into the air.

So this is how I understand stuff. And yes it's a hopeless ramble that reminds me of a whole swarm of disoriented flies flying desperately in circles in a bottle.

2. Realisation vs knowledge. Sometimes LSB doesn't understand why I suddenly get upset over something even though I've known it for months. It's simply because I've only just realised what I've known all along.

In the same way, people can know that thousands of people have died in the Chinese & Myanmarese disasters, but not realise what it means. To them it's only a statistic, not a tragedy.

At least I hope that this is the case, because this means that at least their lack of empathy is only a result of their lack of realisation, and is not because they truly don't care that people have died.

This is, I think, a fundamentally optimistic way of looking at the world. If someone's been inconsiderate, it's because he didn't realise it. If the Nazis killed millions of people, it's only because they didn't realise what they were doing. It also makes it easier for us to forgive people for what they've done.

Blah I'm feeling very irritated today, and I don't seem to be able to say what I really want to say. It's bloody hot.