so then what was that about coping? is all of human connection coping? is making things that i love to make coping. is breathing coping. is eating. what does it mean, to cope?

to cope is to compromise. i will tell anyone who listens... i don't compromise. i don't see the point in it.

there was a presentation today in which a school said they stood not only for the value of art's making to the artist, but also in art that puts us more in touch with our humanity... i didn't write down the exact phrase, but it was incredible to hear this, this position, sent right back to me.

these are the functions of art, the real functions of real art, the real good real stuff.

to think about enjoying life as coping is frightening -- i don't do it lightly, or often, or completely. but as a lens it helps me to understand some things a little more.


said someone to me today. i said (shouted) back, too late, that i was sure that they were a creative, too. through this lens, was i telling them they could, or should, use artmaking to cope?

recently i thought of a theory; what if i consider myself as depressed, and these projects--constructed in just a way--are the vehicle which allows me to cope? depression... i've known lots of people afflicted by it throughout my life and never thought anything i was feeling was ever bad enough to want to do NOTHING, to completely disable me.

i could always work on a project, on the right sort of project. so how could i be! depressed, that is. i had just been distracted by a fun project--that's why i couldn't do anything else. it wasn't interesting enough.

it doesn't bode well for team projects, or commercial aspirations. in fact, these circumstances are even more likely to lead to it! but what "it"? i wonder why. it has happened many times... projects that die in my heart.

"but why does it have to be this way?" i have almost stopped wondering. this is just something that happens. so i live with it.

many times, i am working on a project and it stops dead in my heart.

this second chapter ends with a long passage on how any set of second-order ethical/moral laws will, must, leave room for individual judgement: human life is complicated. in the case of utilitarianism, the 'first principle' of maximizing happiness acts as a singular "umpire" which may be called upon by the individual adjudicator in these spaces where ambiguity exists.

i hope that makes sense. it makes sense in my head, but it's hard to describe; i am not sure whether what i have written serves as either a good explanation (for one who has forgotten or never known what is contained on these pages) or as a good mnemonic for reminding the familiar self (which is my preference), but it is what i have written.

back to the present -- back to the last few pages before Chapter III.

295

Quote. . . defenders of utility often find themselves called upon to reply to such objections as . . . there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness.

. . .

The answer to the object is, that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species.

in this statement is a qualification that i have been looking for for the value of art, of stories, of, say, imaginary conundrums. not all of them, of course, but the mass of them, what is the purpose of art? art as part of human history, of human culture, encodes within it sticky ideas which take part in the mass that is human knowledge... this is civilization.


nothing could be more important than this. though the role that art plays is not clear, i can say without reservation that i do believe it plays some part, and i may wish to spend a greater part of my life in pursuit of a more meaningful impact upon this mass, of which some, but only some, part is a pursuit of a greater understanding of it.

..

QuotePeople talk as if the commencement of this course of experience had hitherto been put off, and as if, at the moment when some man feels tempted to meddle with the property or life of another, he had to begin considering for the first time whether murder and theft are injurious to human happiness.

There is a vessel by which humanity carries a lack of such ignorance to each such 'man'. Mill suggests that members of such a vessel include (296) "notions . . taught to the young", "law", and "opinion". I do not believe he presents or seeks to present an exhaustive taxonomy of elements, only example delivery mechanisms which participate in this 'mass' or 'vessel', as I have called it above.

(civilization and human knowledge, the 'massive vessel'...)

282

QuoteFrom this verdict of the only competent judges, I believe there can be no appeal. On a question which is the best worth having of two pleasures, or which of two modes of existence is the most grateful to the feelings, . . . the judgement of those who are qualified by knowledge of both. . . must be admitted as final.

There is an extra clause which I removed, "or, if they differ, that of the majority among them"; I believe that all valid judgements must agree, although I am more liberal than some when it comes to invalidation of judgements. A mere majority is not, ever, sufficient.

edit:: I understand the practical considerations of appeal to majority -- it is a loose, rough, but inexpensive discarding of noise. Were we to study every individual case of disagreement in depth in order to determine how (and whether) to invalidate it, there would be no arriving at a conclusion. Still, we are here in the land of make-believe, of ideals; I wish that Mill's Utilitarianism presented a competent counterpoint to my present position, or else acknowledged that perfect consensus is desirable but not practical. In any case, I cannot abide by this unqualified reliance upon majority.