postnuptial messages [ Edited ]

[ziki]

I am starting to believe that Moby Dick can't be killed...and well is so, but to keep it a bit easier to handle I post all messages from now into this file.

Queequeg and killing

This week I was pondering the character of Queequeg and what I could learn from him. He was a friendly fellow for sure, we know that from the chapter in the inn and from the ways in which he saved others' lives but he was also a harpooner, able to kill if that was needed. This ability to kill is a skill. Hopefully not needed but if needed, it's better to know how to do it well so it is at least done painlessly, cleanly and quickly. The indian tribes (i.e.) mastered that. Today the similar battle can go on but on a mental level and in a corporate world.

Ruthless and tough fight especialy when you encounter a sociopath dressed in Armani. But as I said in another post we learn easiest by imitation and the art of killing is not taught anylonger. Also the matadors in bull-fights knew how to kill.

Hemingway put it nicely:

Matador: Bulls are my friends
Q: So you kill your friends.
Matador: yes, otherwise they would kill me.

It's plain and simple, still I shudder.


I'd need A Quequeg in my bed to discuss some potent issues with him. There are whale issues swiming around and to turn back home as Starbuck wanted is not a solution that you can live with. Sometimes you have to face the enemy face to face, civil courage is in shortage today. Next level required is not to label anyone as an enemy but unfeeling people will not care. Did Ahab see Moby Dick as an unfeeling beast?

This connects to Chad's post of all perceived as cells in communication.

What do you do when a communication is not possible? When do you kill, how? I am sure Quequeg would have some useful answers to those questions.

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 03-10-200710:32 AM

[Choisya]

But as I said in another post we learn easiest by imitation and the art of killing is not taught anylonger.

It seems to me that the military are taught to kill more efficiently today than ever before, especially those who bomb from the air thousands of feet up, without any risk to their own person. It is because of the efficiency of the modern killing army with super weapons and impenetrable vehicles etc. that guerrilla warfare has developed. Hand-to-hand fighting in jungles or back streets is a thing of the past for the more powerful nations - rebels/insurgents/jihadists will be the skilled harpoonists of the future.

When do you kill, how? I am sure Quequeg would have some useful answers to those questions.

Shouldn't the first questions be 'Do I have to kill? Can I negotiate? Can I walk away?' I suspect this is what Queequeg and HM would say.

---

ziki wrote:
I am starting to believe that Moby Dick can't be killed...and well is so, but to keep it a bit easier to handle I post all messages from now into this file.

Queequeg and killing

This week I was pondering the character of Queequeg and what I could learn from him. He was a friendly fellow for sure, we know that from the chapter in the inn and from the ways in which he saved others' lives but he was also a harpooner, able to kill if that was needed. This ability to kill is a skill. Hopefully not needed but if needed, it's better to know how to do it well so it is at least done painlessly, cleanly and quickly. The indian tribes (i.e.) mastered that. Today the similar battle can go on but on a mental level and in a corporate world.

Ruthless and tough fight especialy when you encounter a sociopath dressed in Armani. But as I said in another post we learn easiest by imitation and the art of killing is not taught anylonger. Also the matadors in bull-fights knew how to kill.

Hemingway put it nicely:

Matador: Bulls are my friends
Q: So you kill your friends.
Matador: yes, otherwise they would kill me.

It's plain and simple, still I shudder.


I'd need A Quequeg in my bed to discuss some potent issues with him. There are whale issues swiming around and to turn back home as Starbuck wanted is not a solution that you can live with. Sometimes you have to face the enemy face to face, civil courage is in shortage today. Next level required is not to label anyone as an enemy but unfeeling people will not care. Did Ahab see Moby Dick as an unfeeling beast?

This connects to Chad's post of all perceived as cells in communication.

What do you do when a communication is not possible? When do you kill, how? I am sure Quequeg would have some useful answers to those questions.

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 03-10-200710:32 AM

---

[chad]

Our concept of death can lead to more killing...so Ahab descries, "Death to Moby Dick!" or, in other words, death to death itself.

Chad

[ziki]

---

Choisya wrote:
But as I said in another post we learn easiest by imitation and the art of killing is not taught anylonger.

It seems to me that the military are taught to kill more efficiently today than ever before, especially those who bomb from the air thousands of feet up, without any risk to their own person. It is because of the efficiency of the modern killing army with super weapons and impenetrable vehicles etc. that guerrilla warfare has developed. Hand-to-hand fighting in jungles or back streets is a thing of the past for the more powerful nations - rebels/insurgents/jihadists will be the skilled harpoonists of the future.

When do you kill, how? I am sure Quequeg would have some useful answers to those questions.

Shouldn't the first questions be 'Do I have to kill? Can I negotiate? Can I walk away?' I suspect this is what Queequeg and HM would say.

Ouch, this is a convoluted topic. I am in a deep with it. I guess what I was thinking about (in spirals) was: it is natural (and cultural) not to kill and yet everybody has the instinct to do that...and so I thought (with the help of Queequeg's character) if that raw power is accepted as a fact and owned it may get transformed into a power that can work positively but with the same unafraid urgence, and yes it will kill a killer if necessary.

You can't negotiate with a sociopath, OK you can but it may not work. But I agree, the first question should be what can I do instead of killing, what will promote life? (I do not mean on the bodily level here) but killing is as bad on the psychological or spiritual level.

ziki

[Choisya]

Most of the time, most of our lives, ziki, we are not dealing with sociopaths, we are dealing with ordinary folks like you, me and chad and maybe Fanuzzir, only he is extraordinary Certainly we need to develop strategies to deal with sociopaths and enemies but I do not believe they should be at the forefront of our survivalist techniques. In the art of self defence for instance (I learned ju jitsu long ago and my eldest son teaches it and Tai Chi...) you are first taught awareness and how to deal with an attacker by disabling him/her without harm. You are also taught not to provoke and to 'walk away' whenever possible. Of course, you are also taught how to kill but that is a last resort. So it should be with societies/nations IMO. I know I am an idealist but one has to start somewhere! Peace & Love and all that! Jaw Jaw Not War War as Churchill said after WWII!!

---

ziki wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
But as I said in another post we learn easiest by imitation and the art of killing is not taught anylonger.

It seems to me that the military are taught to kill more efficiently today than ever before, especially those who bomb from the air thousands of feet up, without any risk to their own person. It is because of the efficiency of the modern killing army with super weapons and impenetrable vehicles etc. that guerrilla warfare has developed. Hand-to-hand fighting in jungles or back streets is a thing of the past for the more powerful nations - rebels/insurgents/jihadists will be the skilled harpoonists of the future.

When do you kill, how? I am sure Quequeg would have some useful answers to those questions.

Shouldn't the first questions be 'Do I have to kill? Can I negotiate? Can I walk away?' I suspect this is what Queequeg and HM would say.

Ouch, this is a convoluted topic. I am in a deep with it. I guess what I was thinking about (in spirals) was: it is natural (and cultural) not to kill and yet everybody has the instinct to do that...and so I thought (with the help of Queequeg's character) if that raw power is accepted as a fact and owned it may get transformed into a power that can work positively but with the same unafraid urgence, and yes it will kill a killer if necessary.

You can't negotiate with a sociopath, OK you can but it may not work. But I agree, the first question should be what can I do instead of killing, what will promote life? (I do not mean on the bodily level here) but killing is as bad on the psychological or spiritual level.

ziki

---

[chad]

I think Melville even gives you a different concept of killing- things become part of something else. The lone sociopath can be locked away by society-- it might be like swatting a fly. But if you believe that an entire culture can be sociopathic, that's a different story...it mike be like killing a whale. Cultures have absorbed others. I'm living in one and so are you!

Chad

[chad]

"Nantucket itself," said Mr Webster, "is a very striking and peculiar portion of the National interest. There is a population of eight or nine thousand persons, living here in the sea, adding largely every year to the National wealth by the boldest and most persevering industry." p 21

I think with this one you get a sense of the whaling industry being gobbled up by a larger entity, the U.S. mainly. The members of the Pequod were a little sociopathic, to say the least, and the whales? Well, Moby Dick was the ultimate sociopathic whale. The question is what did this union of whale and man become? Something like Captain Ahab? Well, maybe...but I don't think we like resembling maniacal old Ahab. Hopefully, it's something that will connect us to the Milky Way and the rest of the Universe...

Chad

[ziki]

I do not 'vote' for killing, and I adhere to the idea of ahimsa but I am trying to come to terms with the characters of the four harpooners. Queequeg will not doubt to jump in and save a human life but he knew how to handle the harpoon...and he had those dried skulls to sell.
ziki

[ziki]

maybe living in a culture is like living in a whale's head...
ziki

[ziki]

I just deal with one Ahablike person IRL. Equally brainwashed by seeing only one possibility, nothing else exists. It is quite incredible. He's not the captain but he's trying to seize his ship, he'd kill everyone.....no remorse. Quite amazing and scary at the same time.

Now these Moby Dick's characters stepped into my days so to speak. Like icons to remind me of how people can be. I've never experienced that with other books I must admit.

ziki

[chad]

Ahimsa is a belief of the Buddhists? This belief is still something that can connect a multitude.

Chad

PS- Queequeg sold human heads... who is doing the killing? And who really is responsible for the killing aboard the Pequod?

[chad]

Ziki-

The end of chapter 13 might give you some insight into the character, as perceived by Ishmael and Melville, who may not be sure about the character of Queequeg or the islanders themselves. So after he saves a life, Queequeg leans against the bulwarks, and seemed to say to himself, "It's a mutual, joint-stock world, in all meridians. We cannibals must help these Christians." We definately see a melding of religion and business in the Pequod, but I feel that Christianity is still something used by business more than it is an actual religion. Some banking rules use religious numbers, for example.

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 03-14-200710:34 AM

[chad]

I thought I'd mention that Ghandi formed a new nation-state under the doctrine of ahimsa. Maybe India became a new whale? What do you think?

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 03-14-200710:45 AM

[Choisya]

Ghandi didn't form a new nation state Chad - he led mass civil disobedience campaigns based on the concept of ahimsa - non-violence. These campaigns paved the way to the withdrawal of the British and to independence for India which, sadly, was later partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan.

---

chad wrote:
I thought I'd mention that Ghandi formed a new nation-state under the doctrine of ahimsa. Maybe India became a new whale? What do you think?

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 03-14-200710:45 AM

---

[chad]

Choisya thought:

Ghandi didn't form a new nation state Chad - he led mass civil disobedience campaigns based on the concept of ahimsa - non-violence. These campaigns paved the way to the withdrawal of the British and to independence for India which, sadly, was later partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan.


OK, he indirectly formed two nation states. The philosophy or concept of ahimsa coming from a nucleus, or Ghandi himself, which connected, absorbed, and swallowed other cells, organisms or humans, later forming a new mass, a new organism, a new state etc. etc. I think we can see how Melville tries to steer us back to what is the truth- the philosophy made little difference, the end was the same. But this is the world according to Melville...


Chad

[ziki]

---

chad wrote: What do you think?

---

I didn't have a time to think, moreover,unexpetedly Wednesday I went with blue light to a hospital, they thought it might be my last moment but I didn't check out this time. I've got a first rate service and I was back in orbit next day again. New experience indeed...that left me thinking tho'. I was wired up worse than a computer& monitored inside out during that night.

I will go back to the chapter 13, chad, thanks.

beback ziki

[chad]

Hope everything is OK--

Chad

[chad]

Many of you have wondered about the charcater of Starbuck. I think Starbuck represents an American enterprising spirit-- a spirit which can take us to the stars, but a spirit which is also bound by financial concerns, keeping us somewhat grounded.

Chad

[chad]

The other thought on this is that this is a story about a whale, but in a world where the whaling industry did not only using religious tenets to achieve cohesion, but democratic principles as well. So, for example, Melville states that the democratic tenet of equality is something that business uses to achieve a hierarchy or a subservient atmosphere onboard the Pequod, bringing us into further conflict with our friend the whale. Indeed, we are created equal, yet the ordinary routine of business affairs and corporate structure tells me we are not.

What say you? To what extent does business use our government to achieve its own agendas?

Chad

[ziki]

---

chad wrote:
Many of you have wondered about the charcater of Starbuck. I think Starbuck represents an American enterprising spirit-- a spirit which can take us to the stars, but a spirit which is also bound by financial concerns, keeping us somewhat grounded.

Chad

---

Hmmmm...interesting...after all he went on the whaler so he was adventurous enough but he was also a family father. In that way his situation was similar to Ahab's.Both had wives and small children. But for Ahab his mission was number one, for Starbuck the family seemed to be his preference.


Women writers wrote spin offs about Ahab's wife but why not about Starbucks wife?

ziki