Final Blog Post (Tristan Dobbs)

For some reason, I’ve struggled to put together this final blog post. It could be due to the very concept that Burkeman was speaking on the entire time where the possibility for me to do everything isn’t possible. Nevertheless, I still want to put my effort forward to actually get something written down as a final thoughts section to my presentation. And final thoughts should be how this is seen as I’ve had some new ideas due to the comments from my own presentation. Those new ideas revolve around my understanding of the contradiction I brought forward during the presentation, but it may now be more appropriate to say that the new ideas revolve around the lack of a contradiction. What I am saying is that I may be wrong with my presentation of Burkeman’s ideas, but I still want to hold true to the importance of the presence I originally spoke of. 

In order to do this, I would like to still explore the conception of presence that I original brought up (the presence spoke about by Duncan's mom) by looking at Midnight Gospel. To begin, it would be beneficial to actually show the conversation between Duncan and his mom: Deneen Fendig. Due to the original being on Netflix, I won’t be able to show the actual episode; however, there is an audio version on YouTube. I highly recommend anyone to watch the show for themselves. 

I rather enjoy the conception of presence which Fendig talks about in this clip. It isn’t anything new, but this was one of my first experiences with the topic at hand which gives it meaning to me. Fendig positions presence as a sensation outside of your ordinary mind. It is more than living with the present moment. Instead, Fendig’s correlations this state of presence as being within another state of consciousness. It is a consciousness outside of our everyday life that we attend to.  

 

What I particularly like about Fendig’s form of presence is that it addresses issues that Kade talked about within their presentation. Trying to figure out what people can do within their own lives while capable of action is a good thing to try to strive for. However, there are many who are not in any position whatsoever to act within their own life. Those who are deathly ill or handicap may not be able to act in such a way that Burkeman presents. Fendig’s presence, however, can be achieved by anyone at any moment. It transcends the material and physical limitations that may occur due to the state of an individual. Fendig even acknowledges this with their conversation with Duncan when stating that someone could be penniless or dying next to a river, but they could still achieve this form of presence. 

 

After giving my presentation, I put this understanding of presence next to what I labeled as Burkeman’s understanding of presence. However, Burkeman never used presence within the examples I gave. For example, Burkeman says, “Once you no longer feel the stifling pressure to become a particular kind of person, you can confront the personality, the strengths and weakness, the talent and enthusiasms you find yourself with, here and now, and follow where they lead.” Burkeman’s position is one with trying to within the her and now of life, but he doesn’t say presence. This could then be a difference between coming to a state of presence (which would follow what Fendig presents) and being present within life (which might be what Burkeman is trying to show). In my head, the difference between these seem clear, but I should first note that others may put this down to just a difference in semantics. That may be a valid point; however, my understanding of the two concepts positions being present as action based while having a state of presence is beyond action. 

I’m going to now reference an article in order to make my next point, and there like will be here if you’d like to read more of it.  

To show being present rather then arriving at a state of presence, there was this article I found by Tim Lott which talks about Zen Buddhism. Lott states: 

“The emphasis on the present moment is perhaps zen's most distinctive characteristic. In our western relationship with time, in which we compulsively pick over the past in order to learn lessons from it, and then project into a hypothetical future in which those lessons can be applied, the present moment has been compressed to a tiny sliver on the clock face between a vast past and an infinite future. Zen, more than anything else, is about reclaiming and expanding the present moment.”  

This more closely follows Burkeman’s idea of being present within our lives instead of projecting out to some possible future. This is where when Burkeman says that we should be okay without not seeing “your actions reach fruition” comes into play. By being more present within your life, you can see that your actions might not come to completion within your life; however, there is still value within being present and doing that task. Even if it never comes to completion, the act of being present and doing that action nonetheless holds its own importance. 

On a side note, here is a great book on Zen Buddhism if you're interested: 

 

By separating the two ideas around presence and being present, I feel as if I have a better appreciation for what both Burkeman and Fendig are trying to say. However, I still don’t know if I’ve come to any final understandings to all of this. I think I’ll need to do some more thinking and research before I come to any conclusions on these ideas.  

To end this blogpost off, I wanted to show an Eddie Murphy clip that reminded me of this whole book. I think it’s related to some movie or something. I’m not really sure, but Eddie Murphy’s speech about only living 75 years says lines up very well with Burkeman’s entire book. Here it is: 

I hope everyone has a wonderful break!!!