“DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”
Is the most frustrating question.
“DO YOU? ... UNDERSTAND?”
Compresses our relation to a
lesson.
Of course! I! don't
understand
what you mean and where your head
is;
I live in first-person limited,
and I'll die here, and I regret
this.
“I THINK SO?” is all, in
truth,
I could ever presume to tell you.
“I THINK I GET YOU?” even
this is straining past my purview:
I've never worn an elephant's head
nor cried, through a martyr's blood,
forgiveness.
Never lived in a starfish's absence-of-
mind, nor an earthworm's body,
limbless.
And I've definitely never taken
due time
to study what-all makes you angry;
the habitual world that frustrates you,
the sense that you've made, that you
hand me:
“ARE YOU SAYING THAT ...(I
must
shout back, to make sure I'm not
overreaching)...
YOU'RE FEELING SMALL,
AND SOMEWHAT
LOST, AND SO YOU
SCREAM YOUR TEACHINGS?”
People tend to go through the motions when talking with others and this poem represents that. The pressure for people to get their points across so as to not be misunderstood is so great that recipients of the question “Do you understand?” are forced to get out of the situation by just nodding in agreement. This poem breaks down the question of understanding and dissects how the only truth when answering is “I think so?”. There is only so far a person can go to completely comprehend the whole point of someone else. To the speaker, the saying “you can never understand someone until you walk a mile in their shoes” is probably a false one because according to him, he has “definitely never taken due time / to study what-all makes you angry; / the habitual world that frustrates you”. In answering honestly to someone who asks you if you understand, the best anyone can do is say “I think so”.
ReplyDeleteThis poem is concerned with the fundamental inability of humans as living beings to understand in a definite sense the internal subjective conditions of others. ““DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”/ Is the most frustrating question” because to the speaker because he never any way to truly tell what someone else is thinking or feeling. The speaker laments the fact that hs is stuck inside his own head that “I live in first-person limited,/ and I’ll die here, and I regret this”. When discussing his own “location” (I live in), the speaker uses “here” to show that such a perspective can never be escaped rather than “there” which implies the existence of some other, reachable place. The speaker must qualify all of his impressions of understanding ““I THINK SO?” is all, in truth,/ I could ever presume to tell you./ “I THINK I GET YOU?” even/ this is straining past my purview” going through several stringent layers of separation between what is inside and outside the self. Beyond simple inability, the speaker goes on to make it seem like he does not even particularly care to spend time learning about the specific peculiarities of others, noting “And I've definitely never taken due time/ to study what-all makes you angry;/ the habitual world that frustrates you”.
ReplyDeleteAs humans and just living creatures in general, we will never be able to experience life from the point of view of another. We can try and understand where others are coming from but it will never be adequate. When the speaker says "And I've definitely never taken due time / to study what-all makes you angry; / the habitual world that frustrates you" it represents the lack of care and understanding people have in regards to others' lives. The lines "Of course! I! don't understand / what you mean and where your head is" show how sometimes individuals get so caught up in their own lives that they disregard the importance of the people around them. It is incredibly frustrating to be stuck in one point of view, which is evident throughout the tone of the poem, but it an unchangeable fact that has to be considered when interacting with others.
ReplyDeleteAn important point: The lecturer implies but never directly states exactly what the speaker is expected to understand. The title – “Last note of a lecture” – implies “the Lecture” is what is to be understood, but the speaker expands the question and takes the opportunity to discuss every aspect of the teacher’s delivery.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker is not complying with the instructor’s strained, angry question-order by stating that “I THINK SO?” is the closest answer to “yes” he can, in good conscience, give. To me, the speaker’s response feels more like a strained yelp from a person at the end of human limitation, an imploration by the speaker to the teacher to understand his perspective, than an instance of defying the teacher for defiance’s sake. By the speaker’s admission that he will “live in first person limited,/and I’ll die here, and I regret this” growing from his statement that he feels the understanding question is “the most frustrating question” the speaker finds the question frustrating for two reasons: he is frustrated that he can’t understand more, and that the teacher is pushing him in a forceful manner (see the teacher’s yelling, indicated by the all-caps “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”) to admit something he doesn’t believe is true.
This touches on an important truth: often, stepping outside an argument and looking at factors affecting a discussion can lead to a more satisfying, peaceful resolution than taking angry or confusing words at face value. The speaker shows wisdom by stepping outside of the teacher’s request for compliance (wrapped in a seemingly unrelated question) and seeing the unstated factors that, by answering the question, he is being forced to accept without appropriate consideration. The factors being “understanding is simple enough to boil down to a yes/no binary” and “forceful questioning will force students to understand,” to name two.
It’s difficult to convey pure human thought, and what makes certain pieces of literature so profound is the fact that they are able to put multiple complex ideas and thoughts into words. The speaker can never completely understand what the teacher is thinking since there is no way to flawlessly understand another’s thoughts (or at least not yet…). The speaker says that asking if someone understands “is the most frustrating question” because there is no objectively correct answer (2). Thoughts are more complicated than language, and so it is impossible to translate thought into a simpler means of communication without some sort of misconstrued aspect manifesting itself in the mind of the receiver of this language.
ReplyDelete2016 August 24
ReplyDelete“The last note of a lecture …”
This piece addresses the human tendency to expect others to understand one’s own personal thoughts and emotions. The speaker becomes frustrated during a school lesson in reaction to his teacher expecting the speaker to easily grasp the complex emotional state of other beings and understand experiences which he has never had. He laments that he lives “in first-person limited” and therefore fails to relate to the lessons of the teacher. The teacher becoming aggravated at his students for not instantly understanding difficult situations suggests a common human tendency-- to expect the impossible. We want people to appreciate us and relate to us so desperately that when they fail to do so, we blame them. People try to compensate for the subsequent feeling of insignificance by yelling at others, or having emotional outbursts. However, this feeling of insignificance will always remain a part of human interaction-- we each have our own unique experiences, and other people do not have the obligation to relate to them on every level.
I don't know if you’ve ever seen the movie Whiplash but that’s what this poem reminded me of, especially the college that accompanies it. It's about an almost abusive relationship between student and teacher so that the result is something spectacular. The collage reminded me of being pushed extremely hard and sacrificing the well-being of body and mind to achieve a goal. This relationship can be common with coaches and teachers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the content of the poem itself speaks to something much more universal and relatable. I have often felt, in the classroom, that we are expected to understand concepts that our instructors have spent years, even decades, studying. In high school, we are taught a wide range of material in such a short time that it is nearly impossible to grasp concepts. Yet we are generally expected to put our undivided attention into all seven different areas of study that our instructors are experts in.
I like that this poem applies this concept to our everyday interactions. There is so much misconception from one person to another because we expect each other to understand each other. In reality, we didn't experience what the other experienced, and it certainly doesn’t occupy our minds in the same way. And yet, we are plunged into argument, neither truly understanding the other because a lecture is one way. In a classroom, the lecture is a student understanding the teacher, not a discussion. This dynamic is fading in today’s classrooms yet still clouding our relationships. More than anything, for me, this poem stresses the importance of calm intellectual discourse and mutual respect in any environment.
I actually wrote this about my father - but I agree, it applies to some teacher-student dynamics as well (or anyone who puts on the arrogant cloak of "I'm more important" and talks like you owe them something). I liked Whiplash for complicating this ... for showing how pushing someone caringly / abusively is not necessarily a mutually exclusive path.
Delete