thehinterlandonline:on being hollow by Ali Owaisi

 

I am somewhat intrigued by the "hollow men" label. By hollow, I take to mean 'lacking substance',
or merely an external form without anything essential residing within. Now, this can be interpreted,
on two counts: either as a description of your respective physical states (being literally hollow, i.e.,
completely devoid of physical substance like organs, flesh, blood, etc.), or of your psychical state
(being metaphorically hollow, i.e., devoid of significant mental content). Knowing what I know about
human physiology it would seem to be outside of the sphere of rationality to attribute to you the
former reading. So, my assumption is that "hollow men" is a description of the latter.

This psychical-state category can be broken down further into an almost infinite number of possible
interpretations: rational hollowness, emotive hollowness, spiritual hollowness, etc. This reading,
of course, assumes that you are indeed using the term "hollow men" as a state of personal description,
self-categorization. And of course, this is not the only available reading. This term could also fulfill a
Socratic function -- forcing those who come across it to question whether or not they too are "hollow"
and insubstantial. In other words, it could potentially function cathartically - "Hey, there are other
people like myself, who are brave enough to explicitly acknowledge their lack of substantiality".
Alternatively, it could be a description of the human condition -- Locke's notion of the "tabula rasa" or
"blank slate" - as an empty void waiting patiently to be filled by the hegemony of experience. And,

I cannot rule out the possibility that it is merely a random description, not referring to anything in
particular, but fulfilling a similar purpose to that of a blot-diagram in psychoanalysis - meaningless
in itself, but useful as a device around which commentators can cohere their own interpretations.
If this last scenario were to be endorsed, then the term would serve only to illuminate the mental
contents of those who, by virtue of its invocation, feel compelled to react to the notion. Their reaction,
then, would serve as an adequate description of their train of thought immediately after having been
confronted with this strange idea - this finding could then be correlated with the reactions of others,
and a scheme could be devised (based upon the numerical incidence or similarity of reactions)
whereby a split could be forged between "normal" and "abnormal" or "skewed" interpreters.
All of this, however, is no more than simple bullshit, and it is entirely possible that none of the
above descriptions apply to your choice of alias. But interpretation, nonetheless, fuels the
process of intellectual transcendence.