The way I see it, all humans, perhaps all sentient beings for that matter, come with a constellation of limits to (their) understanding imposed by physical or mental factors (sorry I can't be more specific than that) and we, humans, try our very best to fit reality, the universe, within a construct so constrained. In short, we are the cage and reality is the bird we want encage i.e. grasp on our own terms.

Nice. This was a perspective I never thought of. Thanks!

The way I see it, all humans, perhaps all sentient beings for that matter, come with a constellation of limits to (their) understanding imposed by physical or mental factors (sorry I can't be more specific than that) and we, humans, try our very best to fit reality, the universe, within a construct so constrained. In short, we are the cage and the reality is the bird we want encage i.e. grasp on our own terms. — TheMadFool

:fire: :clap:

Seems kind of anti-parallel with Dostoevsky's line:

[M]an is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creatures is born.

It also reminds me of meme theory.

But it could be more literal: A cage is for removing the freedom of a bird; a bird is not for caging. The cage must find its bird, not vice versa. Seems obvious, but back then it was probably a common mindset that the purpose of a bird is to be held in a cage (in the same way the purpose of a cat is to mouse, the purpose of an ox is to plough, etc.).

I see it as Kafka's usual theme of impending doom and helplessness in the face of it, and the cynical resignation toward this prospect.

So the cage is impending doom?

For the bird, yes.
It's that theme -- "Jemand musste Josef K. verleumdet haben". That "they're going to get you, they're going to bring you down". And "Gib's auf!".

ThaMadFool's interpretation works for me.

This, too:

A cage is for removing the freedom of a bird; a bird is not for caging. — Kenosha Kid

But I'd say I'd shift the focus onto the cage. This being Kafka, there's no guarantee the cage will ever find a bird, or will declare that an ostrich isn't a bird, because it's not what it's looking for...

Kafka was a beaurocrat. Imagine people creating an office to solve a problem, and then when the office actually solves that problem, do they dissolve the office?

I think the line is ironic. We think of the caging to cage the bird, but the cage is a cage unto itself. If there's no bird in it, it's empty.

I think the line is ironic. We think of the caging to cage the bird, but the cage is a cage unto itself. If there's no bird in it, it's empty. — Dawnstorm

Like defiance, overcoming?
But that makes it a Pyrrhic victory: remove, undo the self, so that there's no one to cage.

Like defiance, overcoming?
But that makes it a Pyrrhic victory: remove, undo the self, so that there's no one to cage. — baker

I think overcoming the situation is outside of the scope of the quote. It's just a description of the situation. You can try to overcome the situation, or you can lament its inevitability (which would probably the default reaction for Kafka himself, if I read him right). Note, too, that the purpose of a bird in a cage lies without the cage. For the cage it's just the way things are.

I see it somewhat blankly. The cage is like Chekov's gun. Once the cage is built, it just finds a bird to live in it. It's about how authoritarian societal structures have a life of their own. I think it's sort of an Absurdist phrase.

To me Kafka is describing the capitalistic institutions of modern life that have been established to imprison and dominate the helpless individual. In the Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck expresses the idea that the bank as an institution has been established by man but it controls and humiliates him as he has to abide by its regulations or goes to prison.

"A cage went in search of a bird.". — New2K2

Two similar ironic aphorisms come to mind:

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

The second is apparently a fake quote attributed to Leon Trotsky by author Alan Furst.

Are these also from a collection of Aphorisms?
I liked the first one.

"A cage went in search of a bird.".
— New2K2

Two similar ironic aphorisms come to mind:

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

The second is apparently a fake quote attributed to Leon Trotsky by author Alan Furst. — T Clark

My favourite version of the first which I was told was Maslow (but such quotes seem to transmigrate) is this: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail.' Which sharpens it for me.

The limits of a person's world view.

My reading of a cage went in search of a bird is - a cage is pointless without a bird in it. So it describes all the empty people 'cages' in search of their truth 'birds'. When they find it they will trap it and render it a prisoner in their mind - where the meaning no longer soars.

from the introduction to the book which states that Kafka was happiest when he was sick and certain of death. Such a temperament/outlook might indicate that Kafka considered the human body a cage and his mind/soul a bird — New2K2

I haven't read Kafka or The Zurau Aphorisms.
Thanks for the introduction. Great question.

I read that Kafka wrote these quick mental illuminations while convalescing. So, in a way his physical body was holed up, or caged, but also free from his usual work or obligations.
http://zurauaphorisms.blogspot.com/2011/12/number-sixteen.html

If so limited, then our minds need occupation; to search and then attempt to capture or write down whatever thoughts or ideas arise. Just as a bird is held for the purposes of appreciation, so a golden aphorism is treasured.

The words, alive at the time, if kept for posterity aren't allowed to change, even if our minds do. There for all time for others to gape at and dissect...
When all they are is an expression of a moment's creativity.

If ideas become dead dogma, this might be likened to the rituals of tribes or a set of religious beliefs from which individuals can't escape. Stuffed birds. No flying allowed.

Are these also from a collection of Aphorisms?
I liked the first one. — New2K2

Not from any collection I know of. I don't know where I heard the first one. It's pretty common. See Tom Storm's response to my post -

The second, which I love, is used as an epigraph in "Night Soldiers," a wonderful book by Alan Furst. If you are interested in historical novels about the years surrounding World War II, there are none better than Furst's. Some people say Trotsky actually said it. Some say Furst modified a different Trotsky quote.

My favourite version of the first which I was told was Maslow (but such quotes seem to transmigrate) is this: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail.' Which sharpens it for me. — Tom Storm

I don't doubt that Maslow's quote came first, but I like the one I quoted better. First - when it comes to aphorisms, shorter is usually better. Also - The idea of a live hammer searching out nails to smash always makes me smile. I think, most important, the version I quoted is ironic and sinister, which I think is appropriate to it's meaning. I think the quote @New2K2 used is ironic and sinister in a similar way, although others seem to see it differently.

The limits of a person's world view. — Tom Storm

There's a psychological term, "functional fixedness," which gets at that. E.g., how many times have I used a knife as a screwdriver, usually because I'm just too lazy to go down in the basement? Some people might not think of that because they couldn't see around what knives are supposed to be used for.

My reading of a cage went in search of a bird is - a cage is pointless without a bird in it. So it describes all the empty people 'cages' in search of their truth 'birds'. When they find it they will trap it and render it a prisoner in their mind - where the meaning no longer soars. — Tom Storm

That's pretty close to my reading, although, as I said, it feels a bit more sinister than that to me.

I think the line is ironic. We think of the caging to cage the bird, but the cage is a cage unto itself. If there's no bird in it, it's empty. — Dawnstorm

Or, maybe, without a bird, it's not a cage at all, it's just a box made of wire.

Deleted by author.

Also - The idea of a live hammer searching out nails to smash always makes me smile. I think, most important, the version I quoted is ironic and sinister, which I think is appropriate to it's meaning. — T Clark

I thought there was something sinister about your worldview, TC....

Just joking. I guess I like Maslow's because I have used it often with students and junior colleagues to great effect.

Or, maybe, without a bird, it's not a cage at all, it's just a box made of wire. — T Clark

That thought also occurred to me. A beautiful, decorated bird cage is just a lovely sculpture paused in the process of becoming a prison.

I thought there was something sinister about your worldview — Tom Storm

I am the brightest ray of sunshine on the forum.

My reading of a cage went in search of a bird is - a cage is pointless without a bird in it. So it describes all the empty people 'cages' in search of their truth 'birds'. When they find it they will trap it and render it a prisoner in their mind - where the meaning no longer soars.
— Tom Storm

That's pretty close to my reading, although, as I said, it feels a bit more sinister than that to me. — T Clark

For me, this thread has really brought home to me how our various interpretations reflect our own selves and what is important to us. Perhaps, I have been too cage-y with mine, not seeing any sinister aspects. So, on further reflection:

I began to think in terms of freedom and those associated with knowledge and understanding: comprehend, apprehend, grasp.

There is more than one bird or cage. What kind of bird, what size of cage. Whose cage ? Some birds are too big and can't be caged. Why would a cage want to capture a bird ?

A bird can be seen as knowledge or understanding to be grasped.
So, how might this be 'sinister' ?
Perhaps in alighting and settling on a Dangerous Idea; one which might upset the status quo.
My cage, or mind, might search for this as a way to gain freedom. To find and be myself.
However, other bigger cages ( perhaps society ) might seek to trap me and limit free thinking.
To live within current cultural mores.

A caged bird can't fly. What else cannot fly if restricted be e.g. lack of books or experience.
The spirit. The imagination. Thought ?

Our thoughts and imagination can fly or soar even when others might wish to stop free thinking.
But sometimes, we ourselves are scared to think out of the box or the cage of custom or upbringing for fear of the consequences. We feel safe clinging to the trappings of categories...we label ourselves for ease of description but... to confine ourselves to a single position...that can't be good for us ?

So, @T Clark I guess that's about as sinister as I can reach right now.
Could you expand on how you see it as such ?

When a 'thinker' adopts an opinion he becomes caged. From that cage he studies the world and while he can still see his view is changed. He is now constant instead of free and interprets everything with himself as the axis mundi. — New2K2

Yes. Having thought further, this seems right to me. But only as part of a bigger cage where not only the self but others are involved in the trapping for their own purposes...perhaps ?

A nest of cages...

So, T Clark I guess that's about as sinister as I can reach right now.
Could you expand on how you see it as such ? — Amity

I have to say - 'A cage went in search of a bird' - initially had be thinking it was the start of a Jewish joke. It also sounds like a euphemism for what happens whenever I go to the library...

It also sounds like a euphemism for what happens whenever I go to the library... — Tom Storm

:smile:
You can go to a library ?

Don't know. It's been a while.

A virus went in search of a human...

I have to say - 'A cage went in search of a bird' - initially had be thinking it was the start of a Jewish joke. — Tom Storm

Asking myself why I skipped over this - probably because it made me think of the Holocaust and the prison camps.
First, why would Jews joke about this?

Until a few minutes ago, I didn't know about 'Holocaust humour' and its place in America.
An interesting read:
https://theconversation.com/why-holocaust-jokes-can-only-be-told-by-a-jewish-comedian-87027

Next, why did I shy away from the dark, or sinister, side. Perhaps a coping mechanism, I know about being depressed and try not to dwell on things which might affect my mood in a negative way.
I seem to have coached my brain/mind to assess and then lift up before any downward spiral occurs.

Now, I remember I did read Kafka's 'The Trial' a long time ago.
I couldn't remember the details, but here's the conclusion. From an article:
Tim, "Kafka: The Trial (Analysis), May 12, 2012, " in Philosophy & Philosophers, May 12, 2012, https://www.the-philosophy.com/kafka-trial-analysis.

Joseph K. is an anti-hero, he lives in inauthenticity, it is actually guilty. Accused, wrongly perhaps, he eventually abdicated, he is convinced he is guilty. While he could escape, flee his trial, K., like modern man prefers to be killed, he abandoned all desire to live. He was shot down “like a dog” because he lets himself be dominated by the society, which has fixed, objectified, riveted him to his guilt.

So, now - it takes me while - I see the sinister side of the saying.

That's pretty close to my reading, although, as I said, it feels a bit more sinister than that to me. — T Clark

Is that what you were getting at ?

Again, following the trail of prisoner camps - it harks back to something I mentioned earlier re categories.

We feel safe clinging to the trappings of categories...we label ourselves for ease of description but... to confine ourselves to a single position...that can't be good for us ? — Amity

I had meant that it takes a bit of courage or skill to think outside the box, or your comfort zone.
I mentioned 'safety'. However, labelling yourself as being a [fill in the gap] can give a false sense of security. It can bring dangers. One tribe against the other. How do we deal with that when so many seem intent to stir divisions in our society...
Is this human nature...cages going in search of birds...?

German prison guards and officers could identify groups and pit them against each other.
Political prisoners, such as Communists, Socialists, and trade unionists wore red triangles. Common criminals wore green. Roma View This Term in the Glossary (Gypsies) and others the Germans considered "asocial" or "shiftless" wore black triangles. Jehovah's Witnesses wore purple and homosexuals pink. Letters indicated nationality: for example, P stood for Polish, SU for Soviet Union, F for French. — Holocaust Encyclopedia

For me, this thread has really brought home to me how our various interpretations reflect our own selves and what is important to us. — Amity

I think you'll find, if you ever have a question about an interpretation, mine is probably the correct one.

So, how might this be 'sinister' ? — Amity

In my first response on this thread, I included two quotes that the bird aphorism reminded me of. They were both pretty sinister, especially the ersatz Trotsky quote. Either for that reason or some other, the cage quote just felt threatening. I see a shifty-eyed cage going out hunting so it can trap the bird under it's control.