Re: The Universe May Not Be Universal

Arne Moll (arnemail@dds.nl)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:39:23 +0200 

At 16:39 14-7-98 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Along the lines of the argument we've been following, the universe is,
>ultimately, an ideological construction that is itself far from
>universal.  I'm not really a Marxist (Menshevik, or Bolshevik, does he
>mean?), so while I'm not especially interested in the idea, I do believe
>that people in power market versions of the world to others that best
>serve their needs.  The idea that certain things are "universal"
>eventually only facilitates this or that form of oppression.  

Although I don't understand what all this has to do with the literary
meaning of "universal", i still think you miss my point. I think
'universal' should mean: of all time and places. So, death, love etc. etc.
ARE of all time, and of all places. No need to point that out again, now,
is there?

>             
>
>> If personal experiences that we all have,
>> always (like love, death, loss, friendship, etc. etc. etc - all those
>> things that Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and, indeed
>> Salinger, wrote about..) aren't, then nothing is. 
>
>But see, while we (members of this list, most of our friends and
>colleagues, and most people we encounter in the media and in
>economically stable free western countries) all have these experiences,
>there are lots of people who don't.

Don't what? Don't die ? Don't experience loss or love? Show them, please.

>  So you've got it.  Nothing is
>universal.  As far as I know, everybody does indeed die.  But not all
>cultures look at death in the same way, so my idea of and experience
>with death (which resembles Shakespeare's, et al.) is not just like
>everybody else's idea and therefore not universal.

Indeed, it is not. But that is not important. Relevant is only the fact
that a writer, or any artist, or someone cleaning shoes in Calcutta (who
knows?) gives his interpretation and ideas about these things. It's *these
things* (feelings, etc.) that are universal, NOT the ideas that are
attached to it by the (any) artist itself ! They may BECOME universal,
though, like (in my view) Salinger's and Shakespeare's. On the other hand,
they may not, like (I hope) Marx's. Only time will tell whether these ideas
will stand the "test of time". 


Arne