Re: Thinking with Jim and Robbie

RE: Great Ideas in Literature:

I'm not going to respond in detail about this -- I do think it's a bit limiting,
though. I've found that what is considered a "great idea" tends to change
between different times and cultures. I'd say the change is usually one in
emphasis, and some cultures even tend to harp on one or two to the exclusion of
others. For example, "humility" is a virtue in, say, some Christian era
literature, but I don't see a hint of that valuation in the Odyssey (I could be
missing something, and this is just one example).

I do believe that there are "great ideas" and "great themes" presented in
literatures from different times a cultures, but they're not always quite the
same -- I try not to take it for granted that I see these issues the same way
the initial audience may have. I also don't read literature just to find these
-- I think these "great ideas" grow out of individual experience of everyday
life, and find literary representations of these pretty illuminating too.

I think there is a danger inherent in a "great ideas" approach to texts to
obscure meaningful differences.

I won't go into detail about a "begging the question" argument because that
would get us nowhere.

More responses below:

"L. Manning Vines" wrote:

> And: "These judgments exist outside the text -- a society that believes it's
> always wrong for a young girl to go against the will of her father will
> produce this kind of reading. And legitimately. A society that doesn't
> take that for granted will produce other readings. I suspect Shakespeare
> was more on Desdemona's side than Iago's or Othello's. I can't begin to
> prove it. But, again, these contradictory readings are all equally in
> there -- depending on what you bring to the text to begin with."
>
> If the judgments exist outside the text, then the text does not directly
> support the judgment -- it might support the judgment given a certain system
> of analysis, but it does not necessarily support that system of analysis.

See, though, it's just these types of judgments that _always_ exist outside the
text. Relatively few literary texts are devoted to telling people what they
should believe is right and wrong (in terms of abstract ethical judgments, not
specific applications of ethical judgments). The vast majority assume a right
and wrong and specific value system and assume their readers will read the work
with that in mind.

It is these Assumptions that we just can't take for granted -- we don't
necessarily always share them, and they do affect how we read.

> And: "So how does reference to the author help us?"
>
> I don't think that it does. Denying that the author had his artful fingers
> in every crafted word just seems artificial and ridiculous to me. As I said
> to John, reading books as if they were authors speaking to me just seems to
> me more true and honest.
>

Never issued such a denial. I rather assume that a brilliant author (say, like
Shakespeare) put the majority of his words where he wanted them for a reason.

I don't know that this is really applicable to Shakespeare -- he wrote for
performance, had to please actors and directors, some lines were changed in
rehearsal, I suspect (we know we have different texts of "Hamlet"), and I'm
pretty sure he never envisioned his works being published in a mass produced
book. So, in a sense, every time we read Shakespeare, we don't approach his
work the way he envisioned we would.

But for the sake of argument, let's say what you're saying is true. This
doesn't mean that Shakepeare envisioned every legtimate reading of his words,
even within his own narrow context. But you address this below.

> I believe that when Socrates says that yesterday he went down to the
> Piraeus, it's always true, and he's always talking to me.

No, he's _never_ talking to you. He never even considered you, or was ever
capable of imagining you, or that his words would endure for so long. He
_spoke_ for his audience alone -- that was his sole intention (assuming Socrates
actually said these words and they weren't an invention of Plato's). Is your
reading of his words, then, according to his intent, when he never intended an
audience such as yourself?

> You said in another message with the same subject line: "I will say I do
> benefit from older criticism as well, but not always in the way the critic
> may have meant me to :)."
>
> But before you said: "I don't think there's any out there [lit. crit.]
> that's good for more than 50 years -- perhaps the closest is Aristotle's
> Poetics, but that's the sole example I can think of."
>
> That sounds like -- it explicitly states, in fact -- you didn't think any is
> good for more than 50 years. But that the Poetics comes closer than
> anything else.
>
> So you've changed your mind?

No -- again, I said I benefited from older criticism, but "not necessarily in
ways the author intended me to benefit." I benefit from it as revealing of the
attitudes in the author's culture, but not as personally illuminating to me for
the work.

The example from Shakespeare's "Othello" illustrates this.

> And when a very old piece of criticism or interpretation seems right to me,
> to say that the author of that criticism intended it in a wholly different
> way seems like an enormity of a stretch. It makes me wonder what the hell
> criticism you're talking about.

That's fair, but again, I did reference Aristotle's _Poetics_, Matthew Arnold's
criticism of Robert Burns, and a 19th century reading of "Othello." I've told
you what criticism I'm talking about.

> You said: "1. Not all authors are perfect, and do not actually and
> consistently SAY what they INTEND. You run into this problem a good bit in
> poetry and philosophy. You feel like the author doesn't quite know how to
> say what they want to say, or is not quite sure what they intend."
>
> I do not frequently encounter that problem. Perhaps this is because most of
> what I read is very old and very influential, and I thus use the great
> filter of time to my advantage (most of what survives intact for centuries
> or millennia, for some reason or other, DESERVED to survive). My little
> experience with modern philosophy is quite like you say.

Ok, but if we're going to talk about interpretive practices applicable to
literature in general, can we really separate the greats from the mundane?

> I do believe that the greatest of writers, at least while they are at their
> greatest, DO consistently say what they intend. They are hard because they
> challenge us, while lesser writers are hard for the reason that you say.
>

I can see that too.

> It surprises me that you can accuse me of making undefended assertions and
> then drop this on my lap.

I would counter, as you do, that I've been arguing this point all along and
providing illustrations. I suspect we're just missing one another, then.

> Then: "I think you're not fully aware of how many radically different
> readings can
> 'legitimately' be drawn from most literary texts."
>
> I think I am. Perhaps you are willing to accept as a legitimate reading
> something that I am not.
>

That's also a possibility -- I think this discussion will only go on in circles
unless we use a specific text and talk about specific potential meanings. I
don't think we can really do anything other than talk in circles until then.
Daniel's suggestion was pretty useful in this regard, but I don't think too many
people will really participate.

> If it is so that serious and meaningful substance (however you want to take
> that) can be in a text without the author of the text being aware of it,
> explain to me why such substance would not be found in the result of a
> computer program randomly generating grammatically valid sentences.

Actually, there have been experiments conducted with computer generated modern
free verse that have yielded some pretty interesting results.

I think it's significant that we're talking Free Verse and not extended
narrative. I'm pretty sure there are programs out there that can write
narrative as well.

If this feels obscene to you, I agree.

> In still another message: "No, really, Robbie, a book is literally made up
> of paper and ink. Or papyrus. Or chisled stone. And it's nothing more than
> that, get this... until someone, somewhere, sometime, reads it :)."
>
> A book IS made up of paper and ink. And it seems hard to argue that a book
> on the shelf is the same as a book being read. But it seems unforgivably
> reductive to say so plainly that a book is paper and ink. It takes
> something much more than that to transform so magically when someone takes
> it off the shelf.

It takes a reader :).

And: "When I said a book was a 'non-human artifact' I meant that it itself,

> of course, was not human. Again, your reading did not match my intent, but
> I'm not blaming you for that."
>
> I knew what you meant; you wrote it well enough to make your intent clear.
> I was just poking fun at you for saying it (I gave my thoughts on it above).
>

Alright, alright :).

> From the Esme post: "What you fail to see is that words, in context, tend to
> have only one appropriate meaning, but in actual use (and by intention),
> usually only have one.
>
> The reader has to select, then, the most appropriate definition, because all
> are implied but only one is 'intended.' This leads to ambiguity, multiple
> readings, etc."
>
> You keep making the assertion that all these meanings are implied but only
> one intended, that the author only means one simple non-contradictory thing.
> I keep denying it, seeing no reason why it ought to be so, and you just
> assert it again.

I responded in more detail in another post -- I don't know that you've read it
yet, though. I'd also like to point out that I typed a clause incorrectly up
above, but you still understood my intent.

What I said in this other post was that an author can indeed pit elements X
against Y and A against B in his/her work, but another reader may legitimately
see elements D and E that the author may not have ever considered. No matter
how you define an author's reading of his/her work, it is possible for another
or even contradictory reading to be produced. A "single" interpretation, in
other words, could include the ideas of ambiguity and multivocity, but there
could still be rival, legitimate, interpretations.

> Why doesn't the thoughtful and artful author intend to imply all of the
> applicable meanings? Is it impossible for Shakespeare to have been so
> careful with his words? I expect that he was much cleverer and subtler than
> either of the two of us.

I don't think it's possible for anyone to be that careful. Language is an
inherently slippery thing. Words change meaning over time. Even worse, they
keep the same meaning but carry different, unspoken, connotations.

> And: "As a result, I didn't quite understand Tim's response to me. Again,
> though, we understood the same sentence differently because we were coming
> to it with different contexts, different assumptions -- both about what
> 'housewives' were and about who Seymour's wife was. Neither of these were
> 'inherent in' the original text, but brought to it by each reader."
>
> Knowing English as well as both of you do, you each can see the
> possibilities for the word. Maybe you favored one and he the other, but
> neither option was shocking and foreign to either of you (if you say it was,
> I'll call you a liar). You can discuss the text and come to decide that one
> reading makes more sense, or that it's ambiguous (and likely deliberately
> so, for the careful author could have chosen less ambiguous words).
>

I honestly didn't consider Tim's reading until he explained it to me, but once
he did, it made perfect sense.

How do you explain this? The knowledge was in my head but not in my immediate
consciousness? We could continue to discuss and possibly come to a point of
agreement, yes, but it's more important to this conversation to note that,
initially, our different experiences led to different readings.

See, when I'm reading Shakespeare, I can't argue or discuss with him to get to a
single meaning.

> From yet another message: "Robbie...talk about presumption. The primary
> difference between us is that I've actually read Freud, and you haven't --
> so when I say that he is quite capable of contradicting himself from
> sentence to sentence, I could plausibly be right in this -- but you have no
> plausible reason to cringe. When I say he invented a myth, that the
> physical structures of the mind he envisioned simply aren't there, a
> neurosurgeon (for example) would agree with me. But you cringe...without
> even having read Freud. [. . .]I have the right to my opinion. You have no
> right to cringe."
>
> I cringe not because I know you're wrong, but because you speak so
> dismissively of him. You treat Freud as though he were plainly an imbecile
> (and ostensibly presuming that you, of course, are much smarter). I have
> not read Freud, and do not yet know what I'll think of him, but his status
> as a thinker is such that I will do my damndest not to be so dismissive of
> him. Aristotle said that falling objects continuously accelerate, Ptolemy
> said that the earth was the center of the universe -- both of these things I
> know to be inaccurate. I see people scoff at their mistakes and treat them
> as though they were obviously village idiots. Those wacky ancients! If
> only they were so aware as WE are. These people invariably acquire enough
> information about Aristotle and Ptolemy to get degrees and impress people at
> cocktail parties, but they don't learn much from them. By not being so
> dismissive and by reading sensitively, by trying to figure out why such a
> clearly intelligent person would say a thing that doesn't seem right to me
> rather than merely pushing it off the table as incorrect, I have found that
> the depth and profundity of genius and insight to be found in Aristotle and
> Ptolemy are staggering.

You're not taking into account everything I've said about Freud even on this
list. Do you really think that the few statements I've made about Freud exhaust
my opinion of him?

Freud was as dismissive of religious texts as you say I am about his texts --
what do you think of him now?

You don't have the right to cringe because you don't know my entire mind from
the few sentences I've written lately. You Presume to know it, but you don't.
I recognize Freud's genius (and have said so on this list), recognize his
lasting status as the father of modern psychology (and have said so on this
list), and recognize the explanatory power of his theories (and have said so on
this list).

This is the problem with reasoning from a few of an author's words to a
wholesale statement about Intent.

> You said: "Good Lord, Robbie, what universe are you living in? :) What
> you've just described is THE quintessential humanities/liberal arts
> educational paradigm."
>
> I don't understand how these two sentences connect. Is the second one
> sarcastic? If not, you either misunderstood me or the "what universe"
> remark doesn't make sense to me.
>
> I described THE quintessential humanities/liberal arts educational paradigm
> as I thought it IS. I was complaining about it as far less than ideal,
> though.

I read a description of a rather hackneyed approach to literary/philosophical
texts compared to a classroom discussion in which students read, say, Kant's
_Critique of Pure Reason_ and discuss it. The latter seemed to be an ideal to
you. It would help if we had the original post in front of us. If you want to
elaborate on your meaning, though, I'm willing to listen, and am willing to
believe I completely missed your intent.

> You said: "And you expect this in an _Introduction to Philosophy_ class
> taught at the undergrad level? You've obviously _never_ taught, Robbie, or
> don't really know what first year undergrads in, say, community colleges or
> your average four year state u. can handle."
>
> The best Introduction to Philosophy textbook can be purchased in a thick
> volume with "The Complete Works of Plato" written on the cover. To bypass
> this in order to listen to somebody explain Kant is not to know philosophy.
>

I don't think that's very realistic for an Intro to Philosophy course, esp. at a
community college or as a lower division 4 year university course. That's a
Plato class, not an Intro to Phil class. Students don't need _all_ of Plato and
do need to learn about other philosophers. Some of these people will take
Philosophy only at the Intro To level -- it would be cheating them to have them
only read Plato and not touch Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant,
Schopenhauer, Heidegger, etc.

> I have never been paid to lead a class, it's true (get back to me in a few
> years). But I have given first-year undergrads in community colleges and
> four-year state universities copies of Plato's Meno, and had very serious
> discussions with them (including serious discussions about Kant, frequently
> involving my trying to convince them that their professor misrepresented the
> man). I do know what they can handle.

How big was the class, and did they read the entire Critique?

> There IS a college still in the world conceived in and dedicated to the
> proposition that -- so long as you have the right attitude and aren't
> utterly stupid -- you CAN handle it. You can read about it here:
> http://www.sjca.edu In recent decades other schools have been springing up
> with similar curricula -- usually with the help of the faculty here -- and
> they are sometimes collectively referred to as the Great Books schools.
> This one is often called THE Great Books School.

As I said, that's a great approach, I'm not knocking it. It just doesn't work
in increasingly large settings, and I think you'll find your University has
admissions requirements much more exclusive than the local community college.

Sometimes there are people in class that are utterly stupid that still need to
be served too. Sometimes there are pretty smart people that just haven't had to
deal with much abstract thought. Sometimes there are insightful people who have
English as a second language and just balk at the idea of reading something as
difficult as Kant.

> And: "My students at the community college I'm now teaching at need it spoon
> fed to them - -- this is the first time they've read this kind of material."
>
> If you spoon feed it, they're just memorizing, not learning. They acquire
> True Opinion, perhaps, but very little Knowledge. Have them read the Meno.
> It's probably not forty pages, it doesn't feel particularly dense, but they
> can talk about it and read it again and mull over it for the rest of their
> lives. It sheds light on all philosophy. If they need philosophy
> spoon-fed, they are in no way prepared for Kant.

Precisely my point :). But this is an Intro class, not one designed for
philosophy majors. It's to present the basic ideas of western philosophy as
they have developed across time.

I like the idea of having them read the Meno (actually thought of it). But that
would mean they wouldn't be reading other things. I have to choose between
breadth or depth. In an intro course, I think breadth is a good thing. If I
teach it again, I may try fewer readings of longer works and no textbook. I'll
have to think about that. This approach works pretty well for the students I
have.

> And: "There's a difference between saying that a 'thinking mind intended the
> book,' and, 'a thinking mind intended every possible meaning generated by
> the book.'
>
> "You seem to be arguing one, then the other, at different times."
>
> If ten sentences are arranged one after another into a paragraph, and some
> meaning is extracted from that paragraph as a whole, that meaning was
> intended by the paragraph's author. If we assemble randomly-generated
> grammatically-valid sentences all day, the number that will have sensible
> meaning will demonstrate this to us. Linguistic substance is too complex to
> routinely be anything but deliberate.
>

If it's that complex, Robbie, isn't it possible that it can generate meanings
beyond the two or three or five or ten initially envisioned by the author?

> And:
> "> 'The degree of sensibility is so great that. . .'
> >
>
> "It's interesting that in your original reply, as in your second reply, you
> delete the word 'anyway.'
>
> "I read it because you put it there, but to defend your reading you need to
> delete it?"
>
> You're grasping for straws, Jim. I deleted it in the quotation because it
> was not relevant to what I was doing with the quotation. I do not need to
> delete it to defend my reading.
>
> "The degree of sensibility is so great that . . ."
> "The degree of sensibility is so great that I believe it . . ."
> "The degree of sensibility is so great that I believe it anyway."
>

The grammar of the sentence is the same, yes, because the word "anyway" doesn't
affect the grammatical structure. "Anyway" is a disclaimer, Robbie. How else
am I supposed to understand it? What does the presence of that disclaimer
signify?

> You said: "Who you are is irrelevant to this discussion -- I'm not impressed
> with your qualifications, because people more qualified than you disagree
> with you."
>
> Who I am is perfectly relevant to this discussion. I am an intelligent,
> reasonable, thoughtful man with well-informed and well-considered and -- I
> hope -- well-elucidated opinions. This means that you cannot rightfully
> treat me like a child or an imbecile, that you cannot condescend to me or
> pull rank. This is precisely what it appears you keep trying to do, to me
> and to others you disagree with on this list.

Other people can speak for themselves -- a bit presumptious of you to do this
for them.

I haven't treated you, at any point, like a "child or imbecile" in my opinion.
I think it's quite possible for someone that's intelligent and well spoken (you
are) to not always know the meaning of your own words. I don't always know the
meaning of my own words (seems like Scottie pointed this out in making the same
accusation).

Robbie, you should listen to yourself sometimes too :). I could offer quotation
after quotation of sentences that sounded Grandly Presumptious in your posts --
but there'd be no point, you'd be saying you didn't mean them that way.

Honestly, the two people here who have taken issue with my "condescension" can
be pretty condescending themselves sometimes.

> The atrociously inappropriate and plainly rude comment I quoted above was
> responding to my self-identification as an ardent classicist. This
> self-identification was not to impress you with my qualifications, Jim -- it
> wasn't a qualification of any sort at all, in fact. It was merely to give
> an indication of where I was coming from, as it appeared to me that some of
> my comments should be less surprising coming from me than from someone who
> is more of a modernist.
>

Robbie, not all classicists feel the same way. Barthes wrote a good bit in this
field, to use one example. Derrida used Plato and others.

> Whenever in other cases I have said things to give suggestions of my
> qualifications, they were solely to inspire YOU (never anyone else) to treat
> me with a bit more respect and dignity, and usually in direct response to
> your treating me like a wee little'un who busted into the grown-up's
> conversation. I have acutely felt on innumerable occasions over many years
> on this list that you have being trying to convince me of my inferiority to
> you. I don't buy it, and it becomes harder to stomach every time.
>
> -robbie

I'm sorry you feel this way. Again, if I sound this way to you, this is partly,
I know, my fault (I know what I'm like).

But I think it's partly what I'm responding to as well.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Oct 30 11:23:28 2002