So before I get started, I wish to tell an anecdote from ENG413 that happened today. While working on a collaborative essay, a girl in my group perked up and said, "Does someone have the gum Fruit Stripes?" And from down the table, a boy held up a freshly opened pack and said, "You have an excellent nose!" The smeller told everyone within ear shot how she would eat that gum all summer long and the Zebra tattoos that are on the wrapper always came out blurry. I perked up and said, "That gum smells like childhood and I haven't smelled that in 15 years." All agreed with me. From the wafting scent of a piece of (really crappy gum) we were suddenly pulled back into a time of pop sickles, summer nights and stirrup pants. Oh the 90s.
I think Proust accepts Cavandish's point that the brain cannot be squared, to a degree. He marvels and relishes the randomness of human existence. "...it [the memory] has stopped, has perhaps sunk back into its darkness, from which who can say whether it will ever rise again?" (2) Lerer outlines the principle of "just accept it" in Bergson's idea, "the reality of our self-consciousness- could not be reduced or experimentally dissected." (78) I find this perspective incredibly fascinating and paradoxical. On one hand, Proust and Bergson acknowledge the unexplainable of the human consciousness, but on the other hand they constantly explore their feelings, memories and writings. I would think their constant writings and in the case of Proust, exploration of a joyous feelings, represents an insatiable curiosity of the mind. I may be splitting hairs here, but perhaps they cannot admit that they are drawn to the idea of being able to explain their memories and mind despite denying their ability to do so. Why is it that Proust wrote three pages of Times New Roman font on the fleeting memory of the taste of a madeleine? Because he wanted to know what that feeling was. "...(although I did not yet know and must long postpone the discovery of why this memory made me so happy)" (2-3) This sentence implies he will further search for the source of the happiness, instead of simply basking in the happiness he had in that fleeting moment. Further, if Proust constantly edited his works as Lerer tells us, Proust didn't leave his memories alone; he constantly edited them in search for something in them or perfection.
I happen to be taking a Medieval and Renaissance lit course that uses the omniscient Norton Anthology of English Literature. The poetry of the time was not looking for accuracy of reality, but rather wanted the perfection of wordplay that creates a new world, filled with truth and magic, which holds moral truth as well. The poets alone had the power to fabricate these new worlds to inhabit (NAEL vol 1B, 504). Similarly, Proust believed that "only the artist was able to describe reality as it was actually experienced." (77) As is with most literature, I find this a fascinating point, that only those who produce art tell the truth. Or, is it create truth? If we take what the rat experiment of 2002 proved, the truth of our memory is only that which we remembered the last time. So wouldn't truth only be what we made in the moment? What is true, the buttery cookie or the memory of the buttery cookie? What is my reality, the physical world in which I live or the world created inside my mind through memory? The last world is constantly edited, combining new lessons and facts with old ones; an ever changing reality quite unique. But since I am not a poet or "gifted" writer in the traditional sense, does my writing, words and internal reality not actually represent or is reality? I would disagree with Proust in that point. Why does he and Renaissance authors have the authority to dismiss my memories that are just as strong as the tea and cookie?
I finally want to say how cool the Nader experiment is. He actually proved that we need constant repetition to remember, it's not just my French TA blabbering on and wanting to torture me with verb conjugations! I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that my memories are constantly remade. It makes sense logically, but to think that I will never remember anything exactly as it was the first time is slightly scary. Will I remember my child's first step clearly or my high school graduation? Perhaps that is what Proust is trying to do; capture himself in a moment to examine. But in that caging, he also changes his memory because he can go back and visit it. So, memory is a recursive process, just like writing or reading.
So, when I smell the Fruit Stripes gum, I will remember the summation of childhood summers AND the ENG experience, tainting the original memory, that actually does not exist anymore.
In other news, would anyone like a cookie?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Why "Tristram Shandy" Sucks So Much
So the title is a little bit dramatic, and I don't actually think the book sucks.
I think hate can stem from ignorance, a lack of understanding. That in mind, I hate (not think sucks) Tristram Shandy. This is because I don't understand it! I cannot pay attention to the narration, often wondering what I should make for dinner or what I should wear to the party tonight.
Cue awesome transition/lightbulb!
This week's readings on attention and scientific study of that phenomenon is perfect for self-diagnosis! My question I will attempt to answer in this blog post is: What about Tristram Shandy hinders my (and other readers') ability to pay attention to the narration? And maybe, just maybe, I will not hate it so much.
My initial thought is that Sterne plays with our attention purposefully. In all honesty, I cannot keep track of the original story, if one such exists! Sterne embeds story within story within story, pulling the audience along. For instance, the beginning of Volume II deals with Uncle Toby's story of his groin injury and subsequent recovery. Now this story was deemed necessary, or rather was brought upon us, while Tristram tells the story of his birth, in which his father and Toby are present. Only, the scene in the parlor with father and uncle is last mentioned in detail Vol I Chapter 18, 40 pages previous. These layers are not neat and organized with a clear voice. This voice is complex which detracts from a neat narrative. The voice not only tells the story from the character in question's perspective (Uncle Toby, Tristram, the father ect...) but also interjects into the story as Shandy himself. This skews the flow and distracts us.
The Vu article states that, "Many studies have showed that it is easier to perform two tasks together when the tasks use different stimulus or response modalities than when they use the same modalities. (20) Now, Shandy is using the same modality, that is written word, to convey multiple tasks, that is multiple stories. And to be fair, many books, movies and songs do the same thing. But I think this particular novel is so confusing because the voice never changes. Shandy tells all the stories in the exact same way, which does not allow us to see the physical scene shift. As readers, we do not notice that Shandy has engaged in a pseudo-discourse with someone outside the novel, like the critick in Vol. II, and strayed from the Uncle Toby discourse. Or, we do notice, but too late to create distinct breaks with which we organize the multiple stories.
Succinctly, Sterne is messing with the reader's ability to pay attention to the story through the narrator's inability to pay attention to his own story! We have so much information thrown at us in subtly sarcastic and mocking ways. There are constant references to outside world: literature, scientific thoughts, theories, events, even actual people! The information clogs the pages, obscuring the story, I think on purpose.
I'm starting to see the brilliance in the novel. The Vu article spoke about the philosophical period of attention developments. This particular quote struck me, "Malebranche held that we have access to ideas, or mental representations of the external world, but not direct access to the world itself." (4) What if this goes on in the world of literature? Sterne makes us well aware that TRISTRAM SHANDY controls the words. He tells us exactly what is going on, and that view is flawed and confusing. The reader cannot enter the parlor room directly through the narration because Shandy won't back away. Metaphorically, it's like he is a green-tinted window through which we see the action being played out. The green tint distorts our access to the action inside, and we cannot get rid of it. For example, " I could not give the reader this stroke in my Uncle Toby's picture, by the instrument with which I drew the other parts of it..." (81) Shandy is admitting he is in control of Toby's picture, that is his world, and we as readers have to accept that we will get no other view, and perhaps forces us to imagine an alternate picture, one that changes our perception of Uncle Toby.
Alright, so I kind of dig this book now. I'm still not happy with the lack of actual story, but I think I need to step back and realize that this is not Jane Eyre. The book is a liminal character, flitting between a traditional method of story telling and an almost stream of consciousness narration. Which, in my opinion, is a really hard thing to do, especially when the stream of consciousness won't be invented for another 150 years or so. Sterne is turning the novel inside out and flipping it upside down. This leads me to believe that maybe the story isn't the focus, it's the voice. Our inability to have direct connection to the world, that we have to look through green tinted windows. But what happens when we realize the tint is there?
I'm on to you Laurence Sterne. Watch out.
I think hate can stem from ignorance, a lack of understanding. That in mind, I hate (not think sucks) Tristram Shandy. This is because I don't understand it! I cannot pay attention to the narration, often wondering what I should make for dinner or what I should wear to the party tonight.
Cue awesome transition/lightbulb!
This week's readings on attention and scientific study of that phenomenon is perfect for self-diagnosis! My question I will attempt to answer in this blog post is: What about Tristram Shandy hinders my (and other readers') ability to pay attention to the narration? And maybe, just maybe, I will not hate it so much.
My initial thought is that Sterne plays with our attention purposefully. In all honesty, I cannot keep track of the original story, if one such exists! Sterne embeds story within story within story, pulling the audience along. For instance, the beginning of Volume II deals with Uncle Toby's story of his groin injury and subsequent recovery. Now this story was deemed necessary, or rather was brought upon us, while Tristram tells the story of his birth, in which his father and Toby are present. Only, the scene in the parlor with father and uncle is last mentioned in detail Vol I Chapter 18, 40 pages previous. These layers are not neat and organized with a clear voice. This voice is complex which detracts from a neat narrative. The voice not only tells the story from the character in question's perspective (Uncle Toby, Tristram, the father ect...) but also interjects into the story as Shandy himself. This skews the flow and distracts us.
The Vu article states that, "Many studies have showed that it is easier to perform two tasks together when the tasks use different stimulus or response modalities than when they use the same modalities. (20) Now, Shandy is using the same modality, that is written word, to convey multiple tasks, that is multiple stories. And to be fair, many books, movies and songs do the same thing. But I think this particular novel is so confusing because the voice never changes. Shandy tells all the stories in the exact same way, which does not allow us to see the physical scene shift. As readers, we do not notice that Shandy has engaged in a pseudo-discourse with someone outside the novel, like the critick in Vol. II, and strayed from the Uncle Toby discourse. Or, we do notice, but too late to create distinct breaks with which we organize the multiple stories.
Succinctly, Sterne is messing with the reader's ability to pay attention to the story through the narrator's inability to pay attention to his own story! We have so much information thrown at us in subtly sarcastic and mocking ways. There are constant references to outside world: literature, scientific thoughts, theories, events, even actual people! The information clogs the pages, obscuring the story, I think on purpose.
I'm starting to see the brilliance in the novel. The Vu article spoke about the philosophical period of attention developments. This particular quote struck me, "Malebranche held that we have access to ideas, or mental representations of the external world, but not direct access to the world itself." (4) What if this goes on in the world of literature? Sterne makes us well aware that TRISTRAM SHANDY controls the words. He tells us exactly what is going on, and that view is flawed and confusing. The reader cannot enter the parlor room directly through the narration because Shandy won't back away. Metaphorically, it's like he is a green-tinted window through which we see the action being played out. The green tint distorts our access to the action inside, and we cannot get rid of it. For example, " I could not give the reader this stroke in my Uncle Toby's picture, by the instrument with which I drew the other parts of it..." (81) Shandy is admitting he is in control of Toby's picture, that is his world, and we as readers have to accept that we will get no other view, and perhaps forces us to imagine an alternate picture, one that changes our perception of Uncle Toby.
Alright, so I kind of dig this book now. I'm still not happy with the lack of actual story, but I think I need to step back and realize that this is not Jane Eyre. The book is a liminal character, flitting between a traditional method of story telling and an almost stream of consciousness narration. Which, in my opinion, is a really hard thing to do, especially when the stream of consciousness won't be invented for another 150 years or so. Sterne is turning the novel inside out and flipping it upside down. This leads me to believe that maybe the story isn't the focus, it's the voice. Our inability to have direct connection to the world, that we have to look through green tinted windows. But what happens when we realize the tint is there?
I'm on to you Laurence Sterne. Watch out.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Brave New World
I was taught in my Education courses that the best way to introduce students to a new topic is to relate the new material to things they already know; make connections. Very much a student, I need to connect this topic of cognition and neuroscience in relation to literature to that which I already know. Thus, this entry will look at the excerpt from René Descartes "Selections from Meditations on First Philosophy" with connections to ideas I already know. This will allow me to better understand what Descartes communicates as well as if I have (or have not) seen his theory in action before.
Having some French training (7 years) I have the happy ability to understand the famous Descartes phrase, "je pense donc je suis." I find the article in question to be the discourse leading up to the assertion of existence of "I think therefore I am." Indeed, the author begins with, "...I am nothing so long as I think that I am something... I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (21) Descartes establishes consciousness as existence.
He argues this point further through exploration of the physical body. Essentially, the body cannot do anything without the mind. What is the feeling of a hot stove without the mind to tell the "I" that it is hot? I really love how Descartes discusses dreaming as part of consciousness and existence. He acknowledges the power of dreams and how we don't stop "being" when we are asleep, for we still use our mind to dream, thus we still are. "I am a mind, or intelligence, or intellect, or reason- words whose meaning I have been ignorant of until now...a thinking thing." (22)
An discussion I have trouble following ensues just after the one previously mentioned. He questions the "I" the subject he claims to be. I think he asks himself is he of his mind or of his body...which one of these is his I. We cannot know that which we do not know, therefore we cannot be something we do not know we are. For example, if the United States of America banned the word "pancakes" in favor of "flap jack" in 1776, outlawing "pancake" written or oral presence on the continent, I would never know that the round thing I eat with syrup and butter for breakfast (or lunch or dinner) was a pancake, the pancake would never exist. Only a flap jack would because the round thing can't be what I don't know it could be. If I have this right, this is a very interesting argument. Can humans be something that we do not know we are? Can blue be purple if blue thinks it is actually purple?
Social construction is at play here in my mind. I remember a theory of language that said language is only made of differences because that is the only way we can communicate what we mean. The signs must be agreed upon as well. The English language calls a cloud a cloud because it is neither a tree nor a foot nor a sock. The French call a cloud a nuage because it is not a meuble, pomplemousse or chat. The English don't know a cloud as a nuage because that is not what they call it. The cloud cannot say to humans that is actually a nuage and not a cloud, or actually a cloud and not a nuage. The white fluffy thing in the sky is only what we know it as; a construction of our language. Thus, humans can only be that which we have constructed, that is, what we know. We can observe our physical body and (in a sense) hear our consciousness and know both exist.
On the final page of the article, Descartes brings in vision. By using the metaphor of the wax who can change states of matter, he says "that knowledge of the wax comes from what the eye sees, and not from the scrutiny of the mind alone." (24) This written observation (see what I did there? haha) mirrors the argument of knowing and not knowing. Only the brain and the eye together "make" the wax, without either one, the wax does not exist to us because we depend on the two to make the world around us. I connected this to concealing an explosive in a cupcake. Our eyes see the cupcake and the mind confirms it is a delicious pastry treat as well. However, we cannot see the true nature of the malicious frosted mini-cake because we do not know it's true nature, that is the one concealed to us. Now when the cupcake blows up (not harming anyone of course) we have new evidence that we must compromise with our brain and eyes.
What Descartes fails to note is the impact of the other senses as well as memory. Let's say the cupcake looked like a cupcake, but smelled like sulfuric acid? What would we conclude? We might conclude that we have to assume that it is not actually what we think it is. Another person who happened to know his friend used to make cupcake explosives would have different knowledge that us, the unawares. That person may view the treat as a potential threat, despite visual evidence. Also, what if that person yelled, "THAT CUPCAKE IS GOING TO EXPLODE! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE PEOPLE!!" We would give this man a quizzical look and recommend that he gets a good night's rest. I could be splitting hairs here, but I think previous knowledge is an important factor when determining what is real and what is not. Descartes could have learned that wax can melt but stay the same, as in someone told him the properties of wax, rather than his eyes alone telling him.
I find the underlying implications of his revelation strong. I am slightly obsessed with Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet. There is a wonderful quote, "There is not good or bad/but thinking makes it so." The world exists as it is, and the only way for humans to process it is through our senses, which our brain interprets. Descartes also admits that he does not know himself as well as he thought. "I should have a more distinct grasp of things which I realize are doubtful, unknown and foreign to me, that I have of that which is true and known- my own self." (23) I have to ask, is he really that "true"? We already called into question truth because we can only know what we have evidence of, and that does not necessarily make it "true."But when we think about it, we pass a judgement that makes the action, thing or person true, good, bad, right, wrong or silly. He also separates the body and mind, unlike later theorists who rejoice in the complex and unknowable joining of the two.
I think Descartes theory is still in society today. When a person decides to pull the plug on someone they know in the hospital because they are a "vegetable," that is they have no more consciousness, some may consider it the right thing to do because the hospitalized person does not exists anymore. After reading articles that question the placement of the mind and soul in relation to the body I feel I am not ready to make my own judgment on what makes a person exist. Or perhaps, I should not question that and simply rejoice in my consciousness, body and dreams.
Having some French training (7 years) I have the happy ability to understand the famous Descartes phrase, "je pense donc je suis." I find the article in question to be the discourse leading up to the assertion of existence of "I think therefore I am." Indeed, the author begins with, "...I am nothing so long as I think that I am something... I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (21) Descartes establishes consciousness as existence.
He argues this point further through exploration of the physical body. Essentially, the body cannot do anything without the mind. What is the feeling of a hot stove without the mind to tell the "I" that it is hot? I really love how Descartes discusses dreaming as part of consciousness and existence. He acknowledges the power of dreams and how we don't stop "being" when we are asleep, for we still use our mind to dream, thus we still are. "I am a mind, or intelligence, or intellect, or reason- words whose meaning I have been ignorant of until now...a thinking thing." (22)
An discussion I have trouble following ensues just after the one previously mentioned. He questions the "I" the subject he claims to be. I think he asks himself is he of his mind or of his body...which one of these is his I. We cannot know that which we do not know, therefore we cannot be something we do not know we are. For example, if the United States of America banned the word "pancakes" in favor of "flap jack" in 1776, outlawing "pancake" written or oral presence on the continent, I would never know that the round thing I eat with syrup and butter for breakfast (or lunch or dinner) was a pancake, the pancake would never exist. Only a flap jack would because the round thing can't be what I don't know it could be. If I have this right, this is a very interesting argument. Can humans be something that we do not know we are? Can blue be purple if blue thinks it is actually purple?
Social construction is at play here in my mind. I remember a theory of language that said language is only made of differences because that is the only way we can communicate what we mean. The signs must be agreed upon as well. The English language calls a cloud a cloud because it is neither a tree nor a foot nor a sock. The French call a cloud a nuage because it is not a meuble, pomplemousse or chat. The English don't know a cloud as a nuage because that is not what they call it. The cloud cannot say to humans that is actually a nuage and not a cloud, or actually a cloud and not a nuage. The white fluffy thing in the sky is only what we know it as; a construction of our language. Thus, humans can only be that which we have constructed, that is, what we know. We can observe our physical body and (in a sense) hear our consciousness and know both exist.
On the final page of the article, Descartes brings in vision. By using the metaphor of the wax who can change states of matter, he says "that knowledge of the wax comes from what the eye sees, and not from the scrutiny of the mind alone." (24) This written observation (see what I did there? haha) mirrors the argument of knowing and not knowing. Only the brain and the eye together "make" the wax, without either one, the wax does not exist to us because we depend on the two to make the world around us. I connected this to concealing an explosive in a cupcake. Our eyes see the cupcake and the mind confirms it is a delicious pastry treat as well. However, we cannot see the true nature of the malicious frosted mini-cake because we do not know it's true nature, that is the one concealed to us. Now when the cupcake blows up (not harming anyone of course) we have new evidence that we must compromise with our brain and eyes.
What Descartes fails to note is the impact of the other senses as well as memory. Let's say the cupcake looked like a cupcake, but smelled like sulfuric acid? What would we conclude? We might conclude that we have to assume that it is not actually what we think it is. Another person who happened to know his friend used to make cupcake explosives would have different knowledge that us, the unawares. That person may view the treat as a potential threat, despite visual evidence. Also, what if that person yelled, "THAT CUPCAKE IS GOING TO EXPLODE! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE PEOPLE!!" We would give this man a quizzical look and recommend that he gets a good night's rest. I could be splitting hairs here, but I think previous knowledge is an important factor when determining what is real and what is not. Descartes could have learned that wax can melt but stay the same, as in someone told him the properties of wax, rather than his eyes alone telling him.
I find the underlying implications of his revelation strong. I am slightly obsessed with Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet. There is a wonderful quote, "There is not good or bad/but thinking makes it so." The world exists as it is, and the only way for humans to process it is through our senses, which our brain interprets. Descartes also admits that he does not know himself as well as he thought. "I should have a more distinct grasp of things which I realize are doubtful, unknown and foreign to me, that I have of that which is true and known- my own self." (23) I have to ask, is he really that "true"? We already called into question truth because we can only know what we have evidence of, and that does not necessarily make it "true."But when we think about it, we pass a judgement that makes the action, thing or person true, good, bad, right, wrong or silly. He also separates the body and mind, unlike later theorists who rejoice in the complex and unknowable joining of the two.
I think Descartes theory is still in society today. When a person decides to pull the plug on someone they know in the hospital because they are a "vegetable," that is they have no more consciousness, some may consider it the right thing to do because the hospitalized person does not exists anymore. After reading articles that question the placement of the mind and soul in relation to the body I feel I am not ready to make my own judgment on what makes a person exist. Or perhaps, I should not question that and simply rejoice in my consciousness, body and dreams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)