Any savage can dance...
Posted by Patrick on January 22, 1998 at 17:44:51:
In response to Roses, roses all the way..., written by Helen on January 21, 1998 at 16:26:53
Helen:
[S&S is] where I get my most defined impression of Austen as very much in favour of balance, and very against emotional attachments formed without rational consideration or concern for society.
Patrick:
Here I must protest the lumping together of "rational consideration" and "concern" - since it is quite possible to argue that concern for society is expressible through the forging of emotional attachments. Such attachments, arguably, could be better for society than "rational consideration" of anything. I'm not claiming that at here - only pointing out that it is in principle possible.
Helen:
] First of all, I want to argue with something you said to Erin above - that in your opinion a rose does not necessarily possess balance - that balance is in the eye of the beholder. But surely psychological research all suggests that what humans have traditionally unanalytically defined as beautiful is in fact highly symmetrical?
Patrick:
I think, when I said that I was referring to balance between visual image and smell in our appreciation of a rose. It may be the case that symmetry in, for example, a face, is necessary for a judgment of beauty, although it is probably not sufficient. But I think that this is a side-issue. I do not want to deny that roses have symmetry (or balance) in physical form. I do not deny that certain kinds of balance exist in the world. I was talking mostly about balance in JA's novels. :-)
Old Patrick:
Why do we have to "discover exactly what makes us react to [the rose] as a beautiful experience"? Is it not sufficient simply to experience the rose?
Helen:
] No! Absolutely not! Any animal can experience a rose.
Patrick:
This I would take to be a point in my favour...
Helen:
What makes us human beings is precisely our ability to comment on our experience with something approaching objectivity.
Patrick:
Ahh. Well, call me obtuse, but if I was to make a list of 1000 things that "make us human beings," in order of importance, "our ability to comment on our experience with something approaching objectivity" would probably be around number 850, if I were to be convinced that we have such an ability. It is not clear to me, however, that we do.
Helen:
It is articulate analysis which has enabled us to produce our highest achievements and technological advances.
Patrick:
Yikes! Do we have a difference of opinion here! I very strongly believe that my highest achievement have been in areas that defy articulate analysis - such as raising my daughter to be a confident and caring person. I very much follow "gut feelings" in this enterprise. And I strongly believe that this achievement (repeated in homes all over the world year after year) is more impressive and more challenging than anything like creating a painting or a novel or a symphony or a scientific theory.
Helen:
Yes, creation sometimes achieves a synthesis without conscious rational thought, but this is surely in most cases the result of previous careful analysis. Just look at the many notebooks which lie behind the artistic creations of for instance Da Vinci and George Eliot. Or the letters which show JA constantly analyzing her society, and the juvenilia which deconstruct its literature, which precede her own artistic creations.
Patrick:
The result? Can we know that? Certainly, the notebooks and letters exist. But their existence does not establish their efficacy. This is not a quibble. You want to argue that conscious rational thought is important for the varieties of achievement you mention. I dispute that point. At present, the evidence consists of the existence of rational outputs (notes, letters). So, it's still an open question.
Helen:
Yes, slavery to objective measurement is wrong, but used as a tool and not worshipped as a master it is an essential part of humanity's capacity for greatness.
Patrick:
There's that balance thing again :-) Churlish of me to disagree, of course. But my own long-held view is that objective measurement has some function in our society - it has to do with comparatively trivial things like keeping warm and not having to walk everywhere you go. But objective measurement, in my view, has little or nothing to contribute to those activities that make us human - relating to each other, finding meaning in our lives, wondering how far away the stars are, tobogganing, and planting gardens, for example.
Helen:
] There are so many other aspects to critical analysis than the scientific objectification you outline in your post. For instance, you propose Elizabeth and Darcy as exemplary figures, achieving a certain kind of fulfillment denied to the other characters in the book. But what if one wants to find that fulfillment for oneself? Don't we have to try to work out how they achieve it to help us make our own attempts?
Patrick:
Not sure what you mean here. Can we learn from their example? Sure. Do we have to measure something or articulate some facts in order to learn from their example? Don't think so. Is your perception of human relationships different after your read P&P compared to before? The answer might be yes, and you might be able to operate on the basis of that changed perception, even if you can't specify clearly how it is different. I have suggested before that variety of opinions on almost every question to do with JA may arise because our attempts to articulate what the novels have given us fail. But it is only the articulation that fails, not the reading, not the experience of the novels.
Old Patrick:
I am not referring to revolution in the sense of political revolution - rather, to a kind that can occur in each individual. It is a revolution in how people relate to each other, at the heart of which is taking each person as unique, not as defined by membership in some group (such as landowner, or second daughters of gentlemen).
Helen:
] But this I do take exception to: you can't have an internal revolution, IMO, without a corresponding external one.
Patrick:
But there is an external revolution - Lizzy's and Darcy's behaviour is revolutionary, as a consequence of their internal revolutions.
Helen:
As far as I can see, you see Elizabeth and Darcy enjoying a fully satisfying mutual relationship. But if this is never extended to other people, isn't it in fact limiting?
Patrick:
I'm not sure what you mean by "extended to other people," nor what limit you might have in mind. Do Lizzy and Darcy have a responsibility to make other people have satisfying relationships? No. Can they set an example which gives their kind of relationship something like respectability or moral force? Yes. That was a large part of JA's point, in writing P&P, in my view. I would extend this point to say that it was because JA wanted people to make contact with these protagonists, and not to have a reason to dismiss them, that she had them express "safe" sentiments about each other and about marriage and such.
Cheers, and thanks for a thought-provoking post. :-)
Patrick
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
