If she did, she would no longer be dancing, only moving formulaically...
Posted by PAtrick on January 26, 1998 at 16:37:06:
In response to But can he converse whilst dancing?, written by Helen on January 25, 1998 at 10:06:11
Helen:
Is our difference of opinion perhaps the result of a different perspective from arts/sciences education? I don't see analysis, and suchlike things, as the domain of scientific measurement alone, but as part of people's response to their experiences, articulated through a process which transforms those experiences into something else - a verbal creation or one's own life.
Patrick:
Not the domain of measurement alone, but the procedure was created for measurement. For me, the difference of opinion centres on the issue of the role of rational thought and analysis. Is that role to be the cornerstone of mental life, to have a causal role in artistic creation, and to make interpersonal relations possible, for example? Or is rational thought a kind of running commentary on our mental life, happening on the surface, and apparent to us all, but of little consequence (in that it has no role in producing that mental life, and is of questionable reliability even as a running commentary)?
Helen:
And my background in Renaissance thought leads me to value a reasoned response to a text. You argue, and I agree with you, that emotional and/or unarticulate responses to texts/life can be a good thing, and I agree with you. But what happens when they are not? How, for instance, do we overcome prejudices, or instinctive responses eg. violence?
Patrick:
How do we overcome inappropriate or destructive emotions? With positive, constructive emotions. I think it is helpful to distinguish between the idea that people are guided primarily by their emotions and the idea that people behave dangerously, violently, or destructively. One does not imply the other.
Helen:
Don't you think that thought-processes can be helpful in such endeavours? Analysing what we read - calling attention to its contents - is surely a good thing, in that it shows us whether we have read correctly, and how the effects we admire are achieved.
Patrick:
Does it? Is there, then, some external standard of "correctness" to which we can appeal to settle disputes about readings, either between two people or between rational and emotional selves within one person? I could argue that "analysing what we read" is itself an emotional response. But if such analysis showed "how the effects we admire are achieved," then surely anyone could be taught (or teach themselves) to write like Austen.
Helen:
The list of activities you describe as "activities which make us human" are, IMO, all improved by applying to them some degree of analysis. Planting gardens, for instance: when do you plant things? How close together? Do they need attention? These decisions are usually greatly improved by not being totally random.
Patrick:
Improved? Again, how is that decided? When do you plant things? I might say, "When you feel like it." Not your view, perhaps, but a legitimate one for a person who believes that it is difficult to take just a little bit of measurement or a little bit of science. One could argue that "determining when to plant your garden according to the number of hours of daylight," or some such, is like that first hit of cocaine. With that innocent measurement comes the not-so-innocent measurement that says countries that have fewer than 50 phones per 100 people are underdeveloped. And the downright evil measurement that tells us the world is a thing we are standing upon. Can you get more plants per unit of area through measurement? Perhaps. But at what cost do you do so?
Helen:
] I can't believe that I am ranging myself here on the side of reason. Normally I advocate wonder and emotion to people who only see the rational. But then, I do believe in balance. I think one side without the other leads to distortion, and hence has bad consequences -
Patrick:
There's that old left hemisphere speaking again. Those neighbours over there on the right - they're different. They question all the truths to which we cling. They party all the time.
They must be bad. :-)
Helen:
you need to balance the two,
Patrick:
No. I don't need to. Do you need to? (I don't say that dismissively or derisively, but as a serious question, since part of my point is that the "rational" self is an outgrowth of the emotional self.)
Helen:
and more importantly, to synthesize them, not oppose them.
Patrick:
Why? An alternative view is that consciousness doesn't do much other than keep us from walking into walls. It isn't important for artistic creation, or for managing your life. It just keeps the muscles from getting gummed up with competing commands. Nothing to synthesize there.
Synthesizing, to me, suggests - balance. Nothing too extreme. Not wholly emotional or wholly analytical. I'll pass. :-)
Helen:
] One minor question, re. Lizzy, Darcy and marriage: do you think that JA herself really didn't think marriage necessary? Or do you think that she was limited by her historical moment to construct relationships in that way?
Patrick:
Depends upon what you mean by necessary, of course. Necessary to get the book published, so that her ideas would have some audience? Sure. Necessary as an integral part of the relationship between a woman and a man, absent external observers? No.
I think that the person who could write Persuasion and P&P - two novels about love winning over everything else, in my view - would not think formal marriage could add very much. No real harm in the ceremony, of course, and you might as well do it to save yourselves aggravation - but not something necessary in any but the most practical sense.
Cheers,
Patrick
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
