[lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message
- From: "Eric Yost" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:13:25 -0400
In Phil's story, "Consciousness in and of itself does not give
knowledge, and so there is no privileged narrative authored by
consciousness."
Yet we are depicting the narrative authored by *our* consciousness, and
it is far richer than Wittgenstein being in pain and not being able to
say so. Our consciousness consists of reverie and reflection for
example, where we might have an epiphany about our motives in a certain
situation or come to understand the motives of others. We might have a
dream that turns into a scientific insight about benzene. This knowledge
acquires greater certainty by continued reflection -- the light it sheds
on our own motives -- or by various forms of testing in our daily life.
Is Harry really acting from this false assumption? Is benzene a ring?
Later in Phil's ... sorry Professor Enns' ... account, one reads that,
"To claim that there is 'the narrative' with regards to ourselves or
others, is to arbitrarily pick one narrative out of the many."
Yes it is. However some narratives are much better than others. It is
precisely because our consciousness, properly used, yields knowledge
about ourselves and others that one may assume a hierarchy of value with
respect to a particular narrative. In the words of Citizen Kane,
"Rosebud."
In conclusion, Phil remarks that he, "can't really make sense of how
fairness comes into the discussion of narrative. I understand the
obligation to fairness when it comes to other people. But, narratives?"
My post ended with a claim that, "the universe has enough uncertainty to
maintain mystery and surprise, but not enough to paralyze us...because
that would be unfair to the narrative."
I was contemplating merely responding with, "It's a writer's thing." And
there is a sense of ownership and control, of parenting, to some
narratives, exactly as a painter might view her painting as developing
and having a right to exist as a way of seeing or a puzzle about forms.
This might be considered irrational, yet I feel it represents a higher
form of aesthetic judgment, as craftsmanship obliges us to be honest,
ever-refining, and to care about the living (if properly done) stories
we tell. So to switch from a short story to the story of our
consciousness, I may be guilty of epistemic foundationalism, or some
other postmodern sin, asking that nature conform to my ideas of fairness
to narrative. Yet so far my basic trust seems justified by experience.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:48 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message
Eric wrote:
"As a writer, this strikes me as unfair to the narrative."
I find this problematic on a number of different levels. First, my
comments were aimed against the idea that there is such a thing as 'the
narrative', particularly, a narrative authored by consciousness which
allows for a clear and distinct awareness of ourselves.
Wittgenstein might be helpful here with his suggestion that if someone
is in pain, they do not know that they are in pain, but rather they are
in pain. There is a difference between knowledge and understanding of
pain, and being in pain, with the former available to anyone, and the
latter what the individual is conscious of. Consciousness in and of
itself does not give knowledge, and so there is no privileged narrative
authored by consciousness.
Second, my comments were aimed against the idea that there such a thing
as 'the narrative', where this is understood as a single account that
provides a God's-eye view of an individual. Instead, there are always
multiple narratives, both over time, as we continually re-write our own
history, and across the multitude of our relationships. Who we are is
different depending on who we are relating to, as the structure of
social relationships require different social norms. (This is one reason
why I am resistant to students referring to professors by their first
name.) But there is also no convincing reason, in my opinion, why my
self-understanding is privileged when it comes to answering the
question, 'Who is Phil Enns?' Instead, the answer to that question is
most truthfully found in consideration of what might be agreed upon by
myself and those that know me. In other words, I can meaningfully argue
with other people over my own identity. But while there will be
agreement, there will also be disagreement. To again borrow from
Nietzsche, I am a multitude. To claim that there is 'the narrative'
with regards to ourselves or others, is to arbitrarily pick one
narrative out of the many.
Finally, I can't really make sense of how fairness comes into the
discussion of narrative. I understand the obligation to fairness when it
comes to other people. But, narratives? That I don't understand.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
