MDDM Ch. 72 philosophy is for everyone

[owen j mcgrann]

 >"What writing is all about is what happens on the page between the reader
 >and the page . . . What I want is a collaboration, really, with the reader
 >on the page where the reader is also making an effort, is putting something
 >of himself into it in the way of understanding, in the way of helping to
 >construct the fiction that I am giving him."

absolutely.  i don't think (i could be wrong, or could have been unclear) 
that i said anything contrary to this.  what i tried to say is that this 
notion of the fictional text existing only in singular constructions 
created by the reader is inadequate in and of itself.  yes, each one of us 
constructs slightly different (or terribly different) versions of the same 
novel.  that seems rather self-evident.  my point is that this can only be 
the starting point: if a novel is worth anything, these individual readings 
have some basis in a common understanding of the text.  the worth of a 
novel comes from the ability of an author to provide a fiction that allows 
for a particularly robust and meaningful intercalation of each individual 
take - the important part is the step after the individual reading, the 
step beyond the solipsism.


>Not sure, Owen, if what you are talking about is anything postmodern,
>but it is philosophical. The turning of literary theory (I tend to think
>of it as a mirror) has to do with questions of reality, of being,
>knowing, meaning, and language and all sorts of things that philosophers
>once wrote about but everyone is in the game now. Except the
>philosophers of course. They mostly drive cabs.

yeah - people ask me constantly what i intend on doing with a philosophy 
major.  well, pretty simple: living on the street.

maybe it's just that my daily human interaction is mostly with professional 
philosophers, but i must admit to be slightly irked by the appropriation of 
philosophy into other fields by (and this qualification is important) 
people who don't necessarily know what they are talking about.  yes, 
philosophy is for everyone - one of the great things about philosophy is 
that it lays the theoretical groundwork for lots of 
disciplines.  philosophy is intrinsically linked with mathematics, physics, 
literature, linguistics, music, art, etc.  as this list pertains to 
literature, so i'll try to say what i mean in terms of philosophy and 
lit.  a few years ago i took a course on early british literature and was 
taught that beowulf was a marxist and feminist text.  not only is this an 
anachronistic imposition of modern thought, but my professor had never 
actually read any marx or feminism.  if you are going to claim to be an 
advocate of marxist literary critique is it too much to ask that you have 
actually read marx?  my point is: philosophy everywhere - good; bastardized 
and misunderstood philosophy everywhere - bad.  wow - this is all rather 
tangential to the original post.  interesting.

i'll take a look at the refs you provided, terrance.  thanks.

 >Better to go all the way back to the pre-Socratics, don't you think, not to
 >mention the Eastern philosophers that Pynchon brings into play in M&D

"very deep is the well of the past.  should we not call it bottomless?"


- owen

the box o' info -
x5451 box 1633
thestranger.org

"i was curious and eager to know only what
i believed to be more real than myself."
         - proust: in search of lost time