From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Mon Jul 25 07:14:05 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:14:05 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F504B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <5C4F6E31-F0F7-48CD-8124-9251884D625A@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F504B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: Doesn't make sense. On Jul 24, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > A photo may be of a person while not being that person. Some where out there is a picture of two people -- one with a hangover and the other laughing at his shaking hands. > > These two people are not Lawrence Durrell and Bill Godshalk. But there is such a photo. > > Guess who's being drinking. > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:15 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > Whatever the philosophical merits of saying words and images aren't real, the fact is that we live and act in a world of convention. It won't get you very far in a court of law to plead your innocence if a video accurately records you committing a crime. The court won't listen to your claim that the video recording is not "real." So, if Lawrence Durrell plays a literary game in Prospero's Cell and disguises himself as Count D. and if readers uncover and expose that ruse, then I'll say that the Count is actually the real L. G. Durrell. > > > Bruce > > > > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > > I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this writing. I asked him to do that. > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:11 PM > To: Denise Tart & David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > David, > > Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have something to say about that. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > > No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > > Bruce > > My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > > "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > > The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > > David Whitewine > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 16:04:53 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:04:53 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F504B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <5C4F6E31-F0F7-48CD-8124-9251884D625A@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F504B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4E2DF695.30008@gmail.com> On 24/07/11 8:05 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Guess who's being drinking. Best... parapraxis... ever... But, if the two images in the photograph are not LD and WLG, is the photograph at least *of* LD and WLG together, despite the irreducible gap between them (and the even greater gap between we readers of the photograph's description, an image that even in its immediacy is [only] a representation)? If sparagmos, am I beside myself? Perhaps the Durrellian question is, what does the signature or photograph or "all" in the family represent? When I say that I see "The dogwood trees in front of my window" or even "the lavender beside my front door," I have something fairly specific and physical in mind, over which we're unlikely to quarrel much despite the limitations of language. But what of the pronoun in "I see"? It's both social and linguistic, neither of which is quite the same as the personal, work-a-day "I" or even the stunning capacity to refer to oneself as the objective "me." The stability of such a thing is called into disrepute in Durrell's 1930s works, and after -- and "I" don't think it's casual or fleeting as a concern. Why don't "I" know more about the "narrative 'I'" implicit behind the narrative voice of /Mountolive/? What is the "I" of the narrator named Lawrence Durrell in "Asylum in the Snow" if not a narrative ploy by an author creating a character? Something akin is happening when Miller is taken up in Deleuze and Guatrari in /Anti-Oedipus/. I can't help but think some kindred problem over selfhood or subjectivity is afoot, albeit in wildly different critical phrasings (or postures). Best, Jamie On 24/07/11 8:05 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > A photo may be of a person while not being that person. Some where out there is a picture of two people -- one with a hangover and the other laughing at his shaking hands. > > These two people are not Lawrence Durrell and Bill Godshalk. But there is such a photo. > > Guess who's being drinking. > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Tue Jul 26 18:13:51 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:13:51 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Ontology, anyone? I've been struggling with this problem for years. Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. Bill W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" I was waiting for Bill! I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my signature before any other part of me... > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see the little black letters." I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > Verbal clues do not a real person make. Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. Best, James On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words > on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > > I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this > writing. I asked him to do that. > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of > Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ From: > ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, > 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: > Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > David, > > Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to > do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? > Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a > professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne > plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not > Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I > can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make > himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped > by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he > appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, > as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have > something to say about that. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: > > No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have > "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have > in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a > granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count > D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's > the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in > Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > > Bruce > > My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's > Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, > and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a > projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own > universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the > author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of > wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and > Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who > appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book > twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my > 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > > "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and > if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me > about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > > The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it > is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > > David Whitewine > > > > _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Jul 26 18:43:50 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:43:50 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." Bruce On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Ontology, anyone? > > I've been struggling with this problem for years. > > Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. > > I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > > Bill > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > I was waiting for Bill! > > I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I > would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > signature before any other part of me... > >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > the little black letters." > > I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > > Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or > as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > > Best, > James > > On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >> >> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >> writing. I asked him to do that. >> >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ From: >> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> David, >> >> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >> something to say about that. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >> >> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >> >> Bruce >> >> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >> >> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >> >> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >> >> David Whitewine >> From dtart at bigpond.net.au Wed Jul 27 02:54:07 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:54:07 +1000 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <1A2804BE8D2E44F78CEC79EB95E58EDA@DenisePC> Bill, you are just moving chairs around in a room and then adding smoke. The pictures are looking at you, old chap. They want an answer? DG -------------------------------------------------- From: "Godshalk, William (godshawl)" Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:13 AM To: Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > Ontology, anyone? > > I've been struggling with this problem for years. > > Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- > perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos > and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and > Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some > family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they > looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. > > I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > > Bill > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > I was waiting for Bill! > > I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I > would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > signature before any other part of me... > > > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > the little black letters." > > I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > > Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or > as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > > Best, > James > > On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >> >> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >> writing. I asked him to do that. >> >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ From: >> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> David, >> >> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >> something to say about that. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >> >> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >> >> Bruce >> >> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >> >> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >> >> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >> >> David Whitewine >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From skybluepress at skybluepress.com Wed Jul 27 08:02:34 2011 From: skybluepress at skybluepress.com (Sky Blue Press) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:02:34 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Durrell, Nin, and Miller: A CALL FOR ARTICLES Message-ID: <001c01cc4c6e$382fec00$6401a8c0@DHKQ1971> Fellow Durrellians: We are seeking articles on Lawrence Durrell, Henry Miller, and/or Anais Nin for the upcoming Volume 9 of 'A Cafe in Space: The Anais Nin Literary Journal.' If you or your colleagues have any works-in-progress or abstracts (or even informal proposals), please contact Paul Herron at skybluepress at skybluepress.com. The new issue comes out at the end of February 2012. Please forward this message to any potential contributors. Also, Volume 3 is available on Kindle, which contains articles by Richard Pine, James Clawson, and Nabila Marzouk, with reviews by Jane Eblen Keller, Candace Fertile, and Pamela J. Francis on Michael Haag's 'Alexandria: City of Memory,' Richard Pine's 'Lawrence Durrell: The Mindscape,' and 'Lawrence Durrell and the Greek World (edited by Anna Lillios), respectively. It can be ordered through Amazon.com at http://tinyurl.com/3vvogn5. Most sincerely, Paul Herron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110727/f92e730d/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 10:40:49 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:40:49 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. What is truth? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." Bruce On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Ontology, anyone? > > I've been struggling with this problem for years. > > Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. > > I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > > Bill > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > I was waiting for Bill! > > I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I > would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > signature before any other part of me... > >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > the little black letters." > > I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > > Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or > as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > > Best, > James > > On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >> >> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >> writing. I asked him to do that. >> >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ From: >> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> David, >> >> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >> something to say about that. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >> >> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >> >> Bruce >> >> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >> >> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >> >> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >> >> David Whitewine >> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 10:49:42 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:49:42 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <1A2804BE8D2E44F78CEC79EB95E58EDA@DenisePC> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <1A2804BE8D2E44F78CEC79EB95E58EDA@DenisePC> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5053@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> The woman in the smoke filled room with a certain number of chairs is waiting for me. Do I dare to take her hand? She's young dark haired beautiful. I turn away. Surely she's real. Must be. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Denise Tart & David Green [dtart at bigpond.net.au] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:54 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Bill, you are just moving chairs around in a room and then adding smoke. The pictures are looking at you, old chap. They want an answer? DG -------------------------------------------------- From: "Godshalk, William (godshawl)" Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:13 AM To: Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > Ontology, anyone? > > I've been struggling with this problem for years. > > Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- > perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos > and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and > Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some > family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they > looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. > > I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > > Bill > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > I was waiting for Bill! > > I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I > would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > signature before any other part of me... > > > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > the little black letters." > > I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > > Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or > as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > > Best, > James > > On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >> >> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >> writing. I asked him to do that. >> >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ From: >> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> David, >> >> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >> something to say about that. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >> >> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >> >> Bruce >> >> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >> >> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >> >> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >> >> David Whitewine >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 11:06:50 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:06:50 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? > > In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. > > > What is truth? > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. > > "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." > > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Ontology, anyone? >> >> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >> >> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >> >> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >> >> Bill >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> I was waiting for Bill! >> >> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >> signature before any other part of me... >> >>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >> the little black letters." >> >> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >> >> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >> >>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >> >> Best, >> James >> >> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>> >>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>> >>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ From: >>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> David, >>> >>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>> something to say about that. >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>> >>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>> >>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>> >>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>> >>> David Whitewine From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 12:41:02 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:41:02 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? > > In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. > > > What is truth? > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. > > "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." > > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Ontology, anyone? >> >> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >> >> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >> >> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >> >> Bill >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> I was waiting for Bill! >> >> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >> signature before any other part of me... >> >>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >> the little black letters." >> >> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >> >> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >> >>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >> >> Best, >> James >> >> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>> >>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>> >>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ From: >>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> David, >>> >>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>> something to say about that. >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>> >>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>> >>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>> >>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>> >>> David Whitewine _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 12:49:43 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:49:43 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: Of course and of course. On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? > > Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >> >> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >> >> >> What is truth? >> >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >> >> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Ontology, anyone? >>> >>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>> >>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>> >>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> I was waiting for Bill! >>> >>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>> signature before any other part of me... >>> >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>> the little black letters." >>> >>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>> >>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>> >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>> >>> Best, >>> James >>> >>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>> >>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>> >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>> something to say about that. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>> >>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>> >>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>> >>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>> >>>> David Whitewine > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From billyapt at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 13:12:05 2011 From: billyapt at gmail.com (William Apt) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:12:05 -0500 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? BILLY On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > > Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an > historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences > in reality? > > > > Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence > Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > > Department of English * * > > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > > OH 45221-0069 * * > > ________________________________________ > > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf > Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM > > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > > > Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group > identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient > Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that > because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. > But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the > copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we > say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to > Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this > earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the > "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of > some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live > in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic > Universe." > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > > >> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful > evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical > remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his > writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to > disappear? > >> > >> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he > was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. > >> > >> > >> What is truth? > >> > >> > >> > >> W. L. Godshalk * > >> Department of English * * > >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > >> OH 45221-0069 * * > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf > Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM > >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > >> Cc: Bruce Redwine > >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > >> > >> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and > there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question > "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world > we live in. > >> > >> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." > >> > >> > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> > >>> Ontology, anyone? > >>> > >>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. > >>> > >>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- > perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and > the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can > we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos > that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at > me? Of course they are not looking at me. > >>> > >>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > >>> W. L. Godshalk * > >>> Department of English * * > >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > >>> OH 45221-0069 * * > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On > Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM > >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > >>> > >>> I was waiting for Bill! > >>> > >>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where > I > >>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > >>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > >>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > >>> signature before any other part of me... > >>> > >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > >>> > >>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > >>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > >>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > >>> the little black letters." > >>> > >>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > >>> > >>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > >>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > >>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > >>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > >>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > >>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > >>> > >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > >>> > >>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, > or > >>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > >>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > >>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> James > >>> > >>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words > >>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > >>>> > >>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this > >>>> writing. I asked him to do that. > >>>> > >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > >>>> > >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > >>>> > >>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of > >>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * > >>>> ________________________________________ From: > >>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > >>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, > >>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: > >>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > >>>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to > >>>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? > >>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a > >>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne > >>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not > >>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I > >>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make > >>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped > >>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he > >>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, > >>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have > >>>> something to say about that. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: > >>>> > >>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have > >>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have > >>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a > >>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count > >>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's > >>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in > >>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > >>>> > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > >>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's > >>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, > >>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a > >>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own > >>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the > >>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of > >>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and > >>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who > >>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book > >>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my > >>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > >>>> > >>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and > >>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me > >>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > >>>> > >>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it > >>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > >>>> > >>>> David Whitewine > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > -- WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110727/121e59d2/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 13:43:32 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:43:32 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com> On 27/07/11 1:12 PM, William Apt wrote: > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die > until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not > follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? Danger! Memory doesn't seem to work terribly well in the Quartet, so I wonder how much Scobie lives on rather than how much Darley's interpretation of Scobie lives on. I don't know about everyone else on this list, but I rather enjoy being myself rather than someone else's impression of me (the latter seems far less important to me, like my signature wandering off rather than, say, my arm or my all). Isn't Scobie a character in a book, not a real person? Methinks we're back to Bill's question, unless we're willing to blur the distinction between memory and writing, in which case, how real are characters? Do we ever know other people other than through words? Or for Bruce's "of course," if I've never met Billy, and he he's never met me, then aren't we just words to each other? If so, how is he different from a character in a book, especially after either of us exit the scene? If we posit some individual essence on which ontology is based, wouldn't we by definition have no access to each others being apart from explanations through language, which leads back to the start of this paragraph? But, I'm naive and a poor philosopher. Perhaps Bill can point out where my language has failed to express my real self here... Best, James From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 13:20:21 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:20:21 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <2398DD94-D7DD-4E15-9467-CF3A8DF5C8B9@earthlink.net> Yes. I think Bill is identifying with Scobie's parrot. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:12 PM, William Apt wrote: > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? > > BILLY > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > > Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? > > > > Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > > Department of English * * > > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > > OH 45221-0069 * * > > ________________________________________ > > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM > > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > > > Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > > >> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? > >> > >> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. > >> > >> > >> What is truth? > >> > >> > >> > >> W. L. Godshalk * > >> Department of English * * > >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > >> OH 45221-0069 * * > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM > >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > >> Cc: Bruce Redwine > >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > >> > >> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. > >> > >> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." > >> > >> > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> > >>> Ontology, anyone? > >>> > >>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. > >>> > >>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. > >>> > >>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > >>> W. L. Godshalk * > >>> Department of English * * > >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > >>> OH 45221-0069 * * > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM > >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > >>> > >>> I was waiting for Bill! > >>> > >>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I > >>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > >>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > >>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > >>> signature before any other part of me... > >>> > >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > >>> > >>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > >>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > >>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > >>> the little black letters." > >>> > >>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > >>> > >>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > >>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > >>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > >>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > >>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > >>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > >>> > >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > >>> > >>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or > >>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > >>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > >>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> James > >>> > >>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words > >>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > >>>> > >>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this > >>>> writing. I asked him to do that. > >>>> > >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > >>>> > >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > >>>> > >>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of > >>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * > >>>> ________________________________________ From: > >>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > >>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, > >>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: > >>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > >>>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to > >>>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? > >>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a > >>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne > >>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not > >>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I > >>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make > >>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped > >>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he > >>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, > >>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have > >>>> something to say about that. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: > >>>> > >>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have > >>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have > >>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a > >>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count > >>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's > >>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in > >>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > >>>> > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > >>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's > >>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, > >>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a > >>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own > >>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the > >>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of > >>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and > >>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who > >>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book > >>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my > >>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > >>>> > >>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and > >>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me > >>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > >>>> > >>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it > >>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > >>>> > >>>> David Whitewine > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > -- > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110727/188ffcf8/attachment.html From Ken.Gammage at directed.com Wed Jul 27 13:25:00 2011 From: Ken.Gammage at directed.com (Ken Gammage) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:25:00 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com> I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Of course and of course. On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? > > Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >> >> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >> >> >> What is truth? >> >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >> >> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Ontology, anyone? >>> >>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>> >>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>> >>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> I was waiting for Bill! >>> >>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>> signature before any other part of me... >>> >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>> the little black letters." >>> >>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>> >>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>> >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>> >>> Best, >>> James >>> >>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>> >>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>> >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>> something to say about that. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>> >>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>> >>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>> >>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>> >>>> David Whitewine > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. From dtart at bigpond.net.au Wed Jul 27 13:49:15 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:49:15 +1000 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5053@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <1A2804BE8D2E44F78CEC79EB95E58EDA@DenisePC> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5053@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <98DFCA6844C94D07845693926BFDFD97@DenisePC> Bill, Your present moodscape suggests that an excursion into History and Memory should be explored through 'Fiftieth Gate', a work by Australian Writer Mark Raphael Baker whom I had the pleasure of meeting the other day. He gave a wonderful lecture on what's real and what is not. As to the dark haired beauty - take her hand and get on with it old chap, as my old gaffer use to say! David (or is it) -------------------------------------------------- From: "Godshalk, William (godshawl)" Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:49 AM To: "Denise Tart & David Green" ; Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > The woman in the smoke filled room with a certain number of chairs is > waiting for me. Do I dare to take her hand? She's young dark haired > beautiful. I turn away. Surely she's real. Must be. > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > Denise Tart & David Green [dtart at bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:54 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Bill, > > you are just moving chairs around in a room and then adding smoke. > > The pictures are looking at you, old chap. > > They want an answer? > > DG > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Godshalk, William (godshawl)" > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:13 AM > To: > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > >> Ontology, anyone? >> >> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >> >> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- >> perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos >> and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and >> Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some >> family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are >> they >> looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >> >> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >> >> Bill >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf >> Of >> James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> I was waiting for Bill! >> >> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >> signature before any other part of me... >> >> > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >> the little black letters." >> >> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >> >> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >> >> > Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >> >> Best, >> James >> >> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>> >>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>> >>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ From: >>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> David, >>> >>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>> something to say about that. >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>> >>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>> >>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>> >>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>> >>> David Whitewine >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list >>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 14:37:09 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:09 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com> Message-ID: <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: > > "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" > > The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. > > But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. > > Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > This email may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. It is intended only for the person or persons to > whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or > telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 14:39:12 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:39:12 -0700 Subject: [ilds] kindness and good spirit In-Reply-To: <2398DD94-D7DD-4E15-9467-CF3A8DF5C8B9@earthlink.net> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <2398DD94-D7DD-4E15-9467-CF3A8DF5C8B9@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4E308580.9000204@gmail.com> And for all, a call for kindness and good spirit in our exchanges here -- if we can't agreeably toast good spirits through this wordy medium, let's at least keep our spirits up through good words and mutual respect in our disagreements. I know it's a poor impersonation of Mr. Sligh's role, but I at least included the word "spirit," to which I'll add "grand," replace my "etc." with "&c." and something about a London underground throbbing lugubriously. We wait for his return... Posturously, J From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 14:45:49 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:45:49 -0700 Subject: [ilds] kindness and good spirit In-Reply-To: <4E308580.9000204@gmail.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <2398DD94-D7DD-4E15-9467-CF3A8DF5C8B9@earthlink.net> <4E308580.9000204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6FEDAEE5-7217-422B-A7A2-641AE1470AB3@earthlink.net> Kindness and good spirits also mean taking exchanges seriously and responding seriously. Otherwise, it's a verbal game and somewhat tiresome. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, James Gifford wrote: > And for all, a call for kindness and good spirit in our exchanges here > -- if we can't agreeably toast good spirits through this wordy medium, > let's at least keep our spirits up through good words and mutual respect > in our disagreements. > > I know it's a poor impersonation of Mr. Sligh's role, but I at least > included the word "spirit," to which I'll add "grand," replace my "etc." > with "&c." and something about a London underground throbbing > lugubriously. We wait for his return... > > Posturously, > J > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 15:37:45 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:37:45 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Absolutely. Scobie has a certain kind of realty -- until the parrot forgets, and Clea forgets -- and we all die. But how do we define that reality? Do we say that Odysseus has more reality than Homer? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of William Apt [billyapt at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:12 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? BILLY On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: Of course and of course. On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? > > Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >> >> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >> >> >> What is truth? >> >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >> >> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Ontology, anyone? >>> >>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>> >>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>> >>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> I was waiting for Bill! >>> >>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>> signature before any other part of me... >>> >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>> the little black letters." >>> >>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>> >>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>> >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>> >>> Best, >>> James >>> >>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>> >>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>> >>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>> something to say about that. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>> >>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>> >>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>> >>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>> >>>> David Whitewine > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -- WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 15:44:00 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:44:00 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: > > "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" > > The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. > > But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. > > Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > This email may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. It is intended only for the person or persons to > whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or > telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 15:55:18 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:55:18 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505C@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Yes, we can only know other people except through words -- and/or actions. But we real people have volition -- I think, while characters are told what to do by writers. At least some writers believe this to be the case. Also writers often determine what their characters look like. Genes do that for us sentient beings. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:43 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY On 27/07/11 1:12 PM, William Apt wrote: > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die > until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not > follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? Danger! Memory doesn't seem to work terribly well in the Quartet, so I wonder how much Scobie lives on rather than how much Darley's interpretation of Scobie lives on. I don't know about everyone else on this list, but I rather enjoy being myself rather than someone else's impression of me (the latter seems far less important to me, like my signature wandering off rather than, say, my arm or my all). Isn't Scobie a character in a book, not a real person? Methinks we're back to Bill's question, unless we're willing to blur the distinction between memory and writing, in which case, how real are characters? Do we ever know other people other than through words? Or for Bruce's "of course," if I've never met Billy, and he he's never met me, then aren't we just words to each other? If so, how is he different from a character in a book, especially after either of us exit the scene? If we posit some individual essence on which ontology is based, wouldn't we by definition have no access to each others being apart from explanations through language, which leads back to the start of this paragraph? But, I'm naive and a poor philosopher. Perhaps Bill can point out where my language has failed to express my real self here... Best, James _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 15:57:37 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:57:37 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505C@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505C@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Has anyone read Otto Rank lately? I know that Durrell read some of his work. I think Rank's Art and Artist might fit into this discussion. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:55 PM To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Yes, we can only know other people except through words -- and/or actions. But we real people have volition -- I think, while characters are told what to do by writers. At least some writers believe this to be the case. Also writers often determine what their characters look like. Genes do that for us sentient beings. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:43 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY On 27/07/11 1:12 PM, William Apt wrote: > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die > until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not > follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? Danger! Memory doesn't seem to work terribly well in the Quartet, so I wonder how much Scobie lives on rather than how much Darley's interpretation of Scobie lives on. I don't know about everyone else on this list, but I rather enjoy being myself rather than someone else's impression of me (the latter seems far less important to me, like my signature wandering off rather than, say, my arm or my all). Isn't Scobie a character in a book, not a real person? Methinks we're back to Bill's question, unless we're willing to blur the distinction between memory and writing, in which case, how real are characters? Do we ever know other people other than through words? Or for Bruce's "of course," if I've never met Billy, and he he's never met me, then aren't we just words to each other? If so, how is he different from a character in a book, especially after either of us exit the scene? If we posit some individual essence on which ontology is based, wouldn't we by definition have no access to each others being apart from explanations through language, which leads back to the start of this paragraph? But, I'm naive and a poor philosopher. Perhaps Bill can point out where my language has failed to express my real self here... Best, James _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 16:00:49 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:00:49 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <98DFCA6844C94D07845693926BFDFD97@DenisePC> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <1A2804BE8D2E44F78CEC79EB95E58EDA@DenisePC> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5053@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <98DFCA6844C94D07845693926BFDFD97@DenisePC> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505E@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> I shall read him -- if possible. At present I am reading the works of Francis John Mott. In one of his books, Mott thanks Eve Durrell. He does not say why. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Denise Tart & David Green [dtart at bigpond.net.au] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:49 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Bill, Your present moodscape suggests that an excursion into History and Memory should be explored through 'Fiftieth Gate', a work by Australian Writer Mark Raphael Baker whom I had the pleasure of meeting the other day. He gave a wonderful lecture on what's real and what is not. As to the dark haired beauty - take her hand and get on with it old chap, as my old gaffer use to say! David (or is it) -------------------------------------------------- From: "Godshalk, William (godshawl)" Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:49 AM To: "Denise Tart & David Green" ; Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > The woman in the smoke filled room with a certain number of chairs is > waiting for me. Do I dare to take her hand? She's young dark haired > beautiful. I turn away. Surely she's real. Must be. > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > Denise Tart & David Green [dtart at bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:54 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Bill, > > you are just moving chairs around in a room and then adding smoke. > > The pictures are looking at you, old chap. > > They want an answer? > > DG > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Godshalk, William (godshawl)" > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:13 AM > To: > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > >> Ontology, anyone? >> >> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >> >> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- >> perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos >> and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and >> Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some >> family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are >> they >> looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >> >> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >> >> Bill >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf >> Of >> James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> I was waiting for Bill! >> >> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >> signature before any other part of me... >> >> > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >> >> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >> the little black letters." >> >> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >> >> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >> >> > Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >> >> Best, >> James >> >> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>> >>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>> >>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>> >>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ From: >>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>> >>> David, >>> >>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>> something to say about that. >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>> >>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>> >>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>> >>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>> >>> David Whitewine >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list >>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 16:03:54 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:03:54 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505C@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505F@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:57 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Has anyone read Otto Rank lately? I know that Durrell read some of his work. I think Rank's Art and Artist might fit into this discussion. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:55 PM To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Yes, we can only know other people except through words -- and/or actions. But we real people have volition -- I think, while characters are told what to do by writers. At least some writers believe this to be the case. Also writers often determine what their characters look like. Genes do that for us sentient beings. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:43 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY On 27/07/11 1:12 PM, William Apt wrote: > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die > until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not > follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? Danger! Memory doesn't seem to work terribly well in the Quartet, so I wonder how much Scobie lives on rather than how much Darley's interpretation of Scobie lives on. I don't know about everyone else on this list, but I rather enjoy being myself rather than someone else's impression of me (the latter seems far less important to me, like my signature wandering off rather than, say, my arm or my all). Isn't Scobie a character in a book, not a real person? Methinks we're back to Bill's question, unless we're willing to blur the distinction between memory and writing, in which case, how real are characters? Do we ever know other people other than through words? Or for Bruce's "of course," if I've never met Billy, and he he's never met me, then aren't we just words to each other? If so, how is he different from a character in a book, especially after either of us exit the scene? If we posit some individual essence on which ontology is based, wouldn't we by definition have no access to each others being apart from explanations through language, which leads back to the start of this paragraph? But, I'm naive and a poor philosopher. Perhaps Bill can point out where my language has failed to express my real self here... Best, James _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 16:04:31 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:04:31 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505C@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4E30997F.9030309@gmail.com> On 27/07/11 3:57 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Has anyone read Otto Rank lately? I know that Durrell > read some of his work. I think Rank's Art and Artist > might fit into this discussion. I was thumbing about a little over a year ago but haven't read him otherwise for more than a decade now... I think you're right. Rank's also concerned with the problem of mortality in this equation. The phrase I recall being captured by (not that it's an original idea) was something like "The artist must express a personal something but must do so using a socially inherited and social defined medium that is not personal." I think the first part of that is more accurate than the second, &c. If we were talking about old Heinlein, I'd say the boy went off his rocker and thought characters were real, really -- Durrell's after a different game, but there's something kindred. -J On 27/07/11 3:57 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Has anyone read Otto Rank lately? I know that Durrell read some of his work. I think Rank's Art and Artist might fit into this discussion. > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 16:09:03 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:09:03 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505E@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <1A2804BE8D2E44F78CEC79EB95E58EDA@DenisePC> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5053@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <98DFCA6844C94D07845693926BFDFD97@DenisePC> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505E@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4E309A8F.2070908@gmail.com> Guh!? Do you recall which title? I have a couple through Jay that are lying about, but I never found out from him why he was reading Mott... As for David's message below yours, David, I'm not sure it is you. I always assumed Denise was writing for you and just enjoyed the game -- am I a different person to folks on the list when I sign off as "James" or "Jamie"? On 27/07/11 4:00 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > I shall read him -- if possible. > > At present I am reading the works of Francis John Mott. > > In one of his books, Mott thanks Eve Durrell. He does not say why. > > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Denise Tart& David Green [dtart at bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:49 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Bill, > > Your present moodscape suggests that an excursion into History and Memory > should be explored through 'Fiftieth Gate', a work by Australian Writer Mark > Raphael Baker whom I had the pleasure of meeting the other day. He gave a > wonderful lecture on what's real and what is not. As to the dark haired > beauty - take her hand and get on with it old chap, as my old gaffer use to > say! > > David (or is it) From Ken.Gammage at directed.com Wed Jul 27 16:11:34 2011 From: Ken.Gammage at directed.com (Ken Gammage) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:11:34 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F517A@mail2.directed.com> Last Saturday, Bill said: "...words on a page aren't real people." We know Scobie is not a real person - he's a character in a novel. Yet we do "...talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this?" I think the answer is, because of the magic of reading. It's a pretty amazing effect to be in two places at once. That's what happens when you are reading a good book. Put it down, check on your surroundings, take care of a little business, then pick it up again and you are suddenly transported to another place and time: vividly, viscerally. You see it all in your mind's eye. You meet Scobie and you don't forget him. He may not be as "real" as Rupert Murdock, but he's ultimately more meaningful and important to us. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:44 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: > > "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" > > The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. > > But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. > > Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > This email may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. It is intended only for the person or persons to > whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or > telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 19:19:18 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:19:18 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F517A@mail2.directed.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F517A@mail2.directed.com> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5061@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Well, yes, Scobie is more real to us than ElRupert. But when I wake up from reading, I know that Murdock can do things to me than Scobie can't. There really is a difference -- I think. I would much rather be in the world of the Alexandria Quartet than in the world that Murdock made. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Ken Gammage [Ken.Gammage at directed.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:11 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Last Saturday, Bill said: "...words on a page aren't real people." We know Scobie is not a real person - he's a character in a novel. Yet we do "...talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this?" I think the answer is, because of the magic of reading. It's a pretty amazing effect to be in two places at once. That's what happens when you are reading a good book. Put it down, check on your surroundings, take care of a little business, then pick it up again and you are suddenly transported to another place and time: vividly, viscerally. You see it all in your mind's eye. You meet Scobie and you don't forget him. He may not be as "real" as Rupert Murdock, but he's ultimately more meaningful and important to us. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:44 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: > > "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" > > The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. > > But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. > > Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > This email may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. It is intended only for the person or persons to > whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or > telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 19:45:31 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:45:31 -0400 Subject: [ilds] Mott and Durrell Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> It's James, James Bond. Or his charming wife. Mott was close to Durrell for some time -- I don't know how long -- yet. Durrell called him John, and Mott was a god father of one of the children. Durrell did use Motto for one (at least) of the scenes in Cleo. Eve Durrell is mentioned in The Universal Design of Creation (1964) p. vii. Mott makes several cameo appearances in Key, or The Key. Mott has recently been rediscovered by the Object Relations theorists. Mott was quite prolific. He was a self-proclaimed Freudian, but he used Jung and Classical mythology and christian myth as well. I think you can see why Durrell was fascinated by this thinker. Call him that. There's much, much more. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Ken Gammage [Ken.Gammage at directed.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:11 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Last Saturday, Bill said: "...words on a page aren't real people." We know Scobie is not a real person - he's a character in a novel. Yet we do "...talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this?" I think the answer is, because of the magic of reading. It's a pretty amazing effect to be in two places at once. That's what happens when you are reading a good book. Put it down, check on your surroundings, take care of a little business, then pick it up again and you are suddenly transported to another place and time: vividly, viscerally. You see it all in your mind's eye. You meet Scobie and you don't forget him. He may not be as "real" as Rupert Murdock, but he's ultimately more meaningful and important to us. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:44 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: > > "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" > > The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. > > But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. > > Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > This email may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. It is intended only for the person or persons to > whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or > telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Wed Jul 27 19:48:24 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:48:24 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <4E30997F.9030309@gmail.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <4E307874.2070904@gmail.com>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505C@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <4E30997F.9030309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:04 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY On 27/07/11 3:57 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Has anyone read Otto Rank lately? I know that Durrell > read some of his work. I think Rank's Art and Artist > might fit into this discussion. I was thumbing about a little over a year ago but haven't read him otherwise for more than a decade now... I think you're right. Rank's also concerned with the problem of mortality in this equation. The phrase I recall being captured by (not that it's an original idea) was something like "The artist must express a personal something but must do so using a socially inherited and social defined medium that is not personal." I think the first part of that is more accurate than the second, &c. If we were talking about old Heinlein, I'd say the boy went off his rocker and thought characters were real, really -- Durrell's after a different game, but there's something kindred. -J On 27/07/11 3:57 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Has anyone read Otto Rank lately? I know that Durrell read some of his work. I think Rank's Art and Artist might fit into this discussion. > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 17:29:45 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:29:45 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4655AF5B-5C7C-43AA-91E1-58F32FFECA59@earthlink.net> I don't have that problem, and I say this seriously. When I think and talk of Scobie, his parrot, Justine, et al., I think and talk of them as fictional entities. No confusion in mind. If you say that this is not true, that discussion and analysis reifies them, that by saying the word Justine I have made something real, I respond that this is a quirk of language and not of making something real that isn't. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Ken, > > Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > >> I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: >> >> "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" >> >> The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. >> >> But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. >> >> Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. >> >> -- Ken >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Of course and of course. >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >>> >>> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>>> >>>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is truth? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>>> >>>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>>> >>>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>>> >>>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>>> >>>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>>> Department of English * * >>>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>>> >>>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>>> >>>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>>> the little black letters." >>>>> >>>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>>> >>>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>>> >>>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>>> >>>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>>> >>>>>> David, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>>> do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>>> something to say about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> >>>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>>> >>>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>>> >>>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>>> >>>>>> David Whitewine >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110727/f85fbe5b/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 27 17:47:29 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:47:29 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: Let's get specific. What do you mean "Scobie has a certain kind of reality?" Do you seriously think that is the same as or the equivalent of talking to your wife? Otherwise, I don't treat this seriously. I'm with Dr. Johnson who kicks the stone and says, "Thus I refute Bishop Berkeley." Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Absolutely. Scobie has a certain kind of realty -- until the parrot forgets, and Clea forgets -- and we all die. > > But how do we define that reality? Do we say that Odysseus has more reality than Homer? > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of William Apt [billyapt at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:12 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? > > BILLY > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Thu Jul 28 11:50:46 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:50:46 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Surely Scobie has a secondary reality. He's not like us really, but we identify him as if he were like us. If someone started talking about him at a bar, someone who had not read about him, the listener would think that Scobie was real and alive -- or had been. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:47 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Let's get specific. What do you mean "Scobie has a certain kind of reality?" Do you seriously think that is the same as or the equivalent of talking to your wife? Otherwise, I don't treat this seriously. I'm with Dr. Johnson who kicks the stone and says, "Thus I refute Bishop Berkeley." Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Absolutely. Scobie has a certain kind of realty -- until the parrot forgets, and Clea forgets -- and we all die. > > But how do we define that reality? Do we say that Odysseus has more reality than Homer? > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of William Apt [billyapt at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:12 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? > > BILLY > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >> >> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>> >>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>> >>> >>> What is truth? >>> >>> >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>> >>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>> >>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>> >>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>> >>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>> >>>> I was waiting for Bill! >>>> >>>> I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I >>>> would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for >>>> my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved >>>> out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my >>>> signature before any other part of me... >>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>> >>>> I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you >>>> are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... >>>> It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see >>>> the little black letters." >>>> >>>> I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. >>>> >>>> Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in >>>> his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work >>>> (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put >>>> him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock >>>> than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even >>>> recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? >>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>> >>>> Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or >>>> as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? >>>> Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. >>>> "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>>> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >>>>> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >>>>> >>>>> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >>>>> writing. I asked him to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >>>>> >>>>> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of >>>>> Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * >>>>> ________________________________________ From: >>>>> ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of >>>>> Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, >>>>> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >>>>> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >>>>> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >>>>> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >>>>> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >>>>> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >>>>> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >>>>> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >>>>> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >>>>> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >>>>> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >>>>> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >>>>> something to say about that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >>>>> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >>>>> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >>>>> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >>>>> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >>>>> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >>>>> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >>>>> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >>>>> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >>>>> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >>>>> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >>>>> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >>>>> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >>>>> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >>>>> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >>>>> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >>>>> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >>>>> >>>>> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >>>>> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >>>>> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >>>>> >>>>> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >>>>> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >>>>> >>>>> David Whitewine >> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 28 10:52:55 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:52:55 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F517A@mail2.directed.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F517A@mail2.directed.com> Message-ID: "Why do we do this?" Because I think many readers, "Durrellians" in particular, suffer from the same affliction Lawrence Durrell did. Namely, as he himself states, "My real life seems to pass either in books or in dreams" (M. Haag, City of Memory, p. 2). Little wonder then that Scobie is "more meaningful and important" than Rupert Murdock. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > Last Saturday, Bill said: "...words on a page aren't real people." We know Scobie is not a real person - he's a character in a novel. Yet we do "...talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this?" > > I think the answer is, because of the magic of reading. It's a pretty amazing effect to be in two places at once. That's what happens when you are reading a good book. Put it down, check on your surroundings, take care of a little business, then pick it up again and you are suddenly transported to another place and time: vividly, viscerally. You see it all in your mind's eye. You meet Scobie and you don't forget him. He may not be as "real" as Rupert Murdock, but he's ultimately more meaningful and important to us. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:44 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Ken, > > Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > >> I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: >> >> "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" >> >> The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. >> >> But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. >> >> Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. >> >> -- Ken >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Of course and of course. >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >>> >>> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>>> >>>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is truth? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>>> >>>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>>> >>>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>>> >>>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>>> >>>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>>> Department of English * * >>>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>>> OH 45221-0069 * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110728/3e817829/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Thu Jul 28 12:03:03 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F517A@mail2.directed.com>, Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506E@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Good point. I can't argue with Michael Haag and you. I do live in and among books. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:52 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY "Why do we do this?" Because I think many readers, "Durrellians" in particular, suffer from the same affliction Lawrence Durrell did. Namely, as he himself states, "My real life seems to pass either in books or in dreams" (M. Haag, City of Memory, p. 2). Little wonder then that Scobie is "more meaningful and important" than Rupert Murdock. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: Last Saturday, Bill said: "...words on a page aren't real people." We know Scobie is not a real person - he's a character in a novel. Yet we do "...talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this?" I think the answer is, because of the magic of reading. It's a pretty amazing effect to be in two places at once. That's what happens when you are reading a good book. Put it down, check on your surroundings, take care of a little business, then pick it up again and you are suddenly transported to another place and time: vividly, viscerally. You see it all in your mind's eye. You meet Scobie and you don't forget him. He may not be as "real" as Rupert Murdock, but he's ultimately more meaningful and important to us. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:44 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Of course and of course. On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. What is truth? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." Bruce On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: Ontology, anyone? I've been struggling with this problem for years. Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. Bill W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Thu Jul 28 12:13:11 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:13:11 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <4655AF5B-5C7C-43AA-91E1-58F32FFECA59@earthlink.net> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <4655AF5B-5C7C-43AA-91E1-58F32FFECA59@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506F@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Why this rather than something else? If a quirk exists, why hasn't it been unquirked? Each year, many readers write to Sherlock Holmes and ask him for help. Surely Holmes could be tagged as purely fictional. But then, maybe no one wants to do that. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY I don't have that problem, and I say this seriously. When I think and talk of Scobie, his parrot, Justine, et al., I think and talk of them as fictional entities. No confusion in mind. If you say that this is not true, that discussion and analysis reifies them, that by saying the word Justine I have made something real, I respond that this is a quirk of language and not of making something real that isn't. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Ken, Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. -- Ken -----Original Message----- From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Of course and of course. On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." Bruce On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. What is truth? W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." Bruce On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: Ontology, anyone? I've been struggling with this problem for years. Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. Bill W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" I was waiting for Bill! I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my signature before any other part of me... Bill (this name is NOT ME.) I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see the little black letters." I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? Verbal clues do not a real person make. Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. Best, James On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this writing. I asked him to do that. Verbal clues do not a real person make. Bill (this name is NOT ME.) W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" David, Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to do this - and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have something to say about that. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. Bruce My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? David Whitewine From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 28 12:20:26 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:20:26 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie as a real person ? "like" is not "real." Reality is more than words and ideation. That's why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. A secondary reality is not the reality we live in, unless you want to posit multiple-realities. I go back to what I said before ? we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, Harvey (1950). Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. Bruce On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Surely Scobie has a secondary reality. He's not like us really, but we identify him as if he were like us. If someone started talking about him at a bar, someone who had not read about him, the listener would think that Scobie was real and alive -- or had been. > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:47 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Let's get specific. What do you mean "Scobie has a certain kind of reality?" Do you seriously think that is the same as or the equivalent of talking to your wife? Otherwise, I don't treat this seriously. I'm with Dr. Johnson who kicks the stone and says, "Thus I refute Bishop Berkeley." > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Absolutely. Scobie has a certain kind of realty -- until the parrot forgets, and Clea forgets -- and we all die. >> >> But how do we define that reality? Do we say that Odysseus has more reality than Homer? >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * >> ________________________________________ >> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of William Apt [billyapt at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:12 PM >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >> >> Have you all forgotten what LD said about Scobie? That one doesn't die until the memory of that person is forgotten... Thus, does it not follow that if someone exists in memory, they were at one time real? >> >> BILLY >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: >> Of course and of course. >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> >>> Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? >>> >>> Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? >>> >>> W. L. Godshalk * >>> Department of English * * >>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM >>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>> >>> Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>> >>>> Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? >>>> >>>> In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is truth? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>> Department of English * * >>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>> OH 45221-0069 * * >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM >>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >>>> Cc: Bruce Redwine >>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY >>>> >>>> I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. >>>> >>>> "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ontology, anyone? >>>>> >>>>> I've been struggling with this problem for years. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. >>>>> >>>>> I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> W. L. Godshalk * >>>>> Department of English * * >>>>> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >>>>> OH 45221-0069 * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110728/6fade0e3/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 13:20:38 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:20:38 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie > as a real person ? "like" is not "real." I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as in his initial query: > We talk about Scobie as if he were a real > person. Why do we do this? And I ask this > seriously. "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. > Reality is more than words and ideation. That's > why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being through language actually far more important than other modes of being, "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? > we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and > that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any > conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation > similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). > Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, > who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood > carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, > and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your > name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a > "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows > Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift between books as reality and books as word games). And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: > the listener would think that Scobie was real > and alive -- or had been. The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": I enter my poem like a son's house. The ancient thought is: nothing will change. But the nouns are back in the bottle, I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my mind... Best, James From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 28 13:31:34 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:31:34 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506F@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC93F4F2E@mail2.directed.com>, <385DE63E-0B97-4101-9E77-ECCA5AEAE589@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <4655AF5B-5C7C-43AA-91E1-58F32FFECA59@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506F@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: The fact that some people today write to Sherlock Holmes, Det., as though he were real, only shows that some people ignore facts and believe what they want to believe. Some people also continue to believe that in 1947 a flying saucer crashed in Roswell, New Mexico. That "event" has long been proven false (see Karl T. Pflock, Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe [2001]). This leaves unanswered why people have the "will to believe." What's the quirk of language? Wittgenstein probably has something to say about this, since he was trying to solve philosophical problems through the use of language. Dunno what he says on the topic. My own hunch is that it may have something to do with the power and importance of story-telling, which is basic to the formation of the human personality. I seem to recall that a child's first memories coincide with the capacity to make a story/narrative. Psychologists are working on this. Durrell's genius may be linked to his predisposition to confuse stories, dreams, and reality. Bruce On Jul 28, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Why this rather than something else? > > If a quirk exists, why hasn't it been unquirked? > > Each year, many readers write to Sherlock Holmes and ask him for help. Surely Holmes could be tagged as purely fictional. But then, maybe no one wants to do that. > > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:29 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > I don't have that problem, and I say this seriously. When I think and talk of Scobie, his parrot, Justine, et al., I think and talk of them as fictional entities. No confusion in mind. If you say that this is not true, that discussion and analysis reifies them, that by saying the word Justine I have made something real, I respond that this is a quirk of language and not of making something real that isn't. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:37 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Ken, > > Bill will have to explain what he meant by sentence two, but I think he meant something else, other than a tautology, much as his sentence, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" fails to illustrate his point, whatever that is. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ken Gammage wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree with that second "of course." Here's what Bill wrote: > > "Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu?" > > The two statements are not in conflict - Lawrence Durrell did live on Corfu, and he did write about living on Corfu. In that sense, the two LDs are the same person and equally real. > > But what about the writing (and the publishing, and the reading that resulted?) Did the fact that LD became a famous and beloved author create an additional level of reality? What if the first "LD" who lived on Corfu didn't write about it, but simply lived his life, as so many others on the island did. These unknown Greeks were real to themselves, but they are not as real to us now being nameless and unknown. > > Would the man who captured his experiences and imagination in this famous book be more real than his hypothetical alter ego who lived an unexamined life? Of course. > > -- Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:50 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Of course and of course. > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > Is there a difference between Napoleon in a novel and Napoleon as an historical figure? In terms of existence, that is. Do they have differences in reality? > > Is the Lawrence Durrell who lived on Corfu more real than the Lawrence Durrell who wrote about living on Corfu? > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:06 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > Homer may not have existed as a person, but someone or some group identified himself or herself or their selves as "Homer." The ancient Greeks thought so, and that identity continues to exist. I would argue that because of modern scholarship Homer is more real today than ever before. But this is not what you're saying. You wrote, "When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality?" Applying that sentence to Homer means that all traces of Homer have been wiped off the face of this earth. In which case, Homer no longer exists in any form. He's the "nothing" King Lear can't grasp or tolerate. But perhaps you're thinking of some Platonic reality where things exist as types, beyond the world we live in. Now, that may be a very Durrellian idea, another kind of "Heraldic Universe." > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > Homer is a usual example. He no longer exists. There is some doubtful evidence that he did (or may have) at one time existed. As his historical remains deteriorate, as his actions become completely mythic, as his writing recedes into the mists of time, doesn't his reality begin to disappear? > > In fact, is the name "Homer" merely a word for "blind poet?" Perhaps he was a woman. Perhaps he was not one person, but a group of epic poets. > > > What is truth? > > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:43 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > I don't understand the question. If a thing no longer exists and there's no evidence for it ever existing, how can there be any question "that reality last[s]?" Only if you believe in something beyond this world we live in. > > "Why no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing." > > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > > Ontology, anyone? > > I've been struggling with this problem for years. > > Obviously the photo OF Larry and Bill had a certain kind of reality -- perhaps still does. But how long does that reality last? When the photos and the copies are all destroyed, and everyone has forgotten Larry and Bill, can we say that the photo has lost all its reality? I have some family photos that are at least partially in this category -- who are they looking out at me? Of course they are not looking at me. > > I think we use our imaginations to create realities of this nature. > > Bill > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110728/81e4f919/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Thu Jul 28 13:42:33 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:42:33 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net>, <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5070@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Durrell loves (loved) similes. "As if." Often they are fairly outrageous. Does "as if" change the way we think about perception -- as it were? Shakespeare in the first scene of Hamlet uses "like" repeatedly: "like the king that's dead." W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:20 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie > as a real person ? "like" is not "real." I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as in his initial query: > We talk about Scobie as if he were a real > person. Why do we do this? And I ask this > seriously. "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. > Reality is more than words and ideation. That's > why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being through language actually far more important than other modes of being, "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? > we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and > that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any > conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation > similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). > Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, > who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood > carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, > and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your > name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a > "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows > Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift between books as reality and books as word games). And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: > the listener would think that Scobie was real > and alive -- or had been. The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": I enter my poem like a son's house. The ancient thought is: nothing will change. But the nouns are back in the bottle, I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my mind... Best, James _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From dtart at bigpond.net.au Thu Jul 28 13:44:26 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:44:26 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Rupert Murdoch Message-ID: <62544518829444DBBB4579F8A1F189C8@DenisePC> Sadly, old Rupert is real and lives on as one of Australia's greatest exports - and you Yanks can have him and his brand of Yellow Journalism. --and James, much as I would like it, for I am a lousy typist, Denise does not print my post - we have a joint email. She does however find some of correspondence amusing. memory can be more real than facts and memory can overpower facts - Mark R Baker said in a recent seminar. History, fact and memory; the concepts blur and change. Cheers David 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 + 61 2 9564 6165 0412 707 625 www.denisetart.com.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110729/d0d4a5ef/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 28 13:59:50 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:59:50 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5070@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net>, <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5070@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: I take it that Bill, following in Shakespeare's footsteps, so to speak, is saying that "like" and "as if" are synonymous. Or am I wrong about his usage of the terms? Let's be precise. Bruce On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > Durrell loves (loved) similes. "As if." Often they are fairly outrageous. Does "as if" change the way we think about perception -- as it were? > > Shakespeare in the first scene of Hamlet uses "like" repeatedly: "like the king that's dead." > > > W. L. Godshalk * > Department of English * * > University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * > OH 45221-0069 * * > ________________________________________ > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:20 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie >> as a real person ? "like" is not "real." > > I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as > in his initial query: > >> We talk about Scobie as if he were a real >> person. Why do we do this? And I ask this >> seriously. > > "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we > play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to > imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, > but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. > >> Reality is more than words and ideation. That's >> why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. > > Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He > may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- > what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as > absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite > certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. > > I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we > shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether > they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things > they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for > the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being > through language actually far more important than other modes of being, > "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? > >> we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and >> that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any >> conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation >> similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). >> Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, >> who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood >> carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, >> and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your >> name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a >> "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows >> Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. > > Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust > conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? > > I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is > both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for > discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift > between books as reality and books as word games). > > And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: > >> the listener would think that Scobie was real >> and alive -- or had been. > > The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": > > I enter my poem like a son's house. > The ancient thought is: nothing will change. > But the nouns are back in the bottle, > I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) > > When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, > I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay > Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. > > I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. > Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in > language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my > mind... > > Best, > James > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 14:11:09 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:11:09 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net>, <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5070@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4E31D06D.3030300@gmail.com> perhaps not synonyms but at least similes... Denise wrote like David. Denise wrote as David. Not quite synonyms. Both potentially similes? Hmm. -J On 28/07/11 1:59 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > I take it that Bill, following in Shakespeare's footsteps, so to speak, is saying that "like" and "as if" are synonymous. Or am I wrong about his usage of the terms? Let's be precise. > > > Bruce > > > On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > >> Durrell loves (loved) similes. "As if." Often they are fairly outrageous. Does "as if" change the way we think about perception -- as it were? >> >> Shakespeare in the first scene of Hamlet uses "like" repeatedly: "like the king that's dead." >> >> >> W. L. Godshalk * >> Department of English * * >> University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * >> OH 45221-0069 * * From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 29 08:02:17 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:02:17 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> Message-ID: James, Good exchange. It always helps to sort out one's ideas on this topic. As you suggest, the "language game" may appear trivial, but it's important. My responses are numbered. Of course, everything is tentative. Bruce On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, James Gifford wrote: > On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie >> as a real person ? "like" is not "real." > > I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as > in his initial query: > >> We talk about Scobie as if he were a real >> person. Why do we do this? And I ask this >> seriously. > > "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we > play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to > imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, > but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. 1. I don't see a substantive distinction, and, as far as I can tell, neither does Bill Godshalk, who "penned" the words. "Like" and "as if" depend on similitude, and that is not a factual condition. Metaphorical language, of which similes are a subset, is a way of conceiving something with something else. That makes language "fresh," as Aristotle puts it in his Rhetoric. It helps to visualize things. The error, however, is to take metaphors or such as real, which is a convenient way to talk about fictional entities. I'm beginning to think that the problem with the English language and the reification of abstractions may have something to do with the decline of the subjunctive mood. Latin, for example, uses the subjective extensively to distinguish many non-factual conditions ? but English doesn't to the same extent. ("If I was you" co-exists with "If I were you," with no change in meaning, and I'd wagger the former is more common than the latter, which is considered stuffy and formal.) It's a general trend of language to reduce everything to the simplest form, so we lose many distinctions, another being our case structure. I'm not pushing this; I may be wrong. This is just a hunch, and I haven't worked it out in much detail. My point ? the English language no longer marks contrary-to fact-conditions as clearly as it once did, and this shift in the use of the subjunctive may have something to do with the phenomenon Bill Godshalk observes. > >> Reality is more than words and ideation. That's >> why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. > > Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He > may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- > what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as > absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite > certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. 2. So, you do believe Bishop Berkeley was right. Dr. Johnson kicking the stone is an appeal to commonsense and reason as conventionally understood. I think you're hung-up on "words" or "words as words" or "words" as existing in some ether. Words have referents, which you appear to ignore, and the nominal referent for "Dr. Johnson" is a man who once existed, indubitably so. (Yes, not all referents are of real things.) He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact ? the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction. Dr. Johnson was real, Scobie never was. You may respond that "Dr. Johnson" is James Boswell's literary creation, existing only in "words," hence no substance, but that is indeed stretching it and is not generally accepted. Conventional understanding, corroborated by other sources, says Boswell's portrait is close to the original. I'll take Boswell's biography as a good approximation of reality. I take "Scobie" as unreal, without material substance, no matter how interesting. > > I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we > shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether > they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things > they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for > the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being > through language actually far more important than other modes of being, > "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? > >> we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and >> that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any >> conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation >> similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). >> Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, >> who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood >> carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, >> and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your >> name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a >> "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows >> Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. > > Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust > conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? 3. The judicial court system is a way to look at societal conventions re the world we live in. I go back to my analogy of going into a court of law and falling under the rules of evidence, which are codified to assist in the determination of "facts." (Billy Apt, attorney, can correct me, if I'm wrong.) So, try and argue your case that Scobie is as real as Dr. Johnson because we understand both through "words." > > I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is > both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for > discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift > between books as reality and books as word games). > > And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: > >> the listener would think that Scobie was real >> and alive -- or had been. > > The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": > > I enter my poem like a son's house. > The ancient thought is: nothing will change. > But the nouns are back in the bottle, > I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) 4. One can live in literature or the imagination, where Durrell said he felt most at home, and one can enjoy the pleasures of both, but that world, or that way of experiencing the real world, should not, in my opinion, be taken as the norm. > > When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, > I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay > Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. 5. James A. Brigham was a good guy. I heard him talk at the MLA, New York, in 1976 or 1977. He was marvelous to listen to. > > I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. > Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in > language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my > mind... > > Best, > James 6. Ditto no. 4. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110729/c56f40d8/attachment.html From Ken.Gammage at directed.com Fri Jul 29 10:20:28 2011 From: Ken.Gammage at directed.com (Ken Gammage) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:20:28 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC952C298@mail2.directed.com> I agree, this discussion is fascinating. Bruce, you said: "He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact - the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction." I understand the parallel here: Dr. Johnson is dead, and Scobie is dead. I also understand that only one of them was alive as a "real person" at one time. My quibble is with Scobie being entombed. In fact, Dr. Johnson and Scobie are both alive and well in our minds - and there's very little difference in their status as such. The phrase "Language is a virus" (credited to Laurie Anderson, and/or William S. Burroughs) seems to apply here. Once we read about them, there is a transference - in the case of Scobie, from Durrell's imagination to ours. -- Ken From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 8:02 AM To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY James, Good exchange. It always helps to sort out one's ideas on this topic. As you suggest, the "language game" may appear trivial, but it's important. My responses are numbered. Of course, everything is tentative. Bruce On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, James Gifford wrote: On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie as a real person - "like" is not "real." I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as in his initial query: We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. 1. I don't see a substantive distinction, and, as far as I can tell, neither does Bill Godshalk, who "penned" the words. "Like" and "as if" depend on similitude, and that is not a factual condition. Metaphorical language, of which similes are a subset, is a way of conceiving something with something else. That makes language "fresh," as Aristotle puts it in his Rhetoric. It helps to visualize things. The error, however, is to take metaphors or such as real, which is a convenient way to talk about fictional entities. I'm beginning to think that the problem with the English language and the reification of abstractions may have something to do with the decline of the subjunctive mood. Latin, for example, uses the subjective extensively to distinguish many non-factual conditions - but English doesn't to the same extent. ("If I was you" co-exists with "If I were you," with no change in meaning, and I'd wagger the former is more common than the latter, which is considered stuffy and formal.) It's a general trend of language to reduce everything to the simplest form, so we lose many distinctions, another being our case structure. I'm not pushing this; I may be wrong. This is just a hunch, and I haven't worked it out in much detail. My point - the English language no longer marks contrary-to fact-conditions as clearly as it once did, and this shift in the use of the subjunctive may have something to do with the phenomenon Bill Godshalk observes. Reality is more than words and ideation. That's why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. 2. So, you do believe Bishop Berkeley was right. Dr. Johnson kicking the stone is an appeal to commonsense and reason as conventionally understood. I think you're hung-up on "words" or "words as words" or "words" as existing in some ether. Words have referents, which you appear to ignore, and the nominal referent for "Dr. Johnson" is a man who once existed, indubitably so. (Yes, not all referents are of real things.) He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact - the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction. Dr. Johnson was real, Scobie never was. You may respond that "Dr. Johnson" is James Boswell's literary creation, existing only in "words," hence no substance, but that is indeed stretching it and is not generally accepted. Conventional understanding, corroborated by other sources, says Boswell's portrait is close to the original. I'll take Boswell's biography as a good approximation of reality. I take "Scobie" as unreal, without material substance, no matter how interesting. I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being through language actually far more important than other modes of being, "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? 3. The judicial court system is a way to look at societal conventions re the world we live in. I go back to my analogy of going into a court of law and falling under the rules of evidence, which are codified to assist in the determination of "facts." (Billy Apt, attorney, can correct me, if I'm wrong.) So, try and argue your case that Scobie is as real as Dr. Johnson because we understand both through "words." I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift between books as reality and books as word games). And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: the listener would think that Scobie was real and alive -- or had been. The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": I enter my poem like a son's house. The ancient thought is: nothing will change. But the nouns are back in the bottle, I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) 4. One can live in literature or the imagination, where Durrell said he felt most at home, and one can enjoy the pleasures of both, but that world, or that way of experiencing the real world, should not, in my opinion, be taken as the norm. When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. 5. James A. Brigham was a good guy. I heard him talk at the MLA, New York, in 1976 or 1977. He was marvelous to listen to. I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my mind... Best, James 6. Ditto no. 4. This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110729/bb962618/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 29 11:53:38 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:53:38 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC952C298@mail2.directed.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC952C298@mail2.directed.com> Message-ID: <8E3E0B87-D470-43AC-BE15-EC134223B241@earthlink.net> Ken, Interesting idea, language as transference. I'm reminded of what in Zen is called "dharma transmission," the passing of enlightenment from master to acolyte. Another metaphor. But you recognize, of course, that "language is a virus" is itself a metaphor and as such, not fact. I used "entombed" metaphorically and not very carefully. Sorry. I was taken with the image. My quibble with James is that he seems (to me anyway) to make the representations of Dr. Johnson and Inspector Scobie equivalent. For me, they're patently not. Are both representations kept "alive" in our imaginations? Yes, absolutely. But I would argue ? not in the same way. James mentioned Jay Brigham, and before I mentioned Karl T. Pflock ? two friends now dead. And we both did this for the same reason, to keep someone's memory alive. Can we say, however, that Scobie is "alive and well" in our memories in the same way that Dr. Johnson is or that Jay and Karl are? I think not. I feel an emotive difference, even though I obviously never knew Dr. J. I can delight in remembering Scobie and his antics, but I cannot "feel" for him in the same way I "feel" for Samuel Johnson. Bruce On Jul 29, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Ken Gammage wrote: > I agree, this discussion is fascinating. > > Bruce, you said: ?He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact ? the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction.? > > I understand the parallel here: Dr. Johnson is dead, and Scobie is dead. I also understand that only one of them was alive as a ?real person? at one time. My quibble is with Scobie being entombed. In fact, Dr. Johnson and Scobie are both alive and well in our minds ? and there?s very little difference in their status as such. The phrase ?Language is a virus? (credited to Laurie Anderson, and/or William S. Burroughs) seems to apply here. Once we read about them, there is a transference ? in the case of Scobie, from Durrell?s imagination to ours. > > -- Ken > > From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 8:02 AM > To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY > > James, > > Good exchange. It always helps to sort out one's ideas on this topic. As you suggest, the "language game" may appear trivial, but it's important. My responses are numbered. Of course, everything is tentative. > > > Bruce > > > > > On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > > On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie > as a real person ? "like" is not "real." > > I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as > in his initial query: > > > We talk about Scobie as if he were a real > person. Why do we do this? And I ask this > seriously. > > "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we > play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to > imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, > but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. > > > 1. I don't see a substantive distinction, and, as far as I can tell, neither does Bill Godshalk, who "penned" the words. "Like" and "as if" depend on similitude, and that is not a factual condition. Metaphorical language, of which similes are a subset, is a way of conceiving something with something else. That makes language "fresh," as Aristotle puts it in his Rhetoric. It helps to visualize things. The error, however, is to take metaphors or such as real, which is a convenient way to talk about fictional entities. I'm beginning to think that the problem with the English language and the reification of abstractions may have something to do with the decline of the subjunctive mood. Latin, for example, uses the subjective extensively to distinguish many non-factual conditions ? but English doesn't to the same extent. ("If I was you" co-exists with "If I were you," with no change in meaning, and I'd wagger the former is more common than the latter, which is considered stuffy and formal.) It's a general trend of language to reduce everything to the simplest form, so we lose many distinctions, another being our case structure. I'm not pushing this; I may be wrong. This is just a hunch, and I haven't worked it out in much detail. My point ? the English language no longer marks contrary-to fact-conditions as clearly as it once did, and this shift in the use of the subjunctive may have something to do with the phenomenon Bill Godshalk observes. > > > > > Reality is more than words and ideation. That's > why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. > > Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He > may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- > what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as > absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite > certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. > > > 2. So, you do believe Bishop Berkeley was right. Dr. Johnson kicking the stone is an appeal to commonsense and reason as conventionally understood. I think you're hung-up on "words" or "words as words" or "words" as existing in some ether. Words have referents, which you appear to ignore, and the nominal referent for "Dr. Johnson" is a man who once existed, indubitably so. (Yes, not all referents are of real things.) He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact ? the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction. Dr. Johnson was real, Scobie never was. You may respond that "Dr. Johnson" is James Boswell's literary creation, existing only in "words," hence no substance, but that is indeed stretching it and is not generally accepted. Conventional understanding, corroborated by other sources, says Boswell's portrait is close to the original. I'll take Boswell's biography as a good approximation of reality. I take "Scobie" as unreal, without material substance, no matter how interesting. > > > > > I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we > shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether > they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things > they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for > the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being > through language actually far more important than other modes of being, > "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? > > > we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and > that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any > conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation > similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). > Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, > who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood > carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, > and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your > name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a > "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows > Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. > > Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust > conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? > > > > 3. The judicial court system is a way to look at societal conventions re the world we live in. I go back to my analogy of going into a court of law and falling under the rules of evidence, which are codified to assist in the determination of "facts." (Billy Apt, attorney, can correct me, if I'm wrong.) So, try and argue your case that Scobie is as real as Dr. Johnson because we understand both through "words." > > > > > I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is > both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for > discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift > between books as reality and books as word games). > > And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: > > > the listener would think that Scobie was real > and alive -- or had been. > > The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": > > I enter my poem like a son's house. > The ancient thought is: nothing will change. > But the nouns are back in the bottle, > I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) > > > 4. One can live in literature or the imagination, where Durrell said he felt most at home, and one can enjoy the pleasures of both, but that world, or that way of experiencing the real world, should not, in my opinion, be taken as the norm. > > > > > When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, > I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay > Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. > > > 5. James A. Brigham was a good guy. I heard him talk at the MLA, New York, in 1976 or 1977. He was marvelous to listen to. > > > > I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. > Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in > language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my > mind... > > Best, > James > > > 6. Ditto no. 4. > > > > > This email may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. It is intended only for the person or persons to > whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or > telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110729/e89ed533/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Fri Jul 29 15:09:48 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:09:48 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY In-Reply-To: <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC952C298@mail2.directed.com> References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5050@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <34E6A83C-2094-4E33-999C-B2498C413090@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5051@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <914978F5-B5EE-4CE1-95C0-71F3FEB01F34@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5058@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> , <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F505A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F506D@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <3419E2AA-1BDC-4813-9D3F-EEC791DFAED7@earthlink.net> <4E31C496.5040404@gmail.com> , <0BEF02A471383D429ADB5873552EF095ADC952C298@mail2.directed.com> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3EC87478F@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Knowledge has something to do with this discussion. The reader/listener/ must know who Scobie "is" or "isn't" before he/she can feel anything much about this character. The same goes with Doctor Johnson. My doctor happens to be Doctor Johnson -- Kay Johnson. Put case that I know nothing about Sam Johnson, and I'm merely puzzled by the reference to rock kicking -- and what that kicking means wrt Dr. J's philosophical position. How can we transfer anything without knowing something? Bill W. L. Godshalk * Department of English * * University of Cincinnati* * Stellar Disorder * OH 45221-0069 * * ________________________________________ From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Ken Gammage [Ken.Gammage at directed.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 1:20 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY I agree, this discussion is fascinating. Bruce, you said: ?He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact ? the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction.? I understand the parallel here: Dr. Johnson is dead, and Scobie is dead. I also understand that only one of them was alive as a ?real person? at one time. My quibble is with Scobie being entombed. In fact, Dr. Johnson and Scobie are both alive and well in our minds ? and there?s very little difference in their status as such. The phrase ?Language is a virus? (credited to Laurie Anderson, and/or William S. Burroughs) seems to apply here. Once we read about them, there is a transference ? in the case of Scobie, from Durrell?s imagination to ours. -- Ken From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 8:02 AM To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" ONTOLOGY James, Good exchange. It always helps to sort out one's ideas on this topic. As you suggest, the "language game" may appear trivial, but it's important. My responses are numbered. Of course, everything is tentative. Bruce On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, James Gifford wrote: On 28/07/11 12:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: No, I disagree. I don't identify with Scobie as a real person ? "like" is not "real." I think "as if" is really the crucial work pair for Bill, not "like," as in his initial query: We talk about Scobie as if he were a real person. Why do we do this? And I ask this seriously. "as if he were" Yes, it's certainly a language game, but *why* do we play it? Why do we not think about it? Why does language admit to imagination so easily in this way? Not only is this distinctly human, but I wonder if it's part of what makes us human. 1. I don't see a substantive distinction, and, as far as I can tell, neither does Bill Godshalk, who "penned" the words. "Like" and "as if" depend on similitude, and that is not a factual condition. Metaphorical language, of which similes are a subset, is a way of conceiving something with something else. That makes language "fresh," as Aristotle puts it in his Rhetoric. It helps to visualize things. The error, however, is to take metaphors or such as real, which is a convenient way to talk about fictional entities. I'm beginning to think that the problem with the English language and the reification of abstractions may have something to do with the decline of the subjunctive mood. Latin, for example, uses the subjective extensively to distinguish many non-factual conditions ? but English doesn't to the same extent. ("If I was you" co-exists with "If I were you," with no change in meaning, and I'd wagger the former is more common than the latter, which is considered stuffy and formal.) It's a general trend of language to reduce everything to the simplest form, so we lose many distinctions, another being our case structure. I'm not pushing this; I may be wrong. This is just a hunch, and I haven't worked it out in much detail. My point ? the English language no longer marks contrary-to fact-conditions as clearly as it once did, and this shift in the use of the subjunctive may have something to do with the phenomenon Bill Godshalk observes. Reality is more than words and ideation. That's why Dr. Johnson kicked the big stone. Yes Bruce, but when was the last time you talked with The Doctor? He may once have existed, but that time is past and he no longer does -- what makes your Dr. Johnson more real than Scobie? Both exist today as absolutely nothing more than words, and in both instances I'm quite certain a good number of those words are assuredly fiction. 2. So, you do believe Bishop Berkeley was right. Dr. Johnson kicking the stone is an appeal to commonsense and reason as conventionally understood. I think you're hung-up on "words" or "words as words" or "words" as existing in some ether. Words have referents, which you appear to ignore, and the nominal referent for "Dr. Johnson" is a man who once existed, indubitably so. (Yes, not all referents are of real things.) He's now buried in Westminster Abbey, tangible proof of his greatness. (By the way, this sentence is an example of the present indicative used contrary to fact ? the correct phrasing is "His remains are buried," for "he," Dr. Johnson, no longer exists. It's easy to slip into non-factual usage.) The referent for "Scobie" is some entity "existing" in what was once Lawrence Durrell's imagination, now entombed in four novels. Scobie is buried somewhere in Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, a work of fiction. Dr. Johnson was real, Scobie never was. You may respond that "Dr. Johnson" is James Boswell's literary creation, existing only in "words," hence no substance, but that is indeed stretching it and is not generally accepted. Conventional understanding, corroborated by other sources, says Boswell's portrait is close to the original. I'll take Boswell's biography as a good approximation of reality. I take "Scobie" as unreal, without material substance, no matter how interesting. I feel my own existence, and I'll grant that I experience yours when we shake hands, in a manner distinct from my experience with words, whether they're words in a book or words heard. Words are not the "real" things they may represent, yet we accept them as such without hesitation -- for the human mind, is this imaginary experience of reality and being through language actually far more important than other modes of being, "as if it were real"? And from Bill "Why do we do this"? we live our daily lives in a world of convention, and that convention doesn't include saying "Scobie" is real and alive in any conventional sense. Seems to me you're describing a "bar" situation similar to the one in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, /Harvey /(1950). Elwood (Stewart) goes into bars with his friend, a "pooka" named Harvey, who is also a giant six-foot rabbit. Only Elwood sees Harvey, but Elwood carries on a running conversation with the big rabbit wherever he goes, and the two make friends in the bars. They say, "We don't know your name, mister, but you're all right, all right." Well, "Harvey" has a "kind of" reality by virtue of Elwood's narration, but everyone knows Elwood is daft, delightfully daft, but daft nonetheless. Do you own a bluetooth earpiece for your cell phone? Why trust conventions more than language? Are conventions extra-linguistic? 3. The judicial court system is a way to look at societal conventions re the world we live in. I go back to my analogy of going into a court of law and falling under the rules of evidence, which are codified to assist in the determination of "facts." (Billy Apt, attorney, can correct me, if I'm wrong.) So, try and argue your case that Scobie is as real as Dr. Johnson because we understand both through "words." I don't say this to be needlessly provocative. I think the problem is both far more difficult than we're admitting to *and* is very useful for discussing Durrell (an author who seemed preternaturally able to shift between books as reality and books as word games). And what of Bill's deceptively brief fragment: the listener would think that Scobie was real and alive -- or had been. The tense shift makes me think to LD's "Green Man": I enter my poem like a son's house. The ancient thought is: nothing will change. But the nouns are back in the bottle, I ache and she is warm, was warm, is warm. (84) 4. One can live in literature or the imagination, where Durrell said he felt most at home, and one can enjoy the pleasures of both, but that world, or that way of experiencing the real world, should not, in my opinion, be taken as the norm. When I open my copy of the /Collected Poems/ to find this final stanza, I can't help but comment on the photograph of the Pacific that Jay Brigham tucked inside it. Jay was, and I'm sad for the verb shift. 5. James A. Brigham was a good guy. I heard him talk at the MLA, New York, in 1976 or 1977. He was marvelous to listen to. I think Bill's looking that shift and language, and Durrell too. Present and past tenses are universes apart, yet we move between them in language "as if" without thought. That's a fascinating mechanism to my mind... Best, James 6. Ditto no. 4. This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email or telephone and destroy all copies of the original message.