table of contents

11/01/2005

Joshua Landy on Marcel Proust

Joshua Landy is Associate Professor of French in the Department of French and Italian at Stanford University. He was educated at Churchill College, Cambridge University where he received a BA in French and German and an MA in French, and at Princeton University where he received a PhD in Comparative Literature. At Stanford he teaches […]

download transcript [vtt]
00:00:00.000
[ Music ]
00:00:13.000
This is KZSU Stanford.
00:00:15.000
[ Music ]
00:00:17.000
Welcome to entitled opinions.
00:00:19.000
My name is Robert Harrison.
00:00:21.000
[ Music ]
00:00:23.000
And we're coming to your live from the Stanford campus.
00:00:26.000
[ Music ]
00:00:50.000
Let's start with a quote from the founder of Modern Philosophy,
00:00:54.000
who wants upon a time wrote a book called Discourse on Method.
00:00:58.000
How's this for methods?
00:01:01.000
If you're lost in doubt and confusion and don't know what to do or where to turn,
00:01:06.000
quote, "I would imitate travelers who finding themselves lost in a forest,
00:01:12.000
ought not wander this way in that, or what is worse, remain in one place,
00:01:19.000
but ought always walk a straight line as they can in one direction
00:01:24.000
and not change course for feeble reasons.
00:01:29.000
For by this means if they are not going where they wish,
00:01:33.000
they will finally arrive at least somewhere where they probably
00:01:38.000
will be better off than in the middle of a forest.
00:01:42.000
[ Music ]
00:02:11.000
Ah, Descartes, you have to love him.
00:02:14.000
How could you not love someone who says to know people's true opinions,
00:02:19.000
you ought to observe what they do rather than what they say.
00:02:23.000
Not only because few people are willing to say all they believe,
00:02:26.000
but also because many do not know what they believe.
00:02:30.000
Since believing is something different from knowing that one believes it,
00:02:34.000
the one often occurs without the other.
00:02:39.000
That's the problem, isn't it? What does it mean to believe something?
00:02:43.000
What does it mean to know that one believes it?
00:02:46.000
What does it mean to believe something you know is not true?
00:02:51.000
The devil, my friends, is in our self-deception.
00:02:54.000
We believe and make believe with barely a hair of distinction.
00:02:58.000
We say one thing and mean another, mostly without ever being aware of it.
00:03:04.000
What lies at the bottom of this strange capacity we have to deceive ourselves?
00:03:11.000
These are questions that in my humble yet entitled opinion,
00:03:15.000
literature is better equipped to engage than philosophy.
00:03:19.000
Philosophy and literature are bound together the way two lovers are bound together
00:03:24.000
while maintaining their difference from one another.
00:03:28.000
Philosophy does a good job of unsettling us and raising doubts in us.
00:03:32.000
In fact, the moment we no longer feel unsettled, we are no longer really thinking.
00:03:39.000
But philosophy raises doubts in order to dispel them.
00:03:43.000
Philosophy promises to lead us out of Descartes' forest of perplexity,
00:03:49.000
whereas literature helps us to become familiar with the forest,
00:03:53.000
and to learn our way around it.
00:03:56.000
Philosophers tend to believe the forest of error has a perimeter
00:04:01.000
and that there's a way to get outside of it.
00:04:04.000
Literature reminds us that life itself is a forest of uncertainty,
00:04:08.000
which has no perimeter except maybe death.
00:04:13.000
Now, I'm as devoted to precision, objectivity, and science as the next person.
00:04:18.000
Science is fine when you're looking away from yourself at the world of nature.
00:04:23.000
It's when you turn the gaze back on yourself and try to make sense of human motivation.
00:04:29.000
That's when you realize that there's a region of the soul, a region of unlikeness, a gust in call it,
00:04:35.000
where x doesn't mean x and y doesn't mean y, except provisionally,
00:04:41.000
where things both are and are not what they seem,
00:04:45.000
where the thesis entails its antithesis and where attraction mingles with revulsion.
00:04:51.000
It's in this region of unlikeness that literature takes up its abode.
00:04:55.000
It's the very voice of this region.
00:04:59.000
I'm talking about literature folks.
00:05:01.000
Listen up. This isn't a radio show you can listen to,
00:05:05.000
distractively. What's that? Psychology, you say?
00:05:09.000
Nine, nine, nine. This is not a matter for psychology.
00:05:15.000
Psychology wants to be a science.
00:05:18.000
It refuses to laugh at its own punchlines.
00:05:22.000
No, literature and literature alone takes us into the region of unlikeness in all its strangeness.
00:05:28.000
It doesn't approach it externally, armed with theories or methods or concepts.
00:05:34.000
It places us there, abandons us there, forces us to become self-reliant in the midst of the weirdness.
00:05:42.000
The weirdness of not knowing exactly who you are or where you stand,
00:05:46.000
or what the story is all about, or how it's going to end.
00:05:51.000
With literature there's no such thing as conclusive interpretations.
00:05:56.000
How could there be if you can't stabilize the reference of a symbol, a metaphor, an illusion, an allegory?
00:06:04.000
Literature has the power to impregnate words with silence, implication, irony, and multiple meanings.
00:06:12.000
Amazing. That's what literature is.
00:06:15.000
It keeps us in a maze of the equivocal and indeterminate.
00:06:20.000
Literature is the way we are, opaque with respect to the deeper recesses of our being.
00:06:27.000
The act of reading it makes the same sort of demands on us that life does.
00:06:32.000
Namely, to make sense of things where any number of meanings are possible,
00:06:37.000
and where a final meaning is lacking.
00:06:40.000
How can we presume to ever know ourselves if we don't know how to read?
00:06:45.000
I mean read carefully, complexly, alertly, with the light-footedness of a dancer instead of the heavy plot of the logician.
00:06:56.000
We live in an age that hates ambiguity and militates against uncertainty.
00:07:02.000
The more complex the world becomes, the more we seek out easy simplifications.
00:07:08.000
We want a clear distinction between good and evil.
00:07:12.000
We want a judge before we understand.
00:07:16.000
Literature doesn't let us get away with that.
00:07:19.000
At least not when we meet it on its own terms.
00:07:24.000
I think it's because we're so much in favor of anything that reduces and simplifies that most of us these days prefer movies to books.
00:07:33.000
The difference between a book and a movie is the difference between a cube and a square.
00:07:40.000
If you cast a light on a cube and project its shadow against a wall,
00:07:45.000
you reduce it from a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional square.
00:07:51.000
While the square is comprehensible from the perspective of the cube, the reverse is not true.
00:07:58.000
The square cannot comprehend the cube's third dimension.
00:08:03.000
The same applies to books and movies.
00:08:06.000
Movies, for the most part, take the cube of literature and project it onto a screen where it becomes a square.
00:08:14.000
And we sit there in the projection hall like Plato's Prisoners in their cave,
00:08:19.000
watching shadows flicker across the screen, and we're content with the show.
00:08:25.000
Literature, which gets inside our heads, is sometimes two-three-dimensional for us.
00:08:34.000
This show my friends entitled "Pinions Declares War on Reductionism and Simplification."
00:08:40.000
That doesn't mean that we don't every now and then fall into those vices ourselves.
00:08:44.000
But the aim here is to seek out the wisdom of uncertainty and to put ourselves squarely into the region of unlikeness.
00:08:53.000
No, not squarely, but cubally.
00:08:57.000
Today we're going to do just that with Joshua Landy, my friend and colleague from the Department of French and Italian here at Stanford,
00:09:04.000
who last year published a brilliant book titled "Philosophy as Fiction, Self, Deception and Knowledge" in much so post.
00:09:14.000
Josh, welcome to the program.
00:09:16.000
Thank you, Robert.
00:09:18.000
Josh, I think it's evident from the title of your book that some of the issues I've been ranting about, because it is a rant,
00:09:25.000
or of special concern to you as well.
00:09:28.000
So let me ask you, do you agree not completely, of course, but at least in part with some of the claims I've been making about literature?
00:09:34.000
Absolutely.
00:09:35.000
I would even go so far as to say that walking in a straight line may be the quickest way to get out of a forest,
00:09:43.000
but maybe that's not the best thing to do with the forest.
00:09:46.000
What would be the best thing to do with the forest?
00:09:49.000
At least if the forest is literary, if the analogy holds, then perhaps you want to walk around in it a little bit,
00:09:56.000
and perhaps you want to learn something by experience.
00:10:01.000
We don't nearly want to know what the quickest way is from one edge of the forest to the other,
00:10:06.000
but we want to learn how to exist in the forest, how to react, what there is to be gained from that encounter,
00:10:13.000
which I think gets back to your idea that what we stand to gain from our engagement with literature is not a set of straightforward facts and claims and beliefs and scientific data,
00:10:26.000
but instead some kind of know-how.
00:10:28.000
We're learning how to read, and as a result we're learning how to read ourselves.
00:10:33.000
Yeah, and when you talk about the forest, we meet it analogically, obviously, or metaphorically.
00:10:39.000
One of the claims I made is that there are forests of literature, every time you open a book of literature,
00:10:46.000
you have to learn how to read that book really from scratch, because you can spend two years reading Moby Dick and learning how to read that book,
00:10:56.000
but then you switch to another book, and it's a whole new forest, as it were, and you have to find your way around really on your own.
00:11:04.000
And one of the claims I was making is that literature is that forest, but also life itself is something that we're thrown into and not clearly.
00:11:15.000
There's any way out of the constant recurrence of doubts and perplexities and need to make decisions where there's no ultimate foundation on which you can rely for the co-agency of your acts and absolutely.
00:11:31.000
I think that you can do better or worse, and maybe you would slightly punt company there, but can you get everything absolutely right all the time?
00:11:39.000
That seems elusive at best.
00:11:41.000
So then what you're getting from your experience of reading is some kind of training in how to read situations, how to read into those situations what the best course of action is given, what it is you know about yourself, and there is where yourself does actually come to it.
00:11:56.000
You better know something about yourself before you get involved in those tricky situations.
00:12:02.000
Always you really aren't going to have a compass with which to navigate.
00:12:06.000
Yeah, I agree with that, and I try to tell my students I'm sure you do, and everyone who teaches literature is that reading a text is what you're doing every day in your relations with others.
00:12:19.000
Every time you watch a news program or hear a political speech or engage in any kind of social interaction, these are all coded forms of communication that require an interpretation.
00:12:35.000
Exactly.
00:12:36.000
And to get back to your analogy of the great works of literature, there are certain situations in life possibly the most interesting situations, the most valuable situations, but which you do not know the rules in advance.
00:12:51.000
So it may well be that the experiences that we can gain the most from, the most valuable for us are the ones in which we have to figure out the rules as we go along.
00:13:01.000
So I wouldn't say that every work of literature has its own set of rules and requires us to learn how to read it, but I would say that great works of literature do that.
00:13:12.000
Great work of literature change the rules.
00:13:14.000
I think what we're going to talk about, Bruce, in a moment, and I think that's a great example.
00:13:18.000
Here's a book in which you have to figure out how to read this.
00:13:22.000
It doesn't present itself as something that's easily readable.
00:13:25.000
And as a result of learning how to read that, you then learn a new way of reading life.
00:13:31.000
But not only a new way of reading life, you get you gain practice in just figuring out new sets of rules for new situations.
00:13:39.000
Now, definitely, who has ever known what the rules are for a love affair when you have it, when you haven't been involved.
00:13:49.000
Or even if you've had multiple ones, each one presents a challenge and a new hermeneutic situation, oh, now come on.
00:13:57.000
I just saw that we lost half of our audience.
00:14:00.000
I lose the word hermeneutic.
00:14:02.000
Why is it that they can go and hear all the scientific mumbo jumbo and never bothers anyone.
00:14:09.000
But a literary person, there's only a user word hermeneutic and they think that I don't know what that word is too big.
00:14:16.000
Let's go off.
00:14:18.000
The experience of having to learn a new in a new situation all the time is what we're in.
00:14:24.000
This is why I think literature might be the opposite in some sense, or maybe even a more effective kind of self-help manual.
00:14:32.000
This obsession that we have with self-help manuals, I think it testifies to the fact that we, that life requires
00:14:40.000
a kind of guidance and help for these situations.
00:14:43.000
But I tend to agree with you that learning to read a complex work of literature is the best pedagogy available to us when it comes to the human situation.
00:14:53.000
Well, this is what the Greeks understood.
00:14:55.000
I mean, it's not about learning a set of facts.
00:14:57.000
It's not about picking up a self-help book and learning that it's better for you if you do X or you do Y.
00:15:03.000
It's about practice.
00:15:04.000
It's about training.
00:15:05.000
In order to get better at doing this thing called life, you don't just need a set of facts.
00:15:11.000
You need a set of procedures.
00:15:13.000
You need a method.
00:15:14.000
So that extent they caught was right.
00:15:16.000
Well, he's right.
00:15:19.000
But is there any such thing as a method for what we're talking about?
00:15:24.000
I tend, I at least thought that I was suggesting that no, there's no reliable method that you can apply time in and time again, but that you have to find your way.
00:15:35.000
You have to get comfortable.
00:15:36.000
First, you have to make yourself at home in the realm of the complex, the ambiguous, and the indeterminate, and not let it frighten you.
00:15:44.000
And then you can start finding your way here, which, once you're out of that situation, you're going to need another set of rules and guidelines, but at least you know what the game is all about.
00:15:57.000
Maybe we should refine and say you need a set of methods.
00:16:02.000
Each geared to a particular situation, and then in addition to that, you need the ability, the mental capacity to produce new methods as situations require.
00:16:13.000
So we talked about posts that book that you wrote last year, a really fantastic book on one of the major novelists of the 20th century.
00:16:23.000
You call them a 20th century author.
00:16:26.000
Yeah.
00:16:27.000
Yeah.
00:16:28.000
And then you kind of straddle.
00:16:29.000
I mean, he is, I suppose, he inaugurates a 20th century.
00:16:32.000
Right.
00:16:33.000
I mean, yeah, the books are written from 1913 to 2002.
00:16:35.000
So we can call them 20th century.
00:16:37.000
Also, even though, as you say, he definitely has one foot still in 19th century.
00:16:41.000
Well, the title of the book is In Search of Last Time.
00:16:45.000
In Search of Last Time is the translation of "Allegosiaashtigtompaldu."
00:16:49.000
Yeah.
00:16:50.000
And he's trying to recover what kind of time is it that he's in search of?
00:16:56.000
Well, deep time, I mean, because it's a psychological novel, largely, you know.
00:17:02.000
Right.
00:17:03.000
It's a first person novel.
00:17:04.000
So it's a book that presents itself as an autobiography, but the character writing is fictional.
00:17:10.000
And it's in part a, what you might expect, not about, but if you're going back and revisiting the past and resurrecting all memories and all that kind of thing.
00:17:19.000
But it's in part also a very analytical novel, so that the character who's telling the story is constantly commenting on it and trying to draw some conclusions about the nature of the mind.
00:17:31.000
And of course, yes, time.
00:17:32.000
So he's in search of last time, which certainly means memories going back and just remembering things.
00:17:38.000
Simple as that.
00:17:39.000
But he's also in search of the nature of time.
00:17:42.000
If you want to understand what time is, what time does.
00:17:44.000
Right.
00:17:45.000
Well, his search of Last Time, which is his own personal past, takes him.
00:17:51.000
We're talking about that he is a 20th century writer, but he's trying to recover memories that connect him back to his childhood and his childhood to his parents and even grandparents.
00:18:02.000
So in a sense, would you say that there's a very 19th century kind of world that has been lost to him and that he's trying to at least detect the traces of in his own memory?
00:18:16.000
Maybe you could say that of, of, of, Bruce, if not over the character.
00:18:21.000
There is a sense in which the world of Bruce novel is a world in the process of changing.
00:18:28.000
It's the moment at which all of these 19th century institutions are really on the way out.
00:18:33.000
So all the Balzac type stuff, the life in the salon, the high class, the social world is pretty much fading out and of course, World War One, which happens in the middle of Bruce writing this novel, is pretty much the death nail for that.
00:18:51.000
I'd say that from Bruce's point of view, it's at the search for a collective past, if you like, or a relationship to the past as well.
00:19:01.000
This novel is actually a series of novels. It's that correct. It's a multi-volume, very long. I mean, how many volumes?
00:19:10.000
It depends on which edition. The current English edition is in six volumes, the French edition is in seven.
00:19:18.000
It's in three dozen, really matter. The point is it's a more or less 4,000 page novel. So anyway, you slice it up. It's pretty substantial.
00:19:27.000
And I can, can one read them discreetly, or is it really all one continuum? It's a continuum and it's a problem when you are trying to get people to read it.
00:19:40.000
People want to know what they could do. They don't have the time. They get through all 4,000 pages. It took me seven years. So I feel sympathetic to people who don't feel they have the time.
00:19:52.000
They're, I mean, I'm extremely happy to say that all kinds of Bruce reading groups around the country whose purpose is basically to give people a forum for getting through the whole thing.
00:20:04.000
You can just about get what's going on by reading the beginning and the end. But even though you're really missing an awful lot.
00:20:12.000
So that's, that's a continuum. Yeah, that would be like the two-dimensional square versus the cube. If you want the game.
00:20:17.000
You'd like us, you have to go through the 4,000 pages. You do. And for, for a reason among others, it's very curious, which is that a lot of people just read the first volume, especially if they're reading in the class.
00:20:28.000
The first volume ends with the narrator producing a beautiful carefully crafted and very convincing statement about the nature of time. And it's a very pessimistic statement.
00:20:40.000
He says that houses and avenues are as fugitive as the years. You can't get time back. Now, if you just read this volume, since that's the end of the volume, you might think, oh, that's the ultimate statement.
00:20:53.000
That's the definitive statement on time. Of course, if you get to the final volume, you realize this is the opposite of Prisone View. And he wrote an electorate with his friend, too bad for the reader, if he takes this from my own opinion.
00:21:07.000
Right.
00:21:09.000
Well, I, so that's one reason it's a modernist. That's one reason it's the 20th century novel because it's going to play tricks on you of that nature.
00:21:18.000
Now, I have a lot of questions I'm going to ask for to put them in a sequence here. First is between that first and the last volume, obviously he's not only changed his mind, but he's undergone a revelation about the recuferability of lost time.
00:21:33.000
How does that come about? What are the experiences that lead him to changes mine?
00:21:40.000
Well, there's the infamous Madeline. Why infamous, no famous.
00:21:45.000
Let's remind people about the scene, this famous, I guess even people who don't know anything about post have heard about the famous or infamous Madeline scene.
00:21:57.000
Can you recapit? It's such a beautiful scene. To the, the set up as a false, you have a middle aged man lying half asleep in bed and tossing in terms of the same thing.
00:22:09.000
Tossing and turning and remembering vividly various places that he has lived in during his life, and particular times that he was in bed, all the various bedrooms that he's that he slept in.
00:22:23.000
And he is aware that all of this particular childhood memory of being in bed or going to bed in Compley, which was the, is childhood holiday home, all he can remember is one thing, one scene.
00:22:38.000
The drama of going to sleep, the drama of the goodnight kiss, his mother wouldn't kiss him goodnight and so on.
00:22:44.000
Now, this goes on for a long time, for a very long time, that's all he can remember of his childhood going to sleep drama.
00:22:53.000
That's all he can remember of Compley. But one day, he is offered a cup of tea, a design, and a Madeline, and he dips the Madeline the tea, and he has an epiphanic experience.
00:23:07.000
And he realizes that the experience is the memory of Compley flooding back to everything comes back.
00:23:16.000
So no longer can he only remember this drama of going to sleep and waiting for his mother to kiss him goodnight.
00:23:22.000
He can see all the people in Compley, all the houses, all the fields, everything.
00:23:27.000
So it turns out in fact that memory is recoup, lost time is recoupable, not just in the form of dry snapshots, but in this very vivid, alive, sensual form.
00:23:42.000
Yeah, and of course this is the great example of what he calls involuntary memory, versus voluntary memory.
00:23:50.000
His limitations, you can't only go so far with it, the Madeline episode, shows how involuntary memory is something that's really outside of conscious control.
00:24:05.000
Exactly. It's tied to the senses. What is it about the Madeline that is it the...
00:24:12.000
You claim that he never actually eats the Madeline.
00:24:16.000
And the proof never ate a Madeline. Of course never ate a Madeline, but he never had an epiphanic experience with a Madeline.
00:24:22.000
And that's actually more or less taken for granted these days.
00:24:26.000
But what's really funny about it is that the second generation of biographers then said, "No, no, it wasn't a Madeline. It was a piece of toast."
00:24:34.000
But there's no greater evidence for that.
00:24:37.000
Anyway, the point is not what proofs himself ate or did not eat.
00:24:42.000
The point is to understand what's underneath is, what's so great about involuntary memory.
00:24:47.000
And it is the kind of memory that isn't connected to the conscious mind.
00:24:52.000
The conscious mind files things the way neatly.
00:24:55.000
And you can access them. Those that you haven't forgotten obviously.
00:25:00.000
And there are connected in these logical ways to other things that you need, the handles you need to pick them up by.
00:25:05.000
Involuntary memories are buried. They just passed unnoticed.
00:25:09.000
Notice you didn't have things to connect them up to. What they get connected up to were just senses.
00:25:14.000
It was just things like taste of something, the smell of something.
00:25:17.000
And what's required is then for you to have the same sensory experience.
00:25:23.000
And then the memory comes back.
00:25:25.000
Now what's interesting about that? Well one of the things that's interesting about that is that it suggests that you can become again the person that you were.
00:25:31.000
It's not just memory. I mean, in a way it's a bit of a misnomer.
00:25:35.000
It's not just I remember doing this. I am that person again.
00:25:40.000
The narrator describes feeling exactly the same way that he did then,
00:25:44.000
like down to the plans he has for the next day.
00:25:47.000
He feels the desire to go out and play with Jibaph to whatever it is.
00:25:52.000
And so part of what's so fascinating about that is what it suggests about the nature of the self.
00:25:59.000
And at the nature of memory, this is crucial.
00:26:05.000
When people tend to believe that memory is a psychic faculty.
00:26:10.000
And that is something that takes place inside the mind.
00:26:13.000
And I'm sure that's true, but it's not the whole story.
00:26:17.000
The fact is that the biggest part of our memory is outside of ourselves in the world.
00:26:24.000
And in things and places and the mudland.
00:26:30.000
Do you mean that literally?
00:26:32.000
Yeah, right, of course. I mean it literally.
00:26:34.000
Yes, because or at least in this correlation between memory and the world,
00:26:39.000
if I go back to where I grew up as a child and if they have destroyed a neighborhood,
00:26:48.000
they have taken away my memory, possibility of memory forever.
00:26:56.000
Or I have argued, you know, when it comes to big things like forests,
00:27:00.000
you know, and the whole problem of deforestation is that there's such a reserve of cultural memory associated with certain things like forests or cities,
00:27:10.000
particular places that our memories are actually reside in the things themselves.
00:27:17.000
Or at least reside to such an extent that without their being there, they no longer can stimulate or create the access that we might be able to have to the deep memory itself.
00:27:29.000
And that's why changes and transformations in the world are really transformations in our memory.
00:27:37.000
Yes.
00:27:38.000
And this is one of the discoveries. I don't know if it's a pristine discovery.
00:27:42.000
And here we want to talk also about the extent to which he relied on certain philosophies in order to articulate these ideas.
00:27:52.000
Many people have argued that the French philosopher, Henri Beckson, whose lectures he actually heard earlier on that this novel,
00:28:02.000
in many ways, transcribes into a literary genre, theories that come from Henri Beckson.
00:28:07.000
And theories of memory in particular, do you agree with that? No, you don't.
00:28:13.000
I doubt.
00:28:14.000
The first relationship with the philosophy is somewhat vexed.
00:28:18.000
And I totally just to be very quick about it.
00:28:21.000
I tend to think that although he had some education in philosophy, he pretty much made a lot of it up.
00:28:27.000
When it came to, and there are times when he'll just end up in a position that we recognize as a position of such and such philosopher.
00:28:34.000
But I think he in most cases, they're autonomously. When it comes to Beckson, I think he was really interested in the ideas.
00:28:41.000
But I think he actually ended up turning them upside down.
00:28:45.000
So that when Beckson, for example, says that our own selves appear to us to be a series of discrete instance.
00:28:55.000
So that we appear, in life it appears, to be a series of discrete instance like the cells of a cinematic movie.
00:29:06.000
Beckson thinks that's an error.
00:29:09.000
We're getting it wrong. Life isn't really like that.
00:29:13.000
Perst thinks life really is like that.
00:29:15.000
So he's clearly inspired by these various ideas, but he's going to end up in his own positions.
00:29:22.000
And likewise, people have argued that he was a showpanowery and thrown through.
00:29:29.000
And I know that you don't agree with that either.
00:29:32.000
And one can take even more philosophers, I suppose.
00:29:35.000
Yes.
00:29:36.000
The interesting question is, even if he were completely devoutly committed to a philosophy, the fact is that he wrote a novel.
00:29:47.000
And something that has to be something at stake in that difference.
00:29:52.000
Absolutely. I mean, it gets back to your opening remarks.
00:29:55.000
Yes, even if you were, even if this were the world's greatest dramatization of Beckson's philosophy, what's the point?
00:30:04.000
Some people have suggested that it's just boring to read philosophy, so people like to read novels.
00:30:11.000
It's the old sort of sugared pill idea.
00:30:13.000
I think there's much more at stake here, and I think it gets back to the idea of being stuck in a forest and getting something out of being stuck in a forest.
00:30:23.000
We're not just reading this novel because it has some philosophical insights to impart.
00:30:28.000
We're reading it because the experience of reading it is supposed to be enlightening, enjoyable, stimulating, perplexing all of those things that are uniquely available to the novel.
00:30:40.000
Right.
00:30:41.000
It gives flesh to the otherwise abstract concepts that may be subtended, but as we know, when things become, become flesh, they take on a life of their own, which is no longer reducible, maybe to the initial concepts that might have even inspired.
00:31:00.000
But I'd even steer away from the flesh and body metaphor because I don't want to be suggesting that you have a philosophical skeleton, then you just hang some novelistic flesh.
00:31:15.000
My suggestion is that as you were putting it earlier, we're supposed to get a bit lost in there.
00:31:21.000
There's supposed to be something to be gained from the experience of fighting our way to knowledge or at least provisional certainty, hiding our way to a shape we can impose upon this massive information that is superior to just being given it.
00:31:42.000
So that's what they can't do. He gives you a little bit about how he has perplexed, but mostly what he's giving you is how you get out of it.
00:31:51.000
And the result of what you have what you get out.
00:31:55.000
But process is giving you is the experience of being in and then maybe coming out at the end, but you are supposed to work for your salvation.
00:32:05.000
Well, I want to also express some of my own, well, as a taste of reservations about Pus, but before we do that, Josh, I know knowing you to be a great lover of single mama.
00:32:21.000
And since we're talking here about the magical power that TAS can have, I actually brought along a bottle of single malt called "brewic ladic".
00:32:30.000
I don't know if you know it. This is a beautiful looking bottle. Well, if you don't mind, we can just taste it and see if some Pus, Ian, inspiration, fall out of it.
00:32:43.000
So we're not drinking off. Is it really just tasting? Yeah, that's right. There you go.
00:32:54.000
Alright, well, actually why don't we call David in here, David? Are you out there? David Lummis is the assistant producer of this program.
00:33:03.000
And he is the one who makes it all happen. He's the one who records a show, puts it on the webpage.
00:33:11.000
He's the one who got it podcasts and iTunes. And he deserves a drink. And he deserves a drink, not only for that, but also because he just passed a PhD exam today with flying colors.
00:33:22.000
So we will also congratulations. Go to India, to us to you. Tell me what you think?
00:33:31.000
That is a beautiful whisking. Now, meet your approval, David. Yes, it does.
00:33:37.000
Alright. Now, I can't have an involuntary memory experience over this because not enough time has passed since the last time I had a whisk.
00:33:46.000
If you want to have an involuntary, you better stop drinking this for, say, 10, 15 years.
00:33:52.000
And then your mother didn't kiss you with whiskey on her breath. Isn't that...
00:33:57.000
I think that we said we weren't going to talk about that. Well, come on. Isn't it gin that the baby much-sellers,
00:34:04.000
remember his mother's breath when she comes to kiss him good night?
00:34:08.000
There she has gin and cigarettes. You know, talk about the involuntary memory.
00:34:14.000
So you said you had some reservations about, about Prust. Yeah, you know, it's a question of taste again since we're talking about taste.
00:34:23.000
I feel better disposed to him now that I had my little taste of everything's better.
00:34:28.000
But come on, Josh, let me ask it this way.
00:34:32.000
Why should I read a novel where the open the first volume and the guy goes on for many pages describing the bell tower of the town of Kombre in excruciating torturous detail?
00:34:46.000
And apparently it's not for any other reason than just to talk about that bell tower page after page after page.
00:34:55.000
But you're like Moby Dig. Well, I feel like with Moby Dig the descriptive effort has its own fascination.
00:35:06.000
And I can't tell you why it has its fascination for me rather than, you know, the bell tower of Pust.
00:35:12.000
It could be a question of sensibility, maybe there's something about whales and the sea that...
00:35:17.000
It's the kind of other world, yeah. You're certainly not alone.
00:35:20.000
First of all, the hardest time trying to get this thing published and the reaction of one of the initial readers was just this.
00:35:27.000
He was exasperated having read 700 manuscript pages. He said, one still has no idea, none of what it's about.
00:35:36.000
Impossible to know anything about it, impossible to say anything about it.
00:35:40.000
And you're right. It's not always clear what this elaborate, this plethora of information is to put in the space.
00:35:49.000
It's supposed to be doing for us. Now, I happen to think, theoretically, that maybe it could have been a bit short.
00:35:57.000
But I also happen to think that it couldn't have been too much shorter because I think that for one thing, the novel is rehearsing for us analogically.
00:36:10.000
The experience of involuntary memory. And in order to do that, it has to bombard us with a number of events, only some of which,
00:36:18.000
are going to be recalled towards the end of the novel. And so those events get buried under this avalanche of it turns out later irrelevant information just so that they can be brought back up to the surface, which is exactly the same kind of mechanism by which involuntary memories come back to the surface of our past.
00:36:40.000
Let me ask you personally, I mean, how did you go through 4,000 pages? What is it about the book that you find compelling?
00:36:48.000
And this is a question for you. I know there's something there. I know our friend Tom Xi and who comes from a completely different kind of world than the one that's described.
00:37:01.000
I just love this book to death and therefore it must have something there to compel. But what is it for you that I want to say, I want to say, you know, one day Robert, you'll get it too.
00:37:14.000
But to me, I've been saving it for my old age, and maybe a little more wisdom.
00:37:20.000
But I think actually it would be in keeping with Prus own view if you never enjoyed Prus writing because it is a Prus vision is a perspectiveist vision.
00:37:33.000
On Prus view of the world, people are different and it may well be that you never connect with this book. But let me, okay, but having said that, I think explain what it is that grabs me about it.
00:37:45.000
And I think grabs a lot of people, maybe even Tom Xi and who should ask him. And then it's just to try to get him on the program he's on leave will get him. Okay, then asking about Prus.
00:37:55.000
These four pages, however interested or otherwise we are in steeples, they have an imitable Prusian style.
00:38:06.000
And I think it's that style that really come to its people. I think it's also the brilliance of the ideas because there are ideas, you know, that's new.
00:38:14.000
But it's the style and there's something strange and magical about these endless sentences.
00:38:20.000
It's not just four pages, it's four pages of pretty long sentences. I mean there's one sentence in the novel that itself is four pages long.
00:38:29.000
Right. So not just saying that again.
00:38:31.000
I, you know, our listeners need to be warned that there is a sentence in the book that's four pages long. Yes.
00:38:40.000
It's probably the longest sentence in history of literature. Well, I suppose depending on how you count some things in Joyce.
00:38:46.000
Yeah, but it's pretty long. And there's something in cantatree about these sentences.
00:38:55.000
Why don't we read one Josh if you don't mind. Yes.
00:38:58.000
You have a great appendix in your book where you lay out some of these sentences and do it. You almost vercify them in order to show their complexity and the other analysis.
00:39:07.000
So you know, choose one and just read it to us in English if you don't mind.
00:39:10.000
Well, read one that's relatively short but still really hard. Okay.
00:39:15.000
How could I have guessed then what I was told afterwards and of whose truth I have never been certain?
00:39:22.000
Andre's assertions about anything that concerned Albertine, especially later on, having always seemed to me to be highly dubious.
00:39:29.000
Four, as we have already seen, she did not genuinely like my friend and was jealous of her.
00:39:34.000
Something which in any event, if it was true, was remarkably well concealed from me by both of them.
00:39:40.000
The double team was on the best of terms with morale.
00:39:46.000
I think I need a little...
00:39:50.000
All right. What do you make of that?
00:39:54.000
Well, let me set this up.
00:39:57.000
What's going on here is that you have the character, often called Marcel's. We're calling myself.
00:40:03.000
In love with women in Albertine.
00:40:06.000
And Albertine is a little elusive and quite possibly unfaithful.
00:40:12.000
And he's a very jealous lover. And what he does in order to try to find out whether his suspicions are justified is to interrogate various people about her and send people out to just buy on her.
00:40:25.000
And two of his sources are morale and Andre.
00:40:30.000
But what's going on in this sense is that he is doubting information he got from morale.
00:40:35.000
So morale tells us something about Albertine.
00:40:39.000
But can he rely on that? Well, it turns out that morale is actually friends with Albertine.
00:40:44.000
So if he's friends with Albertine, then he can't trust that.
00:40:48.000
Okay. But hang on. He gets the information about that from Andre.
00:40:53.000
And Andre is jealous about Albertine.
00:40:56.000
So maybe he can't trust that. So maybe he can't trust the fact that he can't trust morale.
00:41:01.000
And then so we're back in square one, but he doesn't just say to us,
00:41:05.000
Well, we're back in square one. He goes through the process he puts us in the forest.
00:41:11.000
For sure. Why don't you read it again?
00:41:14.000
How could I have guessed then what I was told afterwards?
00:41:17.000
And of whose truth I have never been certain?
00:41:19.000
Andre's assertions about anything that concerned Albertine, especially later on, having always seemed to me to be highly dubious.
00:41:26.000
For, as we have already seen, she did not genuinely like my friend and was jealous of her.
00:41:31.000
Something which, in any event, if it was true, was remarkably well concealed from me by both of them.
00:41:37.000
But Albertine was on the best of terms with morale.
00:41:41.000
So we're talking about the forests of uncertainty and perplexity where you don't know where you stand,
00:41:46.000
no, no, how to go.
00:41:48.000
Jealousy is the perfect kind of situation where the jealous self is in always haunted by doubt and suspicion
00:41:59.000
and is tortured by the fact that there is no certain knowledge.
00:42:03.000
No, it's always a doubt.
00:42:05.000
Absolutely. And how is much, how does much said live out his jealousy?
00:42:11.000
What's the particular signature of his jealousy that might make him, as the main narrator here,
00:42:21.000
the voice for a certain insight into the self on the part of its author?
00:42:30.000
I mean, how does he, I don't want to say, how does he psychologize jealousy?
00:42:33.000
How does his post-psychologize jealousy?
00:42:35.000
But what does the experience of much said's jealousy tell us about some of the issues we were raising at the beginning about a self deception, for example?
00:42:44.000
Well, I think it is, you're absolutely right, the paradigm case.
00:42:48.000
It's not that all knowledge is withheld from us, but knowledge of the interior states of the person that we love is, according to
00:42:59.000
the most single, most evasive tabernager is. You just cannot, you can never know for certain what is going on inside that person's head,
00:43:09.000
partly because you want to know it too much, partly because all possible sources of information are unreliable.
00:43:16.000
People, either they're your friends, so they don't want to hurt you, or they're your enemies, so they'll hurt you.
00:43:21.000
And your own brain doesn't have the capacity, doesn't have a special organ, which would hone in on truths and say, "Ah, those are the truths."
00:43:31.000
And hone in and lie and say, "They're the lights."
00:43:33.000
All you have, this is, I think, what a proof's greatest insight to all you have, is one mechanism for generating the most pessimistic version possible,
00:43:45.000
and another mechanism for generating the most optimistic version possible. That's all you have.
00:43:50.000
So the jealous man is just going to flip between these two hypotheses and never get out of that particular forest of perplexity.
00:44:00.000
In his relation to the other. That's right. That's what's jealous of.
00:44:03.000
In relation to the other human being about whom you care, where you have a vested interest in how it turns out.
00:44:10.000
But we can push that even more radically and ask the question, even if Al-Befteen were to say in all sincerity, I love you much said.
00:44:22.000
There's always a question, does she know herself? Does she know what she's saying when she says that? Does much self know what he's doing when he thinks he loves her?
00:44:33.000
Right. And I think you point out that at a certain point he said, "When I was not jealous, life with Al-Befteen was boring. When I was jealous, it was miserable."
00:44:46.000
Right.
00:44:47.000
So maybe this self engineers or engenders its own jealousy in order to keep a passion going.
00:44:55.000
This is perverse, again, I don't want to call it psychology. This is a perverse form of a self making itself do things and keeping it secret from itself.
00:45:08.000
So that a certain story can keep going.
00:45:11.000
Yes, absolutely. And one of the most fascinating moments for me is the moment at which Marcella actually has the opportunity to put his doubts to rest and refuses to avail himself.
00:45:24.000
Let's talk about this scene. So this is a scene in which, well, as we've said, Marcella is in love with everything he suspects her in fidelity.
00:45:34.000
In this scene she's asleep and her kimono is lying over an armchair and he knows that's where she keeps her letters.
00:45:42.000
So all he has to do is take one step across the room, pick up the kimono, go through the letters and maybe you'll have some direct evidence.
00:45:50.000
But he doesn't. He just decides no. And he doesn't actually explain why.
00:45:58.000
And where this jealous lover who's so relentlessly pursuing information about everything going and grilling all his friends, having people follow her or all his surveillance, why doesn't he do the one thing that would instantly put the seal on the question?
00:46:16.000
Well, clearly the reason he's not looking at her letters is because he doesn't want to know. And I think this gets back to your point that he's keeping this story going by preventing himself as a part of him.
00:46:29.000
Maybe a part that he's not fully aware of that is keeping this story going by keeping things in suspense.
00:46:36.000
But then you might ask, why does he send all of these spies out if he doesn't want to know?
00:46:41.000
And the answer there is, well, clearly he must hope that these spies will fail.
00:46:49.000
And indeed it turns out in the novel that the people he picks to do the surveillance and amptying are people who he could pretty much count on not to give them the truth.
00:47:02.000
So there is, I don't know if I'd call it perverse, but there are very convoluted mechanisms by which desires sustains itself.
00:47:09.000
Here it is, is sustaining itself by sending out a bunch of people to gather information in the knowledge that they won't, just so that you can convince yourself you're doing everything you possibly can to find the information.
00:47:21.000
So that you can keep yourself in this illusion. And thus keep the story going.
00:47:27.000
The illusion plays a big role in your interpretation of post, and I think there's a Nietzschean inspiration to that, where the,
00:47:38.000
it really has to do with the question of knowledge. What is it that drives us to know?
00:47:44.000
And what relationship does knowledge have to desire? Or better, who is in control of the show?
00:47:52.000
Is knowledge just an instrument in service of desire? And if so, is there something about desire in certain situations that doesn't want to know the ball truth?
00:48:11.000
And therefore we'll use, we'll use, you know, the instrument of knowledge in order to conceal something from itself rather than reveal it.
00:48:22.000
Yes. And this I think relates to Nietzsche's doctrine of the will to knowledge, and Nietzsche was radically suspicious of everything that human beings were believing about themselves.
00:48:36.000
And ask whether the will to knowledge did not have at its core a kind of nihilistic drive that somehow not too much knowledge leads to the radical disenchantment of the world.
00:48:51.000
And demoralizes us and it no longer works in favor of life, but actually is a life denying thing.
00:49:01.000
This will to ignorance, you talk about a will to ignorance in much said, then you see that in Nietzschean terms, absolutely.
00:49:08.000
Wow, there's so much there. Yes. Let me just take the last part of your point.
00:49:17.000
Is clearly the case in proof as in Nietzsche that some kinds of truth are not compatible with life, or at least with happy life. Some kinds of illusions require sustaining.
00:49:31.000
And then you're, if you're a smart kind of person, you're going to have to figure out strategies for protecting yourself from the truth about certain kinds of things.
00:49:40.000
So I think, yeah, I think that Bruce ends up in positions that are quite close in some ways to those of Nietzsche, even though he barely knew anything about Nietzsche.
00:49:51.000
But yeah, I mean, this is fascinating. The issue of self-deception is a fascinating one in relation to the novel, because on the one hand, self-deception can be a really bad thing.
00:50:01.000
And part of the novel is about this character of a coming certain kinds of self-deception, coming to know himself.
00:50:09.000
Part of what we have to gain from experiences like involuntary memory is knowledge of ourselves.
00:50:14.000
So knowledge of ourselves is supposed to be vital. And I guess again it gets back to what we're saying earlier.
00:50:19.000
If you want to know how it is you're supposed to comport yourself in a world without bearings, you better know yourself.
00:50:26.000
So that's one aspect of it. At the same time, too much knowledge of the dangerous thing.
00:50:32.000
You speak about, I think the term is second order ignorance. Is that second order will to ignorance, yeah?
00:50:38.000
The second order will to ignorance. And you extract that from the Albedtin Kimono, singing nine.
00:50:49.000
What do you mean by the second order of will to ignorance?
00:50:51.000
That the idea there is that there is a desire to be ignorant of our own ignorance.
00:51:01.000
So it's not just a desire to be ignorant, a world to illusion, but it's also a desire to driving that one.
00:51:11.000
So it's a desire not to know that there's anything more to be known.
00:51:16.000
And that's the only way I claim that you can protect yourself from knowledge. Because if you're a little bit inquisitive, and you let that inquisitiveness run free in the wrong or right places,
00:51:29.000
which is where you look at it, you might find something and I want to find.
00:51:32.000
The only way to prevent that is to challenge inquisitiveness into the wrong places.
00:51:39.000
Make sure you're always looking in a place where you could never conceivably find anything damaging.
00:51:46.000
Which is of course what Marcel does when he sends out all of these completely untrustworthy spies.
00:51:52.000
Desire is really the devil. Or the devil hurts what keeps the story going.
00:52:00.000
It's what we're all about. And this is what I suppose I was trying to say, maybe didn't say in the opening rant that
00:52:08.000
literature descends into the very essence of it and speaks from out of this desire.
00:52:16.000
And it follows all its, I don't want to use a perverse again, but all is kind of meandering,
00:52:24.000
contradictory ways in which it operates. And ultimately I think nothing is as opaque as human drives and human desire.
00:52:35.000
Not just erotic desire, but I think one can take what we were talking about in terms of peace and jealousy and ask the
00:52:43.000
Nietzschean question of our society at large, which is in the West, has been driven by the Wilton knowledge for a long time.
00:52:54.000
Especially, I mean that's why I began with Descartes. I mean he's the one who set out to try to know with certainty
00:53:02.000
what could be known and to find a reliable foundation to distinguish the truth from the false. And so, and he, through him and others,
00:53:11.000
I go to the whole scientific era, the investigation of the world of nature.
00:53:16.000
Nietzsche was already suspicious about where this Wilton knowledge in the West could lead us and was asking what lies under,
00:53:25.000
what's the drive underneath it.
00:53:28.000
And I'm wondering if even a century, century and a half since Nietzsche was already suspicious, whether it's not become more clear that there's something sinister, maybe at times, maybe the death drive, I don't know.
00:53:43.000
But we've talked about on previous programs with other guests, you know, that, the technicality and technology and the, there is clearly something driving it, which is not just a kind of impartial
00:53:57.680
will to know out of sheer curiosity to know the truth.
00:54:00.900
No, we always have a vested interest in,
00:54:03.240
uh, trying to find out the truth.
00:54:05.860
Do you think there's a, at this larger kind of social societal
00:54:10.880
level that we could use a little, um,
00:54:14.660
those are reminding about these issues that maybe, uh, we
00:54:20.520
should put limits on what we want to know.
00:54:22.440
Maybe we should cultivate a second order of will to
00:54:25.640
ignorance and that we would maybe all be better off than,
00:54:29.160
uh, than this kind of disenchanted, uh, array of facts.
00:54:36.000
Well,
00:54:36.400
Nietzsche actually thinks that the scientists are, uh,
00:54:39.680
are self-deceived in precisely that way, but badly, that is to say,
00:54:44.440
uh, they too are looking, they're asking their own questions.
00:54:47.880
They too are looking for knowledge in the wrong place.
00:54:50.640
And they are distracting themselves from the real questions,
00:54:54.720
which are questions of value by looking at the less interesting questions,
00:54:59.720
which are questions of fact.
00:55:00.960
So it, I mean, that's, that's a partial, partial Nietzsche in response,
00:55:05.920
uh, which is not to say that they would be necessarily driven by a perverse
00:55:10.480
desire, but it would mean that other questions need to be asked.
00:55:14.440
And it may well be, and I think you're absolutely right.
00:55:16.880
Uh, people need to be constantly reminded of this.
00:55:19.400
Um, it may well be that there are times when truth is not the thing we
00:55:24.560
want. Oh, many times I would say, yeah.
00:55:27.440
So sometimes, yes.
00:55:28.720
And I think that one of the beautiful things that Bruce novel does,
00:55:32.120
uh, and I don't want to give the impression that it's all a forest, uh,
00:55:36.440
is to distinguish between certain, uh, facts that we can have and should have,
00:55:42.120
uh, certain, uh, fact that we could have, but probably don't want to have.
00:55:48.720
And, uh, certain areas where really what's, uh, what's required is a certain
00:55:53.640
kind of creativity or imagination of making things up.
00:55:56.840
And we have to make those distinctions and maybe yes at a broader cultural
00:56:02.240
level.
00:56:02.520
Yeah.
00:56:05.160
And, uh, that's where I'll 15 becomes something of a, um, uh, of an emblem,
00:56:09.760
at least, you know, for me is that, and his relation to her.
00:56:13.320
I mean, do I know really what I want at heart and you've convinced me in
00:56:18.760
this hour that that's a question that proves as, you know, deeply
00:56:23.440
as you can.
00:56:24.440
And this, uh, moment where he has the Kimono, all those letters in there and his,
00:56:29.360
uh, final decision, not to go and put, provoke the moment to its crisis,
00:56:38.920
go for the revelation that there is a wisdom there that I think has, uh,
00:56:44.840
uh, lesson to bear on maybe, uh, you know, for us.
00:56:48.360
Absolutely not regard.
00:56:50.560
You know, I'll be a team.
00:56:51.600
She's, uh, I think she's a great character.
00:56:54.200
And she might only be a character in a book, but, um,
00:56:57.720
you know, characters have their own reality.
00:57:01.680
And I, you know, it could be that she's out there listening to this show.
00:57:04.440
So in order to wrap it up, why don't we just dedicate a song to
00:57:07.480
I'll be a team and thank you, uh, for this hour about post.
00:57:13.560
I want to remind the listeners that coming up is Decca with her show at the
00:57:17.800
cafe Bohemian followed by the bod.
00:57:19.760
And after that, uh, sports night, but now we're going to leave you with this
00:57:23.720
song for Albedtina.
00:57:25.760
[MUSIC]
00:57:34.760
[MUSIC]