Wolfe and Materialism

Lee Berman · 13 Feb 2011, 01:59 · from 2011-February.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 20:59:01 -0500
Subject: (urth) Wolfe and Materialism
Message-ID: <SNT123-W58854CAEACE6DBA0BF137CCFD10 at phx.gbl>

>Gerry QUinn: Certainly in such cases we can use allusive hints to determine *which* 
>'nuts and bolts' explanation best fits the story.  But it does not alter the fact 
>that we can never validly use them as substitutes for such explanations.  At 
>least in books that can usefully be analysed, which is what I meant by 
>"written to be understood".  I did not mean by it that every last detail is 
>explained.

Gerry who told you that all works of art must have a "nuts and bolts" meaning which
supersedes all allegorical meanings? Seriously, I am having trouble understanding where
this idea is coming from. I actually think Ireland has produced some of the most notable 
authors for whom one must essentially ignore the nuts and bolts meaning of the text to be 
able to discern the true meaning.

I guess there would be some truth if you changed your post to "it does not alter the fact that 
*I* can never validly use them [allusions] as substitutes for such [nuts and bolts] explanations".

If you can't do something, that's fine. An open admission is admirable. But how can you speak for 
every other reader in the history of literature with such assertions? Do you really believe
you are the most gifted and authoritative reader ever to walk the earth?

>That could be valid in a universe in which the Outsider for some reason 
>chooses always to send visions by way of minor neurological catastrophes. 
>However I don't think we have any evidence to suppose this is the case in 
>BotLS.  If it isn't, Crane is wrong about both cause and event.

You are missing the point. What you (and Dr. Crane) call a "minor neurological
catastrophe" might be a major re-routing which leads to exponential new 
awareness and insight. Why do you feel compelled to choose one result or another
when it can be both, simultaneously?

(FWIW, I'm sure you are aware that the brain capacity for Neanderthals was greater than it is for
modern H. sapiens. Sometimes less is more. Sometimes turning portions of the brain off can produce
greater clarity than leaving them all on ;- ))

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net