Subject
Comment on the Boyd, Alexander thread
From
Date
Body
RE: the Boyd, Alexander threadEDITOR'S NOTE. Dave Andrews davea@enteract.com is the author of what I think to be an excellent book called AESTHETICISM, NABOKOV and LOLITA. Wide-ranging and beautifully written. Mellon Press, 1999.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Andrews
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: the Boyd, Alexander thread
Kurt is right, I think. There was never any sense that VN was ever going to accept evolutionary theory in the Darwinian sense (or, to make a crude analogy, the natural-selection sense). Freud was the bugbear, but I think, in the end, VN disliked Darwin more. He was a more serious threat.
Kurt is also right, I think, in that VN never separated his metaphysics from his science. It's difficult to believe that anyone ever thought he did. (I don't want to make a metaphysical distinction between science and metaphysics, but come on...)
Dave Andrews
p.s.--this whole Boyd-Alexander affair, of which I have read the whole, is sad. There is no reason for this type of nastiness. Has anyone on this listserve ever pointed out EXPLICITLY how Nabokovians have both reputations for being acolytes and particular reputations for petty sniping? Here you see the reason. Perhaps the "Master's" example need not always be followed.
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Barton Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:44 PM
Subject: Fw: the Boyd, Alexander thread
EDITOR'S NOTE. Lepidopterist Kurt Johnson, co-author of "Nabokov's Blues: The the Scientific odessy of a literary genius" offers some thoughts on the Alexander-Boyd exchange.
-----------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Johnson, Kurt
To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'
I think where all this is going (in a nutshell) is that regardless of population genetics, or other demonstrations of the mechanical validity of traditional evolutionary theory, my view now is that Nabokov's view of natural process (whatever you want to generally call "evolution") would have always been one of "nature + consciousness". I USED think that Nabokov kept his science and metaphycics "straight" in a way that, when he saw a completely satisfactory demonstration of the mechanics of evolution driven by natural selection, he would have "caved in" at that point and kept his "metaphysics" and "science" "un-mixed". However, for a number of reasons, which I'll mention below, I now feel that, no matter what, he would have always chosen a view that there was something "larger" that was operative, along with and/or on top of the mechanics of evolution (even if these were adequately demonstrated, to his own satisfaction AT THAT LEVEL) through natural selection. Because I used to think this, I also thought that once he fully understood the science, he would have settled for a mechanistic view being enough. However, I now think that fully understanding the science, within the context of how he would have viewed the limits of the scientific method (e.g. testable, repeatable phenomena), he would have still sensed a "limitation of science" and continued to opt for "nature + consciousness" (I use that phrase because it seems to be a useful way to characterize the idea of mechanical evolution plus man's involvement or ideas of god(s) involvement etc.).
This is where the question arises regarding (1) to what extent he was influenced by, or his views were similar to, various contemparies, like Bergson or (2) if Nabokov's own view can be characterized clearly enough: (a) what other "nature + consciousness" views it resembles and/or (b) what possible "systems paradigms" pertinent to modern evolutionary theory, some of which build in "levels" beyond traditional mechanics, or involve some form of "field"-related, or other, "directionalism" his views also appear to resemble (e.g. was he actually "ahead of his time in this way").
The reason that extensive reading in some areas of modern (e.g. intellectually rigorous treatments) mysticism is relevant is that some of these: Zen in Buddhism, Advaita in Hinduism, infused contemplation in Christianity absolutely are grounded in "nature + consciousness". They claim to understand, experiencially, that (to take the extreme case) all is consciousness and, therefore, consciousness itself creates form (e.g as in form being a hologramatic projection of consciousness). If taken seriously, these traditions (which do have modern scholars as well as practicioners) have implications when it comes to the connection between consciousness and form (material). For instance, if form is something like a hologramatic projection of consciousness (as suggested in some current literature including mainstream Roman Catholicism!) this, of course, allows consciousness to "fiddle with" form (and other consciousness)...having quite some implication on things in Nabokov's fiction. This is where such scholars point out that the historical relevance of shamanism, e.g. a form of religious experience where this "level" of nature + consciousness has also been experienced by indigenous peoples through what scholars categorize as traditional "nature mysticism". Thus, there is a rich literature, and a disciplined one, when it comes to discussing "nature + consciousness". I think this whole arena, along with what is now going on in science, is now very relevant to Nabokov.
As mentioned, pertinent to this discussion is current research in quantum mechanics (esp. as regards how the perceiver influences the "reality"), anomally phemonena, absolute phemonena, and many other kinds of research that attempt to aim, somehow, scientific methods toward non-repeatable phenomena...or simply phenomena that are, at the huge macro-level, actually repeatable but whose pulses are acting over such ranges of time and space that they appear, in our context, as non-repeatable etc.
Regarding all of the above, the pertinent questions regarding Nabokov are these: (1) how did his view, if characterizable, relate to other views, past and present and (2) of even more interest, as least to me, was his view grounded in his own direct experience????
I think these are all very useful ideas.
This is certainly where I see things going now.
KURT JOHNSON
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Andrews
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: the Boyd, Alexander thread
Kurt is right, I think. There was never any sense that VN was ever going to accept evolutionary theory in the Darwinian sense (or, to make a crude analogy, the natural-selection sense). Freud was the bugbear, but I think, in the end, VN disliked Darwin more. He was a more serious threat.
Kurt is also right, I think, in that VN never separated his metaphysics from his science. It's difficult to believe that anyone ever thought he did. (I don't want to make a metaphysical distinction between science and metaphysics, but come on...)
Dave Andrews
p.s.--this whole Boyd-Alexander affair, of which I have read the whole, is sad. There is no reason for this type of nastiness. Has anyone on this listserve ever pointed out EXPLICITLY how Nabokovians have both reputations for being acolytes and particular reputations for petty sniping? Here you see the reason. Perhaps the "Master's" example need not always be followed.
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Barton Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:44 PM
Subject: Fw: the Boyd, Alexander thread
EDITOR'S NOTE. Lepidopterist Kurt Johnson, co-author of "Nabokov's Blues: The the Scientific odessy of a literary genius" offers some thoughts on the Alexander-Boyd exchange.
-----------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Johnson, Kurt
To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'
I think where all this is going (in a nutshell) is that regardless of population genetics, or other demonstrations of the mechanical validity of traditional evolutionary theory, my view now is that Nabokov's view of natural process (whatever you want to generally call "evolution") would have always been one of "nature + consciousness". I USED think that Nabokov kept his science and metaphycics "straight" in a way that, when he saw a completely satisfactory demonstration of the mechanics of evolution driven by natural selection, he would have "caved in" at that point and kept his "metaphysics" and "science" "un-mixed". However, for a number of reasons, which I'll mention below, I now feel that, no matter what, he would have always chosen a view that there was something "larger" that was operative, along with and/or on top of the mechanics of evolution (even if these were adequately demonstrated, to his own satisfaction AT THAT LEVEL) through natural selection. Because I used to think this, I also thought that once he fully understood the science, he would have settled for a mechanistic view being enough. However, I now think that fully understanding the science, within the context of how he would have viewed the limits of the scientific method (e.g. testable, repeatable phenomena), he would have still sensed a "limitation of science" and continued to opt for "nature + consciousness" (I use that phrase because it seems to be a useful way to characterize the idea of mechanical evolution plus man's involvement or ideas of god(s) involvement etc.).
This is where the question arises regarding (1) to what extent he was influenced by, or his views were similar to, various contemparies, like Bergson or (2) if Nabokov's own view can be characterized clearly enough: (a) what other "nature + consciousness" views it resembles and/or (b) what possible "systems paradigms" pertinent to modern evolutionary theory, some of which build in "levels" beyond traditional mechanics, or involve some form of "field"-related, or other, "directionalism" his views also appear to resemble (e.g. was he actually "ahead of his time in this way").
The reason that extensive reading in some areas of modern (e.g. intellectually rigorous treatments) mysticism is relevant is that some of these: Zen in Buddhism, Advaita in Hinduism, infused contemplation in Christianity absolutely are grounded in "nature + consciousness". They claim to understand, experiencially, that (to take the extreme case) all is consciousness and, therefore, consciousness itself creates form (e.g as in form being a hologramatic projection of consciousness). If taken seriously, these traditions (which do have modern scholars as well as practicioners) have implications when it comes to the connection between consciousness and form (material). For instance, if form is something like a hologramatic projection of consciousness (as suggested in some current literature including mainstream Roman Catholicism!) this, of course, allows consciousness to "fiddle with" form (and other consciousness)...having quite some implication on things in Nabokov's fiction. This is where such scholars point out that the historical relevance of shamanism, e.g. a form of religious experience where this "level" of nature + consciousness has also been experienced by indigenous peoples through what scholars categorize as traditional "nature mysticism". Thus, there is a rich literature, and a disciplined one, when it comes to discussing "nature + consciousness". I think this whole arena, along with what is now going on in science, is now very relevant to Nabokov.
As mentioned, pertinent to this discussion is current research in quantum mechanics (esp. as regards how the perceiver influences the "reality"), anomally phemonena, absolute phemonena, and many other kinds of research that attempt to aim, somehow, scientific methods toward non-repeatable phenomena...or simply phenomena that are, at the huge macro-level, actually repeatable but whose pulses are acting over such ranges of time and space that they appear, in our context, as non-repeatable etc.
Regarding all of the above, the pertinent questions regarding Nabokov are these: (1) how did his view, if characterizable, relate to other views, past and present and (2) of even more interest, as least to me, was his view grounded in his own direct experience????
I think these are all very useful ideas.
This is certainly where I see things going now.
KURT JOHNSON