Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges introduces
in his essay “Borges and I” his sense of self, which oscillates between two
seemingly contradictory poles: the “I”, whom Rhodes interprets as the “private”
one, and “Borges”, the “public” figure. Whereas these two people couldn’t be
more apart from each other in Borges view, they still need each other to not
only be able to produce, but also to share their work. In fact, these ‘selves’
are one person.
In her
article “Ignorance and Mystery”, structural biologist Gale Rhodes states, that
science has the function to tell ignorance apart from mystery with the latter,
in contrary to the former, eluding scientific description. She exemplifies the
difference between the two by describing the notion of “feeling” in scientific
terms, which in her opinion falls short of also giving an explanation of the
self that is feeling these sensations in the first place. Drawing on Borges’
idea of two selves, Rhodes assigns the scientist to one and the artist to the
other self, claiming, that only the clearance of ignorance in combination with
acknowledging the essential mystery of life can constitute a complete human being.
Rhodes
displays her idea of science versus art assuming that both are contradictory to
each other as well as complementing each other. But what if you follow the
scientific path and come to the conclusion, that there really is no such thing
as a “self”? What kind of sentimentality makes her think, that there has to be
more to a human being, something “mysterious” even?
Although I like her humble approach to science as not the only way to
explaining life, I think, reducing the arts to the sole act of experiencing and
communicating feeling doesn’t suffice. Either it is necessary to change the
paradigms of science or the meaning of art to come to a conclusion that is
consistent in itself. What she essentially does, is explaining religion,
because religion works the same way: what we cannot explain, we have to
believe. Yet, this belief is always dependent on how far we are willing to
investigate life, which can mean that we have to take the risk of disenchanting
it. But is that so horrible? Neither the “self” nor “feelings” are fixed
entities – they are constantly changing. Maybe Rhodes is afraid of losing the
romantic in her life and therefore tries to protect it by creating a somewhat
‘holy’ category that is impossible to attack. Acknowledging, however, that
there is no “self” does not have to be contradictory to the experience of love
and happiness.
-Malin
Dieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschenTypo!
LöschenDieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschenMisused word!
LöschenThe [det] Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges describes [W,M] in his essay “Borges and I” his sense of self, which oscillates between two seemingly contradictory poles: the “I,” [St/P-NAE or BE] whom he describes [coh,M,foc] as the “private” one, and “Borges,” [s.a.] the “public” figure. Whereas these two people couldn’t be more apart from each other in Borges’s [Sp,Gr] view, they still need each other to not only be able to produce, but also to share their work. In fact, these “selves” [s.a.] are one person.
AntwortenLöschenIn her article “Ignorance and Mystery,” [s.a.] structural biologist Gale Rhodes states [P] that science functions by distinguishing between ignorance and mystery, [E,M,coh] with the latter, in contrary to the former, eluding scientific description. She exemplifies the difference between the two by describing the notion of “feeling” in scientific terms, which in her opinion falls short of also giving an explanation of the self that is feeling these sensations in the first place. Drawing on Borges’s [Sp] idea of two selves, Rhodes assigns the scientist to one and the artist to the other self, claiming, that only the clearance of ignorance in combination with acknowledgement [St-parallelism] of [prep] the essential mystery of life can constitute a complete human being.
Rhodes propounds [W,M] her comparison [W,M]of science and [coh] art, [P] assuming that the two modes of inquiry [foc,coh] are both [E,M,coh] contradictory and complimentary to each other. [E,coh] But what if you follow the scientific path and come to the conclusion [P] that there really is no such thing as a “self”? What kind of sentimentality makes her think [P] that there has to be more to a human being, something “mysterious” even?
Although I like her humble approach to science as not the only way to explain [WF] life, I think [P] reducing the arts to the sole act of experiencing and communicating feeling doesn’t suffice. Either it is necessary to change the paradigms of science or the meaning of art to come to a conclusion that is consistent in itself. What she essentially does [P] is explain [WF] religion, because religion works the same way: what we cannot explain, we have to believe. Yet, this belief is always dependent on how far we are willing to investigate life, which can mean that we have to take the risk of disenchanting it. But is that so horrible? Neither the “self” nor “feelings” are fixed entities – they are constantly changing. Maybe Rhodes is afraid of losing the romance [WF] in her life and therefore tries to protect it by creating a somewhat “holy’” [P/St – NAE or BE]category that is impossible to attack. Acknowledging, however, that there is no “self” does not have to be contradictory to the experience of love and happiness.
Well argued, Malin, although I must say Rhodes—and I, for my part—would respond that you seem to argue by fiat that there is no self—and fiat is a bad grounds for argument. And, contra your contention that Rhodes’s clinging to the self is romantic and superstitious (the former of which isn’t necessarily a pejorative concept), perhaps the impulse to deny the self just stems from a jaundiced inability to acknowledge something that does clearly, self-evidently exist, but can’t be deconstructed into constituent parts—something cosmically essential; perhaps the knee-jerk impulse to scoff at something being “cosmically essential” belies a pusillanimous cynicism—or maybe not. : )