"Could we not say that by opening us to the different, history opens us to the possible, while fiction, by opening us to the unreal, brings us back to the essential?"
On the surface, he seems to be exploring by way of contrast the benefits of reflection/retrospect and imagination... what can be learned from fact and gained by the fantastic.
It's not clear to me what aspect of the unreal he envisioned to be essential. When we subordinate logic and flow with the current of our imagination... does this bring more color and texture and dimension to our lives? Does it tap at the creative process and embolden us to dream big dreams that become tomorrow's innovations? Or are we merely satisfying a basic hunger to clock out on the reality of a fallen world?
(Then again, perhaps he's simply saying he rather enjoyed a good mystery...)
I am not aware of the context of this quote but from what I have noticed in the past...
History as a narrative is an organisation of time under certain conditions. Hence there is a basic element of realism even if "what actually happened" cannot be accessed in entirety. At least that seemed to be one of things that Ricoeur mentioned in Time and Narrative.
Fiction as the imaginative product of real people cannot be more than they have experienced even if it is apophatic. Otherwise there would be no terms by which it could be conveyed. I suspect that it is here that the essential lurks. It is what we might wish had happened (or will?).
Am eading Derrida's intro to Husserl's Origin of Geometry atm (Derrida's first book), and he references Ricouer (who had also translated Husserl) on the question of history quite a few times...
You are all so smart! If you can stand one last unscholarly contribution...
Do our imaginative capabilities give us a keener appreciation and reverence for the magnitude and mystery of God? By opening up to the "unreal," do we inch closer to a glimmer of a divine reality in which all things are possible? And what is the correlation, if any, between our ability to imagine and our ability to have and hold faith, which is, itself, essential?
Phenomenologically, fiction is a test which can show what is essential, because it can still be true regardless of whether or not it actually happens in real life. Squares have four sides, whether in fiction or reality. History, by definition, is the realm of what is possible.
10 comments:
There seems to be a lot going on there!
On the surface, he seems to be exploring by way of contrast the benefits of reflection/retrospect and imagination... what can be learned from fact and gained by the fantastic.
It's not clear to me what aspect of the unreal he envisioned to be essential. When we subordinate logic and flow with the current of our imagination... does this bring more color and texture and dimension to our lives? Does it tap at the creative process and embolden us to dream big dreams that become tomorrow's innovations? Or are we merely satisfying a basic hunger to clock out on the reality of a fallen world?
(Then again, perhaps he's simply saying he rather enjoyed a good mystery...)
Hmmm.
I am not aware of the context of this quote but from what I have noticed in the past...
History as a narrative is an organisation of time under certain conditions. Hence there is a basic element of realism even if "what actually happened" cannot be accessed in entirety. At least that seemed to be one of things that Ricoeur mentioned in Time and Narrative.
Fiction as the imaginative product of real people cannot be more than they have experienced even if it is apophatic. Otherwise there would be no terms by which it could be conveyed. I suspect that it is here that the essential lurks. It is what we might wish had happened (or will?).
Of course, I could be completely wrong :)
Yes, in the past they do things differently: it is a foreign country (as someone once said).
Why the essential and the unreal? hmm.
still thinking.
Good point Terrill,
Ricoeur's phenomenology has an extremely Platonist edge to it which would lend itself to talk about the "essential" amongst the historical or actual.
Where is the quote from?
Am eading Derrida's intro to Husserl's Origin of Geometry atm (Derrida's first book), and he references Ricouer (who had also translated Husserl) on the question of history quite a few times...
...an essay on narrative in Semeia 1978
Hey - long time no see Paul! Hope you are well.
You are all so smart! If you can stand one last unscholarly contribution...
Do our imaginative capabilities give us a keener appreciation and reverence for the magnitude and mystery of God? By opening up to the "unreal," do we inch closer to a glimmer of a divine reality in which all things are possible? And what is the correlation, if any, between our ability to imagine and our ability to have and hold faith, which is, itself, essential?
Am I to the left of left field yet?
Phenomenologically, fiction is a test which can show what is essential, because it can still be true regardless of whether or not it actually happens in real life. Squares have four sides, whether in fiction or reality. History, by definition, is the realm of what is possible.
Sarah I think you are right, AND too modest!
Post a Comment