From: Thomas McVey (tmcvey@sric.sri.com)
Date: Wed 12 Jul 2000 - 05:02:50 EEST
A new book of essays by Paul Feyerabend (the philosopher of science, died two years
ago or so) has just been released. A review of the book by the London Review of
Books included this "Letter to the Reader", which was intended as a foreword to the
book.
I was struck by how, err, Nysalorian, the ideas presented in the letter are,
especially towards the end. The connection with mysticism, the embrace of multiple
viewpoints, and the use of "shocking" the reader into insights by a sudden shift of
perspective, seem closely akin to the idea of Illumination in Glorantha.
Seems to me, with a minor rewrite, it could be a Lunar preacher saying the same
things. Maybe in "She Guards Us", Martin?
Apologies if this seems off-topic, or overly long.
Anyway here's the letter from Feyerabend:
<begin quote>
Letter to the Reader:
In a few pages you will find a story written in a style you may be familiar with.
There are facts, and generalisations therefrom, there are arguments - and there are
lots of footnotes. In other words, you will find a (perhaps not very outstanding)
example of a scholarly essay. Let me therefore warn you that it is not my intention
to inform, or to establish some truth.
What I want to do is to change your attitude. I want you to see chaos where first
you noticed an orderly arrangement of things and processes. It is clear that only a
trick can get me from my starting-point - the footnote-heavy essay I just mentioned
- - to where I would like you, the reader, to arrive.
My trick is to present events which dissolve the circumstances that made them
happen. Given the circumstances, the events, are absurd, unheard-of, frightening
evil - they simply do not make sense. I take a closer look at the circumstances and
find features that may be regarded as anticipations of the event. The features are
not unknown; they are not hidden either; however they can be read in a variety of
ways and only some readings cause trouble. The absurdity is therefore not laid out
in advance; it is created by living a certain way - and so is the sense perceived by
those who produce the disruptive event. What is interesting is that both parties use
the same material; they start from the same life, but they continue in different
directions. (The same applies to the scholars who years and even centuries later try
to figure out "what really happened").
I conclude that the life we lead is ambiguous. It contains not only one future, but
many; and it contains them not ready-made, nor as possibilities that can be turned
in any direction. It is not at all different from a movie, or a specially
constructed play.
Imagine such a play. It has gone on for about forty minutes. You know the
characters, you have become accustomed to their idiosyncrasies, you are already
tired of their peculiar habits. Now they stand before you with the familiar gestures
and it seems like nothing interesting is ever going to happen - when suddenly,
because of a trick used by the writers, the "reality" you perceived turns out to be
a chimera. (Alfred Hitchcock, Anthony Shaffer and Ira Levin are marters of this kind
of switch). Looking back, you can now say that things were not what they seemed to
be, and looking forward with the experience in mind you will regard any clear and
definite arrangement with suspicion, on the stage, and elsewhere. Also, your
suspicion will be the greater the more solid the initial story seemed to be. This is
why I have chosen the scholarly essay as my starting point.
It is very important not to let this suspicion deterioriate into a truth, or a
theory, for example a theory with the principle: "things are never what they seem to
be". Reality, or Being, or God, or whatever sustains us, cannot be captured that
easily. The problem is not why we are so often confused; the problem is why we seem
to possess useful and enlightening knowledge.
You must also resist the temptation to classify what I say by giving it a well
established name, for example the name of relativism. Relativism as defined by
philosophers and sociologists is much too definite a view to fit the situation -
unless it is regarded as a passing chimera, or as a rule of thumb. You cannot even
deny the existence of eternal truths, unless the denial is again meant as a
cautionary hint given to those visiting the theatre of life.
Is argument without a purpose? No, it is not; it accompanies us on our journey
without tying it to a fixed road.
Is there a way of identifying what is going on? There are many ways and we are using
them all the time, though often believing they are part of a stable framework which
encompasses everything.
Is there a name for an attitude or view like this? Yes, if names are that important
I can easily provide one: mysticism, though it is a mysticism that uses examples,
arguments, tightly reasoned passages of text, scientific theories and experiments to
raise itself to consciousness.
This, my dear reader, is the warning I want you to remember from time to time and
especially when the story seems to become so definite that it almost turns into a
clearly thought-out and precisely structured point of view.
Paul Feyerabend
<end quote>
Now tell me anyone saying that in a Heortling village wouldn't get an Uroxi ax in
the jaw.
Tom
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:59:30 EEST