Subject
Fw: [NABOKV-L] great novelist (Lolita, Pale Fire, Pnin) ...
From
Date
Body
FA[on D.Kllinghoffer "if a particular artistic subtlety in that perfection is beyond the ability of a predator to perceive, how did nature select it?"] I gather VN might argue that they may exist simply to entertain whatever creator might be out there, and who can argue with that?
JA: ...Nabokov did indeed respect Darwin with quibbling differences [...] There's Nabokov the scientist, who is a rock-solid evolutionist, and Nabokov the artist, who thinks/feels that things "don't quite" (strong opinions) end with death [...]
JM: I can agree with FA if the term "creator" is applicable to any sensitive human predator (creation lies in the eye of the beholder). I find the other issue, about how a useless trait ("non-adaptive) is preserved, more complicated to understand because it is impossible to be sure of what, in the long run, is "useful", including the philosophy that revolves on cause-effect or "usefulness". But I'm sure others shall know the answer.
There are various other instances that show that Nabokov respected Darwin (although he differed in relation to specific issues, such as the role of natural selection, etc etc...) How could he not, I wonder? JA's doubts puzzle me. As a scientist VN was observing and experimenting, like his fellow scientists and he did recognize that, like them, he had no final word about his scientific conclusions ("another fellow will show how wrong I was in this or that. Herein lies the difference between science and art."). As an artist he could risk and rely on intuition to voice his indignation against the fact that, like any other commoner, his physical self would become dust among dust.
I finally found an entry into Langevin and the Twin Paradox. What I found most interesting, as a laywoman (?), were two informations: (a) following special relativity theories there is no absolute present ["A present is defined as a set of events that are simultaneous from the point of view of a given observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present."] and the related observation that "special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent." This clarifies issues about predator-creator-observer-deity (or, so I hope). An artist may board an imaginary space ship and leave the scientist on earth?
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
JA: ...Nabokov did indeed respect Darwin with quibbling differences [...] There's Nabokov the scientist, who is a rock-solid evolutionist, and Nabokov the artist, who thinks/feels that things "don't quite" (strong opinions) end with death [...]
JM: I can agree with FA if the term "creator" is applicable to any sensitive human predator (creation lies in the eye of the beholder). I find the other issue, about how a useless trait ("non-adaptive) is preserved, more complicated to understand because it is impossible to be sure of what, in the long run, is "useful", including the philosophy that revolves on cause-effect or "usefulness". But I'm sure others shall know the answer.
There are various other instances that show that Nabokov respected Darwin (although he differed in relation to specific issues, such as the role of natural selection, etc etc...) How could he not, I wonder? JA's doubts puzzle me. As a scientist VN was observing and experimenting, like his fellow scientists and he did recognize that, like them, he had no final word about his scientific conclusions ("another fellow will show how wrong I was in this or that. Herein lies the difference between science and art."). As an artist he could risk and rely on intuition to voice his indignation against the fact that, like any other commoner, his physical self would become dust among dust.
I finally found an entry into Langevin and the Twin Paradox. What I found most interesting, as a laywoman (?), were two informations: (a) following special relativity theories there is no absolute present ["A present is defined as a set of events that are simultaneous from the point of view of a given observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present."] and the related observation that "special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent." This clarifies issues about predator-creator-observer-deity (or, so I hope). An artist may board an imaginary space ship and leave the scientist on earth?
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/