Subject
Jennifer Parson's re Alexander replies to Dieter Zimmer on Darwin
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Parsons" <jdparsons@shaw.ca>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Alexander replies to Dieter Zimmer on Darwin
> This message was originally submitted by jdparsons@SHAW.CA to the NABOKV-L
list
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (72
lines) ------------------
> Dear List
>
> As a layperson, I am trying wrap my brain around the very interesting
> arguments in the Alexander - Boyd debate.
>
> It is a very complicated debate and one which a non-scientist has
> trouble fully grasping (regarding tautology, teology, determinism, etc)
> as it relates to VN's Art.
>
> Upon re-reading I must acknowledge what seems to be Dr. Alexander's
> scientific acumen and interesting interpretation of the "chance
> elements" and references in PF in light of what she makes of VN's
> remarks on Mimesis - again not easy for a non-scientist to grasp, except
> to wonder how VN could have been so far ahead of his time in the field
> of science - specifically with regard to Mimesis and Natural Selection -
> with needed break-throughs in Scientific research and even new fields of
> study yet to be.
>
> However, back in the Art realm, I do think Dr. Alexander is wrong
> regarding the ghosts in PF and doesn't dissuade me that Boyd's remains
> the most lucid, eloquent and plausible interpretation of PALE FIRE. For
> me our understanding of and indeed VN's own rare explication of The VANE
> SISTERS certainly lends support to much of Dr. Boyd's interpretation of
> PF.
>
> Dr. Alexander says that "Boyd's" ghosts are "just too ordinary" but can
> any individual's consciousness really be "ordinary"? By "domestic
> ghost" I think the anguished John Shade was referring to the kinds of
> cliched ghosts conjured up by folks in "domestic" settings around a
> ouiji board, not the genuine ghostly consciousnesses of the people who
> live(d) in that domestic setting.
>
> It seems perhaps a losing game if a fascinating one to try to read VN's
> mind and intent at the time of his "mimicry" remark and put it
> exclusively into the Science realm and connect it to current scientific
> research and then, in that light, connect it to PF when, as Dr. Zimmer
> has pointed out, by all accounts he had little access to information
> that could have given him the tools needed to conclude that mimesis
> reveals incidents of stunning accidents rather than more proof of
> "natural selection". I think Dr. Kurt Johnson is right re VN's "Nature
plus
> consciousness" belief - although he was a serious scientist when
> studying butterflies and certainly respected the difference between - in
> "real" life - real butteflies and his artful ones (drawn for fun). I
> believe the remark was more to do with Nature's reflection in mimesis of
> the kind of work that only an authoritarian creator - ie "the Artist" -
> could pull off - than with a serious scientific hypothesis and that
> there was perhaps a subterranean wink when he said this, combined with a
> measure of joyful awe at the mystery of things.
>
> The reason I think that VN was not seriously referring to a God
> remotely intended to be related to what any religions define (or
> don't dare to define) as God, is that this was the man who
> famously said he didn't buy into any established church's concept
> of "God", which entity rightly or wrongly for millions represents
> the ultimate authoritarian figure - "that factory boss in the sky." He
> did, however, perhaps not quite as famously, say he entertained
> the notion of "ghosts." Whether by "ghosts" he meant something more
> than mysterious connections between human consciousnesses, dead and/or
> alive, I don't know.
>
> I do have a question for the scientists here regarding Mimesis.
>
> If it is now being debated that Mimesis is not really a part of
> natural selection, rather does not exist as such at all, as is, in fact,
> an instance of a toss of the cosmic dice producing the same or similar
> patterns every so often, why is it the creatures that stand to benefit
> do the "mimicking" rather than the other way around (ie why are there no
> instances of unfortunate, self-destructive mimicry)? Or are there indeed
> cases where delectable creatures are impersonated by unfortunate others?
> Or is it impossible to tell which of the two insects/animals came first
> anyway, so that it can't actually be determined which is the original
> and which the 'copy'?
>
From: "Jennifer Parsons" <jdparsons@shaw.ca>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Alexander replies to Dieter Zimmer on Darwin
> This message was originally submitted by jdparsons@SHAW.CA to the NABOKV-L
list
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (72
lines) ------------------
> Dear List
>
> As a layperson, I am trying wrap my brain around the very interesting
> arguments in the Alexander - Boyd debate.
>
> It is a very complicated debate and one which a non-scientist has
> trouble fully grasping (regarding tautology, teology, determinism, etc)
> as it relates to VN's Art.
>
> Upon re-reading I must acknowledge what seems to be Dr. Alexander's
> scientific acumen and interesting interpretation of the "chance
> elements" and references in PF in light of what she makes of VN's
> remarks on Mimesis - again not easy for a non-scientist to grasp, except
> to wonder how VN could have been so far ahead of his time in the field
> of science - specifically with regard to Mimesis and Natural Selection -
> with needed break-throughs in Scientific research and even new fields of
> study yet to be.
>
> However, back in the Art realm, I do think Dr. Alexander is wrong
> regarding the ghosts in PF and doesn't dissuade me that Boyd's remains
> the most lucid, eloquent and plausible interpretation of PALE FIRE. For
> me our understanding of and indeed VN's own rare explication of The VANE
> SISTERS certainly lends support to much of Dr. Boyd's interpretation of
> PF.
>
> Dr. Alexander says that "Boyd's" ghosts are "just too ordinary" but can
> any individual's consciousness really be "ordinary"? By "domestic
> ghost" I think the anguished John Shade was referring to the kinds of
> cliched ghosts conjured up by folks in "domestic" settings around a
> ouiji board, not the genuine ghostly consciousnesses of the people who
> live(d) in that domestic setting.
>
> It seems perhaps a losing game if a fascinating one to try to read VN's
> mind and intent at the time of his "mimicry" remark and put it
> exclusively into the Science realm and connect it to current scientific
> research and then, in that light, connect it to PF when, as Dr. Zimmer
> has pointed out, by all accounts he had little access to information
> that could have given him the tools needed to conclude that mimesis
> reveals incidents of stunning accidents rather than more proof of
> "natural selection". I think Dr. Kurt Johnson is right re VN's "Nature
plus
> consciousness" belief - although he was a serious scientist when
> studying butterflies and certainly respected the difference between - in
> "real" life - real butteflies and his artful ones (drawn for fun). I
> believe the remark was more to do with Nature's reflection in mimesis of
> the kind of work that only an authoritarian creator - ie "the Artist" -
> could pull off - than with a serious scientific hypothesis and that
> there was perhaps a subterranean wink when he said this, combined with a
> measure of joyful awe at the mystery of things.
>
> The reason I think that VN was not seriously referring to a God
> remotely intended to be related to what any religions define (or
> don't dare to define) as God, is that this was the man who
> famously said he didn't buy into any established church's concept
> of "God", which entity rightly or wrongly for millions represents
> the ultimate authoritarian figure - "that factory boss in the sky." He
> did, however, perhaps not quite as famously, say he entertained
> the notion of "ghosts." Whether by "ghosts" he meant something more
> than mysterious connections between human consciousnesses, dead and/or
> alive, I don't know.
>
> I do have a question for the scientists here regarding Mimesis.
>
> If it is now being debated that Mimesis is not really a part of
> natural selection, rather does not exist as such at all, as is, in fact,
> an instance of a toss of the cosmic dice producing the same or similar
> patterns every so often, why is it the creatures that stand to benefit
> do the "mimicking" rather than the other way around (ie why are there no
> instances of unfortunate, self-destructive mimicry)? Or are there indeed
> cases where delectable creatures are impersonated by unfortunate others?
> Or is it impossible to tell which of the two insects/animals came first
> anyway, so that it can't actually be determined which is the original
> and which the 'copy'?
>