Subject
Fw: A lumper/splitter connection?
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (237
lines) ------------------
> Re the recent discussion of "generalities" in Nabokov's science and art,
> Jennifer Parsons suggested on NYTimes.com Nabokov forum today the
following:
>
> She was taking her cue from the Chapter "Lumpers and Splitters" in
Nabokov's
> Blues, a chapter which is woven around the fascinating meaning(s) those
two
> colloquialisms hold in scientific systematics and taxonomy--
>
> "'As far as Nabokov being a "splitter" rather than a "lumper" goes, there
is
> definite connection here to his art: he was always more interested in the
> differences between things, and people - than the things they had in
> common - though he did love and love to write about the natural
occurrences
> of highly unlikely coincidences, paralleled perhaps in nature by
"mimesis" -
> at any rate, he was most definitely a "splitter" in his art just as he was
> in his science."
>
> I post this here because it is honestly a possible connection I had never
> thought of. I find it an interesting notion given that the "lumper" and
> "splitter" distinction is such a gravamen in science and re Nabokov's own
> reputation in systematics. The possible significance may not be apparent
> right away to persons not familiar to those words from scientific jargon
but
> for those who know the latitudes and longitudes of "lumping and splitting"
> there may well be something of interest here.
>
> Kurt Johnson
>
>
>
>
From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (237
lines) ------------------
> Re the recent discussion of "generalities" in Nabokov's science and art,
> Jennifer Parsons suggested on NYTimes.com Nabokov forum today the
following:
>
> She was taking her cue from the Chapter "Lumpers and Splitters" in
Nabokov's
> Blues, a chapter which is woven around the fascinating meaning(s) those
two
> colloquialisms hold in scientific systematics and taxonomy--
>
> "'As far as Nabokov being a "splitter" rather than a "lumper" goes, there
is
> definite connection here to his art: he was always more interested in the
> differences between things, and people - than the things they had in
> common - though he did love and love to write about the natural
occurrences
> of highly unlikely coincidences, paralleled perhaps in nature by
"mimesis" -
> at any rate, he was most definitely a "splitter" in his art just as he was
> in his science."
>
> I post this here because it is honestly a possible connection I had never
> thought of. I find it an interesting notion given that the "lumper" and
> "splitter" distinction is such a gravamen in science and re Nabokov's own
> reputation in systematics. The possible significance may not be apparent
> right away to persons not familiar to those words from scientific jargon
but
> for those who know the latitudes and longitudes of "lumping and splitting"
> there may well be something of interest here.
>
> Kurt Johnson
>
>
>
>