Subject
Re: Botkin
From
Date
Body
I agree with Anthony; this kind of acting on one's own consciousness is precisely what David Lynch's films are about, especially Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive; but unlike VN, he also shows the fragility of these delusions as 'reality' slowly comes back, always threatening to wreck the delusion, which accounts (at least partly) for the deluded person's anguish when he/she loses faith in his/her delusion and is sort of hunted down by the inescapable reality (it's Mulholland Drive's whole story) . But what seems to me questionable is the intentionality of the
game."Intentionality" is not appropriate, neither is Sartre's "bad
faith" for the game is much too compulsive and inescapable.
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:19:42 -0400
From: STADLEN@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Botkin
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Anthony Stadlen writes (in answer to Jerry Friedman and Jansy): While what Jansy says has
its own validity, I do think that it is not "psychologically
strange" that someone "deluded" gives hints as to the "reality" from
which his "delusion" is an escape. After all, it is only such hints that
justify those who argue, as Sartre and others (including myself) do, that
"delusions" are a form of "bad faith", intentional acting on one's own
consciousness, a game that the person is playing with his consciousness and his
relation to others, rather than a kind of accident afflicting the person
from "outside", or from "the brain", etc. So, in this respect, it seems to me
that VN is quite "realistic" and insightful.
Jerry Friedman writes: Especially
after reading Matt Roth's comments, I'd like to ask Anthony Stadlen and anyone
else who might know: Was I right in suspecting that Kinbote's mentions of Botkin
are "psychologically strange"? Or are people with such delusions known to
refer to their original selves, not as overtly the same person, but revealing
that they still know of some connection?
JM:In my opinion, we run the risk of
deviating into another set of tracks when we plan to
investigate psychological facts and "realities" following
Nabokov's inventiveness and satirical turn of mind.
What could be the answer
for what's "psychologically strange" in Kinbote's reference to
Botkin, outside of the boundaries of Nabokov's novel? The Index entry
that introduces Botkin and the text from CK's note n.247 ( am I
mistaken to assume that Botkin has only made another appearance -
extra-textually?) is necessary to the novelist himself. It serves him
to add a fundamental information, but it leaves a mark that
is similar to a navel, no longer functional but revelatory and
non-deletable.
Anthony
Stadlen
"Oakleigh"
2A Alexandra Avenue
GB - London N22
7XE
Tel.: +44 (0) 20 8888 6857
Email: stadlen@aol.com
Founder (in 1996) and
convenor of the Inner Circle Seminars: an ethical, existential,
phenomenological search for truth in psychotherapy
See "Existential
Psychotherapy & Inner Circle Seminars" at http://anthonystadlen.blogspot.com/
for programme of future Inner Circle Seminars and complete archive of past
seminars
In a message dated 04/09/2010 22:29:55 GMT Daylight Time, nabokv-l@UTK.EDU
writes:
Subject: Re:
[NABOKV-L] THOUGHTS re: Botkin
From: Jansy
Berndt de Souza Mello <jansy@aetern.us>
Date: Sat, 4
Sep 2010 16:19:22 -0300
To: Vladimir
Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Jerry Friedman writes: Especially
after reading Matt Roth's comments, I'd like to ask Anthony Stadlen and anyone
else who might know: Was I right in suspecting that Kinbote's mentions of
Botkin are "psychologically strange"? Or are people with such delusions
known to refer to their original selves, not as overtly the same person, but
revealing that they still know of some connection?
JM:In my opinion, we run the risk
of deviating into another set of tracks when we plan to
investigate psychological facts and "realities" following
Nabokov's inventiveness and satirical turn of mind.
What could be the answer
for what's "psychologically strange" in Kinbote's reference to
Botkin, outside of the boundaries of Nabokov's novel? The Index
entry that introduces Botkin and the text from CK's note
n.247 ( am I mistaken to assume that Botkin has only made another
appearance - extra-textually?) is necessary to the novelist himself. It
serves him to add a fundamental information, but it leaves a
mark that is similar to a navel, no longer functional but revelatory and
non-deletable.
Search the archive
Contact the
Editors
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit
Zembla
View Nabokv-L
Policies
Manage subscription
options
All private
editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.
Search the archive
Contact the Editors
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla
View Nabokv-L Policies
Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without
exception, are
read by both co-editors.
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/