A certain theme developed from reading the latest blogs.
I agree with Aristotle that being constantly weighed down by certain feelings may cause impediments in the quality of execution and experience of one’s daily life. I do not think that it necessarily follows that being cleansed of pity or fear leads one to become a more courageous being – though this could be a semantical issue. There are at least sometimes when even emotions putatively considered as negative, are nevertheless the appropriate response to the particular experience.
I believe we can we equally benefit from exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, especially those exposures undertaken mindfully.
I think exposure to fictional situations offers opportunities for us to step outside of, or suspend temporarily, the thoughts and feelings that we have not yet sufficiently organized, absorbed, and holistically integrated into our evolutionary progression as a human being. The pause fiction provides can be utilized by us in various manners. We may choose to immerse ourselves in fiction to create a respite from an intense, unresolved reality; a tool used intentionally to suspend reality - as others may do through the sufficient consumption of alcohol or other mind-altering substances.
Participating in fictional experiences may allow us to shed at least some of the intensity of our (unproductive) emotions, at least temporarily. Additionally, fiction can potentially provide us with opportunities to mentally review the causational relationship between our thoughts and our emotions; and possibly extract some understanding through this process that alters the degree, or nature, of the emotion that was hampering us (from executing our life to its fullest potential).
I believe what Jamie is referring to in his blog is the unhealthy over-consumption of specific genres of non-fiction by some members of certain cultures. It appears that some Americans are obsessively substituting engagement in fictional realms in lieu of appropriately participating in, and relationally engaging with, their natural, physical world.
Fiction and non-fiction appropriately managed, may offer us situations and experiences that would otherwise be impossible for us to encounter, thereby increasing our opportunities for understanding, health, and evolution.
My Questions:
1. Do you think that some, many, or most, of the individuals who utilize Role-Playing Games do so in a healthy or obsessive manner?
2. Do you think individuals use RPGs and LARPs for the same reason others use fiction?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Horror and Fiction
Even before reading Berys Gaut’s The Paradox of Horror, I disagreed with Carroll’s claim that the appeal of horrific art can be reduced to the positive feelings associated with "fascination" or "curiosity”.
Carroll claims that horror fiction is a special variation on general narrative motivation because its central features, i.e., the character, nature, origin, and weaknesses of monsters are unknowable, and as such, exist outside of our conceptual schema (p. 303). However, these exact conditions exist in fantasy and science fiction, nullifying his claim that horror fiction is a special variation on the general narrative motivation. His attempts to rationalize his theory by claiming the difference between being curious about the unknown but natural, versus curiosity of the unknown and impossible (p. 307) in which horror fictions typically traffic are also typical of science fiction and fantasy. His theory also fails to address the genre of art-horror that depicts humankind or other natural beings (sharks, dogs, octopuses, gorillas) behaving in abnormal ways.
Carroll goes on to suggest that the processes of revelation and disclosure of monsters and their properties as unknown and unknowable, is what “captures our interest and delivers pleasure”; while their inherent monstrosity simultaneously disgusts and horrifies us, thereby creating a “paradox of horror.” Carroll asserts that the disgust and horror we feel is “part of the price to be paid for the pleasure of their disclosure.” He further claims that this resolves “the paradox of horror” (304-305). He further states that “experiencing the emotion of art-horror is not our absolutely primary aim in consuming horror fictions…rather (it) is the price we are willing to pay for the revelation…of that which violates our conceptual schema…because disgust is required for the pleasure involved in engaging our curiosity in the unknown…in the processes of revelation, ratiocination, etc” (306). His above claims are false. I, and many others, routinely experience the pleasure of engaging curiously in the unknown, using processes of logical proofs, hypotheses, arguments, explanations, and revelations without experiencing disgust (philosophy courses for example). In fact, I have never had a single college course where my curiosity was not piqued on more than one occasion from exposure to the unknown (and prior to the revelation of its potential existence) was unknowable to me. Could we not accurately say that all things, to which we have not yet been exposed to, contextually or conceptually, are unknowable to us? And is it not possible, that when first exposed to the novel we can be both fascinated and curious, and experience most novelties without disgust? Everything for which we have not yet developed a referential lexicon is unknowable to us; however, disgust is neither necessary nor required to facilitate processes of curiosity, revelation, or knowing.
I agree with Gaut, there is no paradox of horror (p. 328) and “that the concepts of all emotions implicitly incorporate references to desires which are typically possessed by those experiencing the emotion” (p. 329). We evaluate emotions as possessing negative or positive qualities on a scale according to our mental rationalizations, and that all emotions are a secondary response to a thought. Our thoughts create our emotions. Or as Gaut states, “the full solution to the paradoxes depends both on a view of the emotions as evaluative, and on the recognition of how mental holism presents itself in respect of emotions, desires, and enjoyment.
My Questions:
1. Do you agree that there is a conceptual connection between evaluation and pleasure?
2. If something is pleasurable, natural (biological or physiological origins),and a
societal norm, yet it is either unattainable or absent from your life, is its absence
necessarily painful?
Carroll claims that horror fiction is a special variation on general narrative motivation because its central features, i.e., the character, nature, origin, and weaknesses of monsters are unknowable, and as such, exist outside of our conceptual schema (p. 303). However, these exact conditions exist in fantasy and science fiction, nullifying his claim that horror fiction is a special variation on the general narrative motivation. His attempts to rationalize his theory by claiming the difference between being curious about the unknown but natural, versus curiosity of the unknown and impossible (p. 307) in which horror fictions typically traffic are also typical of science fiction and fantasy. His theory also fails to address the genre of art-horror that depicts humankind or other natural beings (sharks, dogs, octopuses, gorillas) behaving in abnormal ways.
Carroll goes on to suggest that the processes of revelation and disclosure of monsters and their properties as unknown and unknowable, is what “captures our interest and delivers pleasure”; while their inherent monstrosity simultaneously disgusts and horrifies us, thereby creating a “paradox of horror.” Carroll asserts that the disgust and horror we feel is “part of the price to be paid for the pleasure of their disclosure.” He further claims that this resolves “the paradox of horror” (304-305). He further states that “experiencing the emotion of art-horror is not our absolutely primary aim in consuming horror fictions…rather (it) is the price we are willing to pay for the revelation…of that which violates our conceptual schema…because disgust is required for the pleasure involved in engaging our curiosity in the unknown…in the processes of revelation, ratiocination, etc” (306). His above claims are false. I, and many others, routinely experience the pleasure of engaging curiously in the unknown, using processes of logical proofs, hypotheses, arguments, explanations, and revelations without experiencing disgust (philosophy courses for example). In fact, I have never had a single college course where my curiosity was not piqued on more than one occasion from exposure to the unknown (and prior to the revelation of its potential existence) was unknowable to me. Could we not accurately say that all things, to which we have not yet been exposed to, contextually or conceptually, are unknowable to us? And is it not possible, that when first exposed to the novel we can be both fascinated and curious, and experience most novelties without disgust? Everything for which we have not yet developed a referential lexicon is unknowable to us; however, disgust is neither necessary nor required to facilitate processes of curiosity, revelation, or knowing.
I agree with Gaut, there is no paradox of horror (p. 328) and “that the concepts of all emotions implicitly incorporate references to desires which are typically possessed by those experiencing the emotion” (p. 329). We evaluate emotions as possessing negative or positive qualities on a scale according to our mental rationalizations, and that all emotions are a secondary response to a thought. Our thoughts create our emotions. Or as Gaut states, “the full solution to the paradoxes depends both on a view of the emotions as evaluative, and on the recognition of how mental holism presents itself in respect of emotions, desires, and enjoyment.
My Questions:
1. Do you agree that there is a conceptual connection between evaluation and pleasure?
2. If something is pleasurable, natural (biological or physiological origins),and a
societal norm, yet it is either unattainable or absent from your life, is its absence
necessarily painful?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)