The Good Story: Exchanges on Truth, Fiction and Psychotherapy, Arabella Kurtz, JM Coetzee
I'm reading this concurrently with Kundera's The Festival of Insignificance and The Cure for Suicide which raise interesting issues in conjunction with The Good Story. Kundera has clearly been telling himself (and his readers) a similar story over the decades: our existence is meaningless and yet often lived in a meaning driven way. In The Cure for Suicide, the characters' stories lead them to desire death. They have to be reprogrammed with new stories in order to continue living. The stories have to be ones without struggle or adversity. Kind of like a chemical lobotomy. Is one set of stories better than another?
In what psychotherapy world is finding the truth the goal? Is the goal to get the patient back on the rails? (p. 7)
Kurtz responds, "therapist and patient work towards an understanding of the way in which an intimate, formative relationship is experienced in the mind of the patient, based upon the important matter of perspective: where the patient is situated in terms of their own development and needs, their temperament, the nature of the relationship and the external situation as it is experienced by them" (p. 10). Clearly, this is not TRUTH.
She adds that we can only know and understand ourselves fully through others (p. 11). Is this true? What does this mean? And in what way is this knowing and understanding ourselves? It is a reflected (refracted view) which depends largely on the refractor.
Is one of the signs of great literature a story that is told which allows the reader to or encourages the reader to engage in such a way that the reader may construct a narrative that has meaning for him/her at that time? If the story "tells the truth" without leaving the room for interpretation, it might not be very engaging to many readers. At the same time, the desire of the reader to impose a reading on the narrative that does not fit does not seem like the purpose of any book . . . Though clearly readers can do whatever they want.
Is the goal of the writer to swing you around to his way of thinking, to use Coetzee's word? Or is it to open up thinking?
Coetzee's perusal of how memory works raises many interesting questions
Can justice only come from God?
How much does our desire for justice (or some other principle) shape our memory? And thus shape our narrative of ourselves? Culturally, do different values shape memory (seems obvious, yes, of course), but how so?
To what extent is memoir ultimately, "a psuedo-confession whose unstated purpose is to make one thing more highly of the narrator?" (p. 40). To what extent are all narratives ultimately self-fulfilling. We tell the story that most adheres to the self we imagine we are? And, what role does social media fill in our narrative construction and willingness to construct a public self? Does the eliding that goes on in constructing a public self then transgress in our concept of our private self?
Coetzee does not like the idea that we are the authors of our own story; he finds it morally dubious (p. 44). But regardless of its morality, isn't it true? Who else could be the author? Other people may commander moments of our lives but only we can construct the full narrative as our life story?
What is true dialogue (p. 51)? What do people mean when they use phrases like that? Dialogue where no one is "intentionally" lying? Fully present dialogue? Thoughtful dialogue as opposed to kind of mindless rote responses? Is everyone capable of true dialogue? It feels like many times people think they are being honest, they are honestly invested in what they say, but they are not telling the truth. . . Maybe they are telling a "subjective truth" (ST) that only lasts as long as they need it to (or it lasts as long as it "has to"). But it does not mean that ST is any less "real" than the "real truth" (RT) whatever that is.
I don't think that memory or our sense of what is true is necessarily in our control. It is shaped both by forces we can alter and by forces outside of our control (like society, culture, DNA, current emotional state, etc).
Coetzee states, "This projection of oneself cannot be into some imagined version of the other: it has to be into the actual being of the other, no matter how difficult and unpleasant and even boring that may be" (p. 52). That task seems impossible. How could you project yourself into the actual being of the other. What IS the actual being of the other? Is there such a thing "actual being of the other"?
Is there something useful that can be taken from a text that uses the term "true" so often but does not indicate what is meant by that? True dialogue. True spiritual progress, face up to the truth, transcendent truth.
What is prayer? Coetzee says that true dialogue and prayer might be similar. . . (p. 53)
Coetzee really seems obsessed with the truth. Why does he care so much about it?
Kurtz sees therapy as filling in parts of the puzzle. But I don't see our connection with reality or ourselves in this way. We are fluid. We can move ourselves in one direction or another direction within the realm of our abilities/biology. Knowledge is desired to enable us to move in the direction that meets our goals. If we want to be successful, then we seek out knowledge, interpret knowledge and experience in such a way that serves that goal. If we want to be a "good person", we seek out other knowledge. We cannot apply or even understand always what we learn at a given time. In therapy, we can help the client figure out who is the being they both want and can be and then how do they move in that direction.
Aside
Coetzee references the dialogical novel
Taken from wikipedia: The dialogic work carries on a continual dialogue with other works of literature and other authors. It does not merely answer, correct, silence, or extend a previous work, but informs and is continually informed by the previous work. Dialogic literature is in communication with multiple works. This is not merely a matter of influence, for the dialogue extends in both directions, and the previous work of literature is as altered by the dialogue as the present one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogic
Bakhtin argues, apparently, that all language is dialogical; that is in reference to/with all its references. Words are loaded, culturally, socially, individually. Another reason why when we construct a narrative, the meaning is so difficult to understand (and another reason why Coetzee's claim that you need to project yourself into the actual being of the other" seems impossible unless he is talking about some literal bodily transformation. If not, then words must be involved).
In what psychotherapy world is finding the truth the goal? Is the goal to get the patient back on the rails? (p. 7)
Kurtz responds, "therapist and patient work towards an understanding of the way in which an intimate, formative relationship is experienced in the mind of the patient, based upon the important matter of perspective: where the patient is situated in terms of their own development and needs, their temperament, the nature of the relationship and the external situation as it is experienced by them" (p. 10). Clearly, this is not TRUTH.
She adds that we can only know and understand ourselves fully through others (p. 11). Is this true? What does this mean? And in what way is this knowing and understanding ourselves? It is a reflected (refracted view) which depends largely on the refractor.
Is one of the signs of great literature a story that is told which allows the reader to or encourages the reader to engage in such a way that the reader may construct a narrative that has meaning for him/her at that time? If the story "tells the truth" without leaving the room for interpretation, it might not be very engaging to many readers. At the same time, the desire of the reader to impose a reading on the narrative that does not fit does not seem like the purpose of any book . . . Though clearly readers can do whatever they want.
Is the goal of the writer to swing you around to his way of thinking, to use Coetzee's word? Or is it to open up thinking?
Coetzee's perusal of how memory works raises many interesting questions
Can justice only come from God?
How much does our desire for justice (or some other principle) shape our memory? And thus shape our narrative of ourselves? Culturally, do different values shape memory (seems obvious, yes, of course), but how so?
To what extent is memoir ultimately, "a psuedo-confession whose unstated purpose is to make one thing more highly of the narrator?" (p. 40). To what extent are all narratives ultimately self-fulfilling. We tell the story that most adheres to the self we imagine we are? And, what role does social media fill in our narrative construction and willingness to construct a public self? Does the eliding that goes on in constructing a public self then transgress in our concept of our private self?
Coetzee does not like the idea that we are the authors of our own story; he finds it morally dubious (p. 44). But regardless of its morality, isn't it true? Who else could be the author? Other people may commander moments of our lives but only we can construct the full narrative as our life story?
What is true dialogue (p. 51)? What do people mean when they use phrases like that? Dialogue where no one is "intentionally" lying? Fully present dialogue? Thoughtful dialogue as opposed to kind of mindless rote responses? Is everyone capable of true dialogue? It feels like many times people think they are being honest, they are honestly invested in what they say, but they are not telling the truth. . . Maybe they are telling a "subjective truth" (ST) that only lasts as long as they need it to (or it lasts as long as it "has to"). But it does not mean that ST is any less "real" than the "real truth" (RT) whatever that is.
I don't think that memory or our sense of what is true is necessarily in our control. It is shaped both by forces we can alter and by forces outside of our control (like society, culture, DNA, current emotional state, etc).
Coetzee states, "This projection of oneself cannot be into some imagined version of the other: it has to be into the actual being of the other, no matter how difficult and unpleasant and even boring that may be" (p. 52). That task seems impossible. How could you project yourself into the actual being of the other. What IS the actual being of the other? Is there such a thing "actual being of the other"?
Is there something useful that can be taken from a text that uses the term "true" so often but does not indicate what is meant by that? True dialogue. True spiritual progress, face up to the truth, transcendent truth.
What is prayer? Coetzee says that true dialogue and prayer might be similar. . . (p. 53)
Coetzee really seems obsessed with the truth. Why does he care so much about it?
Kurtz sees therapy as filling in parts of the puzzle. But I don't see our connection with reality or ourselves in this way. We are fluid. We can move ourselves in one direction or another direction within the realm of our abilities/biology. Knowledge is desired to enable us to move in the direction that meets our goals. If we want to be successful, then we seek out knowledge, interpret knowledge and experience in such a way that serves that goal. If we want to be a "good person", we seek out other knowledge. We cannot apply or even understand always what we learn at a given time. In therapy, we can help the client figure out who is the being they both want and can be and then how do they move in that direction.
Aside
Coetzee references the dialogical novel
Taken from wikipedia: The dialogic work carries on a continual dialogue with other works of literature and other authors. It does not merely answer, correct, silence, or extend a previous work, but informs and is continually informed by the previous work. Dialogic literature is in communication with multiple works. This is not merely a matter of influence, for the dialogue extends in both directions, and the previous work of literature is as altered by the dialogue as the present one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogic
Bakhtin argues, apparently, that all language is dialogical; that is in reference to/with all its references. Words are loaded, culturally, socially, individually. Another reason why when we construct a narrative, the meaning is so difficult to understand (and another reason why Coetzee's claim that you need to project yourself into the actual being of the other" seems impossible unless he is talking about some literal bodily transformation. If not, then words must be involved).
Comments
Post a Comment