I have been reading this fascinating book by Steven Pinker for some time. It is
large – 765 pages – and both engrossing and intellectually deep. Thus my normal
high reading speed is tempered somewhat. In a sense, this book provides a great
deal of measured academic background for David Lodge's excellent novel,
"Thinks". There is a section on qualia and one section on emotions and why they
exist. Whilst the statement apparently made by Darwin and discussed at length by
Lodge's characters – crying is a puzzler – does not appear in Pinker's book (or
if it does, I haven't come across it yet), there is a section about grief, which
also is discussed by Lodge's fictional professor, Ralph Messenger.
Following is
some of what Pinker writes on the subject:
No
one knows what, if anything, grief is for. Obviously the loss of a loved one is
unpleasant, but why should it be devastating? Why the debilitating pain that
stops people from eating, sleeping, resisting diseases, and getting on with
life? Jane Goodall describes a young chimp, Flint, who after the death of his
beloved mother became depressed and died himself as if of a broken
heart.
[I should mention here that after my paternal grandmother died, my paternal
grandfather died after a few weeks, and the same thing recently happened to the
parents of someone on the kibbutz – NBN].
Some
have suggested that grief is an enforced interlude for reassessment. Life will
never be the same so one must take time to plan how to cope with a world that
has been turned upside down. Perhaps grief also gives people time to contemplate
how a lapse of theirs may have allowed the death and how they might be more
careful in the future [pp 444-5].
Another
snippet reminds me of a letter which I received from my mentor a few weeks ago
which incensed me at the time; I decided to wait a few days to calm down before
replying. When I did reply, his letter seemed much more to the point and
basically exposed my misunderstanding. Pinker writes: Sometimes we have
glimpses of our own self-deception. When does a negative remark sting, cut deep,
hit a nerve? When some part of us knows it is true. If every part knew it was
true, the remark would not sting; it would be old news. If no part thought it
was true, the remark would roll off; we could dismiss it as false. Travers
recounts an experience which is all too familiar (at least to me). One of his
papers drew a published critique, which struck him at the time as vicious and
unprincipled, full of innuendo and slander. Rereading the article years later,
he was surprised to find that the wording was gentler, the doubts more
reasonable, the attitude less biased than he remembered. Many others have made
such discoveries; they are almost the definition of "wisdom". [p
447]
Post script: I looked at the appendix of Lodge's "Thinks" and saw that amongst the books which Lodge read prior to writing his novel is "How the mind works" by Stephen Pinker.
Post script: I looked at the appendix of Lodge's "Thinks" and saw that amongst the books which Lodge read prior to writing his novel is "How the mind works" by Stephen Pinker.
No comments:
Post a Comment