Can Literature Survive Without Spirituality?

I'm not interested in believing.

If there is to be a renaissance of spirituality it will not be based on belief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The tie-dye is a cultural icon of the 60s because it represents the ideal that anything can be art...even a shapeless stain of random colours.

This is what the hippies were all about...that freedom itself is enlightenment.

All hierarchies must be toppled...and trampled under your bare feet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hence the problem...the pursuit of fads as opposed to underlying eternal truths.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you lived in a psycho ward would you resolve to align yourself with insanity.

 

A spiritual dimension is implied already in the very act of reading, for example.

When one sits down to read, this implies that one has some idea that reading is a worthwhile way to spend one's time, that there will be some benefit from reading - whether one is conscious of this idea or not.

This idea that reading is worthwhile, that there is some benefit to it is an example of simple transcendence of the immediate here and now.

However, people see this "immediate here and now" differently. For some, it pertains to the next few minutes or hours and meters or miles; for some others, it pertains to all life times and all spaces; and then everything in between.

 

You're such an optimist!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why write, or read, a book if not because there is some idea that things can be communicated beyond the limits of one's material body and time?

Authors sometimes say they want to make their readers think, or help to understand themselves and the world better: How could those authors want that if not because they have some idea that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the (individual) body and that thought and emotion extend beyond the (individual) brain?
And why do we keep books, if not because we have some idea that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the (current state of the) body and that thought and emotion extend beyond the (current state of the) brain?


Granted, these principles of continuity and consequence are common to our every day lives anyway, it is just that we become more aware of this when writing and reading literature and thinking about it.

There is an interesting book on this topic: Mark Turner: The Literary Mind (Oxford University Press, 1996). Story, projection and parable, so Turner, are basic principles of our mind anyway, but we are usually aware of them only in literature.

 

What do you think will or could the basis of the renaissance of spirituality be?

 

We are speaking of the West and western literature.

Carcano: Whats interesting about this is that novels have increasingly become more like scripts, with more dialog and less description...perhaps in the author's hope that they will become films.

Again what the hell are you reading? Which authors? Because I can tell you that there are many contemporary novelists who have ample descriptions, you obviously have never read Mary Gaitskill or Alice Munro. A few of Annie Proulx work has been turned to the screen but her work is still very descriptive. Toni Morrison's work is highly descriptive and remains partly mythological in many respects and one of her works did end up on the screen but still yet her novels are novels and it is other people who adapt the work for the screen, same with Proulx her novels are very different in scope to how they are reshaped for the screen.

You make these claims but give no indication of what you are reading that you call literature which has helped form your opinion about ALL literature. Which authors only use 'dialogue' with little or no description?

Carcano: Hence the problem...the pursuit of fads as opposed to underlying eternal truths.

Well no fads generally do not become part of the canon of literature. Bret Easton Ellis was popular for a time but his work isn't considered literature. Toni Morrison on the other hand is. Truly Carcano if there were 'eternal truths' in any of these works you would hardly know about it, you give no indication that you actually read literature.

Carcano: If you lived in a psycho ward would you resolve to align yourself with insanity.

But that's just it isn't it? You see the world as mad but yourself as sane. You don't see yourself as a part of the world. What's more is you don't seem to know of the artists, the writers who do write about beauty and truth. You are not engaged. There have been artists who unhappy with the world created their own within it and found joy, this is their legacy, their contribution to future artists and those who want to live fully but outside the mainstream, they adapted themselves to a world they could live in and were no longer at odds with it. If we fail to do so for ourselves then it is us who are to blame not the world.

 

Carcarno isn't interested in this from that point of view, it is not the basis of his argument. Carcarno is saying that the world of literature is dead in the sense that he thinks they fail to hold and embody 'spiritual' values.

Writers also write because they need to express themselves despite the fact that their work may never survive. Why do you think that Nin continued to write or Miller? Both were only recognized in their 50's or 60's. If they wrote for the reasons you gave then they would have become discouraged and stopped. Do you really believe that Emily Dickinson wrote because she cared for the world? Hardly. Writers write for themselves first and they hope that it is understood and responded to. Only a narcissist like Ayn Rand thought she was doing the world a favor by deigning to write Fountainhead which she called the perfect novel.

The point I was trying to make to Carcano is that literature does not have to serve the purpose he asserts. In other words literature is quite broad and not all literary work needs to or has to contain these 'spiritual values' or 'eternal truths' in order to be literature. His point is that ALL literature must have this, so I went about showing him literary works that do not have this component and he went on to say that this is what is wrong with the world. Authors are not preachers who sit up on a podium and belt out 'this is the truth, this is the universal truth'. This is not the magic that they offer, this is not the nature of the elixir. Some works are like this but not all and even then there would be disagreement. I believe Proust has these qualities, Colette, D H Lawrence, Issac Bashevis Singer, Pirandello, Thomas Mann, Kawabata, Mishima, Kobo Abe and many many many many more, so many that I don't have enough time to get through them all or have enough space to store them all. but I am quite certain that Carcarno would disagree with me. He has yet to name one book outside of Lord of The Rings that he believes is an example of a novel embodying 'eternal truths'. He chides the world for its destruction but he doesn't realize that all he sees is destruction, what beauty there is he would fail to see that its there, that it in fact exists.

Ice by Kavan was probably one of the most beautifully written haunting books I have ever read yet Carcano chides her for ending the story in an ice age where all of human life ceases to be. The fact that it was lyrically beautifully, surrealistically executed doesn't seem to matter. Thank god it matters in terms of literature

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks for suggesting Turner.

 

Agreed.

 

Why agree? The question was not what beliefs spirituality would be based on. The question was if he believed these values he speaks of can or would be restored.

 

They can...I dont know if they would.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nevertheless, they continue to manifest themselves...either actively or reactively.

 

Reading Signal's excellent post suggests to me that he understands the premise of the thread perfectly...he gets it!

 

I gotta admit, I've been somewhat baffled, and intrigued by this thread over the past few days.
I still have to admit that I'm not even sure what the OP means.
According to this definition provided, I've never even read a piece of fiction that involves a sense of 'spirituality'....

So, in short, my answer would be: of course.

 

The most obvious process that comes to mind would be the scientific validation of the continuity of consciousness after the death of the body...as mentioned in the OP.

This would have to involve an overwhelming body of evidence that can replicated.

This in turn could only be possible with great advancements in medical science.

 

Art isn't supposed to be "fun", it's supposed to convey emotion. Art is beautiful in that it is the method in which humans can express themselves, play god, and the method wherein humans are able to create and behold. It isn't about "fun"

 

The film they made of his novel American Psycho is the purest form of 'conflicted nihilism' I can imagine.

When Bateman utters these words at the end of this scene, he expresses the same DOUBT standing behind every materialist...like a great question mark.

"I...simply...am...not...there."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXlkq9vHuAE

Real serial killers often express this sense of doubt as well, although it usually never comes to light until they've been caught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE

What Dahmer describes here is a mentality that feels little sense of moral consequence or empathy with others. What consequences could exist in a transitory world of random molecular accidents? From where could empathy arise?

On the other hand, it was exactly this desire for emotional connection that drove him to seek it through material means...through cannibalism!

 

Take the attitude of the entire board, or the attitude of the logical and more educated masses of the western world if you will.

A great man once said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Sadly, In our day in age, this will no longer suffice, will it? Luckily, we have the scientists at CERN working doggedly so that they he who will not believe till they see, CAN eventually see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. . . .

 

Well if your position is whether literature continues and will continue the answer would have been yes. Just because you do not appreciate modern literature doesn't mean it is not known and will continue to be recognized and read. You say Signal argued your point but you have not been arguing Signals.

Carcano: The film they made of his novel American Psycho is the purest form of 'conflicted nihilism' I can imagine.

Since when has Bret Easton Ellis been considered literature? Neither John Grisham nor Douglas Coupland are accepted as literature but David Foster Wallace is. Given that they are not accepted as examples of literature they have nothing to do with your point or this thread unless you see all and any book as an example of literature. At least I took the time to read some of Elli's work instead of having to refer to the film I can refer to text, the film is a far cry from the novel. If the novel was unremarkable the film was worse. Again I ask what do you actually read? Which authors? You want to discuss literature but you give no indication that you ever read any literature

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You seem to think that any written novel is accepted as literature and that's plainly untrue.