Sorry, those "tea cosy"elements remind me of the commercial:"Where's the
beef?"

Also, "sanitation for the nation" comes to mind.

To extrapolate even further:"Unconscious lite".


Norm Rosenblood













Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
8 Mayfair Place
Hamilton, Ontario
L8S 4G1

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Meg Williams wrote:

> There's a lot of the unconscious in it. The whole business of 'enabling' (
> a term which I like very much - and use) implies a complex process of
> internal adjustment between the self and internal objects (one way of
> putting it). The kind of adjustment that then makes personality growth
> possible. It also implies the (unconscious) conversation between the minds
> of reader and author.
>
> Meg
>
> Meg Harris Williams
> www.artlit.info
> www.harris-meltzer-trust.org.uk
>
>
> On 14 December 2011 05:12, Norm Rosenblood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >  Good grief!! Where is the unconscious in all this??
> >
> > Norm Rosenblood
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
> > Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
> > 8 Mayfair Place
> > Hamilton, Ontario
> > L8S 4G1
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Norman Holland wrote:
> >
> > > FYI.  Norm
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: OnFiction <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:36 AM
> > > Subject: OnFiction
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > > **
> > >    OnFiction <http://www.onfiction.ca/>
> > >  <
> > http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgs&feedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.com/onfiction
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > The Enabling and the
> > > Persuasive<
> > http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/onfiction/%7E3/Y5xnVoUUToc/enabling-and-persuasive.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
> > >
> > >
> > > Posted: 12 Dec 2011 05:22 AM PST
> > > <
> > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O_vlmYVhbOw/TuX-xWK-G3I/AAAAAAAAAVo/PuzMm-BHH80/s1600/Alan+Bennett.jpg
> > >
> > > How are we to think about the tension in fiction between how a writer
> > > enables the reader to draw his or her own conclusions and how a writer
> > > persuades the reader?
> > >
> > > Great writers have concentrated on the enabling so, for instance, John
> > > Keats said admiringly that William Shakespeare had a "negative
> > capability"
> > > (letter to his brothers, of 21-27 December, 1817, p. 261) of writing not
> > to
> > > express his own capabilities and preoccupations, but instead to lose his
> > > ego and enter the minds of his characters. People have wondered what
> > > Shakespeare's views were. Was he a Catholic? Was he a monarchist? This
> > > misses the point: Shakespeare was primarily interested in writing so that
> > > his audiences could reach their own conclusions. In the same way Anton
> > > Chekhov wrote, in a letter of 27 October 1888 to Alexei Suvorin that
> > there
> > > are two things one must not confuse:
> > >
> > > answering the questions and formulating them correctly. Only the latter
> > is
> > > required of an author… It is the duty of the court to formulate the
> > > questions correctly, it is up to each member of the jury to answer them
> > > according to his own preference” (Yarmolinsky, 1973, p. 117).
> > >
> > > At the same time every artist has his or her own vision, and we are
> > > affected by it. When we read James Joyce's *Dubliners* we are invited to
> > > see the world differently than in Virginia Woolf's *Mrs Dalloway.* Yet
> > more
> > > problematic: what are we to make of works such as Franz Kafka's *The
> > > trial,*which persuades us, overtly, of ways in which the societies in
> > > which we
> > > live are both inexorable and inscrutable? Kafka's work is no less art
> > than
> > > is Chekhov's. The history of world literature can be read in terms of
> > > different cultures offering us images of a political kind: this is how to
> > > live or here's what we should change. They have offered knowledge of how
> > > cultures work, and hence of certain possibilities of cooperation.
> > >
> > > Here's my current solution. The first part is to say, boldly, that art
> > > proper (as compared with pseudo-art, see Collingwood, 1938) does enable
> > us
> > > to experience our own thoughts and emotions and even change ourselves by
> > > small increments. In art proper, the artist says: "Look at this. What do
> > > you think and feel about it?" In a lovely exchange in his 1990 film *102
> > > Boulevard Houssmann* Alan Bennett has Proust ask his housekeeper,
> > Celeste,
> > > whether she ever reads novels. She says she does, occasionally: "To take
> > me
> > > out of myself." Proust replies by asking whether a novel might take her
> > > into herself. This is the very centre of art, the offering of a gift in
> > > which as one loses oneself in a work of art one can be most oneself. In
> > > terms of our research results, this squares with our finding that art can
> > > enable changes of personalty, not of a kind in which an author has
> > > persuaded us, but of our own kind, where the author has enabled us
> > (Djikic
> > > et al. 2009).
> > >
> > > The second part is to say that enabling is not contradicted by the fact
> > > that every artist has an individual vision, and chooses to put to us
> > > certain questions. Many artists offer views from a dominant culture. Some
> > > are subversive. The artist's choices certainly affect the reader or
> > viewer
> > > in a persuasive way. I now think this is all right (from the point of
> > view
> > > of art being enabling) because there are many works of art so that, even
> > if
> > > some are deviant, even destructive, as one reads one samples across the
> > > space of human possibility. This makes for pluralism. Of course
> > pluralism,
> > > with its possibility of understanding many kinds of others from their
> > > points of view and even (nowadays) from the inside, itself carries a
> > > political conviction, that to engage in such sampling is better than any
> > > authoritarian stance, and that human individuality is of value. This
> > > position squares with our group's results that reading fiction enables us
> > > to understand others better, and to empathize with them (Mar et al.
> > 2006).
> > >
> > > Each artist achieves a balance between a work that is enabling (which the
> > > reader makes his or her own) and a vision that is persuasive (with its
> > > implications for how we might live). Science is the paradigm of the
> > > persuasive. In science one says, here is the evidence, and this is the
> > > conclusion, don't you agree? Art contains evidence, and most writers of
> > > fiction work hard on their research to make what they write accurate. But
> > > fictional art works not just by finding reliable correspondences with
> > > evidence of the outer world, but by suggesting resonances with what is
> > > within, in ways that may change as we come to recognize them.
> > >
> > > Bennett, A. ((1990). *102 Boulevard Haussmann.* Film in the set "Alan
> > > Bennett at the BBC."
> > >
> > > Collingwood, R. G. (1938). *The principles of art.* Oxford: Oxford
> > > University Press.
> > >
> > > Djikic, M., Oatley, K., Zoeterman, S., & Peterson, J. (2009). On being
> > > moved by art:  How reading fiction transforms the self. *Creativity
> > > Research Journal, 21,* 24-29. (Available in OnFiction archives, click
> > > here.<http://sites.google.com/site/onfiction/home>
> > > )
> > >
> > > Joyce, J. (1914). *Dubliners.* Harmondsworth: Penguin (currrent edition
> > > 1976).
> > >
> > > Kafka, F. (1925). *The trial. *Harmondsworth: Penguin (current edition
> > > 1955).
> > >
> > > Keats, J. (1816-20). *Selected poems and letters of Keats* (Ed. D  Bush).
> > > New York: Houghton Mifflin (current edition 1959).
> > >
> > > Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B.
> > (2006).
> > > Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent
> > > associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social
> > > worlds.* Journal of Research in Personality, 40,* 694-712. (available in
> > > OnFiction archives, click here.<
> > http://sites.google.com/site/onfiction/home>
> > > )
> > >
> > > Woolf, V. (1925). *Mrs Dalloway.* London: Hogarth Press.
> > >
> > > Yarmolinsky, A. (Ed.). (1973). *Letters of Anton Chekhov.* New York:
> > Viking.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [image: Bookmark and Share]
> > >    You are subscribed to email updates from OnFiction<
> > http://www.onfiction.ca/>
> > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe
> > > now<
> > http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=3Tfu5cu8zlKS1nCDbf_kr7RpJyE
> > >
> > > . Email delivery powered by Google  Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago
> > IL
> > > USA 60610
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>