AUTHOR CHATS
Where do plots come from?
The philosophical novel
This is the first of a series of articles exploring the source of ideas that inspire writers to produce their works. In each article, two or more authors will discuss their books and how their imagination was stimulated to produce them.
This is the first of a series of articles exploring the source of ideas that inspire writers to produce their works. In each article, two or more authors will discuss their books and how their imagination was stimulated to produce them.
Timothy Balding is the author of two novels with philosophical themes, The Man Who Couldn’t Stop Thinking and The Impostors. His next novel, a political satire, will be published in December 2019. He lives and works in the Basque country in France.
|
James Gault has written five novels including the comic philosophical fantasy OGG. His latest novella, A Flower in the Wind, is a political drama and is currently available on Amazon. His home is in the Occitania region of SW France.
|
|
James: In your novel 'The Man Who Couldn't Stop Thinking' you introduce the idea that the ‘unconscious mind’ is a myth. Could you explain this further?
Timothy: The popular portrayal of the famous 'unconscious mind' is that it is an area of our brains to which we do not have access but where thoughts are formulated that we do not even know about! This has led to the absolutely absurd situation where people accuse others of not actually knowing what they really think! "Ah, but that's not what you think unconsciously," they say blithely. Or, "unconsciously, I probably think this and feel that." And such like. For me, this is a confusion and a contradiction. If a thought is not accessible to you, it is not a thought. You have no reason at all to believe that it exists. The question is rather elsewhere: to what extent are you aware and thinking about what you thinking? James: So are you suggesting that the concept of the unconscious is some kind of hindrance to understanding ourselves? Timothy: Since I believe that this thing is a pure misunderstanding, all I can say is that the failure to be aware of what you think is certainly a handicap, for you and, above all, the others. I would like to think that all men could be aware of, and be able to articulate, everything they believe, think and feel, in which case the 'unconscious mind' would disappear into thin air as a concept. All it means for now is that many people are blind to their own views, incapable of hearing them, barely know what they are, because they do not ever reflect on them. Research by psychologists actually confirms this. James: This is an interesting idea. In my own work, OGG, I make the case that the inability to grasp what one knows and believes is the cause of many of the problems of humanity. It’s based on my understanding from epistemology that true knowledge can only come from deductive logic, and that deductive logic cannot lead us to truth, it can only illuminate the consistency of different statements: If x is true, y follows. So to have any view on anything, it is necessary to have some of the ‘x’s: fundamental beliefs that we consider self-evident. In my book, I send an omnipotent and omniscient ‘Great Being’ to teach his (or her) followers how to think logically and question their fundamental beliefs. So I think I am arriving at your conclusion that people are blind to their own views from a slightly different direction. But to take the argument on, do you have a view on the implications of this, both at an individual level and at the level of mankind as a whole? Timothy: I have only ever been interested in philosophy inasmuch as it addresses the actual questions we humans face when we confront 'reality', whether within us or in the external world, and, of course, in their interaction. This requires a certain good faith and acceptance that we largely share the same perceptions and, if we don't, that there are identifiable causes for any such discrepancies. Questions like, 'Are we actually living in reality or is this all a dream?', or 'Does truth really exist?', I have to leave to others. They don't interest me in the slightest and are a waste of my time. I live and think on the basis that we as humans have a brotherly pact to discuss and explore our existence and our condition on the basis of a fundamental common understanding of its elementary nature. But, to address myself to your question ... Two things: I do not have your scepticism or disbelief in the absolute value of 'deductive logic'. Of course it leads us to truth! The 'fundamental beliefs that we consider self-evident', as you put it, all arise, it seems to me, from 2 + 2 = 4. Dostoevsky made a very good joke about the charming nature of 2 + 2 = 5 - but it doesn't! If we admit that it might, we are just lost for ever as a species. No quantum physicist (whatever that might be), will ever convince me, nor ever should, that when my mother gave me two crayons one day, then another two the next, that I then had four crayons. Anyone who says the contrary is not worth talking to. So, my point: I think that our notions of justice, of equity, of ethics, of truth, all arise, basically, out of our recognition and acceptance that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4, something our brains could see and test in our very early days. And anyone who tells me that this conclusion is 'subjective', or individual to each of us, will have a fight with me on their hands! You ask about the 'implications' on individuals and on humanity of the incapacity of many people to be aware of - or, more importantly, to question - their own views. This is the most important question of all! I don't want to sound too dramatic, but the future of mankind depends completely on man's ability to be aware of his biases, his prejudices, his hatreds, his lies to himself. And thus possibly capable NOT of changing them - I never ask for so much - but of refusing to act on them, of refusing to join the lynch party on the tail of those who disagree with him. Very little else matters at the end of the day! This is the central lesson, I must say, of my novel, 'The Man Who Couldn't Stop Thinking.' James: Looking at your two ‘things’, I don’t totally accept the first but on the second I’m completely in agreement. I’m very aware that philosophers are often accused of being removed from the real world and self-indulging in ‘yoga for the mind’, but I do think a lot of it is relevant to understanding our thoughts. When you seem to suggest that ‘2 + 2 = 4’ is some kind of fundamental truth, I disagree. I understand that ‘2+2 = 4’ follows by logical deduction from what we mean by ‘2’, ‘4’, ‘+’ and ‘=’. Knowing this is of little consequence in itself, but what it does is demonstrate that if we search for the real truth behind our assumed true beliefs, we can be surprised to find how little justification we have for them. My whole comic novel, OGG, repeatedly emphases that point in an ironical and hopefully amusing way. On your second point I agree completely. We may believe, for example, that God exists and our version is the only true one. But when we look at why, we come to understand that such a belief is very hard to justify rationally, and this, I would hope, leads us to be more tolerant of others. I suppose all my writing challenges these kind of beliefs people have, which are to some extent only opinion or even prejudice. Ah, I say, you may believe that, but what if you’re wrong? And then I go on to show them some of the implications of holding such unfounded opinions. In A Flower in the Wind, for example, I say this: I know you think that there are unthinkable bad deeds that could never be done by my country, only the ‘enemy’, but….. But, to wind up this discussion, can I ask you this? In your writing so far, what would you choose as the most significant philosophical point that you want to get across to readers? Timothy: We are indeed some ways apart. If you do not accept that 2 + 2 = 4, or rather that you do not feel that this is a fundamental truth, then, unhappily, dialogue between nice and intelligent and friendly gentlemen like the two of us, is unlikely to end in a conciliation of views on this question. I certainly possess a large number of very stupid and unjustifiable biases and prejudices, but I consider them to be of no importance at all, to be 'false' inasmuch as they are neither right nor wrong, and to be merely objects of my own mockery and laughter, never to be taken as a serious basis for any action. For they are precisely NOT 'beliefs', not rational conclusions and arguments from my inner dialogue, which is entirely built on reason. You seem to suggest that some of your beliefs lie in the realm of magical phenomena, or something. I don't suffer from any such illusions. I know very well where all my beliefs originate. They have been crafted out of the simple observation of reality from my 2 + 2 = 4 standpoint. The 'most significant philosophical point' of my writing? First of all, and above everything else, I want to make people laugh - as you do too - and embrace the joy of life. (It is not for nothing that Nietzsche is my real hero as a philosopher, because he too aimed for these ends). Beyond that, I have tried to illustrate the evolution of the human species towards complete consciousness of self and, thus, complete objectivity. Practically no one accepts that this evolution is taking place. Among my few allies are Shakespeare - the first writer to illustrate on stage the personal, solitary inner dialogue - and Nietszche, with his brilliant perception that the Greeks and the Romans, when they thought 'the gods' were speaking to them, were actually hearing themselves - for the first time in human history! Yes, we have come a long way and are entering, one by one, a new era of man. This is the discussion I hope to provoke with my writing. James: Let’s agree to disagree amicably on esoteric matters of epistemology. Suffice to say I am a confirmed and severe sceptic and it often leads me into troubled waters. More important, in the realm of practical matters, is that I am 100% with you on the importance of objectivity. I don’t unfortunately have your optimism that all of mankind will achieve such objectivity. I’m struck by the similarity between Socrates and Nietszche, and wonder if perhaps there will also be the ‘ubermencsh’ or ‘philsophers’ whose insight into their own thinking far outstrips that of the ordinary man. But, for the sake of mankind, I hope you will be proved to be right. Thanks for talking to me. |
LINKS TO THEIR BOOKS
|