Monomania and The Female Don Quixote

"How is our diagnosis of others as monomaniacal dependent on the degree to which their organizing principle challenges our personal reality?"


What else lurks behind these solipsistic modes of existence? What explain the common need to hide behind a system or an ideology?
-Pg. 5

My monomaniacs are all melancholics who can only abide the world if it is ruled by an all-consuming, highly abstract and exalted set of principals.
-Pg. 3

While investigating different manifestations of monomania, I discovered that each one of its enactments is part of an abstract, autonomous desire to reorganize the world according to a long-lost model of wholeness.
-Pg 3


First, I would like to challenge the validity of this authors representation of monomania because a number of sweeping generalizations and assertions (from an individual outside observer onto a group) are made without sufficient textual support aside from the arbitrarily sprinkled references to archaic practically obsolete psychological literature (ex. Freud). This representation is derisive, othering, mindlessly supportive of the status quo and blind to not only the experience of monomania but also the notion that these "pathological, perverse, or poorly disguised maneuvers" are variations of intrinsic human processes that allow us to organize and understand our individual and deeply personal experiences.

[On Piet Mondrian's art] ...he chose to strike out against the real with the absolutism of his vertical and horizontal lines. But the real always ended up resurfacing: despite the grids that framed Mondrian's monochromatic tones with ever increasing urgency, despite the "hairshirts and self-chastisements. . . the arbitrary merely form[ed] again."
-Pg. 1

In the ensuing manifestations of the idée fixe (agorophobia, misanthropy, art as substitute for life, hypochondria), the world falls into place because it seems guided by a divine plan, a firm an meaningful teleology. Freud explains these types of rituals in "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices," in which he finds the latter to be "full of significant and symbolic meaning," he sees the former, divorced from tradition and thoroughly independent from the way society is run, as "the half-comic, half-tragic travesty of a private religion."
-Pg. 3

Mondrian's explanation of his art, quote taken from a letter:
I construct lines and color combinations on a flat surface, in order to express general beauty with the utmost awareness. Nature (or, that which I see) inspires me, puts me, as with any painter, in an emotional state so that an urge comes about to make something, but I want to come as close as possible to the truth and abstract everything from that, until I reach the foundation (still just an external foundation!) of things… I believe it is possible that, through horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty, supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art, as strong as it is true.

Mondrian's art has symbolic meaning to him, it is highly intuitive however this author represents it as arbitrary as if fact. Why do we prioritize the interpretation of the observer? Why is the private religion chastised but the traditional sanctified? The private religion is based on a reality which the outsider does not share or understand thus they label it as arbitrary, but does that really make it so? If so, how many people have to share a belief before is stops being arbitrary? 

Let us compare Mondrian's art to Einstein's theory of relativity. Would we label Einstein as a monomaniac? He devoted his entire life to developing a theory of the universe as ruled by an all-consuming, highly abstract and exalted set of principals. E=mc^2 This theory literally states that energy is the same as mass, the speed of light functions as a constant. Is he not a monomaniac because his unifying principal is true, or rather that we all believe it to be true?  I venture to argue that most people's belief in this theory does not stem from their ability to reiterate the proof that allowed Einstein to arrive at this conclusion. Thus, our belief in this theorem to be true is at least in part due to our indoctrination into scientific materialism. If Mondrian's philosophy of art became foundational for some reason and we all could see what he saw, would he still be a monomaniac?

I do not mean to argue monomania does not exist, however I take affront to the derisive tone the author uses to discuss it the use of abstract artists as exemplars. Perhaps art, especially abstract art, is more than merely the byproduct of "a sterile laboratory" which allows the artist to simultaneously inflict and lick their own wounds. Perhaps, one of the functions of art is to expand that which can be seen, that which is experienced, by creating a new system of organization. 

In Fantomina, as curiosity transitions from a psychological process to a mental state the characteristic becomes indivisible from the character results in a loss of agency.

Introduction: open with description of “genius” as exemplar of this transition in modern day usage.

One: explain criteria for curiosity as a psychological process and evidence of this criteria met in text.

Two: explain criteria for curiosity as a mental state and evidence of this criteria met in text.

Three: outline the young lady’s expression of curiosity. Show in text evidence that in her curiosity transitions in it’s expression, from psychological process to mental state, specifically how divisible the characteristic is from the charter. Show how this process can be imposed externally.

Four: outline Beauplasir’s expression of curiosity and provide examples of it’s stagnant dynamic.

Four: contrast Beauplasir’s loss of agency in the end, or lack thereof, against the young lady’s loss of agency, against the young lady’s agency in the beginning.


Conclusion: reiterate the idea that when a characteristic transitions from a psychological process to a mental state, the character becomes indivisible from the characteristic and experiences a loss of agency. 

Fantomania and Inspecing and Spectating: Monsters, Rarities, and Investigations

In Fantomania, does Haywood portray sexual inquiry as an impertinent disruption of the status quo or an opportunity for licensed transgression? 


“She could not forbear laughing heartily to think of the Tricks she has play’d him, and applauding her own Strength of Genius, and Force of Resolution, which by such unthought-of Ways could triumph over her lover’s Inconsistency...”
-Pg 283 Fantomania

“By analyzing the prose fictions by Aphra Behn, Delariviere Manly and Eliza Haywood… this chapter shows that early modern literature shifts from portraying sexual inquiry as an impertinent disruption of the status quo to providing it as an opportunity for licensed transgression.”
-Pg 21 Inspecting and Spectating: Monsters, Rarities, and Investigations

   

    At first reading the second quote I was perplexed. What does it mean to use curiosity as a “opportunity for licensed transgression”? I certainly did not finish Fantomania and feel that curiosity was being condoned to any degree, it did not allow the lady to conquer her lover nor lead her to anything but ruin. Honestly, I immediately thought of the scene in Mean Girls where a teacher was giving a sexual education lesson and stated, “Don’t have sex or you will get pregnant and die.” It seemed like a similar message was being related in this text, “Don’t be curious or you will get pregnant and be sent to a nunnery.”
    Throughout Fantomania curiosity very much retains it’s early connotations. It was used to explore knowledge which one really had no business exploring eg. the experiences of a prostitute. It was not a disciplined practice rather the whims of young girl. The individual who was curious was not a highly respected member of society nor a scholar. Interestingly, we see curiosity conceptualized as both lust and greed.
     The lust which Beausplaisir experiences is heavily dependent on the novelty, the uncovering of that which was unseen, it was curiosity as lust. After this curiosity was satiated it abated.However, the curiosity in the Young Lady functions more according to curiosity as greed, as she goes to greater and greater lengths to satiate it. 
     I was taken back by the ending and immediately presumed the author meant only to equate curiosity with a failed attempt to challenge the status quo. However, I suppose this ending may have been used because of societal restraints on how Haywood could explicitly portray female sexuality. Haywood tacitly implies throughout the bulk of the story that curiosity could be used to gain control over men and even over love itself, as illustrated in the first quote. Curiosity allowed the Young Girl to become an agent in her own sexuality, rather than an object as was the norm during the time. The Young Lady manipulates Beausplaisir's curiosity, successfully for a period of time, to make the man fulfill her wishes. Haywood did use curiosity as an opportunity for licensed transgression but it was insinuated in a subtle insidious way. It's as if she means the exact opposite of what she is saying explicitly, like the box office ticket seller telling their friend, "You should not sneak into the theater through the back door that employees leave unlocked to take smoke breaks." This text is a unique example of a literary snap shot taken mid stride during the transition between conceptions and perceptions of curiosity. 

Crusoe and The New Science

Are Crusoe’s perceptions of events twisted by the “Idols” Bacon mentions in his essay The New Science and does the character’s insight into these idols allow him to correct for their influence on his understanding of the event as Bacon asserts it can?


I was exceedingly surpriz’d with the Print of a Man’s naked Foot on the Shore… I came Home to my Fortification, not feeling, as we say, the Ground I went on, but terrify’d to the last Degree...mistaking every Bush and Tree and fancying every Stump at Distance to be a Man… I fancy’d it must be the Devil; and Reason joyn’d in with me upon this Supposition.
Robinson Crusoe Pg. 112
Oh what ridiculous Resolution Men take, when possess’d with Fear! It deprives them of the Use of those Means which Reason offers for their Relief.
Robinson Crusoe Pg. 115

The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, not only so beset men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but even after entrance obtained, they will again in the very insaturation of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men being forewarned of the danger fortify themselves as far as may be against their assaults.
Portable Enlightenment Reader Pg. 41

   
    When Crusoe comes upon the imprint of a foot, his understanding of the event is entirely twisted by the fear he experiences. His perception of the cause of the footprint is wildly illogical and even his perception of physical objects around him seems to be highly perturbed. He concludes the maker of the footprint to be the devil himself and is able to support this assertion with reason.
    Crusoe’s perceptions and resulting assertions seem to follow the model that Bacon categorized when he described the four “Idols” which can take possession of the human understanding. According to his distinctions I believe Bacon would categorize the “Idol” in this case as The Idol of the Cave, or the idols of the individual man. It asserts the ways in which the each man’s individual mind can color and refract experiences.
    Bacon takes a second step though and asserts further that by understanding the ways our own individual minds can refract and bend experiences, we can accommodate and correct for our perceptions. However, the process which Bacon describes for adjusting for our individual bias to come closer to the truth is not actualized by Crusoe. We notice that at an early point Crusoe acknowledges his faculties for reason were highly influenced by his fear. His preceding actions and thoughts continue to revolve around the acknowledged flawed belief. It wasn’t until Crusoe essentially rested and exausted his mind of worry naturally that he was able to come to a more plausible conclusion concerning the cause of the foot imprint.
    This brings us to question the second assertion that Bacon makes. Specifically, does the acknowledgment of our biases actually allow us to correct for their effect on our perception and reason? If novels can be used to come to some understanding of the experiences people faced during an era of time, we may be able to draw evidence  from this piece that Bacon’s second second assertion does not hold true. During the 18th century, it seems to have required more to uncolor  perceptions from their biases than mere acknowledgement of said biases. 

Crusoe & Epistomologies of the Eye

What degree of subjectivity does Defoe acknowledge in the telling of this story and how does the rigidity or fluidity of these epistemic virtues depend on their intended means?

    The Wonders of this Man’s Life exceed all that (he thinks) is to be found existent; the Life of one Man being scarce capable of a greater Variety.
    The Story is told with Modesty, with Seriousness and with a religious Application of Events to the Uses to which wise Men always apply them (viz.) to the instruction of others by this Example....
    The Editor believes the thing to be a just History of Fact; neither is there any Appearance of Fiction in it: And whoever things, because all such things are dispatch’d, that the Improvement of it, as well to the Diversion, as to the Instruction of the Reader, will be the same....
Robinson Crusoe Pg. 3

Within science, the specific values and related techniques of the self in question may contrast sharply ... This is why the rhetoric of alchemists, Paracelsians and other early modern reformers of knowledge and society rings so strangely in modern (or even eighteenth-century) ears. These visionaries sought wisdom, not just truth, and enlightenment, not just knowledge. Post-seventeenth-century epistemic virtues differ accordingly in their aims, content and means.
Epistomologies of the Eye Pg. 41

    Before the story even begins, the Editor explicitly states that the story contained is one of “Fact”. However, at first glance it seems as though, within even just the preface, it is already rife with subjectivity and contradictions to that statement. Immediately after stating the magnificence of the story as “greater than all others existent”, he claims the story is told with Modesty. Before reading Daston I would likely have just chalked this up as unsubtle nods to an unreliable narrator. However, using Daston’s framework we can see how the Editors epistemic virtues are a lead by the aims and mean of the Editor.
    The aims stated in the preface emphasize the importance of the “instruction of others by this Example”. The means by which the author accomplishes this is though telling an entertaining story full of wonders that “exceed all that (he thinks) is to be found existent”. It goes on further later in the preface to minimize the importance of the story actually being as factual account as adherence to a strictly factual story, as it will not change either the instruction or entertainment of the reader. The aims and means of the story are to teach by example and entertain consequently the virtues held by the author are flexible about adhering to truth or fact.