Tristram Shandy and Spacks

Is the post-modern transition Spacks notes in the use of the word "boring", wherein it becomes a description of an object rather than a subject, observable in other mind states as well?


She is a dreadfully boring woman... The notion that boredom inheres in the consciousness of its experiencer appears to have vanished. Now to call something boring describes an object rather than a subject....A new form of moralizing directs opprobrium toward the cause rather than the victim of boredom.
-Boredom Pg. 22


"Let CONSCIENCE determine the matter upon these reports;--- and then if the heart condemns thee not, which is the case the Apostle supposes,---the rule will be infallible"
[Here Dr. Slop fell asleep]
-Tristram Shandy Pg. 109


Spacks describes a change in the use of the use of the word "boring" that I found similar to changes in the usages of the words "psychosis", "curiosity", "delusion" throughout the semester. She describes them differently; however I think in essence we may be describing the same thing. My papers described a transisiton where psychosis went from being a description of what I call a "process" (where the person is separate from psychosis) to a "mind state" (where the person is indiscernable from the psychosis). We see a change, a person no longer has a psychosis, they are psychotic. Spacks shows an post-modern example where a woman IS bording, opposed to the previous uses of the word we saw in Rambler and Idler where an individual were talking about their experience of being bored. When she states that the word becomes a description of an object rather than a subject, I believe she means in the philosophical sense, rather than the grammatical sense. I explored further the ideas of subject and objects in philosophy; objects are thought of as "entities" and subjects are "observers". In the first post-modern use boring is an intrinsic property of the entity, however in the latter use boring is something the subject observes. When I was describing psychosis as "process" I was specifically noting the distinction separation between the person and the phenomena, in this example the mind state is also describing a subject. When I describe psychosis as a "mind state", I meant to denote the inseparability of the person from the mind state (ex. they ARE psychotic), in this example psychosis is describing an object (one that is intrinsically psychotic). Spacks goes on to describe some of the troubling implications of this switch, when "boring" comes to describe a object rather than a subject; I have seen parallels of this manifestation when many other mind states (specifically psychosis, delusion, and curiosity) are used to describe objects rather than subjects. I wonder if also her criteria concerning the reasons for this change would be explain the factors leading to similar transitions in other mind states.
In the quote from Tristram Shandy, we would have to project the idea that Dr. Slop being bored was the result of his sleep because it isn't expressly said; however if we take that assumption, we see boredom functioning similarly to descriptions in Ramblr and Idler where it is describing a subject, or an external thing that performs a function on the subject.

Draft Paper #2

Organizing principals are used to contextualize and understand experiences. The products of an organizing principal include, but are not limited to, our perception of character traits, passions and emotions. The products of an organizing principal can not be used to undermine it because they are dependent and inextricable from the organizing principal; often they functioning to validate it because the experiences are organizing according to the same ideas and thus agree thematically across perceptions. However, the foundations of an organizing principal are ideas. In Charlotte Lennox’s novel, The Female Quixote, Arabella uses ideas from antique romance novels as the foundation for her organizing principals. The doctor’s “cure” is successful because it acknowledges the products of Arabella’s organizing principals as existing separately and functioning differently in her from the organizing principal and ideas which are its foundations. The doctor identifies Arabella’s organizing principal as existing separately from her by personifying it as a subject capable of actions and feelings. The doctor acknowledges a difference between the functions of the products and foundation of her organizing principal because he engages them differently; validating and avoiding challenging the products, carefully monitoring her emotions to retract or redirect the intentions of his words when she perceives these to be in question, while still framing the debate to challenging the foundation, her ideas.

1. Attempts first to understand and validate Arabella's emotions
2. Specifically addresses Arabella's as having "Imaginings"
3. Does not proceeds to engage in challenging her when
     -intrinsic values of morality (virtue, judgement) become subject of question (374)
     -passions or desire become subject of question (370)
4. Backtracks/Retracts/becomes submissive
     -when she perceives judgement of her passions
     -when she perceives judgement of her
5. Specifically frames question to address causal relation between actions or "reason".
6. Contrast with Mr. Glansville: eventually commits to organizing principal because unable to separate emotions from causal relation between actions
7. Contrast with Mrs. Glansville: doesn't succumb to organizing principal but unwilling to mindfully navigate Arabella's emotions to refocus questions on causal relation between actions.

Conclusion: Passions/emotions/morality function in a realm separate from reason, though they are effected by it and thought/ideas can be manipulated separately.

Tristram Shandy and Jonathan Swift

How is our attention maintained by movement and misfortune?

My Tristram's misfortunes came nine months before ever he came into the world.
-Laurence Sterne Pg. 11 (Chp. 3)

Sweepings from Butchers Stalls, Dung, Guts and Blood,
Drown'd Puppies, stinking Sprats, all drench'd in Mud,
Dead Cats and Turnep- Tops come tumbling down the
Flood.
-Jonathan Swift, A Description of a City Shower

It both pieces, A Description of a City Shower and Tristram Shandy, the author continuously moves us from one misfortune/horror to another. Swift not only uses strong verbs (ie. drench'd, tumbling), but also words that are the noun (ie. sweepings) or adjective (drown'd) forms of verbs to sustain a sense of movement throughout the piece. This movement is not random, it takes us from one visceral image to another, the butcher stalls, the guts and blood. Somehow, these two things together function very well to sustain our attention, or at least mine. I see a similar pattern in Tristram Shandy, while perhaps not as horrifying (yet). In this story, we are continuously transported forward and backward in time. The story's progress is not chronological, but rather motivated by movement from one misfortunes to another. This concept draws to mind a neuroscience concept. The tectal system in the brain functions to draw our attention to movements of visual stimuli, there are structures called the superior colliculus mediate this function. Perhaps the method of attention focusing used by these authors draws it's ability from the connection between movement and attention present in other sensory systems.

Johnson and Lennox

Is Johnson's description of the effect reading novels produces in the individual similar to the function of monomania or delusion? Is this interpretation of Johnson's quote supported in The Female Quixote?

But if the power of example is so great, as to take possession of the memory by a kind of violence, and produce effects almost without the intervention of the will, care ought to be taken that, when the choice is unrestrained, the best examples only should be exhibited; and that which is likely to operate so strongly, should not be mischievous or uncertain in its effects.
-Johnson

...her imagination, always prepossessed with the same fantastic Ideas, made her stumble upon another Mistake, equally absurd and ridiculous.
-Lennox Pg. 21

     The Oxford English Dictionary contains two distinct descriptions of monomania: a form of mental illness characterized by a single pattern of repetitive and intrusive thoughts or actions and an exaggerated or fanatical enthusiasm for or devotion to one subject; an obsession, craze. The first description matches closely with our clinical description of obsession whereas the latter is more aligned to our colloquial usage of the word obsession. Both clinical and colloquial obsession augment the affects of individuals. In clinical obsession, the individual experiences a great amount of anxiety, whereas in fanatical obsession the obsession has a myriad of positive effects on the affect of the individual. While the individual may be conscious of an obsession, they often have little control over the effect it elicits in them. They perceive the effects of the obsession as personal, and do not expect others to share their experience. The description of delusion in the OED states that it is anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things. Delusions augment the perceptions of the individual. Furthermore, by definition, the individual has neither control nor awareness of the effect the delusion. The perceptive lens caused by a delusion are not experienced as unique to themselves, rather they expect others to share their experience.
       Johnson's specific phrase, "as to take possession of the the memory by a kind of violence" suggests that the specific function of the novels on readers is some augmentation of their perception, rather than their affect. The phrase "prepossessed with the same fantastic Ideas" suggests also that it is Arabella's perceptions that are being augmented by her delusion. The interpretation of Johnson's quote to mean that reading functions somewhat similarly to delusion is supported by the selected quote from Lennox.