If we see again a
thing which we looked at formerly it brings back to us, together with our past
vision, all the imagery with which it was instinct.
This is because
objects — a book bound like others in its red cover — as soon as they have been
perceived by us become something immaterial within us, partake of the same
nature as our preoccupations or our feelings at that time and combine,
indissolubly with them. A name read in a book of former; days contains within
its syllables the swift wind and the brilliant sun of the moment when we read
it.
In the slightest
sensation conveyed by the humblest aliment, the smell of coffee and milk, we
recover that vague hope of fine weather which enticed us when the day was
dawning and the morning sky uncertain; a sun-ray is a vase filled with
perfumes, with sounds, with moments, with various humours, with climates. It is
that essence which art worthy of the name must express and if it fails, one can
yet derive a lesson from its failure (while one can never derive anything from
the successes of realism) namely that that essence is in a measure subjective
and incommunicable.
Marcel Proust - À la recherche du temps perdu
We’ve neutralised much of this haven’t we? By bringing into the
realm of scientific study the vast complexity of mental associations, we have tried to sidestep the compelling reality of subjective life.
Not only in popular psychology, but in a whole plethora of
explanatory terms we use to cast a false aura of objectivity over our most
implacable biases.
Yet Proust was right - as great writers so often are.
4 comments:
a false aura of objectivity over our most implacable biases
That deserves to be framed on the wall behind glass.
Agreed, James. It is a superb phrase.
First dunk your biscuit.
James and Sam - many thanks.
Demetrius - we're on fig biscuits at the moment which aren't the perfect dunker. Very cheap from Aldi though.
Post a Comment