Comments on: That Elusive Elixir of Life http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/that-elusive-elixir-of-life/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=that-elusive-elixir-of-life English 738T, Spring 2015 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 04:10:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neil http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/that-elusive-elixir-of-life/#comment-274 Neil Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:44:08 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=319#comment-274 MWS did indeed have very strategic reasons for staging the narrative of her waking dream. Her whole introduction is calculated to put a patina of propriety over what might otherwise seem scandalous in the 1830s. Remember that the first edition did not have her name associated with it. In claiming public ownership and authorship she wanted to mitigate the social fallout. Hence, an unbidden dream helps to get her off the hook, as it were. But whether she made up this story or not, it certainly speaks to the creative moment and the creative process in powerful ways, as you discuss above. MWS did indeed have very strategic reasons for staging the narrative of her waking dream. Her whole introduction is calculated to put a patina of propriety over what might otherwise seem scandalous in the 1830s. Remember that the first edition did not have her name associated with it. In claiming public ownership and authorship she wanted to mitigate the social fallout. Hence, an unbidden dream helps to get her off the hook, as it were. But whether she made up this story or not, it certainly speaks to the creative moment and the creative process in powerful ways, as you discuss above.

]]> By: Allison Wyss http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/that-elusive-elixir-of-life/#comment-202 Allison Wyss Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:44:07 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=319#comment-202 The question of whether you need omnipotence and omniscience seems to be an important plot device for the classic cautionary tale against "playing god." A central conflict/misunderstanding that drives these stories. The creator says, "Oh of course this is safe for me to do. I understand it and I can control it." And then it turns out the creator can not control the creation--generally because there is some aspect that is not understood, or not understood in time. It seems to me that we seek the omniscience because then we could control the omnipotence. But the stories are out to teach us that we shouldn't try the one, because we'll never really reach the other. And maybe this applies to other things you unleash on the world (like art)--you can only control it until you let it go. But I think we think maybe-maybe-maybe if I could understand it better, I could keep control even after its out there. Well, yeah, I guess I can extend the metaphor that far, but maybe I don't see anything productive in doing so. That podcast doesn't discourage me too much, by the way. Brains stretch and I think we'll get there and even if we don't the equation alone is better than nothing. But we are supposed to be scared of our lack of insight, right? (I don't mean the podcast tells me that, but all of the stories.) For some reason, I have this prejudice against the computer brain--I think the computer has understanding without insight. Something about "Aha!" feels too human for a computer. But probably I'm very wrong. And I guess that's when the stories get scary--when the machines reach that moment. The question of whether you need omnipotence and omniscience seems to be an important plot device for the classic cautionary tale against “playing god.” A central conflict/misunderstanding that drives these stories. The creator says, “Oh of course this is safe for me to do. I understand it and I can control it.” And then it turns out the creator can not control the creation–generally because there is some aspect that is not understood, or not understood in time.

It seems to me that we seek the omniscience because then we could control the omnipotence. But the stories are out to teach us that we shouldn’t try the one, because we’ll never really reach the other.

And maybe this applies to other things you unleash on the world (like art)–you can only control it until you let it go. But I think we think maybe-maybe-maybe if I could understand it better, I could keep control even after its out there. Well, yeah, I guess I can extend the metaphor that far, but maybe I don’t see anything productive in doing so.

That podcast doesn’t discourage me too much, by the way. Brains stretch and I think we’ll get there and even if we don’t the equation alone is better than nothing.

But we are supposed to be scared of our lack of insight, right? (I don’t mean the podcast tells me that, but all of the stories.) For some reason, I have this prejudice against the computer brain–I think the computer has understanding without insight. Something about “Aha!” feels too human for a computer. But probably I’m very wrong. And I guess that’s when the stories get scary–when the machines reach that moment.

]]> By: Michael Gossett http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/that-elusive-elixir-of-life/#comment-197 Michael Gossett Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:49:57 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=319#comment-197 http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/ http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/

]]> By: Michael Gossett http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/that-elusive-elixir-of-life/#comment-196 Michael Gossett Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:49:14 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=319#comment-196 An interesting question I find rubbing up against your line of inquiry here is, when 'playing god,' "Do we always understand (or have to understand) what we're doing?" Frankenstein, for instance, can create life--but does he fully understand the implications of that (survey says: probably not)? Technology developers and inventors too can inadvertently create products whose full function isn't fully realized until later, or conversely can figure out theoretical solutions to problems while remaining unable to create said solution in practice. This Radiolab podcast discusses the limits of science similarly and how technology is now giving us answers to questions we've yet to ask or understand. This seems tangential but relavent to your questioning here. Shelley gives us an end result to the 'creation of life' but chooses to leave out the explanation of how to get there. Is our frustration with not-knowing here (in the novel, in the podcast, in your asking "what animated Shelley's book?") a uniquely human experience--that the results of an experiment, gotten and used but not explained or fully understood, are unable to be appreciated? Does 'playing god' then require both omnipotence AND omniscience of our product/result/solution/machine/creation/etc.etc.? An interesting question I find rubbing up against your line of inquiry here is, when ‘playing god,’ “Do we always understand (or have to understand) what we’re doing?” Frankenstein, for instance, can create life–but does he fully understand the implications of that (survey says: probably not)? Technology developers and inventors too can inadvertently create products whose full function isn’t fully realized until later, or conversely can figure out theoretical solutions to problems while remaining unable to create said solution in practice.

This Radiolab podcast discusses the limits of science similarly and how technology is now giving us answers to questions we’ve yet to ask or understand. This seems tangential but relavent to your questioning here. Shelley gives us an end result to the ‘creation of life’ but chooses to leave out the explanation of how to get there. Is our frustration with not-knowing here (in the novel, in the podcast, in your asking “what animated Shelley’s book?”) a uniquely human experience–that the results of an experiment, gotten and used but not explained or fully understood, are unable to be appreciated? Does ‘playing god’ then require both omnipotence AND omniscience of our product/result/solution/machine/creation/etc.etc.?

]]>