[ Previous ]   [ Next ]

Unwittingly

Fate

On October 8th I flew from New York to Frankfurt.
On the plane I read Coetzee’s review on Roth’s novel “Nemesis”.
Probably I had read too fast – yesterday a friend alerted me to the fact that Coetzee makes some insightful remarks about our tragic imagination in this review: ‘Since he wittingly did no wrong, Oedipus is not a criminal. Nevertheless, his actions—parricide, incest—pollute him and pollute whatever he touches. He must leave the city. “No man but I can bear my evil doom,” he says (David Grene’s translation). Bucky has likewise committed no crime. Yet even more literally than Oedipus, he is polluted. He too accepts his guilt and, in his own manner, takes the lonely road of exile.
At the core of the Oedipus fable, and of the archaic Greek worldview enshrined in it, lies a question foreign to the modern, post-tragic imagination. How does the logic of justice work when vast universal forces intersect the trajectories of individual human lives? In particular, what is to be learned from the fate of a man who unwittingly carried out the prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother, a man who did not see until he was blind? To respond that for one man to unwittingly (“by accident”) kill his own father and then unwittingly (“by chance”) marry his own mother is so statistically rare a sequence of events—even rarer than bearing the plague while seeming healthy—that it can hold no general lesson, or, to put it another way, that the laws of the universe are probabilistic in nature, not to be disconfirmed by a single aberrant individual case—to respond in this way would to Sophocles seem like evading the question. Such a man lived: his name was Oedipus. He experienced such a fate. How should his fate be understood?’

This is an important question. What’s the meaning of tragedy in these days and time? While there is little feeling for a force that as Coetzee puts it “redistributes fortune downward toward the middle or middling, and is in that sense mean, mean-minded: unkind, ungenerous, unrelenting.”

I, for one, believe that I’m very conscious about the sin of hubris. But this consciousness also tells me that it’s very well possible that I’m blind to the true extent of my own sins.


10 comments Last_comment
I am a 'wentelteefje' when it comes to hubris.
Wentelteefjes
I had no idea what that is, so I googled it. Here is a recipe.
http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/wentelteefjes/Detail.aspx

I'm sure there are some academics out there looking to find a hook for a critical paper on Arnon Grunberg, (a Ph.D., an academic career) and I think this blog entry carries a strong hint on what angle to take in that quest. I expect there will be some turgid stuff in academia eventually dealing with motherhood, self knowledge, hubris and Arnon Grunberg. I'm pleased I won't have to read it.

One of the requirements for a protagonist in Greek tragedy is nobility. In the present time, where tragedy is the stuff of newstands, I feel that fame, unfortunately, is the sole requirement.
Personally i like humus, preferably late at night at the Tel Aviv beach area.
Hubris
The term today means the sin of pride, arrogance, being out of touch with reality.

To the Greeks, hubris was an everyday legal term, meaning shaming and humiliating a victim for pleasure. Sexually.

Jails are rife with hubris, I'm told.
'Blind to the true extent of my own sins' reminds me of the wonderful motto of 'Atmosferic Disturbances' by Rivka Galchen: '...we cannot forcast the weather for tomorrow, because we don't know exactly what the weather is like today.' (by heart, I don't have it here). We take desicions (commit sins) based on presumptions that turn out to be false: we live in 'forged'world - we're all blind. The question is not: 'Do you feel lucky (punk!) ?' But: 'Do you feel guilty?'
Steve Meig
Hubris: a touch of schizofrenia.
die antwoord is zef
: )
you may already know this
but you didn't tell me
: (
Today, most of us do not accept tragedies: we are looking for causes, victims and culprits.
The beauty and wisdom of the tragedy lays in the impossibility of any decisive answer to our questions
Bernard
And what about "immanente gerechtigheid".
@Mieke
Who is talking, who is judging? That is the only way I perceive the ‘immanence’.