I realize that everyone has written the Hayakawa essay regarding the Life of Pi excerpt, but I thought I'd blog about some additional thoughts I had about it after finishing the essay. I'm sure that someone thought of something after completing his/her essay..?
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't actually read Life of Pi. I am, however, aware of how Hayakawa emphasized regarding the importance of context. "Any word in a sentence - any sentence in a paragraph, any paragraph in a larger unit - whose meaning is revealed by its context is part of the context of the rest of the test...All words within a given context interact upon one another." (Hayakawa 41) In this particular case, the knowledge of the context provides me with a different perspective on the passage.
In short, Pi tells the two investigators about being stranded at sea with various animals, including a hyena which eats all the animals except for a Bengal tiger. Of course, the investigators declare such a story to be pure fantasy (This is the dialogue found in the writing prompt) and Pi offers them the same story but with humans replacing the animals. Pi never specifically says which story is true, but the reader gets the impression that the first version of events was a sort of coping mechanism for the horrific experience (The second version) he has gone through.
In my essay I wrote that his assertion that "[t]he world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it" (Martel 360) was a linguistic mistake. I concluded that he was misunderstanding a basic principle that Hayakawa continually stresses - that "[t]he symbol is not the thing symbolized," (Hayakawa 19). Pi, however, later tells the investigators “I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently." (Martel 302) This makes it clear that the dispute between Pi and the investigators is not one that clearly stems from there being "...something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (Hayakawa 12) In making such an assertion, Pi reminds both the investigators and the reader that imagination and invention is a distinct human capacity and serves as a mechanism for self-preservation.
In the end, the investigators admit that the first "fantasy" version is the better one and include it in their report. But hadn't they set out to find the "straight facts"? If "[l]anguage...makes progress possible." (Hayakawa 7), then Pi's (assumed) misrepresentation of the occurrences of the extensional world was helpful instead of detrimental. And yet, supposedly, "[t]he desire for self-preservation that compelled people to evolve means for the exchange of information also compels them to regard the giving of false information as profoundly reprehensible." (Hayakawa 23)
Invention and imagination are, in some respects, processes that yield false information. Yet, it is clear that these uniquely human capabilities are driving forces behind both innovation and self-preservation.
I think that this block of text is enough for tonight. I apologize in advance for not actually coming to a conclusion and posting it here myself. It seems that as I wrote and researched at the same time, it occurred to me that presenting the situation alone would be more interesting than providing a supplementary conclusion. Any thoughts?
Tiffany Yuan
8 comments:
In my essay, I wrote about the importance of contexts and the meaning of the "whole story"/"truth" for different people. I haven't read Life of Pi, so I assumed that the conversation was more about semantics and less about believing in the more abnormal occurrences of life. What is truth and does truth even exist?
Regarding false intensional maps: "No harm will be done unless someone tries to plan a trip by such a map" (Hayakawa 21). This suggests that, while they are classified as false intensional maps, there is no harm in limited, but otherwise true, intensional maps unless you venture out of the marked territory with only said map in hand.
By analyzing different records (Language "makes progress possible" via records/indirect experiences. (Hayakawa 7)) from various contexts, we can piece together a complete intensional map that is almost identical to the corresponding extensional world. You could use the (really lame) analogy of each person having a puzzle piece. Some pieces are extraneous and set aside while the remaining pieces join together to form the entire puzzle. Just because you only have one piece of the puzzle, however, (like I assumed Pi and the investigators did) does not make you wrong. It just limits the scope and depth of your story. Ultimately, it is still a "true story."
On a side note, I would like to know how you (or anyone else) related symbols to the essay prompt as I can't seem to understand it by myself.
Those were some interesting thoughts.
In my essay, I stressed that there are no "straight facts" and that there is no true world, only the world you choose to believe in.
By necessity, human beings must abstract any extensional experiences they undergo in order to remember them. It is impossible to fully capture any extensional experience down to the last detail and fact within the human mind. Hence, our minds selectively choose some details to include, others to exclude, and may even fabricate others. Using Grace's puzzle analogy, in our attempts to remember the whole puzzle picture, we may remove some pieces, rearrange others, and add new ones.
Our memories are only loose intensional sketches of what really happened in the extensional world. This imperfection of human comprehension causes us to unconsciously alter our memories, and so even when we attempt to retell the "straight facts", we in fact invent or neglect some details and create a story. For example, Hillary Clinton was criticized for her exaggerations of her visit to Bosnia in 1996, in which she described dodging sniper fire in her run to the base. In reality, she was peacefully greeted by a party of US and Bosnian officials. However, Clinton might not have consciously altered her memory: In remembering the extensional event of her visit to Bosnia, her mind was forced to abstract it. Colored by her existing intensional perceptions and emotions at the time, in abstraction she probably both omitted details unconsciously and invented others, such as the sniper fire. As Pi stated, it is impossible to tell the straight facts because any retelling of an extensional event becomes a story after going through the process of abstraction.
Because everyone's intensional maps are different, the same event observed by the same people may be remembered in very different ways, depending upon which details were added or removed. That's why the glass can be seen as half empty and half full at the same time, as different people have different intesional minds that influence their process of abstraction.
Thus, there is no true world that everyone agrees upon, because we all view the world through varying perspectives of our intensional mind. There is only the world that we choose to believe in, one created by adding some details and taking away others. Depending upon which details we change, we have a different worldview. Pi is absolutely correct when he states that "the world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it..."
Pi eventually creates another story to satisfy the investigators, one much bleaker and darker. But Pi emphasizes that there is no true world or true facts when he asks the Japanese investigators to choose which tale to believe in. He asks them, "Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?"(Martel 317) Both are correct, as both were abstracted from Pi's extensional experience in his lifeboat. But essentially, Pi is asking the investigators, and the reader, "Which world do you believe in? One with hope and good or one of despair and evil?"
Like Tiffany, I apologize for the wall of text. Any efforts to bring light to my ramblings are greatly appreciated.
(Eric Wei)
The world is certainly not a static body. Similarly to Bessie the cow, it is everchanging and evolving continuously, as is the property of a dynamic process. "The 'object' of our experience, then, is not the 'thing in itself,' but an interaction between our nervous systems (with all their imperfections) and something outside them" (Hayakawa 84). Even if intensive research were to be done, and everything were to be analyzed, the outcome is still as Hayakawa states: "...even if we could at any precise moment say what she was, at the next moment she would have changed enough so that our description would no longer be accurate" (Hawakawa 83). Due to our inability to accurately classify things, Bessie becomes a "cow" and life becomes "life". Yet we each have our own perceptions of what a cow SHOULD be and how a life SHOULD be lived. This was, in fact, the underlying factor in Pi's responses to the Japanese inspectors. I am highly unfamiliar with the novel, yet I was able to draw from both the excerpt and the comments of my fellow students that Pi was expected to have a certain kind of response regarding the evidence needed.
Pi's relation of facts to story stunned the Japanese investigators. This is only because they had a pre-planned idea of the version of the story that they were willing to hear and accept as true. But in a way, any history which we learn is a story. We repeat the positives of the past and try and avoid the negatives.
In my essay, I touched up on the emphasis made by Hayakawa concerning intensional/extensional mind maps and abstraction. I felt that the investigators were somewhat asking their questions uselessly and that Pi's responses were leading to a circular argument. This reminded me of the abstraction ladder where nothing is truly said when the speaker resides at the top levels. A piece of information is credible if, and only if, it is referrable to lower levels. I felt that the investigators were too shameful to admit that they were already expecting a set story initially, thus, they were unable to state this directly. Pi advantageously used this to save himself from brutal interrogation, or so it seemed.
The reason I introduced intensionl and extensional experiences in my essay was to fortify the fact that Pi's outlook on language differed from that of the inspectors. To the former, information translates into stories. To the latter, information translates into factual evidence. (If you need clarification on this, let me know; I'd be glad to explain even further). Thus, both, due to their varying vocational training or experiences had differing intensional maps.
I feel that I may have twisted my information slightly..and thus, I am now in need of some clarification it seems. Any thoughts?
P.S. Grace, what symbols are you talking about, exactly? I am curious as well.
(Samantha Maliha)
One of the things that struck me as interesting in the Pi quote was when the Japanese investigators argued that to them, a story meant that there was some imagination. Pi then states that any spoken or written word has some imagination, which Hayakawa would agree with. Whenever you say something, it has its own intensional meaning in your own thoughts. On top of that, two minds interpret the same situation in different ways.
I percieved what Eric pointed out about Hilary Clinton in a different way. I don't think her mind just interpreted the situation in an exaggerated way, but rather, her mind intentionally exaggerated the situation to make her seem heroic. Its like when you tell a lie so many times that you start to believe it is the truth. It seems to me that it is very unlikely that Hilary thought she was running through the line of fire. Her mind didn't invision walking through a line of fire, it made up the incident so that it made her look good!
Likewise saying that both of Pi's stories are true cannot be possible. One of them Pi's mind exaggerated or conjured up for a reason, and the other may be what it did indeed percieve. Both might even be lies. The first may have been exaggerated, and the second may have been too bland, just so the investigators would get off his back. Though truth is defined by the person telling the story, frequently, a story is told knowingly exaggerated, and may not be a reflection of what their mind actually thinks.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
In my essay, I wrote about how every word has an affective connotation attached, thus making it impossible to satisfy people who want the 'straight facts' because people will always attach their own feelings to what they are saying by the words they choose to use. I used the example of the sentence 'Joe put the book down.' If the word 'put' is replaced with 'slammed' does it not give the sentence a completely new feeling?
I also pointed out, like Sam, the concept of the ladder of abstraction. When words like the word 'story' are so high on the abstraction ladder, it is difficult to get people to understand what you are exactly trying to say without going down further, causing even more confusion in most cases, as shown with Pi and the investigators.
I also found it interesting how Pi was able to end with his final statement how 'life is a story.'
Just a random thought...
The main point that I chose to discuss in my essay dealt with the misunderstainding between Pi and the investigators. It reminded me of the Semantic Parable, when the advertising executive and the social worker at the end of the story argued about the meaning of insurance and welfare. I have no backround in the "Life of Pi," but, with the excerpt given, it seemed that the misunderstanding occurred because Pi and the investigators were speaking different languages, in a sense. Of course, they grew up and learned in different semantic environments, so they would naturally understand certain things differently, and, due to this, their understandings of the word "story" were different. From this excerpt I got the feeling that Pi understood "story" in the same way that the investigators understood the phrase "straight facts", in a way, because Pi telling the story would be the way he perceived his experience, which, basically, is what the investigators wanted to know. The investigators didn't want "perceived", though, they wanted exact... but Pi believes that everyone sees the world differently. This relates back to Hayakawa in the sense that we all have different intensional worlds. The investigators didn't seem to understand that the way Pi did, they seemed to think that everyone would percieve a situation the same way, therefore the way they had pre-conceived Pi's experience was, was how he needed to tell it.
I don't know if any of this makes sense... feel free to clarify or ask questions. I'd appreciate it. Thanks for posting your thoughts, too-- they're helpful.
(Emily Thompson)
Having read the comments posted here, I see that many of us incorporated similar ideas in our essay response to the Life of Pi prompt. I, too, based my response around Hayakawa's principles of intensional versus extensional worlds and the idea that the world and its many "stories" are essentially what you individually make of them, or as Eric said, "the world you choose to believe in." (This seems like an excellent way of describing it.) On the contrary, I failed to draw connections to Hayakawa's discussion of the ladder of abstraction, but, having read the comments people have been leaving, I can easily comprehend the interpretation of the existence of such connections.
I, too, respectfully ask Grace for a clarification on what is meant by "symbols" in the "side note" made at the bottom of the first comment. Is the question you (Grace) wish to ask something similar to, "How did you connect Hayakawa's principles about symbols to the essay prompt?" Or perhaps a different question? I welcome a little clarification. Thanks :]
(Janet Lee)
Post a Comment