Advertisement
 
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsUniverse

Book review: 'Absence of Mind' by Marilynne Robinson

Robinson makes a strong, unapologetic case, not for mystery but for self-respect.

June 13, 2010|By Susan Salter Reynolds, Special to the Los Angeles Times

Absence of Mind

The Dispelling of Inwardness From the Modern Myth of the Self

Marilynne Robinson

Yale: 144 pp., $24

A few years ago, I noticed that an alarming number of acquaintances were reading the work of spiritual speaker and author Eckhart Tolle. The conclusion they seemed to be drawing was that an individual had a right to his or her experience. That individual also had a right not to be interrupted or derailed into someone else's experience, a conclusion that seemed far too convenient, too self-serving to be worthy of a thinker of Tolle's stature. Marketing might have explained the Tolle trend, but I also chalked up the perversion of his hard work to the culture of greedy individualism.

Ideas and explanations without context, charismatic thinkers and our willingness to discard old beliefs to embrace revelations have, over the last 160 years or so, trapped human inquiry into the self and our species in a looking-glass world that's didactic and separates common sense from science and the self from the world.

We look in the mirror, Marilynne Robinson writes in "Absence of Mind," and we see an untrustworthy, self-interested creature with an untrustworthy mind. No wonder a philosopher such as Tolle, for instance, who offers the idea that we aren't so bad after all, that we have a right to believe in the value of experience and the mystery of the universe, might be clung to like a floe that a polar bear has finally found to rest upon.

Winner of a Pulitzer Prize for her novel "Gilead," Robinson in this new nonfiction work questions the authority of science, not its methods, which she sees as evidence for the capacity and beauty of the human mind. She is annoyed by the arrogance of modernist thought, which has entrapped us for so many generations: "After Darwin, after Nietzsche, after Freud, after structuralism and post-structuralism, after Crick and Watson and the death of God, some assumptions were to be regarded as fixed and inevitable and others as exposed for all time and for all purposes as naïve and untenable."

Robinson, however, affirms her own "very high estimate of human nature": "We have had a place in the universe since it occurred to the first of our species to ask what our place might be."

But positivism and modernist thought have had the opposite effect: They encourage the "exclusion of felt life": We are discouraged from making explanations about our place in the universe. Subjectivity is not allowed; instead, there is what Robinson calls an "absence of mind." This is, she writes, one of the reasons why modernist thought and parascientific literature so often include polemics against religion. "The physical universe, as it is known to us now, is not accessible to the strategies of comprehension that once seemed so exhaustively useful to us." Along with a "sterilized and occluded mind," she writes, comes a "missionary zeal, an impatient need to enlist believers."

Of course, here one could argue that as the world has divided between science and religion, a missionary zeal exists on both sides of the divide. Robinson's arguments, so much more interesting, capacious and informed than most, do at times become shrill and sarcastic, the voice of a powerful mind that was, for much of its existence, prevented from criticizing prevailing ideologies. Religion has been around a long time, she writes somewhat petulantly. Science is relatively new.

Robinson explores that old irritant in the flesh of positivists — altruism. She argues that the inability of most parascientists to adequately explain why humans share information and help each other exemplifies not only the blindness of modernists but also their assertion that humans are basically selfish and unreliable. The idea, according to E.O. Wilson, that the " brain is a machine assembled not to understand itself, but to survive," she writes, means that the mind, "unaided by factual knowledge from science sees the world only in little pieces. It throws a spotlight on those portions of the world it must know in order to live to the next day, and surrenders the rest to darkness." This suggests, to Robinson, that Wilson believes in science "as a kind of magic, as if it existed apart from history and culture, rather than being, in objective truth and inevitably, their product." The mind is little more than a "passive conduit"— "our minds are not our own."

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|