assumptions and arguments about "facts" as universal categories

[Alexander King]

Dear Larry,

My initial email contained no argument, so I find it odd that you 
bring up the need for arguments and evidence. My qualification of 
"fallacy of 'facts' as autonomous" as being American and/or possibly 
Anglophone is merely based on the assumption that my/our cultural 
categories are probably not universal unless there is strong evidence 
to suggest otherwise, whereas you seem eager to assume that it is 
universal unless there is evidence to the contrary. One thing I take 
from Whorf is that it is not a good idea to assume that cognitive 
categories which seem as "matter of fact" to SAE speakers are matter 
of fact to speakers of other "exotic" languages. Maybe they are, 
maybe not. Indeed, one might want to argue (I am only speculating 
here) that the grammatical category of evidentiality indicates a 
special problematization of knowledge and facts and points to an 
underlying (common sense) assumption that all knowledge and facts 
need to be contextualized and are partial, persepctival and 
incomplete. That is certainly not common sense in mainstream America.

With respect to Memento itself, I think you too quickly dismiss 
questions and problems raised in the film. The ontological status of 
memory is a key question. Does the protaganist (Leonard) "have" any 
memories after the accident? That is a question that Nolan poses 
without an easy answer. While the protagonist knows that he has 
tatooed himself, is there realy a coherent "self" at work in these 
different periods? Without the continuity of context and memories of 
contexts, is the Leonard really the same person in the first scene 
(the conclusion of the story) as he is in the last scene? Would he 
have such a strong motivation to murder if he didn't regard the 
tatoos on his body as symbols of established facts which are in some 
sense independent of him? The continuity of self that Leonard himself 
recognizes is his own handwriting. The reification is not an artefact 
of his condition, but a graphic symbolization of the autonomous 
agency that he and his culture generally (and mine, too) 
unconsciously attribute to Facts and Truth. The power of Truth and 
the dangers of misunderstanding/misusing/toying with Truth is a theme 
that Nolan revists in his subsequent film Insomnia, and I have heard 
Chris Nolan say as much in an interview.

-Alex

At 11:51 am -0600 13/5/06, Larry Gorbet wrote:
>>For feature films, I think Memento provides a fascinating 
>>presentation on the American (Anglophone?) fallacy of "facts" as 
>>autonomous, independent "things" which one could establish and the 
>>engrave in stone (or tatoo on one's body). I've never tried using 
>>it in class, however. Could be risky. The only way this would work 
>>would be to view the entire film.
>
>Alex -
>
>I quite agree that Memento, among other things, is a nice allegory 
>of reified memories, but I wonder what if any evidence supports the 
>notion that this conception is at all peculiar to particular 
>cultural traditions. In particular, how is your "American 
>(Anglophone?) fallacy of 'facts' as autonomous, independent 
>'things'" anything more than a particular confluence of evidential 
>and epistemic categorizations that are widespread, if not universal? 
>If this "fallacy" were indeed so particular, what could we make of 
>such often-grammaticized categorizations as "independently 
>verifiable", "realis" etc.? I suppose one might argue that the 
>account in the linguistic and anthropological literature of these 
>grammatical categories is flawed by the aforementioned fallacy, but 
>such an argument, to be an argument, needs some evidence and careful 
>analysis.
>
>Note also, with respect to Memento itself, that those tattos etc. 
>are really nothing more than mnemonic stand-ins for the 
>protagonist's memories and speculations. There is nothing I am aware 
>of in the film that suggests that he regards them as having any more 
>status "factually" than any personal memory (of either events or 
>speculations) he would "ordinarily" have. That is, they are still 
>"his", not something independent. He doesn't appear to believe that 
>some stranger has mysteriously tatooed him.  The reification is just 
>an artifact of the situation that his mental condition has forced 
>him to put these notes in an extra-somatic (or at least 
>"extra-cortical") form and that when he reads them later, they do 
>not connect to internal memories.
>
>- Larry
>
>
>--
>Larry Gorbet                         lgorbet at unm.edu
>Anthropology & Linguistics Depts.    (505) 883-7378
>University of New Mexico           
>Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.


-- 
University of Aberdeen  http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology
            Koryaks Net  http://www.koryaks.net

tel:+44(1224)27 2732
fax:+44(1224)27 2552