this is my attempt at the requested intellectual autobiography:
Some writers that I love the
most would be Dostoyevsky (Crime and
Punishment especially) and Nietzsche for their psychological depth, and
Sherwood Anderson for the compassionate portrayel of his characters in
Winesburg, Ohio. I also like Emily Dickenson alot but perhaps more
because I empathize with her agoraphobia than because of her actual poetry.
And if you consider Hitchcock a writer, than I love him too.
Date: 1/27/99 7:18:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: lovedick@cats.UCSC.EDU (Scott Gregory Seguin)
To: Earl Jackson, Jr.
think I decided to major in literature because I have always had a
predisposition to language studies than any kind of science. I have also
taken courses in linguistics and was once planning to major in that
also. At the beginning of my education at Santa Cruz I was planning to
major in philosophy, but was not impressed with it. Much of the
philosophy classes seemed archaic and detached from real life, or at
least modern life. I decided that modern philosophy was more alive in
literature studies than in the study of philosophy itself. But I have
always been interested in knowing more about ancient philosophy,
especially Plato, because the only way I know about him is second hand
commentary such as Nietzsche („Christianity is Platonism for the people.“)
the texts we’ve read I think I am most interested in Plato’s Cratylus
because it is centrally concerned with the meaning of language. I wish I
could say more but I honestly can’t remember what the argument was.
the questions raised in class I’m not sure which one interests me
most. But what you (Earl) said about Ion peaked my curiosity. I don’t
know if it was a question however. About how Socrates was delineating a
specific territory for philosophical understanding separate from any kind
of understanding on the part of the poet or rhapsodists. And also I was
interested in how that could be parallel to the position Freud allocated
to psychosis–the impossibility of their delusions being intelligible to
themselves even though they are certainly not meaningless. What I want
to know is what kind of thinking or articulation is here being postulated
as being the only kind of understanding possible? Because I don’t
believe that creative writers or that psychotics even are incapabable of
understanding what they say. I believe rather that they are unpracticed
at the type of articulation expected of a Freud or a Socrates
.To Lauren Silver’s Intellectual Autobiography
Earl Jackson, Jr.