replying to Tobin was re: BHA: Re: A DPF thematic: the Stratification of Personality

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hi Tobin nice to be back in a dialog again.  Still think though of that
> beer you owe me, or is it my shout?


Now I grant that my first formulation of this was too non-social and overly
individualistic.  It helps I think if we talk of the concrete
universal.  My stress is on the first level here that of the common core
humanity.  What did Orwell "have" as his genetic& metaphysical
endowment?  The second level of time of course is crucial here and Williams
is correct to point out that in Orwell's case Spain made the
difference.  The example of Stalinism at work turned him in the end into a
snitch for British Intelligence.

This would be Bhaskar's third level of mediations.  And you correctly put a
lot of stress on this.

Let us move away from Orwell for the moment and take the example of Michael
Moore in his famous doco Roger and Me. In this he assumes the persona of
the clown who keeps chasing Roger (CEO General Motors) around the USA
looking for an interview. Ostensibly he wants to ask him about the layoffs
in Flint.

As you probably know the film hilariously shows Moore getting the bum's
rush from a host of venues.  He looks to be a sorry sob.  But of course
this is a persona that he has assumed. A character he has created and if
you like entered. Critics have commented that in life outside film, Moore
is no fool or clown.  He has a mind like a steel trap and is very much in
charge.  So this raises the question in many minds of "Will the real
Michael Moore stand up?'

I try to solve this problem with the notion of stratification of the
personality.  The creation that we see in Roger and Me is 'authentic'.  It
is part of Moore. But for me it emerges from deeper layers within
Moore.  Of course there are interactions with other people that are crucial.

Now the question of acting emerges here, and I admit that this is a tricky
one.  But I would like to bracket this off for the time being and stress
that Moore is the actor/writer/creator and that this is different from an
actor who walks in and performs the lines. (Not at all sure about this!)

As for my remark that what is crucial is the relationship between the
levels in the personality, I meant by this that the relationship is not
linear but rather dialectical.  The upper layers if you like are generated
by deeper layers but they also react with and influence the deeper
levels.  The trick in life seems to me to achieve a harmony between the
levels and that is really what FEW is about. And that is yet one more
reason for not dismissing the book out of hand.


regards

Gary



    --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---