TY - CONF

T1 - The Notion of the Impossible in Cognitive Perspective

AU - Головачева, Ирина Владимировна

N1 - Conference code: VIII

PY - 2018/10/28

Y1 - 2018/10/28

N2 - THE NOTION OF THE IMPOSSIBLE IN COGNITIVEPERSPECTIVE: TEXT INTERPRETATIONGolovacheva I.V.Saint-Petersburg State University(St. Petersburg, Russia, igolovacheva@gmail.com)Theorizing the notion of the impossible or unreal appears to be one of themost challenging in a variety of disciplines. The question of how the mindcognizes and discriminates the real (or the possible), on the one hand, and theimpossible (or illusory), on the other, has been asked and answered by neuroscientists, psychiatrists and the artists. Philosophers and semioticians have also approached the issues. The ‘impossible’ objects are a focal point in the studies of imaginative texts, especially in the works on speculative fi ction (the fantastic) (Irwin 1976, Lachmann 2002, Головачева 2014), which makes the latter a very handy research material. It is noteworthy that no one can imagine a completely unreal (impossible) world having no connections with our recognizable world. Speculative texts distort only some elements of reality in different proportions for various thematic purposes. There are critics (Scholes 1987) claiming that the fantastic depicts an internally coherent impossible world in which a given plot is possible. Among numerous definitions, one is especially paradoxical:Fantasy is the impossible made probable and Science Fiction is theimprobable made possible. It is quite easy to discard this playful formula, sincethe notion of the impossible is so spectacularly overthrown by modern science,especially by quantum mechanics and cosmology. The problem becomes evenmore complicated when the impossible is found in texts outside the realm ofthe fantastic and surrealism. Is there any radical difference between the cognitionof the Doppelganger episodes in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazovand “Double”? How does the reader cognize these ontologically different alteregos – hallucination and the impossible duplicate witnessed by other characters?This ontological variety of statuses is disorienting. Yet, such ‘cognitivechallenge’ appears to be intended in a few literary masterpieces is.Further difficulty arises from the fact that, as it has been argued in a varietyof semiotic and narratological works (Eco 1994, Iser (1993[1991]), anythingdepicted in fiction is ‘fi ctive.’ If we accept this established argument concerningthe overall fictivity (or fi ctiveness) of literature, we can defi ne the fantasticas ‘the superfictive,’ exposing and emphasizing its basic fictitious nature. Apartfrom representing the break in the acknowledged order of life, speculative textsdepict phantoms and phantasma, the subversive activity of the human mind;they uncover the understories of the troubled or alienated self, the strange lacunae.Such fiction, being the result of both fantasizing and discursive strategies,allows the writers to place the strange and the alien into the heart of the trivialin order to interrogate the stability and integrity of the mind. As has been notedby psychologists and psychoanalysts, literature provides insights into the waythe mind functions. Fiction preceded psychology as a fi eld of knowledge, inmany instances providing precious insights into the nature of mind.The distortions and projections, especially those found in the realm of thefantastic, reveal their great cognitive potential. Any kind of ‘impossible’ or‘unreal’ imagery encourages the reader to refl ect on an unknown reality that isopen only to presentiment so far. The strange initiates the process of identifyingand explaining the origin and the intrinsic logic of an alternative worldor a transformed reality. How do we recognize the kinds of ‘the impossible’?A very controversial understanding of this notion invites comparing anythingwith everything – robots with goblins. However, monsters or specters as suchdo not predetermine the Supernatural Horror alone. Monsters in Science Fictionare represented to be a part of the natural order. Ghosts play different rolesin the tales of supernatural intrusion and in texts where they are depicted asregular inhabitants of the magical world. Given the latter setting, they neithersurprise nor frighten the characters (and the readers) encountering these impossiblephenomena which are, instead, taken for granted.Speculative fi ction does not necessarily discard rationality: Science Fictionand Utopia place emphasis on logic and positive cognizability. In suchtexts the cognition of the yet impossible and the inexplicable may even be followed by the state of ‘zero amazement’ that results from the primarily logicalassessment of how the counterfactual world is constructed. It may seem thatScience Fiction is comparatively easy to define cognitively. The best accepteddefinition of Sci.Fi. is: fiction of cognitive estrangement and novum. Yet, somecritics reconsider and revise the notion of “cognition” in this formula, insistingthat we should speak of “cognition effect” rather than of cognition per se(Freedman 2000: 18). Yet, I argue, that the concept of a “cognition effect”takes us into the realm of the boundless and indiscriminate “impossible” wherethere is no difference between the reader’s perception of fairies and cyborgs.What happens when magic is represented as a ‘science’? Is the estrangementcognitive there?Overtly non-cognitive texts – Fantasy and the Supernatural Horror – arenot aimed at explaining the irrationality. The impossible there is almost neverapproached rationalistically. In the classical ‘weird’ texts, the reader neverceases being puzzled. It is the persisting strangeness that accumulates the effectof horror or terror. Such oddity brings about astonishment that cannot berelieved by rationalistic cognition leading to catharsis and then, possibly, to thestate of ‘zero amazement,’ i.e. to the acceptance of the new reality.One may ask whether the above differences exist only in the minds of theoreticians. I will provide numerous examples of classical and modern speculative texts featuring major types of ‘the impossible’ that will allow me toillustrate the alternative logics of their reading. Such analysis adds to our understanding of cognitive categorization, of how the mind reacts to and processes literary phenomena which, in turn, train cognitive flexibility and self-reflexivity (Zunshine 2006, Landy 2015).

AB - THE NOTION OF THE IMPOSSIBLE IN COGNITIVEPERSPECTIVE: TEXT INTERPRETATIONGolovacheva I.V.Saint-Petersburg State University(St. Petersburg, Russia, igolovacheva@gmail.com)Theorizing the notion of the impossible or unreal appears to be one of themost challenging in a variety of disciplines. The question of how the mindcognizes and discriminates the real (or the possible), on the one hand, and theimpossible (or illusory), on the other, has been asked and answered by neuroscientists, psychiatrists and the artists. Philosophers and semioticians have also approached the issues. The ‘impossible’ objects are a focal point in the studies of imaginative texts, especially in the works on speculative fi ction (the fantastic) (Irwin 1976, Lachmann 2002, Головачева 2014), which makes the latter a very handy research material. It is noteworthy that no one can imagine a completely unreal (impossible) world having no connections with our recognizable world. Speculative texts distort only some elements of reality in different proportions for various thematic purposes. There are critics (Scholes 1987) claiming that the fantastic depicts an internally coherent impossible world in which a given plot is possible. Among numerous definitions, one is especially paradoxical:Fantasy is the impossible made probable and Science Fiction is theimprobable made possible. It is quite easy to discard this playful formula, sincethe notion of the impossible is so spectacularly overthrown by modern science,especially by quantum mechanics and cosmology. The problem becomes evenmore complicated when the impossible is found in texts outside the realm ofthe fantastic and surrealism. Is there any radical difference between the cognitionof the Doppelganger episodes in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazovand “Double”? How does the reader cognize these ontologically different alteregos – hallucination and the impossible duplicate witnessed by other characters?This ontological variety of statuses is disorienting. Yet, such ‘cognitivechallenge’ appears to be intended in a few literary masterpieces is.Further difficulty arises from the fact that, as it has been argued in a varietyof semiotic and narratological works (Eco 1994, Iser (1993[1991]), anythingdepicted in fiction is ‘fi ctive.’ If we accept this established argument concerningthe overall fictivity (or fi ctiveness) of literature, we can defi ne the fantasticas ‘the superfictive,’ exposing and emphasizing its basic fictitious nature. Apartfrom representing the break in the acknowledged order of life, speculative textsdepict phantoms and phantasma, the subversive activity of the human mind;they uncover the understories of the troubled or alienated self, the strange lacunae.Such fiction, being the result of both fantasizing and discursive strategies,allows the writers to place the strange and the alien into the heart of the trivialin order to interrogate the stability and integrity of the mind. As has been notedby psychologists and psychoanalysts, literature provides insights into the waythe mind functions. Fiction preceded psychology as a fi eld of knowledge, inmany instances providing precious insights into the nature of mind.The distortions and projections, especially those found in the realm of thefantastic, reveal their great cognitive potential. Any kind of ‘impossible’ or‘unreal’ imagery encourages the reader to refl ect on an unknown reality that isopen only to presentiment so far. The strange initiates the process of identifyingand explaining the origin and the intrinsic logic of an alternative worldor a transformed reality. How do we recognize the kinds of ‘the impossible’?A very controversial understanding of this notion invites comparing anythingwith everything – robots with goblins. However, monsters or specters as suchdo not predetermine the Supernatural Horror alone. Monsters in Science Fictionare represented to be a part of the natural order. Ghosts play different rolesin the tales of supernatural intrusion and in texts where they are depicted asregular inhabitants of the magical world. Given the latter setting, they neithersurprise nor frighten the characters (and the readers) encountering these impossiblephenomena which are, instead, taken for granted.Speculative fi ction does not necessarily discard rationality: Science Fictionand Utopia place emphasis on logic and positive cognizability. In suchtexts the cognition of the yet impossible and the inexplicable may even be followed by the state of ‘zero amazement’ that results from the primarily logicalassessment of how the counterfactual world is constructed. It may seem thatScience Fiction is comparatively easy to define cognitively. The best accepteddefinition of Sci.Fi. is: fiction of cognitive estrangement and novum. Yet, somecritics reconsider and revise the notion of “cognition” in this formula, insistingthat we should speak of “cognition effect” rather than of cognition per se(Freedman 2000: 18). Yet, I argue, that the concept of a “cognition effect”takes us into the realm of the boundless and indiscriminate “impossible” wherethere is no difference between the reader’s perception of fairies and cyborgs.What happens when magic is represented as a ‘science’? Is the estrangementcognitive there?Overtly non-cognitive texts – Fantasy and the Supernatural Horror – arenot aimed at explaining the irrationality. The impossible there is almost neverapproached rationalistically. In the classical ‘weird’ texts, the reader neverceases being puzzled. It is the persisting strangeness that accumulates the effectof horror or terror. Such oddity brings about astonishment that cannot berelieved by rationalistic cognition leading to catharsis and then, possibly, to thestate of ‘zero amazement,’ i.e. to the acceptance of the new reality.One may ask whether the above differences exist only in the minds of theoreticians. I will provide numerous examples of classical and modern speculative texts featuring major types of ‘the impossible’ that will allow me toillustrate the alternative logics of their reading. Such analysis adds to our understanding of cognitive categorization, of how the mind reacts to and processes literary phenomena which, in turn, train cognitive flexibility and self-reflexivity (Zunshine 2006, Landy 2015).

KW - cognition

KW - the fantastic

KW - reception

KW - the impossible

M3 - Abstract

SP - 283

EP - 285

Y2 - 18 October 2018 through 21 October 2018

ER -