15th September 2006 – 08:46
If we want to give a second name to Borges, the best word could be “Borges the Illusionist” as Allan mentions in the first paragraph of his analysis of the story “The Garden of Forking Paths”. Borges tries to write in a way that at the end we believe what we should not! He plays with words and/or with philosophical concepts to allure reader’s mind. Many of his works are potentially open to philosophical discussions and hard to understand in one time reading because the reader needs some background in philosophy or physical sciences to grasp the main idea behind the stories. One of his short essay, Borges and I, is a good example for this alluring fiction. I have translated this very short work long ago so I remember the trick he wants to play. He first tries to single out himself from the identity Borges. He –let’s simply call him B- is not Borges and does not be known as Borges. Since everything he does is attributed to Borges, he draws a picture depicting the trouble of being Borges. Basically, B is the real person who wants to do the crazy things but the identity of Borges –given by the society for his works- stop him doing so. At the end of the essay, he asks the question which turns the whole picture upon itself. He asks “Who wrote this essay?” Although he wants to sign as B, this name is unknown to others. So he signs as Borges and again he becomes victim of the same cyclic razor. I use the word “cyclic” in the sense of “ends where it begins”. The self-contradictory cyclic fiction is one of the many distinctive characteristics of his stories.
In the story of “The Garden of Forking Paths”, he mentions time as a central problem. According to the writer, time can be considered in a different way, not as an infinite line but as an infinite labyrinth which sometimes diverges and sometimes converges. As he is using the fiction to show the labyrinth property of the time, he talks about a novel in which time is not described in conventional way. It is described as “forking paths” which can be one of the best expressions of the time if you are looking at the future. I define time as “a rootless binary tree”. It is rootless because we always start at one point which is not beginning of time. I call it binary because for every decision we make, there is an alternative one. Basically, for the point we are standing now we have infinite number of futures which can be depicted as branches of a tree. Present is the root and future is the branches. The word tree itself eliminates the cycle problem. Time can not be cyclic because once you have cycle, you will have a contradiction. As Allan quotes from Eco, we can not go too far with inconsistency. At the end, paradoxes and contradictions will overcome the artificial world. Let’s imagine a situation: We are at the root of the tree which is actually a branch of another larger tree. Let’s use the number 1 for each decision to right branch and 0 for each decision to left branch. Then 100101 becomes a path with 6 edges. After taking 6th step, we have a unique past which can not be changed. “Everything happens to a man, precisely, precisely now” the narrator says in the story. It is because we have the marks of all the points we have touched and 100101 becomes what we are! The present is the only time being we live! Future is a fantasy of branches, past is a unique path going back to the root of everything which defines present. Borges mentions the labyrinth as “it encompasses past and the future”. This is basically another inconsistent idea which can not survive long once you built the details on it.
Imagine a novel which gives all the possible outcomes for the each event in the story. We will start with (0,1) and then we will go with (00,01,10,11) and then (000,001,010,011,100, 101, 110, 111) etc… At the end we will have 2^n different stories in one big mega-story. Then why don’t we call it a “story collection”. Since the story “001011011” will be very different from “1011000101”, is it possible to call it one novel? It is same as our lives. We all have one sequence of numbers although we had chance to have a different one. Different people have different sequences so this makes us different. Time serves us in a way we wish! If we call the each sequence as “personal times” then we can call the bigger set of all personal times as a unique “Time”. This seems to solve the all paradoxes. There is a unique time and all other personal subsets are small parts of it. It is wrong to use the same word for both. Similar paradox can be seen in following example:
Which of the following statements is incorrect?
a. 2+2=4
b. a+b=b+a
c. All men are mortal
d. Bangkok is capital city of Thailand
e. None of the above is incorrect!
Because the statements given in a, b, c and d are correct; then we likely to answer e. But we have to be careful! It asks the incorrect statement! The statement in the choice e is correct. Then we can not choose e either! This paradox is called Russell’s Paradox in Mathematics. It leads to many other developments in the theory of sets but here the solution is so simple. If we separate the concept of “statement” and “information”, then we can have a better understanding of the problem. The sentences which are given in choices a, b, c and d are called statement. Then, we measure their truth value. They are all true. Then consider choice e as not a statement but information only. So the choice e has a different category from other choices. Then, now we can answer e because it is not a statement. We answer e not because it is the direct answer of the question but it does not create any contradiction with the question and with the mathematical logic. At the end, a question like this confuses the examiner’s mind and creates mess around the problem since it is not well-defined. Whenever we talk about not-well-defined concepts in our works, we can have attention because they are confusing. Borges likes to do this a lot!
Now it is time to go to class… I will continue more on the story and Allan’s article… It is really rewarding! I really enjoyed writing the above paragraphs…
If we want to give a second name to Borges, the best word could be “Borges the Illusionist” as Allan mentions in the first paragraph of his analysis of the story “The Garden of Forking Paths”. Borges tries to write in a way that at the end we believe what we should not! He plays with words and/or with philosophical concepts to allure reader’s mind. Many of his works are potentially open to philosophical discussions and hard to understand in one time reading because the reader needs some background in philosophy or physical sciences to grasp the main idea behind the stories. One of his short essay, Borges and I, is a good example for this alluring fiction. I have translated this very short work long ago so I remember the trick he wants to play. He first tries to single out himself from the identity Borges. He –let’s simply call him B- is not Borges and does not be known as Borges. Since everything he does is attributed to Borges, he draws a picture depicting the trouble of being Borges. Basically, B is the real person who wants to do the crazy things but the identity of Borges –given by the society for his works- stop him doing so. At the end of the essay, he asks the question which turns the whole picture upon itself. He asks “Who wrote this essay?” Although he wants to sign as B, this name is unknown to others. So he signs as Borges and again he becomes victim of the same cyclic razor. I use the word “cyclic” in the sense of “ends where it begins”. The self-contradictory cyclic fiction is one of the many distinctive characteristics of his stories.
In the story of “The Garden of Forking Paths”, he mentions time as a central problem. According to the writer, time can be considered in a different way, not as an infinite line but as an infinite labyrinth which sometimes diverges and sometimes converges. As he is using the fiction to show the labyrinth property of the time, he talks about a novel in which time is not described in conventional way. It is described as “forking paths” which can be one of the best expressions of the time if you are looking at the future. I define time as “a rootless binary tree”. It is rootless because we always start at one point which is not beginning of time. I call it binary because for every decision we make, there is an alternative one. Basically, for the point we are standing now we have infinite number of futures which can be depicted as branches of a tree. Present is the root and future is the branches. The word tree itself eliminates the cycle problem. Time can not be cyclic because once you have cycle, you will have a contradiction. As Allan quotes from Eco, we can not go too far with inconsistency. At the end, paradoxes and contradictions will overcome the artificial world. Let’s imagine a situation: We are at the root of the tree which is actually a branch of another larger tree. Let’s use the number 1 for each decision to right branch and 0 for each decision to left branch. Then 100101 becomes a path with 6 edges. After taking 6th step, we have a unique past which can not be changed. “Everything happens to a man, precisely, precisely now” the narrator says in the story. It is because we have the marks of all the points we have touched and 100101 becomes what we are! The present is the only time being we live! Future is a fantasy of branches, past is a unique path going back to the root of everything which defines present. Borges mentions the labyrinth as “it encompasses past and the future”. This is basically another inconsistent idea which can not survive long once you built the details on it.
Imagine a novel which gives all the possible outcomes for the each event in the story. We will start with (0,1) and then we will go with (00,01,10,11) and then (000,001,010,011,100, 101, 110, 111) etc… At the end we will have 2^n different stories in one big mega-story. Then why don’t we call it a “story collection”. Since the story “001011011” will be very different from “1011000101”, is it possible to call it one novel? It is same as our lives. We all have one sequence of numbers although we had chance to have a different one. Different people have different sequences so this makes us different. Time serves us in a way we wish! If we call the each sequence as “personal times” then we can call the bigger set of all personal times as a unique “Time”. This seems to solve the all paradoxes. There is a unique time and all other personal subsets are small parts of it. It is wrong to use the same word for both. Similar paradox can be seen in following example:
Which of the following statements is incorrect?
a. 2+2=4
b. a+b=b+a
c. All men are mortal
d. Bangkok is capital city of Thailand
e. None of the above is incorrect!
Because the statements given in a, b, c and d are correct; then we likely to answer e. But we have to be careful! It asks the incorrect statement! The statement in the choice e is correct. Then we can not choose e either! This paradox is called Russell’s Paradox in Mathematics. It leads to many other developments in the theory of sets but here the solution is so simple. If we separate the concept of “statement” and “information”, then we can have a better understanding of the problem. The sentences which are given in choices a, b, c and d are called statement. Then, we measure their truth value. They are all true. Then consider choice e as not a statement but information only. So the choice e has a different category from other choices. Then, now we can answer e because it is not a statement. We answer e not because it is the direct answer of the question but it does not create any contradiction with the question and with the mathematical logic. At the end, a question like this confuses the examiner’s mind and creates mess around the problem since it is not well-defined. Whenever we talk about not-well-defined concepts in our works, we can have attention because they are confusing. Borges likes to do this a lot!
Now it is time to go to class… I will continue more on the story and Allan’s article… It is really rewarding! I really enjoyed writing the above paragraphs…
I agree with almost all of what you said; only one exception comes to mind: I can't agree that your branching tree of time has only binary branches into the future. Why not three branches, or four, or more now and then? You have only to look at a tree or a palm leaf to know that such multiple branching is possible. Especially if the number of branches is random, but limited by some factor or another, the situation is probably impossible to handle mathematically -- but that doesn't mean that the situation is impossible. What I have in the background of my mind, and it fits with your binary idea as well, is Willard Gibbs' idea of a contingent universe. The past is fixed. The futures are potentially infinite. But as we get closer to the present, the array of choices narrows down until there is just the one path of the past. But I see the structure as one that allows possibilities such as "I will take A, and not B,C,D,or E," while your structure is always "I will take A and not B."
YanıtlaSilSo much for a first impression. I will go back and re-read what you wrote, and I look forward to the remainder of your comments on Borges' story and on my commentary on it. Like you, I am enjoying this.
Best wishes,