Newsgroups: bit.listserv.literary
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:08:00 PDT
From:         naomi seeger <ECZ5SEE@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Character of Levin.

i disagree with your analysis of levin.  i'm on somewhat shakey ground
here, having never finished _Anna_, but what you've quoted and what you've
commented do not seem to follow.

to me, it appears levin is yet another in a long line of people who have
had their faith affirmed by mystical knowledge, like bohme or bankei.
traditionally, the difficulty of this kind of knowledge is that it is
not easily (if at all) put into words.  likewise, is it not withIN the
realm of reason.  reason has its part, but it does not have dominion over
this kind of knowing.

>     'Well, what is perplexing me?' Levin asked himself,
>   feeling in advance that the solution of his doubts,
>   though as yet unknown to him, was already in his soul.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it doesn't mean he's already made up his mind, that he is mistaking prejudice
for judgement.  much of current thought has it that one is taught religion,
that it is a set of precepts one learns and adheres to.  well, where'd it
come from to begin with?  it's more than just scared folks telling stories
around the campfire to keep back the dark.  the mystic tradition has it
one can connect with the divine by waiting, without judgement, open to
the seemingly chance encounter that confers grace.  that there is something
internal that can communicate with the external.  those hermits didn't
go out into the desert because they liked sand and a diet of locusts.
they went to clear the way, so that if the divine decided to touch them,
it wouldn't be obstructed by random thoughts and the day to day distractions.

if revelation were quantifiable, we'd have no need for science.  if it
were rational, there wouldn't be any question of belief.  of course levin
isn't going to logically decide to believe in god.  besides the fact that
would be out of character, it is not the way faith works.  so if he says
he feels the presence of god in his heart, don't automatically decide
he's fooling himself.  he may be, but maybe not.  the language of revelation
has become so worn, so trite.  a friend of mine had a mystical experience
during lunch, of all times.  she came back and tried to describe it.  she'd
pause, stutter something, take it back, no it wasn't quite like that.  one
of us asked if she'd been stoned.  mean question, but understandable.  my
point is that she couldn't describe what had happened, but it was obvious
to us all that something had.  something internal.  now, as she'd previously
kept way clear of any organized religion, had been raised atheist, it wasn't
a matter of affirming prejudice or learned behavior.  and it obviously
wasn't a rational conclusion she came to.  i don't understand what happened
to her, but i'm told that's the way of it.  if levin has looked into his
heart and heard an answer, well, he just may have.  that's faith for you.

>     'To me personally, to my heart, has been indubitably
>   revealed a knowledge unattainable by reasoning, and I
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  so don't expect him to
think about it.

>   obstinately wish to express that knowledge by reason
>   and in words'

  which is traditionally the mystic's difficulty.  hence the zen koan, the
christian parable.

>                                       The question of other
>   creeds and their relation to the Deity I have not the right
>   or possibility of deciding.'

    rather nice of him, actually, to refrain from judging that which he
has no knowledge or understanding of.

  ivan karamazov's difficulties, as far as i was able to see, was a surfeit
of reason.  if one little innocent child has to suffer, he would refuse
an offer of paradise on earth.  pretty extreme terms, don't you think?
not just in the stakes, paradise & the desecration of innocence personified,
but in its polarization of good and evil.  as if one could really exist
clear of the other.  as if you could pick and chose, like one's livingroom
decor.  all white and stainless steel, darling, not a touch of pastel.
to my thinking, the very terms in which he sets up this argument, the way
he frames the conflict, denies it any resolution.  he reasoned himself
into a corner, and insanity was the only way out.

naomi seeger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU