Twin Peaks Usenet Archive

Subject: science, fiction, and science fiction
From: Thane E. Plambeck 
Date: 1990-10-10, 00:04
To: plambeck@neon.Stanford.EDU

fiction, then, is false;  science, explaining;  science fiction, explaining
the false.     we are not interested in science
because it explains, but because it delineates the unexplained more
clearly.  we would see the ufo photo, but not a description of what
these extra-T's really are, because then we have science, we have an
explanation, and we are not interested in explanations, and particularly
in explanations of what we already understand to be in false framework
(art is representational).  there are riddles of this sort---``a man
is dead in a closed room and the floor is wet''---for which we are asked
to guess an explanation---and the so-called answers go something like
---``he tied a rope around his neck while standing on a block of ice and
as it melted he strangled.''  I would say that to the extent one is
interested in these sort of riddles, one is unable to adopt what I
would call the True Critical Viewpoint:  art is what it offers, and no
more, and the greatest sin is to bring one's own biases or inventions
to the critical effort.  Such a riddle could in effect have any solution:
why am I being asked to provide one?/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////