Hi, all.

I once said to my sister that studying literature is like studying neuroscience, mine and her fields, respectively. The first thing she did was laugh. And the second thing she did was not listen to my line of reasoning.

I said that not because I wanted to make the humanities a science, but because the examination of the human machine by way of its actions seemed equivalent to examining its neural connections except in that the actions spoke for whole clumps of connections and represented a bunch of chemistry together in, say, Rosemary's: "But, John, how can you say such a thing?" Perhaps, a bunch of, as yet unexplored chemistry.

I am happy to make such a connection and hold to it to this day, because I don't see how it could be not true. No matter which way you look at an activity like literary analysis, in which clues from the text such as "John," are used to support statements such as: "Rosemary never says what she means and this sends her husband into madness," which represents a gluthy of chemical situations, some of which may even be technically classifiable.

What do you think?

Feel free to yell and scream, as I see plenty of lunacy in this and a way in which it could be carried too far for the good of any study.

Thanks.
Maya
Vancouver, WA