sprechblasenblog

Da Edward Saids Orientalism (Pantheon, New York 1978) — ein locus classicus der postkolonialen Variante der These, dass das Subjekt durch den Blick des Andern beschränkt und bestimmt werden kann — schon seit längerem auf meiner Leseliste steht, fiel mir gestern abend folgender Eintrag im Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense (Souvenir Press, London 2004) besonders auf:

Orientalism: A discourse about the East (East of the West, obviously) that legitimated and enabled imperialism and colonialism, and that still to this very day allows Western writers to assume the paternalist privileges of the pukka sahib. Any old Smith or Jones can just pick up a pen and write essentialist discourse about people in India or someplace else in the East. Movies, too. It’s odd that it never works the other way — that Indian or Egyptian writers, for instance, never make essentialist or Occidentalist statements about people in the US or UK. But so it is. There is obviously a very basic difference in the nature of the two peoples.

[…] Eine besonders qualvolle Kammer wird einzig und allein von Philosophen bewohnt, die Hume widerlegt haben. Obwohl in der Hölle, sind sie deshalb noch nicht weiser geworden. Sie lassen sich weiterhin von ihrem tierischen Hang zur Induktion leiten. Aber jedesmal, wenn sie eine Induktion gemacht haben, wird sie vom nächsten Moment falsifiziert. Dies passiert allerdings nur während der ersten hundert Jahre ihrer Verdammnis. Danach wissen sie, dass sie bei einer Induktion eine Falsifikation erwarten müssen, und also werden sie nicht falsifiziert, bis ein weiteres Jahrhundert logischer Tortur ihre Erwartungen wiederum verändert hat. Die ganze Ewigkeit hindurch gibt es fortgesetzt Überraschungen, aber jedesmal auf einer höheren logischen Ebene. […]

(aus: Bertrand Russell, “Der Alptraum des Metaphysikers”, in: Stanislaw Lem (Hrsg.), Ist Gott ein Taoist?, Ffm 1988)

‘No doubt sir, but -’
‘Don’t say “but”, Jeeves.’
‘I fear, sir -’
‘”I fear, sir” is just as bad.’
‘What I am endeavouring to say, sir, is that I am sorry, but I am afraid I must enter an unequivocal nolle prosequi.’
‘Do what?’
‘The expression is a legal one, sir, signifying the resolve not to proceed with a matter. In other words, eager though I am to carry out your instructions, sir, as a general rule, on this occasion I must respectfully decline to cooperate.’
‘You won’t do it, you mean?’
‘Precisely, sir.’

(PG Wodehouse)

“Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don’t eat the apple. Surprise, surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting ‘Gotcha.’ It wouldn’t have made a difference if they hadn’t eaten it.”

“Why not?”

“Because if you’re dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won’t give up. They’ll get you in the end.”

“What are you talking about?”

“Never mind, eat the fruit.”

[Douglas Adams]

“Alas, I have come down with the same disease that killed Derrida!”

(Richard Rorty kurz vor seinem Tod, zitiert aus dem Nachruf von Jürgen Habermas in der SZ - andere Nachrufe hat das Philoblog zusammengetragen)

‘Bertie, I have something to say to you.’
‘What?’
‘I have something to say to you.’
‘I know. I said “What?”‘
‘Oh, I thought you didn’t hear what I said.’
‘Yes, I heard what you said, all right, but not what you were going to say.’
‘Oh, I see.’
‘Right-ho.’
So that was straightened out.

(PG Wodehouse)

aus Ahoi Polloi.

“If I asked you where the hell we are,” said Arthur weakly, “would I regret it?”
Ford stood up. “We’re safe,” he said.
“Oh good,” said Arthur.
“We’re in a small galley cabin,” said Ford, “in one of the spaceships of the Vogon Constructor Fleet.”
“Ah,” said Arthur, “this is obviously some strange usage of the word safe that I wasn’t previously aware of.”

(Douglas Adams)

Gerade blättere ich in einem Buch unschätzbaren Wertes, den Gesammelten Kurzgeschichten von Hector Hugh Monro alias Saki. Da ich eben über die Frage nachgedacht hatte, wieso es nur so verbreitet ist, sich die Moral als ein Gesetzwerk vorzustellen, stolperte ich über folgende Passage, die ich dem Leser dieses Blogs nicht vorenthalten möchte.

“[…] You’ve been reading Nietzsche till you haven’t got any sense of moral proportion left. May I ask if you are governed by any laws of conduct whatever?”
“There are certain fixed rules that one observes for one’s own comfort. For instance, never be flippantly rude to any inoffensive grey-bearded stranger that you may meet in pine forests or hotel smoking-rooms on the Continent. It always turns out to be the King of Sweden.”
“The restraint must be dreadfully irksome to you. When I was younger, boys of your age used to be nice and innocent.”
“Now we are only nice. One must specialize in these days. Which reminds me of the man I read of in some sacred book who was given a choice of what he most desired. And because he didn’t ask for titles and honours and dignities, but only for immense wealth, these other things came to him also.”
“I am sure you didn’t read about him in any sacred book.”
“Yes; I fancy you will find him in Debrett.” [Saki, Complete Short Stories, S. 14]

Debrett ist übrigens das englische Äquivalent zum “Gotha”, dem deutschen Handbuch des Adels. Wie dem auch sei, sehr zu empfehlen: Saki’s Complete Short Stories, zu haben bei Penguin Press oder (da Public Domain) an verschiedener Stelle im Internet.

“The first essential is to study the psychology of the individual.”
“The what of the individual?”
“The psychology, madam.”
“He means the psychology,” I said. “And by psychology, Jeeves, you imply…?”
“The natures and dispositions of the principals in the matter, sir.”
“You mean, what they’re like?”
“Precisely, sir.”
“Does he talk like this to you when you are alone, Bertie?” asked Aunt Dahlia.
“Sometimes. Occasionally. And, on the other hand, sometimes not.”

(P.G. Wodehouse)