Stuk 61 - Letter from Paul Vignon [?] to R. C. Trevelyan

1 item

Discusses Trevelyan's tendency to 'mysticism', quoting him as saying 'we should be able... to rise above... good and evil, in the way that mystics claim to do'; fears that he is 'victim of analogy'. Uses the illustration of an artist who succeeds in creating something 'true to life'; draws a line marked 'O' as the place where 'the painter equals the object', with two arrows leading from it, 'one progressive which leads to Liberty', the other 'regressive' which gets further and further from the object. Discusses the works of art which are at each end: towards the 'regressive' end are 'puerile works which attempt representation crudely', and at the other works which 'more and more voluntarily disappear from appearance'; yet there are many people who cannot distinguish between the two. Moves on to discuss knowledge and reason. Calls Trevelyan 'too English', though he seems to belong to 'the rare class of English contemplatives', and may not be interested in the 'noble art of boxing'; talks about prize fights, before which journalists publish all possible measurements of the two combatants. Sometimes predictions are wrong: he gives the fight between Bombardier Wells and Carpentier as an example. Quality, that is 'the appearance of freedom', plays an important role, in the 'cosmos' as well as in boxing. Draws another line illustrating the relationship between necessity, reason, and liberty. Thinks there is a 'mode of knowledge that goes beyond reason' which he calls 'Free Spirit', and which begins at 'the exact point when action... all judgements... and the role of the Useful' stop, yet all these elements must first have been passed through, or one makes the errors of Lao Tse, Plotinus or Parmenides respectively. Most people who claim the insufficiency of reason get to that point through 'regression', such as Pascal. Despite his 'puerility and his shocking vanity' Bergson has had 'some intuitions of high freedom' particularly in his thoughts on language, which is the 'ultimate form of determinism which it is necessary to defeat'. Has more to say, but has written a great deal; will talk more if Trevelyan wishes it.

• Frans