Foucault's Pendulum discussion

Well, I was very saddened by the very end. I 'got' what Eco was doing with the Belbo character, and I thought that was cool. But why couldn't he have ended things with a ray of hope for Casaubon? Ugh.

I'm not sure there isn't such a ray.

When he sees Dr. Wagner in Paris, Wagner ends the session with "You're crazy." What psychotherapist would say that? If he's genuine, he'd never come right out and say it, and if he's the charlatan that he probably is, he'd want to keep Casaubon on the hook for more sessions.

Which leads me to the very Ecoesque conclusion that Casaubon is, in fact, crazy. And, therefore, there's no reason to believe that anybody is after him. Of course, even paranoids have enemies.

The other detail, of course, is that all the characters at the Conservatoire are either people Casaubon knows, or from the circus poster he saw in the occult shop (plus the security guards from the Conservatoire). Seems suspect.

Oh, I was still going to post a few nice long posts here. Got sidetracked. I posted that first post when it was all still fresh and raw. :)

Good catch Derek.

...and of course, we'll never know how much of what Casaubon tells is true or not...

But didn't you just love how the trumpet bit illuminated Belbo for us? He had that one moment of glory, where he was the center of attention, where everybody stood to attention and he was in it, creating the fulcrum; and then viola, there it happens again with Belbo's death; and this time, Belbo is actually, in a very clever way, the center of the universe in a manner of speaking.

Note that Casaubon only read about the trumpet AFTER Belbo's death, so I don't think he had made that part up.

He could indeed be paranoid about that they're after him though, because he certainly seemed to suffer from PTSD after he left the museum.

After Belbo's death…

If Casaubon is really crazy, we don't even know if Belbo is dead (or Diotallevi, for that matter).

Aglié as much as says that the members of Tres have actually only been inducted into the order because they were named in The Plan, so that doesn't preclude that it's all some kind of hallucination, but it is also consistent with the surface story that the Plan really exists and CB&D just stumbled onto it. But that doesn't explain the circus members. The only reason that makes sense, to me, for their presence is that it's hallucination: except that he sees that circus poster in Paris, and if it's all a hallucination, what is he doing there?

Which is all to say that I have NO idea what really happened!

I think it really happened, but the point is that although all those people BELIEVE there's a plan, there is no plan. I think Eco makes it quite clear that a lot of people are buying into there being some kind of plan that simply doesn't exist.

I think what he is basically saying is that people tend to be very gullible and that they believe what they have a psychological need to believe.

Well we know that Causabon is crazy from the opening of the book and how he perceives and thinks of the exhibits in the museum.

However I'm inclined to think that the diabolicals are also crazy...

Jan-Maat wrote: "Well we know that Causabon is crazy from the opening of the book and how he perceives and thinks of the exhibits in the museum.

However I'm inclined to think that the diabolicals are also crazy..."

I'm going to have to re-read that bit again. I think he was at least temporarily crazy by the very end...

..but yeah, they certainly allowed themselves to become mixed up with a bunch of people that I'd be very nervous of. I would have run away from what they were doing much earlier on already. Did they honestly think they were dealing with sane, rational people?

...but like you and previous posters have pointed out, how sane and rational is Casaubon? At least the mother of his child is obviously sane.

About "the plan" ... did anyone else wonder whether Eco is making a commentary on religion with this illustration of human's tendency to attribute master plans to every phenomenon?

Tim wrote: "About "the plan" ... did anyone else wonder whether Eco is making a commentary on religion with this illustration of human's tendency to attribute master plans to every phenomenon?"

Oh yes, but I think more than that.... I personally think he was commenting on the human tendency to not only see 'patterns' in everything, but to attach meaning to those patterns, and also the fact that the meaning that we attach, tends to be subjective as it fits into each individual's internal paradigm or mental model of how the world fits together.

The bit where Causabon's wife turns the whole 'map' or 'plan' into a laundry list illustrated that so nicely to me. :)

Very much. Our brains are somehow wired to see patterns. Often that's a good thing. Since we still haven't taught computers to see patterns as well as we do (or possibly, even as well as a pigeon can!) we're not obsolete yet. But Eco is definitely pointing out that we also force patterns onto our environment, and this sometimes misleads us.

From Belbo I got my theory of 'consciousnesses as conspiracy,' Unfortunately, I'm to late to participate in this discussion. Maybe we could revive it ?

You're never too late to the discussion. Most, if not all, of the participants in this discussion are still active on Goodreads.

Tell us more about 'consciousnesses as conspiracy'!

Yes, we could revive it, Ed!

We are all ears!

No, really, we're used to this :-)

Hi Ed, I'm going to be thinking over the question you raised in the other thread.

Personally, I think Belbo, Casaubon & Diotavelli just started the thing as a joke, but then it kind of dragged them in and became 'real' as they followed up leads; as they started to believe things people told them about "conspiracies".

Well, I'm not saying with certainty that they actually 100% "believed" ...but they did start to doubt and wonder, didn't they? I mean, for example, at the end, it seems as if Causabon really believes that someone is out to get him...

Also,where his wife just sees a grocery list, he sees a map.

That’s a good question

It seem like Diotallevi ended convinced
that they played with fire ?

Belbo ended defiantly
but he was motivated from a different motive, perhaps?

Casaubon? Paranoid ? Befuddled ? Duped?

Befuddled most certainly, hehe heh.

Yeah, I think Diotallevi was gullible from the start. He was very into the Kabbalah.

I think Belbo was sceptical to the last, but I think he didn't have much of a choice in the end, and what a spectacular scene in which he becomes "the center of the universe" in a certain strange sense.

Traveller wrote:

I think Belbo was sceptical to the last,

“the only stable place in the cosmos, the only refuge from the damnation of the panta rei” page 6

Ed wrote: "it seems that Eco’s set up the 3 characters as well learned and not subject to NOT being easily fooled "

Oh, no! Any con man will tell you that those are the easiest types to con!

Good thread here. I have a few reactions about the book that I thought I'd share:
1) The pendulum: I see this as the dominant analogy running throughout the book, it's everywhere from the very obvious: title, the plot's start at the Conservatoire, which then swings through the background before swinging back by the end of the book, a pendulum's anchor as source for truth and grounding; to the more subtle: the delicate swing from truth to conclusions from analogy, the geographic travels Casaubon takes to Brazil and back, Casaubon's own struggle with whether to believe in the Plan or not, etc.
2) Did anyone else note the random, purposeful misspellings of names? For instance, on page 534 Agliè is referred to as Angliè. A few pages later we learn about metathesis from Diotallevi (the replacement and swapping of letters). I had seen the name misspellings come up a few times earlier in the book, but only understood it after the part with Diotallevi. The discovery of this definitely led me to question our narrator's reliability.
3) The power of no: The password prompt and answer for Abulafia is a deeper joke and reinforces Eco's message around the importance of no by the very end. "Do you have the password? NO" This is the same as Agliè and the Diabolicals asking Belbo "Do you have the map?" "NO." No is also a critical element in semiotics and truth-seeking: in a world where everything can be related by analogy to anything else, the only way you can know something is distinct for sure is based on what it is NOT. The most clear way to define something and create real boundaries is through defining what it is not. For readers of Nassim Taleb's writings (which quotes Eco), this is the same as his "via negativa".

prescience that you posted
I was just in the midst of checking Aglie’ references
when I got the news that Umberto Eco as passed away

hopefully the Pendulum is not eternally stilled

January 5, 1932 – February 19, 2016

Long Live Umberto Eco!

Kellyjosephc wrote: "Good thread here. I have a few reactions about the book that I thought I'd share:
1) The pendulum: I see this as the dominant analogy running throughout the book, it's everywhere from the very obvi..."

Very interesting indeed, the spatial/geographical angle you bring in WRT the pendulum, Kellyjosephc! That increases my regard for this book as a work of genius...

EdMohs wrote: "Long Live Umberto Eco! "
Oh, he will, he will. He's given us too much not to live on in our minds and in Western culture.
Viva Umberto Eco! You live on in our minds and our hearts.

Thanks! If anyone's interested, on my blog I tried my hand at taking the pendulum analogy further, and connecting it to other work by Eco: http://josephckelly.com/2016/02/21/ec...

Eco’s works is full of gemology and rocks of all types
plus mythical stones such as
lapis exillis or the Philosopher Stone

“All right,” Belbo said. “Thirty-six per century; step by step the knights prepare to converge on the Stone. But what is this Stone? “ page 140

wonder if anyone as any suggestions
for a type of stone I could polish
to celebrate a fabulous writer’s life?

Thanks
Ed