We're looking at Rosmarie Waldrop's Shorter American Memory of the Declaration of Independence. So she uses the phrase shorter American memory. What's a short memory? Dave? >> [LAUGH]. >> I forgot, who am I, Dave who? >> A short memory is a bad memory, a memory that you forget. You only remember something for a short period of time and then- >> That's short-term memory. That's right. What about short memory? >> In the context of the poem, I- >> No, not in the context of the poem, just in general. Do Americans have short memories? If we say that, what does it mean? >> Yeah, I guess because we have a young country >> You're being very literal about it. >> Or you easily forget something. >> Such as what? When we say, Americans that have such a short memory, what does that usually mean as a criticism? >> Well, that they can't refer back to maybe historical precedents that could [CROSSTALK]- >> Or you keep making the same mistakes because you don't remember that you've made this mistake before. >> Okay, Molly, you were nodding so you must have something to say. >> Yeah, or sometimes it refers to holding a grudge and how quickly we forget something that somebody did to us, or that we did to somebody else. >> Okay, so now, Amarice, what did she mean or what does Waldrop mean by using it this way? >> To me, similarly to how we've internalized, at this point, sort of the rhythm of the Pledge of Allegiance from the McGee poem. We also have that rhythm ingrained of the Declaration of Independence, not necessarily with all the specific words equally well-memorized. And so, even if we listen or read this poem, without thinking about the semantic meaning, we're just like, there's some familiarity there That sonnet fail that sonic veil that Soloman was talking about. >> So, what does, anybody study history, at the university? No! >> [CROSSTALK] >> We're doomed to repeat it. That's going to be close enough. >> Well, I mean, if you think about what the Declaration in this language represents, it's about all men being created equal. But pretty much as soon as this document was enacted, it became clear that all men in America are not created equal. We still had things like the three-fifths clause in our constitution, and- >> Not to mention women not voting until 1920. >> Women not voting until, lots of [INAUDIBLE]. >> Okay, so one of the things that we do with longer memories in the United States, is we look back at the founding document, which this is not the Constitution, this is the assertion that we should be independent from England. We look back and we find flaws or contradictions. But does somebody want to say, this is hard, Max, you always can be counted to do these things. What does this part of the Declaration of Independence say? Summarize it, go. >> It's tricky. >> Ivy League education. What's it say? >> It says that independence is a natural right. >> Yes, self evident. >> It's self evident, it's obvious. >> These truths are self evident. And then among them are these things, that we deserve this, that we have a right to this, that when a form of government oppresses us we can throw it off. These are self evident. What kind of argument is that in terms of debate logic? >> Incontrovertible truths? >> Yeah, it's a priori true, that what we say is true. It's a real assertion of independence, I don't have to follow your logic in order to say what I have the right to, okay. So, why does Rosmarie Waldrop apply the N plus seven to this? What's her purpose? Allie, what is she trying to do? >> Well, for something that originally doesn't need logic Just kind of leaving it up to chance or systematic operation is a way of really subverting that just, something that makes so much sense, that it doesn't even need to be justified in the first place. >> Subverting and then, when you got to saying what was being subverted, you gave us a very complicated phrase. What is it? What's being subverted? >> The natural right, in a sense. >> The assumption that what we say is self-evidently true. Why would one want to subvert that? That sounds like something we shouldn't want to subvert. >> Well, because if it was self-evidently true, if it was a natural right, then we wouldn't have spent from 1775 to at least 1920, maybe even into the 1960s and 70s, contradicting our own assertions. >> So that would be the liberal reading of the Declaration of Independence is that the problem is that all these assertions were argued self-evidently rather than through reason or empiricism or evidence. And why does doing this, now we're back to you, because you made a really fabulous observation in the beginning of that thing that you said. Why use N plus seven? What are you emphasizing when you do it? In relation, Allie or anybody, what are you emphasizing in relation to that critique? >> I mean, perhaps the arbitrariness of what it is that we hold to be self-evident. >> Either the arbitrariness or- >> Or that the language and the syntax in Waldrop's version argues for all this stuff to be self-evident, manatees, and lightning, lice, and the pushcart of harakiri. >> I think you're all, you two, and everybody, you're getting close to this, but let's say this clearly. Using N plus seven to implicitly critique a document that argues from self-evidence achieves what? You're all close, but I think it needs to be said, Emily? >> Well, I guess to some extent to says it's not self evident still, right? It's so easily turned on it's head and so easily pulled apart. >> What we're going to do is we're going to hold, the three of you have said good things, but I want to hold off and do a slightly close reading of this thing and then come back to that question. I'll repeat the question, the question is, why does N plus seven, an arbitrary dictionary go seven nouns down and replace it with something that doesn't make sense? Why does that aid the critique? You're going to do it? Aid the critique of a document that is arguing a priori that something is true?" >> I mean, my second interpretation of this is that, the dictionary, for example, is supposed to be the institution of correctness. >> Yes, and what's the formula for the dictionary? What's the concept of the dictionary? >> Every word, alphabetical. >> Yeah, yeah. >> That every word has right meaning. >> Right, yeah. >> You look it up and it's like a vending machine. You put in your thing and you get out the answer. Not more or less, right? So if I put in mug, I get a mug. That's what a mug is. The dictionary told me so. But we know that's not true about dictionaries. What is true, smarty pants, about dictionaries? >> Well, I was going to make an analogy and say that the dictionary is for language what God might be for life in the sense that those are self evident. >> In conventional thinking, in Jefferson's thinking, in Jefferson's language, okay good, but we know that that is not quite true about the dictionary. I'm not even going to touch what we know about God. That would take longer than we have for this video clip. But as far as the dictionary is concerned, what do we know about its words, Max? True, always and forever? Never to be revised, not contingent? >> Dictionaries are constantly revised. >> Because. >> Because our language is constantly changing. There's new idioms. >> Because the language is changing. And even first line of Dante. Over the years, 40, 50, 60, 70 times we're going to try to get it right and we can and that's a translation of just a little bit. So let's look at just some phrases and try to understand how we go from the declaration to what Waldrop has done, and then come back to that final generalization we've been trying to get at. So let's take the word self-evident and make it self-exiled. So what does she do with the dictionary, Molly? >> She goes to the noun and then finds the next noun seven past. >> Where did we see this writing experiment before? >> In, yesterday or. >> Bernadette Meyer, last week, we talked about it. Bernadette Meyer writing experiment, she said try N plus seven. So, you take the noun, and do what? >> Count seven words down in the dictionary. >> So, you replace self-evident with self-exile. >> Okay, tell me, do your ideology saxophone on this. Not really. >> [LAUGH] >> Tell me how we get from self-evident to self-exiled. Give it a try. It's arbitrary. It just happened. It's the dictionary she chose. >> Dave, go from self-evident to self-exiled. >> Self-evident is something that exists on its own. It's part of the thing that can't be changed. Self-exile- >> True in and of itself. >> Self-exiled sort of implies the self can do something, can take themselves out of it. They can have some impact on it and distance themselves. >> Okay, that's a good start. >> Emily, take it a little further. >> There seems to be a huge difference of an almost sort of antagonism between the definition of self-evident an self-exiled. That something that's self-evident is something accepted universally, and something self-exiled is something which can only ever not be accepted. They're almost antonyms somehow, and yet they're so close in the dictionary. There's a huge instability that they can coexist in such a sort of short physical semantic space. >> Good, and what you both said adds up to this, self-evident is a an internal a priori true in and of itself. And the evidence you need to find to see whether its true is inside the statement itself, there's nowhere to go outside. Exile is about being from the outside or moving outside in order to look at the inside. Which Rosmarie Waldrop, who is an immigrant would feel, was one of the things that you do. Like you learning French to understand the pledge, Rosmarie Waldrop comes from Germany and elsewhere in Europe. She comes here and she reckons with the Declaration of Independence, and actually learning the truth of American democracy, which she certainly appreciates very much, is a way of learning how to exile logic in order to see it the way it should be. Marise? >> I think it's also interesting thematically, because the Declaration of Independence is supposed to be all-inclusive, but here we know that all the men that were supposed to include, excluded women and African-Americans and they had no say in that matter. It's the same, self-exiled that restored the agency of declaring oneself independent of a system that self-evidently does not actually encompass truth or knowledge. >> I couldn't have possibly said it any better. >> Can we give her a hand? >> [APPLAUSE] >> Do you feel good? That was great. Okay, one more and then we are going to quit on this. So I wanted to talk about the phrase, leaching its fountain pen on such printed matter and orienting its pragmatism in such formula. And that comes from the Declaration, from Jefferson's language, with a little bit of Franklin and Adams rewriting it. Laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall be seen most likely to affect safety and happiness. Safety and happiness are what we want the government to enable in us. Is that true? Boy is that true. So, the phrases, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, leaching its fountain pen on such printed matter and orienting its pragmatism in such formula. I love this! Who's going to say something about it? Max? Maximilian? >> Well, it's so, the coincidence is delightful. It's just such an interesting meta-moment in a way here that she's leaching her pen, her act of writing, her instrument for writing is. >> What leaches out of a fountain pen? >> Ink. >> Ink, of course. Leaching its fountain pen on. >> On such printed matter as the Declaration of Independence. >> Indeed, and it was written to be put out in villages and town squares on July 4th, 1776. Am I right about that? Sounds right, we're such historians. Yes, so that people could read it on a document and say, yes, we have these rights that are self-evident. I didn't know that until I read this document, but that's true damn it. Go ahead. Leaching its fountain pen on such printed matter and orienting its pragmatism in such formula. >> That's organizing its powers in such formula, well, pragmatism is such an American ideal. >> Except in the Declaration of Independence where there's no pragmatism at all. >> That's just self-evidence, there it is. >> Yeah, what pragmatism, the opposite of pragmatism. We derive these rights from being human. We are human, and therefore we have unalienable. You cannot separate our rights from us, unalienable rights to these things. Waldrop's rewriting accidentally arbitrarily, and capriciously is saying, say it again Max. >> Her line, leaching its fountain pen on such printed matter and orienting its pragmatism- >> I know, that's what she said. >> [LAUGH] >> Dave? >> What was the question? >> [LAUGH] >> The thing about this, I find it sort of an homage in the way that when we pay so much attention to form, as we read it, we think, what was the original word? And then we actually focus on what the original word means. So in that way, I found this kind of touching. >> I kind of find it very touching, because she's basically lifting up the hood as all of our poets in the whole course, just about, are saying, look. If this is a vehicle to freedom, and happiness, and safety, and democracy, I want to look under the hood. And what I find under the hood, to mix the metaphor and, maybe, put Jack Kerouac in it. What I find under the hood of this American car, traveling fast down the road, down the way, is something strategic, political, pragmatic, written, composed in words that are contingent and that change over time. So that leaching its fountain pen on such printed matter, the Declaration of Independence, it's a series of periodic sentences in the 18th century style. It's a style and so is it self-evidential thinking. On such printed matter, orienting its pragmatism in such formula reminds us that this amazing radical document did what it did logically in order to say, England don't bother to check evidentiarilly, empirically whether we know these rights inhere to us. We've not even going to go that way. We're not, we're going to do a logic of inference, but that in itself was a strategy of composition, of style, and a strategy of pragmatic political strategy so this document reminds us this experiment N plus seven. Arbitrary, dictionary, reminds us this amazing, radical document was, one, written, composed, not natural, written by people, guys in wigs. And two, based a sense of strategy and contingency, and that it works really well, but it works for reasons that we need to remind ourselves of. And Rosemarie Waldrop comes from outside exile to explain the inherence. Let's celebrate July 4th together guys. Everybody in for that? All right, and Max, when we get there, we'll have you do the pledge and then we'll have you do the Declaration of Independence. You game? >> Quite. >> See you then.
