Customer Reviews

Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus To Pornography

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

A rare and wonderful argument, written with verve and considerable moral urgency, Forbidden Knowledge frames the question of whether there are some things we should not know. The subtitle "From Prometheus to Pornography" points to the middle ground Shattuck ultimately takes.

The first half of the book sets up the opposition in literary terms. Untrammeled exploration is the taking of what cultural institutions say must not be taken; Shattuck traces this exploration from the myth of the fire stealer Prometheus, through Eve's eating of the interdicted apple in the Bible and Paradise Lost, Ulysses' illicit voyage (Book XXVI, Dante's Inferno), and many other literary representations. The opposing way of approaching prohibitions is found in two instances (both written by women, a point Shattuck could make more of) of liberation that comes through self-limitation: La Princesse de Cleves and the poetry of Emily Dickinson. The second half of Forbidden Knowledge applies these oppositions to life, as in the social consequences of violent pornography (e. g., De Sade's influence on Ted Bundy) and scientific exploration (the human genome project) that seems to promise complete control over human existence. Shattuck's range of literary reference is divertingly breathtaking: Socrates and rap, Aeschylus and Woody Allen, Goethe, Ghandi, Melville, Maimonides, Walter Pater, Democritus, Roland Barthes, Perrault--aw, hell, everything: if you've taken Western Literature at any quarter-baked college or university, you'll come upon something you've read. And Shattuck will illuminate it from the alternative perspectives of pleonexia vs. portee.

It would have been simple-minded, easy, and instantly suspect to compose a polemic for intellectual freedom. This Shattuck does not do. He argues instead that philosophical and scientific thought--the law of infinite regress, for instance--affirms the impossibility of complete knowledge. Although human nature is such that exploration cannot be stopped, the ways in which knowledge is applied can be controlled. Incompleteness is inevitable--and humanizing. "Be lowly wise" (Paradise Lost, Book VIII).

I summarize shamelessly because I am confident that anyone who reads this will want the book. It is learned, original, many-sided, allusive without crowing, invigorating, earnest yet sophisticated, written with humor and grace. In our age, when science and art have displaced religion, only scientific and aesthetic arguments can hold weight. Forbidden Knowledge is the largest and most valuable contemporary book I have read to address in large, relevant compass the question of moral responsibility. And it is the only one to do so convincingly.

I was intrigued by the title of Shattucks book, the issue of biological engineering bieng in the news at the time, and the ethical questions it brings up being on my mind. What I liked most about it is that it is one of those rare books that make you (or at least made ME) change your mind about what was previously an unquestionable belief: in this case, that censorship is always bad. Two points made by the book stand out in my mind. One is that censorship never blocked creativity but if anything has, throughout history, called forth greater creativity. (The example comes to mind of Rushdie's description of a love scene in the highly censored Indian cinema where men and women can't even touch: the woman sensuously kisses a mango and takes a bite of it, passing it on to her lover. He does the same, with great intensity. The scene is long and extremely sensuous. In our uncensored cinema the two would already be in bed, but the filmmaker would have lost an occasion to put his creative talents to work. Amnother example is that Brecht was able to put on "Threepenny Opera" despite Nazi censorship, kicking the Nazis in the ***'s without them even realizing it. Even the Czech writers and artists that were persecuted by the government have said that then, at least, you knew who was a real artist and who was just in it for the money.) The book, of course, is not in favor of persecution! The point is that even in the most repressive of governments, censorship can't be said to BLOCK the artist. The book also made me reconsider pornography. I had always just gone along with the general opinion of our era that all censorship is bad. But because of this attitude, explicit images of sex, violence, violent sex etc are not hard to find. Once, I remember boys getting a big thrill out of the chaste manniquins in store windows when they were being dressed. Now, it would take alot more than that I think to excite even the youngest pubertal boy. One might at least wonder if this banalization of sex, this over-exposure that we have had in the past decades, has not raised out thresholds for sexual excitement. What once would have been extremely exciting seems like nothing. Could this not be a contributing factor, (along with the prime culprit, in my opinion: the violence in the family and other sources of social distress) to the diffusion of the extreme of violent pornography, where women and children are raped and killed on screen, because some people are so deadened within themselves, and so saturated with images of sex that they can only be stimulated with such horrors? I highly recommend the book, and it is well worth going through the lengthy sections of literary criticism, though it is also a book that can be read in patches, skipping what might not be of partiucular interest to the reader.

Beyond the mundane discussions about secrecy versus openness, or privacy versus transparency, there is a much higher level of discussion, one about the nature, limits, and morality of knowledge. As I read this book, originally obtained to put secrecy into perspective, I suddenly grasped and appreciated two of the author's central thoughts: knowing too much too fast can be dangerous; and yes, there are things we should not know or be exposed to. Who decides? Or How do we the people decide? are questions that must be factored into any national knowledge policy or any national information strategy. This book left me with a sense of both the sacred and the scary sides of unfettered knowledge. This is less about morality and more about focus, intention, and social outcomes. It is about the convergence of power, knowledge, and love to achieve an enlightened intelligence network of self-governing moral people who are able to defend themselves against evil knowledge and prosper by sharing good knowledge.

Just what IS 'forbidden knowledge'? Roger Shattuck answers brilliantly in this absorbing book: the knowledge of ourselves. And how come we're not supposed to know? As Shattuck traces our views of God, Man, and Nature through literature, you'll find yourself saying "why didn't I think of that?" My book club discussed this work, and we were up til two in the morning arguing about it. Most enjoyable! I rated Forbidden Knowledge a "10" not because it is without flaws, but because it is the only book of its kind I've ever read. It's been months since my last reading, but I still think about it, still ponder Shattuck's assertions, still wonder why I "didn't think of that." Warning Label: you need to be versed in Milton's Paradise Lost, Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, and a host of other Famous Literary Works to get the full benefit of Shattuck's arguments. You can certainly enjoy the reading without an English Major background, and it might inspire you to take a look at some of the old standards by Dead White European (fe)Males. I bought the book in hardback, then wrote ALL over it, but I couldn't help it. You read it, you'll find yourself vandalizing the pages, too.

Just one year ago, I was sitting in Prof. Shattuck's class at Boston University listening as he read from a manuscript he was in the midst of writing. The class was called "Forbidden Knowledge," and the manuscript became, well, I suppose that's obvious. By the time the book was published, I had graduated. I eagerly absorbed the text, and was amazed at how clearly I heard Prof. Shattuck's voice in the prose. It was like sitting in on his discussions once again. And, like his classroom debates, Shattuck comes across not as a man who has all the answers, but as a man who questions. I can't help but notice the irony in what I am doing. I am writing a review on the internet about limits of knowledge - when it seems that information is unbound in cyberspce. But, I think this book makes it clear that information readily available is not the same as knowledge. Knowledge requires responsiblity. Roger Shattuck is a responsible and wise guide through centuries of literature and scientific breakthrough. He explores the work of questioners, all the while mindful of the fragile boundries between knowledge and hubris.

What Shattuck wants us to think about is this: Why do we imperfect humans assume we can handle all the information we pretend to have control over? Isn't it possible that some knowledge puts us at risk due to our own limitations?

Shattuck asks us to consider moral thinking to be at least as important -- if not more important -- than rational thinking. In the end, rationality separated from morality is just as dangerous as morality separated from rationality.

One of the nicest aspects of the book is that it doesn't treat our ancestors as dim older relatives who get everything wrong. A scholar like Shattuck who has read Aristotle, Montaigne, Pascal, Shakespeare, etc., certainly knows that we have a lot to learn from history.

"Forbidden Knowledge" isn't a perfect book, but it's a very good one and a challenging read. Shattuck's work is best-suited for those who are humble enough to know they don't quite know it all yet but who still strive for some sort of wisdom.

A very well written book with a bias so severe you'd think one of the author's legs was a foot shorter than the other. I struggled to get through this nonsense and was thoroughly disappointed with the end result. Shattuck's Kissingerian attitude of "I know all and you should simply accept my word as truth" gets grating after about a half a page. I have a very difficult time taking seriously someone who contends that they understand a writer's work better than the writer (case in point being his critique of Camus, wherein he contends that Camus' description of what he was writing about is wrong). I also find it difficult to take seriously a discussion of the limits of knowledge that openly states on multiple occasions that the Catholic Church is true authority on where the limits of knowledge should lie. This is the same authority that caused so much trouble for Michelangelo, as well as many other leading scientists. Sadly, I found this book to be a waste of precious natural resources and a waste of time.

Despite its age (10 years), this is a remarkably perennial work. It uses myths, stories, literature, science, and art to weave a fundamental question: Are there some things, anything, not knowable or worth not knowing? Such questions like man's "fall from grace," man's "freedom of will," and man's "inherent sinfulness," have typically been such questions. But with the advent of nuclear arms, the human genome project, coupled with the elevation of the Marquise de Sade to canonical stature, and "art for art's sake," are there "limits" to which we ought not to reach? Are there any limits to knowledge qua knowledge?

Philosophy and science answer with a resounding, No. Religion answers with a resounding, Yes. Art has no answer, or if it has an answer, seems to be, No. More than half-a-century ago, Richard Weaver wrote the compelling book, "Ideas Have Consequences." Well, we've seen many of those "ideas" set into unfettered motion, and the subsequent consequences have fallen anywhere from the "ho-hum" to the dire. Is technology outpacing our moral resourcefulness? What about atomic energy/bomb? What about eugenics/euthanasia? What about nihilism? Relativism? Etc? Shattuck doesn't have a sabot answer for us, but he raises what are obviously moral questions that must be answered. The fact that few of us are even asking these questions is itself a moral hazard.

Shattuck converses a very narrow scope, which is often claustrophobic and seemingly myopic, but the questions, if one's imagination can encompass the morass, are vital and pervasive.

A deeply disappointing book. Despite the misleading marketing of "Forbidden Knowledge" as some sort of broad exploration of the limits of human inquiry, it's essentially just a quite limited book of literary criticism -- with a brief and very shallow side-trip into the human genome mapping project. It's a very long-winded read trying to make just three real arguments (that aren't supported by much of anything in the way of real evidence): 1. Censorship is sometimes perfectly OK, at least for violent pornography (the author almost completely ducks the issues posed by any other kind of pornography or erotica). 2. Genetic research is pretty scary (the author is clearly out of his literary element in trying to make this argument stick convincingly). 3. The Marquis de Sade was a darn sick guy (weirdly, to make the not-exactly-difficult argument that people shouldn't be reading de Sade's stuff, Shattuck excerpts or summarizes at considerable length some of the very worst parts of de Sade's stuff for people to read). Unless those three arguments somehow strike you as wildly novel territory, don't waste your valuable reading time on this book. And if the genetic research debate does provoke your interest, read a REAL book on the controversy, not one that backs into the topic via a rather superficial look at Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and then abruptly drops the point to go on at tedious length about sadomasochism in French literature). But, if for some twisted reason, you need a Reader's Digest condensed version of distasteful de Sade, there's a chapter in this book that, oddly enough, might suit your purpose.

Despite the complexity of the subject he assumes, Shattuck's narrative is lucid and gripping. One could easily see the Table of Contents as a college course syllabus, and you will learn as much. Shattuck is a most knowledgeable teacher. Expect a deeper understanding of Milton and Camus. Watch as Shattuck's academic intimacy with other classic thinkers delivers them life.

Though his expertise on the literary stage is evident, the scientific fields he examines seem slightly over his head. He is even more lost when he devotes his longest chapter to the titillating (read: "dry") discussion of the life and works of Marquis de Sade. Rather than separating the literary study from the scientific and historic case studies, if Shattuck had integrated these aspects and followed the structure of his Appendix I, the book would have a more cohesive, and perhaps more poignant, effect. In Appendix I, he meticulously defines "forbidden knowledge" and breaks it into six illuminating categories. Reading the appendix brought the whole book together for me.

Aside from an improvable format, the book is comprehensive and bold-the most serious piece of modern anti-intellectualism I know. I was thoroughly persuaded that the individual's pursuit of forbidden knowledge might be individually destructive. Yet, one man's destructive discovery often leads to progress for humanity. History has shown man to be adaptable, and usually prosperous, when introduced to previously "forbidden knowledge." From Eden to Copernicus, knowledge defiantly persists outside all restrictions.

Roger Shattuck's task is daunting: Convince freedom-loving, restriction-denying modern man that there should be (or simply are) limits to knowledge. That certain knowledge has the potential to disillusion or even to destroy. Shattuck's triumph is that the reader will realize the validity in considering the dangers of limitless knowledge. However, he neglects to offer a practical solution and thus does not succeed in persuading the reader to surrender the pursuit of the "forbidden."