in class today we went over the many different ways writers decide to prove their argument. In the shaking woman I found that the author uses leapfrogging. On page 116, she sort of agrees with Crick’s “truth”, but she says ” there is something wrong with his formulation nevertheless.” She’s saying that things are deeper than what they are physically and literally. She thinks that a ” vast assembly of nerve cells” doesn’t describe who she is. She then agrees with LeDoux because he believes that there are levels to human reality.
I think she uses these scholars to support her idea and show the readers look I have someone who somewhat agrees with me. But I think she wants to prove her ideas after all. I do agree with you on the part where is she is complaining throughout “does not describe who she is”. The problem is that they all kind of puzzle about her asking others to define her illness, but first they want to connect that puzzle together for the right conclusion.
Excellent point, Jasbir: “The problem is that they all kind of puzzle about her asking others to define her illness, but first they want to connect that puzzle together for the right conclusion.”
Hustvedt’s focus is on living with and making sense of uncertainty and hypothetical knowledge, so she tends to “pick a fight” (to quote Gaipa) with any source or person who is too quick to draw conclusions or oversimplify relations between body and mind–especially when that comes to her own body and mind.
I agree with Jasbir, this is a way for her to portray some sort of credibility, as well as she does want to show that there is some logic to her statements. Also, i do believe that she wants answers for herself, but i also think she is trying to find some sort of solution through others as well as a type of maybe closure?