• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What Is Forteana? (Bob Rickard's 'The Fortean Scope')

J

Justin_Anstey

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
633
I got this by e-mailing the forteana mailing list at [email protected] :

Bob Rickard, editor of the "Fortean Times" offers this introduction to forteana :

"THE FORTEAN SCOPE
Part of the difficulty in defining the word 'Fortean' is that it can mean different things to different people. As far as this list is concerned, the widest range of views is preferable to any narrow exclusionism.
Increasing popular and media usage of the word Fortean has given rise to two quite different meanings. Hearing the word 'Fortean' in connection with a fall of frogs or a spontaneous combustion incident or sighting of a sea-serpent, for example, some people assume that that is all there is to the Fortean world. The second view is broader as it is more frequently used as a general word meaning the spectrum of weird events, strange phenomena, scientific anomalies etc. Implied in both, I hope, is the impression that Forteans investigate as well as talk about or collect data on their subjects.

There are erroneous usages of the word Fortean too. I have seen it applied generally to mean useless knowledge and curious trivia (which might be true to some extent) - and it is used by some Skeptics as being synonymous with a credulous belief in the supernatural (which is wholly untrue).

Let me venture deeper and try a few definitions...
In his published writings Fort covered a huge range of subjects; they shared the characteristic of presenting a challenge to the accepted theories and explanations of the day. Some followers of Fort deliberately restrict their approach to the subjects and methods used by Fort. I call these people Fortean purists - or Fortists. While they limit their subject matter strictly to continuing occurrences of the types of phenomena that Fort wrote about, they openly acknowledge that Fort expended considerable mental effort on the physical organisation of his data- note-taking and filing into a wall-full of shoeboxes - in order to develope a philosophical understanding of how people react to and think about the unexpected and the anomalous. So discussions of philosophy, methodology and data management are also welcome here.

Personally, I am convinced that data - actual case material - took second place in Fort's mind to his guiding philosophy. They were all examples of the effects of Inclusive <?Exclusive?-JA> thinking as practised by dogmatic, authoritarian minds, of which the prime examples were the last two Dominants of our era: Religion and Science. (Fort was not anti-Science, only anti-dogma.)

Fort's philosophy was essentially Platonic in nature. That nothing existed in an ultimate, Ideal form (in our phenomenal existence anyway) and that everything around us exists as an interdmediate nexus between opposing (and essentially unknowable) extremes. Consequently, Fort developed the idea of Continuity; that everything merges imperceptibly into other adjacent things; that things are indistinguishable at their merging points. This would be seen as a kind of holism today: that in everything is a seed of everything else, so that separateness and exclusion cannot exist except arbitrarily. (Sorry if this loses you, it's all there in his 'Book of the Damned', which is well-worth re-reading.)

So - if we define the word Fortean based on Fort's own idea of what he was doing, it must stand for his notion of Inclusive Science (ie, knowledge based on the awareness of Continuity). Forteanism, then, must include a commentary on the way humans (not just Scientists) classify or deal with the phenomenal aspects of their existence. Fort himself declared the focus of his interest to be 'The Damned' "by which I mean the excluded." The Fortean interest, therefore, is all-inclusive. There should not be a subject that is excluded from our consideration.

Let me try a few first-shot definitions based on this waffle. You'll see that I avoid mentioning specific subjects, because I believe, at heart, is an approach based on attitude regardless of data or topic. Also, I am of the opinion that the Fortean attitude is grounded in a profound, culturally-influenced, philosophy that is not Scientific as such, but includes the Scientific attitude as one of many ways of interpreting observations of our existence and its world.

What Forteanism is *not* is a belief in the Supernatural. Forteans are rationalists in the sense that they accept that the 'unknown' is simply the mis-perceived, mis-understood and the not-yet-explained. A belief in God-derived miracles - by definition, external interventions in, or overturnings of, Nature itself - is diametrically opposed to Forteanism which, nevertheless, regards supernatural belief as a 'system of explanation'.

# FORTEANA - the subject matter of Fortean (qv) interest. A handy general term for the whole gamut or spectrum of Fortean and related subjects, data and views.

1) Specifically: the range of subjects and ideas discussed by Fort, Fortists (qv) or Forteans.

2)Generally: any subject or data regarded as anomalous relative to specific or general orthodox opinion. Falls into two major classes:
a) Hard: phenomena yeilding tangible evidence
b) Soft: largely relying on narrative or inferred evidence

# FORTEAN - related to Fort, Fortism, Forteanism and Forteana (qv).
1) Noun: one who takes an interest in Forteana (qv) or takes a Fortean (qv) attitude. The first use can be attributed to Ben Hecht, who, in 1919, concluded his review of Fort's 'Book of the Damned' with the declaration: "Henceforth, I am a Fortean."

2) Adj: an object, process, event, subject, observation, experience or datum deemed to be of interest to Forteans.

# FORTEANISM - the general extension of Fort's data and attitudes beyond the confines of Fortism (qv) into the ever unfolding world around us.
1) Specific: a natural philosophy of benign (as opposed to hostile) scepticism that "substitutes temporary acceptance for belief" in order to explore the development of ideas relating to an Inclusive view of the phenomena of existence, especially of anomalies relative to conventional systems of explanation. See Fortism.

2) Generally: the investigation, collection, analysis, discussion, dissemination and development of ideas and data relating to anomalous facts, processes, observations and experiences, so-called 'paranormal'and 'supernatural' phenomena, and related systems of explanation.

3) Extension: many areas of Fortean interest are themselves complex and subdivided fields, including: cryptozoology; ufology; psychical research; anomalistics; folklore & urban legends; history and anthropology; biology and behaviour; and anomalies within established sciences.

# FORTISM - strict adherence to Fort, his works, data and philosophy.
1) Specific: the application or development of the ideas of Fort regarding:
a) the Continuity of all things
b) the necessity for and nature of an Inclusive Science
c) cultural progress depicted as a struggle between succeeding Dominants (or paradigms)
d) cultural systems for explaining observations that are anomalous relative to the Dominant.

2) Additional: related interests and activities:
a) Fort, his life and intelectual development
b) Fort's writings (fiction and non-fiction)
c) the collection of data on Fortean topics and its physical organisation in retreival systems
d) the analysis and discussion of Fortean ideas, topics and data

# FORTIST - one who practises Fortism. A follower of Charles Fort
(1974-1832), the iconoclastic American philosopher. "
 
Bumped this because I think it's a great description of what we're all doing here.

The bit that does it for me is the "benign scepticism" - such a bon mot
 
The life of Fort

Every time I read about Fort- from his own pen of from that of another- I am constantly reminded of the fantastic scope and dimension of his thought. I cannot read but a few pages of his works, without a new feeling of elation and insight into our world.

I study philosophy, and have studied many philosophers and their ideas, but very few come even close to an encapsulating satire of reality as Fort produced. It seems to me, he must have consulted with the very universe itself, and been taken into its intimate confidence.

What I would not give for a hour's talk with him. What I would not give for some discovery of new or lost works of his.

There is much to be done with Fort.
 
Although I'm interested in all things Fortean, I find Fort himself to be pretty much unreadable. IMHO he's a useul source of info and for some ideas, but this information is poorly assimilated in his books.
 
Although I'm interested in all things Fortean, I find Fort himself to be pretty much unreadable. IMHO he's a useul source of info and for some ideas, but this information is poorly assimilated in his books.
Click to expand...
Jerry- I know that Fort can be a difficult author to read. His work is jolty and all over the place; and yes, I can see why a lot of people would trawl his works for data only; I will often read Fort by the index.

Yet his data is only part of his work. In fact, it's secondary to what I think was his wider aim, which was a whole metaphysical system that he envisioned.

Fort referred to himself, when he was writing Many Parts, as an 'amateur metaphysician.' Then, he went on his Grand Tours, brought up a vast amount of data, and collated it all into the fourt books.

But I think that to study the data only is to miss the point. For Fort, the data was just a means to an end. Ammunition in his war against science, as someone remarked.

In his books (and stories) Fort puts across some very profound and very insightful ideas; but in the old forceful and poetic style of the presocratic philosophers, whose ideas are very much like Fort's own. As Fort remarked on the idea of the universe-as-organism, 'Oh, yes I am aware of the antiquity of this phenomena, but I shall not attempt much mention of it, for someone is bound to bring the Greeks into it.' (That quote's not verbatim, but close enough).

Fort says some very complicated things in a very complicated way. And that puts a lot of people off. Yet it is definately worth the effort.

Studying the data is only half of it. Finding out what Fort meant for it is another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, I still stand by what I say. As an exercise is putting forth a theory about what all this damned data amounts to, Fort fell very short of the mark IMHO. This is because the actual data is is clear enough, but what holds it together as a train of thought is not - which tends to leave Fort shooting himself in the foot. Fort was, IMHO, good at finding, collecting and organising data but very poor at presenting it in a way that would make sense to anyone else. It's the equivalent of him gathering all of his notes, then arranging them in oder of subject, etc. in nice piles - and then throwing it all into a small room and saying 'Voila!' ;)
 
Again, I understand your point (and sympathise, having read BOTD, slightly) but I do still think that Fort's style is uniquely suited to his work.

As we'd all agree, Fort was a master data-collector. But as for organising it, it was Fort's entire point that to try to order data was simply to impose artificial order onto nature, which had the unwanted result of creating paradigms through which we looked at nature. Ordering data simply locks us into world-views which clouds freedom of thought and intellectual straitjackets.

And Fort's violent, shifting and jerky style lends itself well to the metaphysics he held. Nature as unpredictible and unexpected, but still with an underlying purpose and order of its own. Read Fort's works, and you will see only very simple structure, as Fort's mind and pen wander from one subject to another-- but you still also slowly begin to grasp the underlying plan of the works, which only reveal themselves with sufficient reading.

I do like your analogy though, about randomly strewn notes. But I'm also sure, that Fort COULD have taken a handful of his notes, of the most diverse range of subjects, thrown them into the air, and found some connection between them.

I'll quote Fort on this one:

''I am a collector of notes upon subjects that have diversity--such as deviations from concentricity in the lunar crater Copernicus, and a sudden appearance of purple Englishmen--stationary meteor radiants, and a reported growth of hair on the bald head of a mummy. But my liveliest interest is not so much in things, as in relations of things.''(Talents, p. 846)

and

''Not a bottle of catsup can fall from a tenement-house fire-escape in Harlem, without -- Affecting the price of pajamas, in Jersey City: the temper of somebody's mother-in-law, in Greenland; the demand, in China, for rhinoceros horns for the cure of rheumatism (...) Because all things are inter-related--continuous--of an underlying oneness. ''(Talents, p. 857)

Apparently random occurences and phenomena, expressing an underlying oneness and order.

That's what Fort thought, and that's how Fort wrote.
 
Iankidd said:
That's what Fort thought, and that's how Fort wrote.
Click to expand...

And that's precisely why I find him so unreadable ;)
 
Fortean Style

I think, Jerry, as a conclusion: you can either trawl Fort for data, which is well enough, but you miss out on some of his deeper ideas; or you can read Fort *really* read him, and see past the data, and see the connections and underlyingness therein.

Consider, though, that Dreiser said of 'X', "It was so strange, so forceful, so beautiful that [..] it was certainly one of the greatest books I have ever read in my life." Evidently even then, in 1915, Fort had a uniquely powerful style. Perhaps it might be, that one who writes of falling frogs, noisy ghosts and luminous toes has to have a certain authority ex coercere.

We could be thankful that the tone was turned down for BOTD, NL, et al. Fort was not happy with 'X' and 'Y', perhaps recognising, as Quentin Crisp said, that ''If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style.'' Alternatively, Fort might have felt he wanted to write without the constraints of the contemporary style. Fort certainly thought unortodoxly, and so it might have been a kind of betrayal to write orthodoxly. As I said, his style suits his content.

A sober, measured and steady style is suitable when talking of geomagnetic phenomena in the Cheviot Hills, or asexual reproductive characteristics of earthworms, but not for Fortean phenomena. Still, if we take this line, we are somewhat undone by Sam Brown, who wrote in the Washington Post, 1977, that one should ''never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance.''

Simply, I think Fort knew he was on to something, and knew that his ideas was not going to be accepted-- and to present them in a scholarly and academic style would be mocked. Go with what Gore Vidal said: ''style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn''

Quote Fort: 'I offer the data. Suit yourself.'
 
Hmm - sorry, that sounds like you're making excuses for him. What may actually be the case was that Fort had a very poor writing style - it may be a simple as that. I say this as his memoirs (reproduced in Fortean Studies Vol. 1) are the same. I don't see the sense in trying to put forward data and an encompassing theory for it by writing about it in such a way, so I think my analogy still fits ;) I'm sure if it was anyone else, people would be saying 'Get to the point!' :D
 
You have both stated your positions regarding Mr Fort's writing style. You are equally unlikely to change the other's point of view. IMO if you continue with this tack you are descending into argument. As it is it gives those of us who have not read Fort a chance to see other's opinions on his books. Thank you. (I will shortly be getting some of his books)
 
Perhaps such a discussion needs it own thread? ;)
 
I'd agree with Caroline. Any further and we're arguing.

Jerry- new thread?

Perhaps I've kept up my side of this discussion becase, I often see very little in the 'Charles Fort and Forteanism' forum..and since this is what I'm most interested in, this is what I talk most about (when I have the time)

Ian
 
Perhaps it's best if the mods can transplant our discussion above to a new thread?
 
Iankidd said:
''Not a bottle of catsup can fall from a tenement-house fire-escape in Harlem, without -- Affecting the price of pajamas, in Jersey City: the temper of somebody's mother-in-law, in Greenland; the demand, in China, for rhinoceros horns for the cure of rheumatism (...) Because all things are inter-related--continuous--of an underlying oneness. ''(Talents, p. 857)

Apparently random occurences and phenomena, expressing an underlying oneness and order.

That's what Fort thought, and that's how Fort wrote.
Click to expand...

Isn't this also an (almost) exact analogue for the basic tenets of Chaos / Complexity Theory? has anybody tipped their hat in his direction for coming out with this type of prophetic statement?

Whether Ian or Jerry agree about the guy, all i can say is he was an absolute visionary...
 
Fort- Visionary

Yes; this is a preclusion to Chaos Theory. However, Fort would rarely carry his ideas through to heavy detail.

Usually, Fort would state facts, give the scientific opinion (read: 'theory') and then lambast it; usually with his own, wild ideads-- such as that of the Super-Sargasso Sea, high above the earth, from which things like frogs and fish fall.

I'm working on an essay about Fort, his works, his ideas, and philosophy, because-- being a visionary as you said-- he presciented many other contemporary scientific ideas.

Perhaps because Fort wrote of scientific heresy and blasphemy, and, as George Bernard Shaw said, ''all great truths begin as blasphemies''...
 
Charles Fort and Ludwig Wittgenstein could have been lovers. Should have been. May well be.

This is why. Witters in his later incarnation shrugged off the anal-retentive, systematic approach to philosophy. He vehemently denied adherence to any school - a total anti-ism-ist. Efforts to integrate one's thoughts into a pet schema are just not conducive to the clarity Ludwig saw as the goal of philosophy - the unpretentious desire to see aright, in so far as one can. Which strikes me as being Fort's raison d'etre as well - don't try to integrate the world into your sad circumscribed intellect - integrate yourself into it & enjoy the ride.

Thus, all this ''Forteanism'' and ''Fortism'' jigging strikes me as being a little out of tune with the spirit of the man - seems a little odd to try to delineate the beginning, middle & end of a body of thought that states ''One begins measuring the circumference of a circle anywhere'' (said Alexius, deftly misquoting)

A bas Ism-ism! Vive Post-Anti-ism-ism! :p
 
Justin Anstey said:
# FORTIST - one who practises Fortism. A follower of Charles Fort
(1974-1832), the iconoclastic American philosopher. "
Click to expand...

thats one heck of a good trick:- living backwards :D
 
Alexius said:
[...] Fort's raison d'etre as well - don't try to integrate the world into your [..] intellect - integrate yourself into it & enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...

It's not only a sound philosophical view; it's also good advice for life. We cannot contain the world is our minds; all we can do is put ourselves fully and wholeheartedly into the world, and enjoy the ride.

I think Fort was a mystic, and II think his desire for us to live in love and wonder at the world was more. There is a comment from a Marguerite Tjader, a friend of Dreiser, about Fort, as she said that ''there was something fascinating about him; he seemed utterly alive, carefree and all-knowing as he talked."

I think that is the description of a man in knowledge and in love of the world.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top