The sky above the island is a palimpsest for centuries of celestial motions,
as is the sand for prints of youth gone generations; at least, that is the
impression on an open mind whose viewpoint is the pre-eternal.
The tiny island had posed for time-exposures of a heavenly paparazzi
since long before the scandal sheets of legend went to galley stage.
The island and adolescence have disappeared now. All that remains are
some footnotes in history books, this vagrant idler’s prose and, oh yes,
the necklace of youths in its museum case.
Museums and briefer genres are a sanctuary for would-be artists with
open minds and shutters.
I have been pressed close to the glass staring unblinking for hours,
rousing an old guard’s curiosity.
“What is there to see?” he asks me.
“Just visiting with the prisoners, sir. I see canoes setting out at sunrise.”
My press card as eccentric buys much freedom of speech.
“And there is Gauguin by the tree, a child’s unread letter lines his paint
box.”
Gauguin had his problem, and I have mine. His problem was art. My
problem is hidden pearls.
How difficult it must be to prepare the pearls for threading, and so easy to
break the string and see the work undone. There are works which can
never be undone but only fictionalized. Authors do not work as hard as
jewelers. A bunny hides the pearls for all the youths to find on Easter
morning. The reader must only have faith not to be strung along.
The island had its good and bad months. The divers had their ups and
downs. Sometimes a shark would have his way. The youths grew up
quickly in their hardship. Some grew up not at all.
Some things are rare and we reckon that rarity as priceless. How often
does a month see two full moons? But it does happen. And once in a
blue moon a young diver would surface triumphant with a perfect pearl.
Such a treasure was not his. He would give it to the entire village and
there would be a feast. Some became brides during such festivities and
the fuel of the village fire was stoked deep into the night.
Twice a year, a ship would come with merchants who purchased all the
pearls. The perfect ones were for the Imperial jeweler.
Before the empire collapsed, the Queen would wear this necklace of forty
such perfect pearls.
King David, of olden times, grew thirsty from battle; a thirst which nothing
satisfied. He thirsted for water from the enemy’s well. Guards were
sent by night at great peril to their lives to fetch a pitcher back. As the
King filled his cup, he saw, not water, but blood to the brim. He poured it
out as a libation and never took a sip.
The Queen loved her necklace. When the assassins slew her, the thread
broke and the pearls scattered. There is always someone to mend what
is broken when the price is right.
But I see you heading for the exit. I must tell you the joke before you go.
The Queen never learned how to swim!
How many pearls are in the sea? How many stories are in me? How many
worlds are in the metaverse?
I sought a pearl of great price but found only the paste of Maupassant.
Winthrop Sargeant translates it this way: “On Me all this universe is strung like pearls on a thread.”
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Erotic Images
An erotic image is simply an illusion, a gestalt, of countless
colored pixels upon our senses. The individual pixels have reality
and existence. The woman in the image has no real existence. And yet
we are aroused by the woman and are not conscious of the individual
pixels. We can respond to this non-existent image because it
is an outer reflection of something which is actually within us and
which resonates with that inner woman just as the two arms of a
tuning fork resonate and produce tone.
Should some, but not all of the pixels fade, yet the image of the
woman persists. Cells in our body, and possibly even our brain, are
dying, and yet our individuality and continuity of memory persist.
Lockes and Jeffersons and Lincolns die, yet constitutional democracy
persists. Democracy, a gestalt and illusion of countless pixels of
generations of anonymous humanity which arouses in us noble feelings
of justice and inalienable human rights, persists. Stars explode in
supernova, yet the starry night sky which fills Kant with wonder and
fills Van Gogh's canvas with intoxicating imagery, persists. And
should this very planet of ours die and grow cold, extinct, is there
not something which yet persists, somewhere, elsewhere in the ever-
collapsing kaleidoscopic telescope of being and reality?
Democracy is our erotic woman, our Statue of Liberty in provocative
pose, a gestalt formed by the myriad pixels of suffering throngs of
humanity which come and go like mist and spray as waves crash upon
the rocky coast. And our libertine lady, provocatively posed, this
non-existent idea of Justice and Truth, is like Dante's Beatrice,
enticing us up a ladder of Divine Ascent, like Socrates' school
mistress Diotema and her teaching on the ladder of love in
Plato's "Symposium".
colored pixels upon our senses. The individual pixels have reality
and existence. The woman in the image has no real existence. And yet
we are aroused by the woman and are not conscious of the individual
pixels. We can respond to this non-existent image because it
is an outer reflection of something which is actually within us and
which resonates with that inner woman just as the two arms of a
tuning fork resonate and produce tone.
Should some, but not all of the pixels fade, yet the image of the
woman persists. Cells in our body, and possibly even our brain, are
dying, and yet our individuality and continuity of memory persist.
Lockes and Jeffersons and Lincolns die, yet constitutional democracy
persists. Democracy, a gestalt and illusion of countless pixels of
generations of anonymous humanity which arouses in us noble feelings
of justice and inalienable human rights, persists. Stars explode in
supernova, yet the starry night sky which fills Kant with wonder and
fills Van Gogh's canvas with intoxicating imagery, persists. And
should this very planet of ours die and grow cold, extinct, is there
not something which yet persists, somewhere, elsewhere in the ever-
collapsing kaleidoscopic telescope of being and reality?
Democracy is our erotic woman, our Statue of Liberty in provocative
pose, a gestalt formed by the myriad pixels of suffering throngs of
humanity which come and go like mist and spray as waves crash upon
the rocky coast. And our libertine lady, provocatively posed, this
non-existent idea of Justice and Truth, is like Dante's Beatrice,
enticing us up a ladder of Divine Ascent, like Socrates' school
mistress Diotema and her teaching on the ladder of love in
Plato's "Symposium".
Discussing Plato's Dialogue "Gorgias"
To read a Platonic dialogue is to watch ideas in motion, not just any motion, but the special motion which takes place when giving birth. Socrates at times describes himself as a mid-wife, helping minds to give birth. There is a wonderful adjective for this role which Socrates plays; maiutic.
Socrates has two different nick-names in the dialogues; sting-ray and gadfly. In ancient Greek, the word for sting-ray is Nar-kay, or Narke, which is the root word for narcotic.
A sting from the tail of the sting-ray causes the body to become numb. Socrates was called narke because of his ability through a series of questions and answers, to numb his opponent into a motionless cul-de-sac, called in Greek "a-poria" which means "no way out."
Now, the gadfly nick-name denoted the very opposite of numbing. The gadfly, through its bites, could sting the lethargic horse of the state into motion. Socrates also stings up those who feel hopeless by "mytho-poiesis" or making a story or parable to give them a feeling of what it shall be like when they finally come to understand.
Someone who presumes to know is smug and complacent and does not seek or inquire. But also, those who have lost hope and given up do not seek or inquire.
Notice how these two opposite qualities of motion and rest are united in the one person of Socrates. We may better appreciate the conflict between motion and rest if we consider that Aristotle speaks of an "unmoved mover" as that one principle which somehow must exist as a source for everything else.
To understand Socrates' narcotic strategy, we must understand his theory of knowledge.
Socrates had a woman named Diotema as a mentor who instructed him in a theory of knowledge which is likened to a ladder of divine ascent, which describes an inductive ascent from love of objects, to sexual love, to love of mathematics, and finally to the love of the EIDOS of justice or beauty.
Socrates states that "God does not love wisdom, because he possesses it." Remember that the word "philo-sophia" means "love of wisdom." If we have something or believe that we possess it, then we do not go in search for it. We are smug and confident that the wisdom is ours. This smugness can be a form of illness, and the medicine to restore us to a state which is suitable for inquiry is refutation through a syllogistic chain of questions and answers which ultimately forces us to admit that we do not really possess true knowledge about a particular matter like justice or happiness.
We may see this theory of knowledge or dialectic illustrated in a well-known Sufi teaching story, made popularized in the many books of Idres Shah.
Nasrudin is a comical, sophomoric (or wise-fool) character. One day, someone sees Nasrudin frantically searching the street outside his house. When asked what has been lost, Nasrudin explains that he has lost his keys. When asked where he lost them, he explains that he lost them in the house. When asked why he is searching in the street for something lost in the house, Nasrudin explains that it is dark inside the house, and there is more light outside in the street.
Abraham Heschel illustrates something of this problem, in volume one of "The Prophets" when he writes (paraphrased) "We must learn to understand what it is that we see, and not merely see only that which we understand." Our compulsion is to search where the light is better, even if that means looking in the wrong place. Abraham Maslow put it differently: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem tends to become a nail."
Most of what I explain here will be things that I learned at St. John's College in Annapolis in the 1960s. It is worth mentioning that the teachers there prefer to call themselves "tutors" rather than "professors", in honor of this Socratic method, since a "professor" professes to already know the truth, and will convey it to students in a lecture and for a price, much like the rhetorician Gorgias in this dialogue. The term "tutor" better reflects the role of a mid-wife who aids the student during this maiutic process of giving birth.
I would like to focus in quite a bit on this notion of uniting opposites, such as motion and rest.
Socrates and Odysseus share something interesting in common. Homer describes Odysseus bodily build as a paradigm of this uniting of opposites. Odysseus had very short legs, so that when he stood amongst the other Achaians, he was the shortest. But Odysseus had an unusually long trunk such that, when he sat in council, his head was above all the rest, and his words poured forth like a flurry of snow.
Socrates unites outer homeliness with inner beauty.
Rabelais made reference to this quality of Socrates in his Prologue.
Regarding Socrates' homeliness, I am reminded of that verse from Isaiah Ch. 53,2 "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him."
This harmonizing or balancing of opposites is a very ancient notion. The Greeks called it the golden mean. The Buddha called it the middle way. According to legend, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (a term meaning "Awakened One"), had tried every form of philosophy and religion, and was meditating near a river's bank, close to death from fasting. A boat passed by on the river, and Siddhartha could hear the voice of a master musician instructing his disciple as the young student strung an instrument: "Do not leave it loose, or it shall not sound, nor tighten it overmuch lest the string break." Suddenly, Siddhartha realized the wisdom of "the middle way", the mean between extremes.
I realize that I might appear to you to be jumping about a bit with all these topics, but you must remember that when I read the Gorgias, all of these notions are within me at once, as a gestalt, and I perceive the dialogue through this lens of experience.
With regard to the similarity between Socrates and Odysseus, I want to make a certain point about the position of Odysseus' ship in Homer's "Catalog of Ships" in Book II of the Iliad. I am going to use the figures at this URL to assist me:
Notice how the 12 ships of Odysseus are in the exact middle of this line-up of ships, as a mean or balance between extremes.
At one extreme of the line-up of ships along the shore is Ajax, who is so massive, that his epithet is bulwark or "wall".
Achilles epithet is "swift-footed".
Achilles and Ajax possess opposite virtues which are difficult to unite or harmonize; Ajax' size, and Achilles' speed.
We see Odysseus as a mean between these two extremes of opposite but necessary virtues.
Once, in Book Eight of the Iliad, we find one verse which clarifies the logic of positioning in the catalog of ships:
Again, in Book 11, we are reminded of this same geometry:
Ajax, who is massive but slower, is placed closest to Troy so that, during an attack, the approaching enemy will first encounter Ajax' massive strength.
Achilles is positioned furthest from Troy, since his virtue of speed allows him to meet the approaching enemy before anyone else.
Plato stresses this role of Odysseus as a harmonious balance in The Republic
I suppose one might say that the assortment of possible lives for rebirth, spread out before the souls which have drawn lots, resembles the assortment of facts and phenomena in reality, spread out for the mind to choose, or the assortment of careers spread out before students.
But it is not the phenomenon or fact which casts the mind into a certain state, or the career which shapes the student, but rather it is the harmony of the mind, the balance of the student, which conditions the choice of attention and specialization. Hence the task of the Socratic method is not to offer facts upon a platter, or sheet music, but rather to fine tune and harmonize the mind of the student as a process rather than a destination.
It is not the scenery which colors the vision, but rather the harmony or focus of vision which determines the scenery.
What follows may seem a non sequitur, but it is good for the reader to have some insight into the educational philosophy of the college which influenced me; a college which attempts to put into practice the maiutic process harmonization which I describe.
The Motto of St. John's College:
Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque ( I make free men from children by means of books and a balance)
This metaphor of our education as a lens which shapes our vision reminds me of a true story which I entitled "Eighth Grade Existentialism"
When studying Plato, it may be helpful to realize that, in the 20th century, Kurt Godel the mathematician was essentially a Platonist and viewed number as having some independent and mystical existence, along with Einstein, who was a personal friend of Godel. Opposite to the Platonist is the empiricist and positivist, who see number as a human instrument or construction, and a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Remember that over the entrance to Plato's Lyceum was written "Let no one enter here who has not mastered Euclid's Elements of Geometry".
After this long prelude or prologue, we may begin to look at the Gorgias itself.
Gorgias is an orator and rhetorician. Socrates and his companion arrive late upon the scene, just missing Gorgias' demonstration of expository speaking.
We should keep in mind that one of the charges against Socrates at his trial, in addition to corrupting the youth of Athens, was that he taught people the art of "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger."
I sometimes wonder if our contemporary educational system isn't corrupting the youth by heaping scores of sheet music before the symphony and never attempting to tune the instruments in the orchestra. Society shall prepare and drink its own cup of hemlock for that crime.
An offer is made to have Gorgias repeat his performance for Socrates' benefit, but Socrates convinces Gorgias to enter into a simpler dialogue of brief questions and answers. Socrates gleefully compliments Gorgias on how well he complies with the rules of this simple form of dialogue.
Socrates is leading Gorgias into his dialectic trap. I once saw a cartoon in a magazine depicting a dog, who has laid down a trail of cat food, leading to an open dryer, hiding and gleefully waiting for the cat to step inside the dryer. Once the cat is in, the dog will slam the door shut and rejoice as the cat spins round and round. Once Gorgias agrees to enter Socrates' "laundromat" of syllogisms, then poor Gorgias will find his head spinning like that cat.
For me, the age old struggle between Platonists and empiricists arrives at a dizzying plateau once the question is finally asked "is reality digital or analog?" which is related to issues of holism versus reductionism. It will be helpful to read this link as a refresher on holism and reductionism:
Perhaps by now some readers are ready to throw up their hands and shout:
"Whatever does this enormous mountain of baloney that you have amassed have to do with Plato's dialogue with Gorgias?"
I am only beginning to realize one excellent answer to that question just now, after hours of reading and writing. The rhetoricians and sophists, such as Gorgias, quite possibly represent the empiricism and reductionism inchoate, while the Socratic method of dialect inquiry represents the holists with their model theory.
I may be quite mistaken in my notion, but it is exciting to thing of the possibilities should such a notion be plausible.
With todays science and technology, we can take images, sound, and even the human genome, and digitize it to a sequence of numbers. If we should find one day that a digitized representation of reality can exactly match reality and be indistinguishable from it, then we may conclude that reality is digital. If, on the other hand, all attempts at digitization are doomed to be mere approximations to the original, or counterfeits, in the sense that the number pi is irrational, then we may conclude that reality and being are analog.
I was struck by all of this when I stumbled one day across a casual remark by Einstein to the effect (paraphrasing) that "no one could ever have arrived inductively at a notion of relativity simply from empirical observations." What Einstein is pointing to involves a branch of mathematics called "model theory". There are numerous axiomatic systems of mathematics (e.g. euclidean, hyperbolic, ellipical and Riemmanian geometries) mutually exclusive to one another in how they describe space, and all dwelling in the human imagination much like Plato's "eidei" or ideal forms. One day, someone notices that one of these axiomatic systems resembles observable phenomena. Ptolemy could account for the observed motion of the planets with epicycles, with an accuracy equal to Kepler's system of ellipses. Model theory has to do with the initial phase of stumbling upon a system which seems to match observations, as well as the later phase of asking "is this system actually the way things are (i.e. the noumena)? or is the system only an ad hoc contrivance for measurement?"
The laws of relativity and quantum and thermodynamics in no way lead inductively to the existence and nature of bunny rabbits, and yet the existence of rabbits in no way violates those laws. The laws of statistics do not inductively lead to the rules of poker or blackjack. Such games of chance obey the laws of statistics and probability, yet we would not study statistics in order to learn how to play the games themselves.
The Socratic line of questions and answers, a series of syllogisms and predications, is the tail of the sting-ray. At the end of the tail is a stinger, the numbing and silencing narcotic of "aporia" and refutation.
Socrates has two different nick-names in the dialogues; sting-ray and gadfly. In ancient Greek, the word for sting-ray is Nar-kay, or Narke, which is the root word for narcotic.
A sting from the tail of the sting-ray causes the body to become numb. Socrates was called narke because of his ability through a series of questions and answers, to numb his opponent into a motionless cul-de-sac, called in Greek "a-poria" which means "no way out."
Now, the gadfly nick-name denoted the very opposite of numbing. The gadfly, through its bites, could sting the lethargic horse of the state into motion. Socrates also stings up those who feel hopeless by "mytho-poiesis" or making a story or parable to give them a feeling of what it shall be like when they finally come to understand.
Someone who presumes to know is smug and complacent and does not seek or inquire. But also, those who have lost hope and given up do not seek or inquire.
Notice how these two opposite qualities of motion and rest are united in the one person of Socrates. We may better appreciate the conflict between motion and rest if we consider that Aristotle speaks of an "unmoved mover" as that one principle which somehow must exist as a source for everything else.
To understand Socrates' narcotic strategy, we must understand his theory of knowledge.
Socrates had a woman named Diotema as a mentor who instructed him in a theory of knowledge which is likened to a ladder of divine ascent, which describes an inductive ascent from love of objects, to sexual love, to love of mathematics, and finally to the love of the EIDOS of justice or beauty.
Socrates states that "God does not love wisdom, because he possesses it." Remember that the word "philo-sophia" means "love of wisdom." If we have something or believe that we possess it, then we do not go in search for it. We are smug and confident that the wisdom is ours. This smugness can be a form of illness, and the medicine to restore us to a state which is suitable for inquiry is refutation through a syllogistic chain of questions and answers which ultimately forces us to admit that we do not really possess true knowledge about a particular matter like justice or happiness.
We may see this theory of knowledge or dialectic illustrated in a well-known Sufi teaching story, made popularized in the many books of Idres Shah.
Nasrudin is a comical, sophomoric (or wise-fool) character. One day, someone sees Nasrudin frantically searching the street outside his house. When asked what has been lost, Nasrudin explains that he has lost his keys. When asked where he lost them, he explains that he lost them in the house. When asked why he is searching in the street for something lost in the house, Nasrudin explains that it is dark inside the house, and there is more light outside in the street.
Abraham Heschel illustrates something of this problem, in volume one of "The Prophets" when he writes (paraphrased) "We must learn to understand what it is that we see, and not merely see only that which we understand." Our compulsion is to search where the light is better, even if that means looking in the wrong place. Abraham Maslow put it differently: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem tends to become a nail."
Most of what I explain here will be things that I learned at St. John's College in Annapolis in the 1960s. It is worth mentioning that the teachers there prefer to call themselves "tutors" rather than "professors", in honor of this Socratic method, since a "professor" professes to already know the truth, and will convey it to students in a lecture and for a price, much like the rhetorician Gorgias in this dialogue. The term "tutor" better reflects the role of a mid-wife who aids the student during this maiutic process of giving birth.
I would like to focus in quite a bit on this notion of uniting opposites, such as motion and rest.
Socrates and Odysseus share something interesting in common. Homer describes Odysseus bodily build as a paradigm of this uniting of opposites. Odysseus had very short legs, so that when he stood amongst the other Achaians, he was the shortest. But Odysseus had an unusually long trunk such that, when he sat in council, his head was above all the rest, and his words poured forth like a flurry of snow.
Socrates unites outer homeliness with inner beauty.
Rabelais made reference to this quality of Socrates in his Prologue.
Regarding Socrates' homeliness, I am reminded of that verse from Isaiah Ch. 53,2 "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him."
This harmonizing or balancing of opposites is a very ancient notion. The Greeks called it the golden mean. The Buddha called it the middle way. According to legend, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (a term meaning "Awakened One"), had tried every form of philosophy and religion, and was meditating near a river's bank, close to death from fasting. A boat passed by on the river, and Siddhartha could hear the voice of a master musician instructing his disciple as the young student strung an instrument: "Do not leave it loose, or it shall not sound, nor tighten it overmuch lest the string break." Suddenly, Siddhartha realized the wisdom of "the middle way", the mean between extremes.
I realize that I might appear to you to be jumping about a bit with all these topics, but you must remember that when I read the Gorgias, all of these notions are within me at once, as a gestalt, and I perceive the dialogue through this lens of experience.
With regard to the similarity between Socrates and Odysseus, I want to make a certain point about the position of Odysseus' ship in Homer's "Catalog of Ships" in Book II of the Iliad. I am going to use the figures at this URL to assist me:
Notice how the 12 ships of Odysseus are in the exact middle of this line-up of ships, as a mean or balance between extremes.
At one extreme of the line-up of ships along the shore is Ajax, who is so massive, that his epithet is bulwark or "wall".
Achilles epithet is "swift-footed".
Achilles and Ajax possess opposite virtues which are difficult to unite or harmonize; Ajax' size, and Achilles' speed.
We see Odysseus as a mean between these two extremes of opposite but necessary virtues.
Once, in Book Eight of the Iliad, we find one verse which clarifies the logic of positioning in the catalog of ships:
Again, in Book 11, we are reminded of this same geometry:
Ajax, who is massive but slower, is placed closest to Troy so that, during an attack, the approaching enemy will first encounter Ajax' massive strength.
Achilles is positioned furthest from Troy, since his virtue of speed allows him to meet the approaching enemy before anyone else.
Plato stresses this role of Odysseus as a harmonious balance in The Republic
I suppose one might say that the assortment of possible lives for rebirth, spread out before the souls which have drawn lots, resembles the assortment of facts and phenomena in reality, spread out for the mind to choose, or the assortment of careers spread out before students.
But it is not the phenomenon or fact which casts the mind into a certain state, or the career which shapes the student, but rather it is the harmony of the mind, the balance of the student, which conditions the choice of attention and specialization. Hence the task of the Socratic method is not to offer facts upon a platter, or sheet music, but rather to fine tune and harmonize the mind of the student as a process rather than a destination.
It is not the scenery which colors the vision, but rather the harmony or focus of vision which determines the scenery.
What follows may seem a non sequitur, but it is good for the reader to have some insight into the educational philosophy of the college which influenced me; a college which attempts to put into practice the maiutic process harmonization which I describe.
The Motto of St. John's College:
Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque ( I make free men from children by means of books and a balance)
This metaphor of our education as a lens which shapes our vision reminds me of a true story which I entitled "Eighth Grade Existentialism"
When studying Plato, it may be helpful to realize that, in the 20th century, Kurt Godel the mathematician was essentially a Platonist and viewed number as having some independent and mystical existence, along with Einstein, who was a personal friend of Godel. Opposite to the Platonist is the empiricist and positivist, who see number as a human instrument or construction, and a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Remember that over the entrance to Plato's Lyceum was written "Let no one enter here who has not mastered Euclid's Elements of Geometry".
After this long prelude or prologue, we may begin to look at the Gorgias itself.
Gorgias is an orator and rhetorician. Socrates and his companion arrive late upon the scene, just missing Gorgias' demonstration of expository speaking.
We should keep in mind that one of the charges against Socrates at his trial, in addition to corrupting the youth of Athens, was that he taught people the art of "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger."
I sometimes wonder if our contemporary educational system isn't corrupting the youth by heaping scores of sheet music before the symphony and never attempting to tune the instruments in the orchestra. Society shall prepare and drink its own cup of hemlock for that crime.
An offer is made to have Gorgias repeat his performance for Socrates' benefit, but Socrates convinces Gorgias to enter into a simpler dialogue of brief questions and answers. Socrates gleefully compliments Gorgias on how well he complies with the rules of this simple form of dialogue.
Socrates is leading Gorgias into his dialectic trap. I once saw a cartoon in a magazine depicting a dog, who has laid down a trail of cat food, leading to an open dryer, hiding and gleefully waiting for the cat to step inside the dryer. Once the cat is in, the dog will slam the door shut and rejoice as the cat spins round and round. Once Gorgias agrees to enter Socrates' "laundromat" of syllogisms, then poor Gorgias will find his head spinning like that cat.
For me, the age old struggle between Platonists and empiricists arrives at a dizzying plateau once the question is finally asked "is reality digital or analog?" which is related to issues of holism versus reductionism. It will be helpful to read this link as a refresher on holism and reductionism:
Perhaps by now some readers are ready to throw up their hands and shout:
"Whatever does this enormous mountain of baloney that you have amassed have to do with Plato's dialogue with Gorgias?"
I am only beginning to realize one excellent answer to that question just now, after hours of reading and writing. The rhetoricians and sophists, such as Gorgias, quite possibly represent the empiricism and reductionism inchoate, while the Socratic method of dialect inquiry represents the holists with their model theory.
I may be quite mistaken in my notion, but it is exciting to thing of the possibilities should such a notion be plausible.
With todays science and technology, we can take images, sound, and even the human genome, and digitize it to a sequence of numbers. If we should find one day that a digitized representation of reality can exactly match reality and be indistinguishable from it, then we may conclude that reality is digital. If, on the other hand, all attempts at digitization are doomed to be mere approximations to the original, or counterfeits, in the sense that the number pi is irrational, then we may conclude that reality and being are analog.
I was struck by all of this when I stumbled one day across a casual remark by Einstein to the effect (paraphrasing) that "no one could ever have arrived inductively at a notion of relativity simply from empirical observations." What Einstein is pointing to involves a branch of mathematics called "model theory". There are numerous axiomatic systems of mathematics (e.g. euclidean, hyperbolic, ellipical and Riemmanian geometries) mutually exclusive to one another in how they describe space, and all dwelling in the human imagination much like Plato's "eidei" or ideal forms. One day, someone notices that one of these axiomatic systems resembles observable phenomena. Ptolemy could account for the observed motion of the planets with epicycles, with an accuracy equal to Kepler's system of ellipses. Model theory has to do with the initial phase of stumbling upon a system which seems to match observations, as well as the later phase of asking "is this system actually the way things are (i.e. the noumena)? or is the system only an ad hoc contrivance for measurement?"
The laws of relativity and quantum and thermodynamics in no way lead inductively to the existence and nature of bunny rabbits, and yet the existence of rabbits in no way violates those laws. The laws of statistics do not inductively lead to the rules of poker or blackjack. Such games of chance obey the laws of statistics and probability, yet we would not study statistics in order to learn how to play the games themselves.
The Socratic line of questions and answers, a series of syllogisms and predications, is the tail of the sting-ray. At the end of the tail is a stinger, the numbing and silencing narcotic of "aporia" and refutation.
Authorship and Social Responsibility
A friend of mine, from the United States, once told me an interesting account of his time spent in a monastery. There he came to know an old Russian professor, retired, a layperson, who lived at the seminary school which trained future priests. The professor was a worldly man and an intellectual, but very devout and pious, his thinking very much influenced by Russian Orthodox beliefs. One day, during Lent, the period before Easter, he was looking at an iconographic painting of the final Day of Judgment, depicting the wicked souls being cast into the torment of hell and the righteous souls being admitted to a heavenly paradise. He remarked that the day of
Judgment must certainly be most severe for authors, because although the ordinary person must answer only for personal actions and sins and transgressions, an author must take responsibility for the conduct of thousands or millions of people who are influenced by the authors writings, either for good or for evil.
Each of us is author of our own actions (or inaction) and our lives and careers are our books, whether famous, or infamous for the very few, or simply anonymous for the vast majority. Each of us must answer for our actions in some fashion or other. We pay a price for foolishness or sloth, and we are rewarded and compensated for wisdom and industry. But an author or artist is a different sort of beast from the ordinary
individual or average citizen.
We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what do we mean by social responsibility? Secondly, what is the nature and motivation of an author or artist?
In every society, government, culture, and ideology, there is a stress and emphasis upon the responsibilities of an individual to society as a whole. From the time we are small children, we are painfully aware that certain things, in fact, many things are expected of us, and that there are consequences and a price to be paid should we fall short of those expectations. The notion of an individuals social responsibility has existed in one form or another since very ancient times, in the earliest of governments and polities, and even in the small tribes of hunters and food gatherers at the dawn of history. It is only in the past several centuries that there has arisen a notion that societies have responsibilities to individual members. We call this new found notion of society's responsibility Human Rights or Civil Rights.
Every school child in America is required to read Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, (a.k.a. Samuel Clemens). Twain's novel is required reading because it is a brilliant and entertaining and, now, historic portrayal of a time of slavery and oppression in America. We now know that smoking and the use of tobacco is very damaging to the health. In Samuel Clemens day there was no notion that tobacco might be harmful. Yet, every other page of Huckleberry Finn is praising the virtues and pleasures of smoking tobacco. Many young people have been tempted to experiment with tobacco simply because it was so romanticized by Mark Twain's novels. We may see this negative influence of Huckleberry Finn as an example of social irresponsibility, of
corrupting the youth. We certainly cannot lay the blame for this corrupting influence at the feet of Mark Twain. We must, if anything, blame generations of educators who have chosen to place the book among the required readings of the curriculum of very young and impressionable students without giving thought to the damaging social consequences.
If we extend our notion of authorship and social responsibility to artists, then possibly, we may see the painting Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, as a positive exercise of social responsibility, dramatizing for society the evils of violence and war. Yet, if we study the life and works of Pablo Picasso, it becomes quite obvious that concern for social responsibility was not in the forefront of Picassos mind as a goal or concern or inspiration.
In the 1960s, Francoise Gilot, one of Picasso's several ex-wives wrote Life with Picasso, and painted a picture of a very selfish, egocentric and unpredictable personality. That woman divorced Picasso and married the famous humanitarian Jonas Salk, who pioneered the development of the first polio vaccine. We may certainly see someone like Jonas Salk as a scientist committed to social responsibility in his attempt to alleviate the suffering of many. Though, perhaps it is far more accurate to observe that each author, whether of books or paintings or theories in physics and math, is driven more by a quest for the power of recognition than by some altruistic notion of social responsibility. Authors and creators are most driven by a eudaimonic inspiration or compulsion which drives them mercilessly and relentlessly towards the act of creation, and often, in that process, alienates the author from society as an eccentric rebel outcast.
What of the authorship of someone such as Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of Relativity which made possible the terrible destructive force of the atomic bomb? The ancient Greeks spoke in their myths of Pandora's Box. The name Pandora means every gift or all gifts. When Pandora's Box was opened, many terrifying things escaped which could never be put back again. In the myth, the last thing to escape was Hope. Many physicists felt dread and guilt over the monster of destruction which they had created and unleashed.
Those who are religious and believe the Bible to be the divinely revealed word of God feel that each and every sentence is totally good and instructive. Yet, at the end of the New Testament, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter 3, verse 16 we find this curious warning:
[In the Bible] are some things difficult to understand , which they that are unlearned and unstable twist and distort, unto their own destruction. So here, we see the Bible itself warning us that there are verses within it which are harmful to certain people. In the Old Testament of the Bible, in the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet speaks scathingly of the lying pens of the scribes. And yet it is those very scribes who copy and perpetuate the religious scriptures. Indeed, Karl Marx saw religious scriptures as an opiate of the people and therefore as something negative from the point of view of social responsibility. Conversely, the religious communities of the world see communist regimes in a negative light, believing them to oppress and censor freedom of religious expression and worship.
If one looks at popular authors and artists like Picasso, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Proust, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Thomas Dylan, and many others, one sees that they are rebels, renegades, misfits, alcoholics, recluses. We see that the worlds of imagination which they create in their writings and art are forms of escape from reality and everyday responsibilities of a good citizen.
Now, if we search for socially responsible authors, then one might choose Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Toms Cabin. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he exclaimed, And here is the little lady who started the Civil War.
Certainly, Lincoln was exaggerating to some extent in his good-natured humor, but it is certainly also true that the nation as a whole became more self-conscious about the evils of slavery after reading Uncle Toms Cabin with the cruelty of Simon LeGree, whose name became the byword of wickedness.
Another prime example of social responsibility in American literature is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which exposed the evils of company towns who exploited immigrant workers in the meat-packing industry. President Theodore Roosevelt was
sickened by the brutality and injustice which Sinclair's novel dramatized so vividly. Roosevelt immediately called upon Congress to pass a law establishing the Food and Drug Administration and, for the first time, setting up federal inspection standards for meat. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, were both signed into law on June 30th, 1906, as a direct result of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. President Roosevelt commended Sinclair for exposing the corruption and injustice, but scolded him for being such a socialist. Certainly, Sinclair seems to be one author deeply motivated by notions of social responsibility.
We even see, in the 20th century, authors like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, examining the state and society as some abortion gone bad, creating a nightmare world for its inhabitants. The passion of the authors creative obsession is closely analogous to the reckless abandon of sexual passion. In Orwell's novel, 1984, it is a love scene of wild abandon in a secluded woods which symbolizes the rebelliousness and isolation of the individuals will to power. It is the State of Big Brother which crushes the sexual feelings of the protagonist during his imprisonment.
We easily come to see society and the state, not in their day to day reality, but in the fictional picture which is painted for us by novelists and philosophers and historians. We romanticize our notion of the state until we become like America, carrying its holy grail of democracy and freedom to the four corners of the globe through diplomacy or force, to the willing and unwilling alike. As social activists, driven by our ideologies we become Christs running about everywhere seeking out the
largest cross, and then gathering about us a reluctant crowd of Herods.
In Genesis it is said of Abraham that he believed the promise of the divine vision, and that his very belief was counted to him as a form of righteousness or correct action, which also goes by the name of social responsibility. But by the time we come to the end of the Book of Job, God is saying to Job, Tell your friends that I am angry with them because they BELIEVED about me incorrectly. We see how ideology and theory and belief gradually supplant the individual and his daily actions and conduct in life. Finally, by the time we arrive at Jesus and his Apostles and Paul, we are told that we are utterly worthless and hopeless no matter what we do, but that there is a way to be forgiven, if only we will embrace a certain belief. Communism and Capitalism are both jealous gods preaching their ideology to the world and offering forgiveness and shelter in return. A certain physicist once pointed out that, in a gaseous collection of molecules, each individual molecule enjoys the utmost random chaotic freedom of chance. No one may say what a given individual molecule will do at any given moment. And yet, the mass of molecules as a whole is under strict obedience to various laws of temperature and pressure and gravity. The fiery rebel freedom of any single renegade molecule represents the force of hundreds or thousands of molecules robbed of their vigor and spontaneity and exiled to an icy state of passivity and inaction.
Plato explored many notions of social responsibility his dialogues, most notably The Republic. Plato proposes to examine the State as a kind of microscope to view the soul written in large letters. Plato envisioned philosopher kings in a society which saw the noble character of its citizens as its product and enterprise. Remember that Socrates was put to death for allegedly corrupting the youth through his teachings,
whether oral or written we know not.
That great German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, said that we must always act in such a way that we treat individuals as ends in themselves rather than as means to some end.
Psychiatrist John Powell wrote: "To live fully, we must learn to use things and love people, not love things and use people."
http://www.meaningoflife.i12.com/psychology.htm
Gradually, over the millennia, our notion of social responsibility has evolved and shifted from the prehistoric hunters and warriors duty to his tribe, and has done a hundred and eighty degree about face. Now the great emphasis is upon society's
duty to the individual in the form of human rights or civil rights.
In light of the above considerations, I must personally conclude that the notion of social responsibility of the author is something alien and unknown to the author, imposed posthumously by a reading public. Responsibility, if it lies anywhere at all, lies in the appetites and demands of the consumer public, who clamor for an endless stream of murders, rapes, cataclysms, wars, monsters and even alien invasions from outer space. Our true responsibility is to our own inner space first. If we personally make that inner space of the heart in order, then the orderliness of society will perhaps follow more naturally. Perhaps the real truth is that both religion and politics are the opiates of the soul, lulling it into complacency, apathy and indifference.
Judgment must certainly be most severe for authors, because although the ordinary person must answer only for personal actions and sins and transgressions, an author must take responsibility for the conduct of thousands or millions of people who are influenced by the authors writings, either for good or for evil.
Each of us is author of our own actions (or inaction) and our lives and careers are our books, whether famous, or infamous for the very few, or simply anonymous for the vast majority. Each of us must answer for our actions in some fashion or other. We pay a price for foolishness or sloth, and we are rewarded and compensated for wisdom and industry. But an author or artist is a different sort of beast from the ordinary
individual or average citizen.
We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what do we mean by social responsibility? Secondly, what is the nature and motivation of an author or artist?
In every society, government, culture, and ideology, there is a stress and emphasis upon the responsibilities of an individual to society as a whole. From the time we are small children, we are painfully aware that certain things, in fact, many things are expected of us, and that there are consequences and a price to be paid should we fall short of those expectations. The notion of an individuals social responsibility has existed in one form or another since very ancient times, in the earliest of governments and polities, and even in the small tribes of hunters and food gatherers at the dawn of history. It is only in the past several centuries that there has arisen a notion that societies have responsibilities to individual members. We call this new found notion of society's responsibility Human Rights or Civil Rights.
Every school child in America is required to read Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, (a.k.a. Samuel Clemens). Twain's novel is required reading because it is a brilliant and entertaining and, now, historic portrayal of a time of slavery and oppression in America. We now know that smoking and the use of tobacco is very damaging to the health. In Samuel Clemens day there was no notion that tobacco might be harmful. Yet, every other page of Huckleberry Finn is praising the virtues and pleasures of smoking tobacco. Many young people have been tempted to experiment with tobacco simply because it was so romanticized by Mark Twain's novels. We may see this negative influence of Huckleberry Finn as an example of social irresponsibility, of
corrupting the youth. We certainly cannot lay the blame for this corrupting influence at the feet of Mark Twain. We must, if anything, blame generations of educators who have chosen to place the book among the required readings of the curriculum of very young and impressionable students without giving thought to the damaging social consequences.
If we extend our notion of authorship and social responsibility to artists, then possibly, we may see the painting Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, as a positive exercise of social responsibility, dramatizing for society the evils of violence and war. Yet, if we study the life and works of Pablo Picasso, it becomes quite obvious that concern for social responsibility was not in the forefront of Picassos mind as a goal or concern or inspiration.
In the 1960s, Francoise Gilot, one of Picasso's several ex-wives wrote Life with Picasso, and painted a picture of a very selfish, egocentric and unpredictable personality. That woman divorced Picasso and married the famous humanitarian Jonas Salk, who pioneered the development of the first polio vaccine. We may certainly see someone like Jonas Salk as a scientist committed to social responsibility in his attempt to alleviate the suffering of many. Though, perhaps it is far more accurate to observe that each author, whether of books or paintings or theories in physics and math, is driven more by a quest for the power of recognition than by some altruistic notion of social responsibility. Authors and creators are most driven by a eudaimonic inspiration or compulsion which drives them mercilessly and relentlessly towards the act of creation, and often, in that process, alienates the author from society as an eccentric rebel outcast.
What of the authorship of someone such as Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of Relativity which made possible the terrible destructive force of the atomic bomb? The ancient Greeks spoke in their myths of Pandora's Box. The name Pandora means every gift or all gifts. When Pandora's Box was opened, many terrifying things escaped which could never be put back again. In the myth, the last thing to escape was Hope. Many physicists felt dread and guilt over the monster of destruction which they had created and unleashed.
Those who are religious and believe the Bible to be the divinely revealed word of God feel that each and every sentence is totally good and instructive. Yet, at the end of the New Testament, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter 3, verse 16 we find this curious warning:
[In the Bible] are some things difficult to understand , which they that are unlearned and unstable twist and distort, unto their own destruction. So here, we see the Bible itself warning us that there are verses within it which are harmful to certain people. In the Old Testament of the Bible, in the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet speaks scathingly of the lying pens of the scribes. And yet it is those very scribes who copy and perpetuate the religious scriptures. Indeed, Karl Marx saw religious scriptures as an opiate of the people and therefore as something negative from the point of view of social responsibility. Conversely, the religious communities of the world see communist regimes in a negative light, believing them to oppress and censor freedom of religious expression and worship.
If one looks at popular authors and artists like Picasso, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Proust, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Thomas Dylan, and many others, one sees that they are rebels, renegades, misfits, alcoholics, recluses. We see that the worlds of imagination which they create in their writings and art are forms of escape from reality and everyday responsibilities of a good citizen.
Now, if we search for socially responsible authors, then one might choose Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Toms Cabin. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he exclaimed, And here is the little lady who started the Civil War.
Certainly, Lincoln was exaggerating to some extent in his good-natured humor, but it is certainly also true that the nation as a whole became more self-conscious about the evils of slavery after reading Uncle Toms Cabin with the cruelty of Simon LeGree, whose name became the byword of wickedness.
Another prime example of social responsibility in American literature is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which exposed the evils of company towns who exploited immigrant workers in the meat-packing industry. President Theodore Roosevelt was
sickened by the brutality and injustice which Sinclair's novel dramatized so vividly. Roosevelt immediately called upon Congress to pass a law establishing the Food and Drug Administration and, for the first time, setting up federal inspection standards for meat. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, were both signed into law on June 30th, 1906, as a direct result of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. President Roosevelt commended Sinclair for exposing the corruption and injustice, but scolded him for being such a socialist. Certainly, Sinclair seems to be one author deeply motivated by notions of social responsibility.
We even see, in the 20th century, authors like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, examining the state and society as some abortion gone bad, creating a nightmare world for its inhabitants. The passion of the authors creative obsession is closely analogous to the reckless abandon of sexual passion. In Orwell's novel, 1984, it is a love scene of wild abandon in a secluded woods which symbolizes the rebelliousness and isolation of the individuals will to power. It is the State of Big Brother which crushes the sexual feelings of the protagonist during his imprisonment.
We easily come to see society and the state, not in their day to day reality, but in the fictional picture which is painted for us by novelists and philosophers and historians. We romanticize our notion of the state until we become like America, carrying its holy grail of democracy and freedom to the four corners of the globe through diplomacy or force, to the willing and unwilling alike. As social activists, driven by our ideologies we become Christs running about everywhere seeking out the
largest cross, and then gathering about us a reluctant crowd of Herods.
In Genesis it is said of Abraham that he believed the promise of the divine vision, and that his very belief was counted to him as a form of righteousness or correct action, which also goes by the name of social responsibility. But by the time we come to the end of the Book of Job, God is saying to Job, Tell your friends that I am angry with them because they BELIEVED about me incorrectly. We see how ideology and theory and belief gradually supplant the individual and his daily actions and conduct in life. Finally, by the time we arrive at Jesus and his Apostles and Paul, we are told that we are utterly worthless and hopeless no matter what we do, but that there is a way to be forgiven, if only we will embrace a certain belief. Communism and Capitalism are both jealous gods preaching their ideology to the world and offering forgiveness and shelter in return. A certain physicist once pointed out that, in a gaseous collection of molecules, each individual molecule enjoys the utmost random chaotic freedom of chance. No one may say what a given individual molecule will do at any given moment. And yet, the mass of molecules as a whole is under strict obedience to various laws of temperature and pressure and gravity. The fiery rebel freedom of any single renegade molecule represents the force of hundreds or thousands of molecules robbed of their vigor and spontaneity and exiled to an icy state of passivity and inaction.
Plato explored many notions of social responsibility his dialogues, most notably The Republic. Plato proposes to examine the State as a kind of microscope to view the soul written in large letters. Plato envisioned philosopher kings in a society which saw the noble character of its citizens as its product and enterprise. Remember that Socrates was put to death for allegedly corrupting the youth through his teachings,
whether oral or written we know not.
That great German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, said that we must always act in such a way that we treat individuals as ends in themselves rather than as means to some end.
Psychiatrist John Powell wrote: "To live fully, we must learn to use things and love people, not love things and use people."
http://www.meaningoflife.i12.com/psychology.htm
Gradually, over the millennia, our notion of social responsibility has evolved and shifted from the prehistoric hunters and warriors duty to his tribe, and has done a hundred and eighty degree about face. Now the great emphasis is upon society's
duty to the individual in the form of human rights or civil rights.
In light of the above considerations, I must personally conclude that the notion of social responsibility of the author is something alien and unknown to the author, imposed posthumously by a reading public. Responsibility, if it lies anywhere at all, lies in the appetites and demands of the consumer public, who clamor for an endless stream of murders, rapes, cataclysms, wars, monsters and even alien invasions from outer space. Our true responsibility is to our own inner space first. If we personally make that inner space of the heart in order, then the orderliness of society will perhaps follow more naturally. Perhaps the real truth is that both religion and politics are the opiates of the soul, lulling it into complacency, apathy and indifference.
Sentiments In and Regarding France
http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/news/351463
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
"That's some denouement
whoa (Oct 9 2005 - 00:47)
Thanks, Quackshot, for proving my point. Americans do not know enough about France to do any serious bashing, and the French are winning this contest."
Everybody loses.
Some believe that opposites attract and likes repel: American exceptionalism and French l'exception culturelle.
But could it be that much of the anti-US sentiment in France actually starts with the elitists at the top only to have it returned to them by the ignorant in the US? My understanding is that, for the most part, French people, young and old alike, like or have no dislike for America and Americans. Ask French elitists how they feel about a Big Mac and the invasion of English into the French language.
The mainstream media in both countries are conspirators in this. Hysteria sells newspapers.
"All the american things are completely forbidden or boycotted"
BS. It is obvious that QUACKSHOT has never been in France, even for a few hours. Or maybe it was before WW One! American music, American movies, American novels, the American way of life, all the newest American trends are everywhere, at every corner of the French society.
True, there is some anti-americanism in France, usually politicians or journalists on both side of the political spectrum. They blame America for everything because they refuse to blame themselves for their mistakes. A bunch of arrogant morons but they represent only a few percent of France.
"Subway ran the ads in about 10 states for nearly a month and pulled them in September following an outcry by members of the French expatriate community and other customers offended by the racist undertone."
How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist? There is no racial component to the ad. Are the French as separate race? They may feel that way but I don't beleive they are.
Also, do the French really have such thin skin? It's not as if we accused them of being Nazi's or imperialists or anything (as they refer to the US all the time). The elite's in France are constantly bashing the US and asserting the moral superiority of the French way. It's only natural that there will be a little of their arrogance and mean-spireted way of thinking thrown back at them.
American's understand that France care's only about France and it's own feeling of moral superiority. Any help that American's have gotten or are receiving from France is only for their own benefit. Conversely, America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return (and you can bet your last euro that the US got nothing in return for their sacrifices either).
I think someone in an earlier post had it right - JT is just trying to instigate a self-rightgeous back and forth between people that support America and those that hate America. The stories that are put up on this site are carefully selected. Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself.
"Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself."
Amen!!
"America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return"
Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!
Keep living in your own world dude....
Wolfpack: "How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist?"
Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste.
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste."
(And being the most important person on the planet this probably means something to you.)
Believe it or not, capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar.
I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
Not to mention that has nothing to do with my comment, which was to say that American acceptance of that ad is a form of self-bashing.
"I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign."
So would I, so we agree on something!
Selling French-style chicken with an anti-French message. They ran that idiotic ad for 10 months?
Subway needs a new Ad Agency.
That's capitalism.
"Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!"
So you are trying to convice me that FDR wanted to make a deal with the Nazi-backed French Vichey government during WWII? I guess the US was going to put an Iron Curtain around France - and only France - and not seek to make any of the other Western European countries into some 'puppet regime'. Your French nationalism is getting a bit nutty dude. Care to cite any respected source to back this claim up?
America has been generous and it's such ungratefulness as you are displaying that makes American's dislike France.
"Keep living in your own world dude...."
I am. It's called the real world.
"Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America."
Heck yeah it is humurous! You - and apparently the French - have no sense of humour. I would guess that after having the French look down their noses at the British for so long that more than a few Brit's would consider it humurous as well.
Lighten up - you will live longer.
"http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html"
Pretty funny Pasquinade. I guess those thin skinned America-haters will not get many laughs from it. To each their own I guess.
Never saw ad, americans hate? WolfpackWhoa
yondervu Click here to see all messages by yondervu Click here to see member profile (Oct 11 2005 - 02:13) Rate | Report
Never saw the ad, but having seen other subway ads and reading the article, it was probably humorous in a small way.
By the way, Americans don't hate French. Just poking fun. Hate is a very strong word, besides it would take a lot more than the Iraq Liberation/War to make us forget about the Statue of Liberty. We just think they are on one of those strange steaks, like the time they went fascist, you konw. It won't last, we'll be on good terms eventually, I am sure.
Hey, when can I get this sandwich? I tried their Chicken Parm., man did it suck. Wheh !! No I mean really, I thought I might vomit. Needless to say I won't buy that again.
As for lack of American taste, I have to admit Subway does kinda suck, McDonalds sucks too. Pizza Hut is awful. Yeh, you are probably right.
Try this one: http://www.tedrall.com/longarticle_011.htm
Only for you, here is one part of a Roosevelt letter to Churchill:
"I am more and more of the opinion that we should consider France as a militarily-occupied nation and governed by British and American generals...We would keep 90% of the [Vichy] mayors and a large percentage of the lesser bureaucrats of the cities and departments. But the important posts would remain the responsibility of the military commander, American and British. This will last between six months and a year...Perhaps [General Charles] de Gaulle can become governor of Madagascar."
Enjoy the rest. Also, check out this biography of a Vichy offical: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bldoubledealer1.htm one more part for you:
"It is also probable that Roosevelt saw in Darlan the ideal pawn for his postwar plans for France--a country for which the president had low regard. He not only favored stripping the French of their sprawling overseas empire but intended to carve up the nation, significantly reducing its area, to deny France any part in the eventual peace settlement, membership in the United Nations, or role in the postwar occupation of Germany. Darlan evidently struck Roosevelt as a malleable puppet whom he could use to further his ideas for postwar France."
I didn't know teaching you a bit of history was "nationalism";-) your statement that your beloved US of A only provides unconditional help throughout the world is a day dream dude. As any good country, the US does things for self interest.
Corporations side with neither left nor right.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
---
Not economics. Please see above: "Corporations side with neither left nor right."
And let's not talk about whether or not corporations pay taxes. We'll save that for another time.
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
"That's some denouement
whoa (Oct 9 2005 - 00:47)
Thanks, Quackshot, for proving my point. Americans do not know enough about France to do any serious bashing, and the French are winning this contest."
Everybody loses.
Some believe that opposites attract and likes repel: American exceptionalism and French l'exception culturelle.
But could it be that much of the anti-US sentiment in France actually starts with the elitists at the top only to have it returned to them by the ignorant in the US? My understanding is that, for the most part, French people, young and old alike, like or have no dislike for America and Americans. Ask French elitists how they feel about a Big Mac and the invasion of English into the French language.
The mainstream media in both countries are conspirators in this. Hysteria sells newspapers.
"All the american things are completely forbidden or boycotted"
BS. It is obvious that QUACKSHOT has never been in France, even for a few hours. Or maybe it was before WW One! American music, American movies, American novels, the American way of life, all the newest American trends are everywhere, at every corner of the French society.
True, there is some anti-americanism in France, usually politicians or journalists on both side of the political spectrum. They blame America for everything because they refuse to blame themselves for their mistakes. A bunch of arrogant morons but they represent only a few percent of France.
"Subway ran the ads in about 10 states for nearly a month and pulled them in September following an outcry by members of the French expatriate community and other customers offended by the racist undertone."
How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist? There is no racial component to the ad. Are the French as separate race? They may feel that way but I don't beleive they are.
Also, do the French really have such thin skin? It's not as if we accused them of being Nazi's or imperialists or anything (as they refer to the US all the time). The elite's in France are constantly bashing the US and asserting the moral superiority of the French way. It's only natural that there will be a little of their arrogance and mean-spireted way of thinking thrown back at them.
American's understand that France care's only about France and it's own feeling of moral superiority. Any help that American's have gotten or are receiving from France is only for their own benefit. Conversely, America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return (and you can bet your last euro that the US got nothing in return for their sacrifices either).
I think someone in an earlier post had it right - JT is just trying to instigate a self-rightgeous back and forth between people that support America and those that hate America. The stories that are put up on this site are carefully selected. Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself.
"Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself."
Amen!!
"America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return"
Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!
Keep living in your own world dude....
Wolfpack: "How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist?"
Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste.
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste."
(And being the most important person on the planet this probably means something to you.)
Believe it or not, capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar.
I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
Not to mention that has nothing to do with my comment, which was to say that American acceptance of that ad is a form of self-bashing.
"I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign."
So would I, so we agree on something!
Selling French-style chicken with an anti-French message. They ran that idiotic ad for 10 months?
Subway needs a new Ad Agency.
That's capitalism.
"Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!"
So you are trying to convice me that FDR wanted to make a deal with the Nazi-backed French Vichey government during WWII? I guess the US was going to put an Iron Curtain around France - and only France - and not seek to make any of the other Western European countries into some 'puppet regime'. Your French nationalism is getting a bit nutty dude. Care to cite any respected source to back this claim up?
America has been generous and it's such ungratefulness as you are displaying that makes American's dislike France.
"Keep living in your own world dude...."
I am. It's called the real world.
"Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America."
Heck yeah it is humurous! You - and apparently the French - have no sense of humour. I would guess that after having the French look down their noses at the British for so long that more than a few Brit's would consider it humurous as well.
Lighten up - you will live longer.
"http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html"
Pretty funny Pasquinade. I guess those thin skinned America-haters will not get many laughs from it. To each their own I guess.
Never saw ad, americans hate? WolfpackWhoa
yondervu Click here to see all messages by yondervu Click here to see member profile (Oct 11 2005 - 02:13) Rate | Report
Never saw the ad, but having seen other subway ads and reading the article, it was probably humorous in a small way.
By the way, Americans don't hate French. Just poking fun. Hate is a very strong word, besides it would take a lot more than the Iraq Liberation/War to make us forget about the Statue of Liberty. We just think they are on one of those strange steaks, like the time they went fascist, you konw. It won't last, we'll be on good terms eventually, I am sure.
Hey, when can I get this sandwich? I tried their Chicken Parm., man did it suck. Wheh !! No I mean really, I thought I might vomit. Needless to say I won't buy that again.
As for lack of American taste, I have to admit Subway does kinda suck, McDonalds sucks too. Pizza Hut is awful. Yeh, you are probably right.
Try this one: http://www.tedrall.com/longarticle_011.htm
Only for you, here is one part of a Roosevelt letter to Churchill:
"I am more and more of the opinion that we should consider France as a militarily-occupied nation and governed by British and American generals...We would keep 90% of the [Vichy] mayors and a large percentage of the lesser bureaucrats of the cities and departments. But the important posts would remain the responsibility of the military commander, American and British. This will last between six months and a year...Perhaps [General Charles] de Gaulle can become governor of Madagascar."
Enjoy the rest. Also, check out this biography of a Vichy offical: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bldoubledealer1.htm one more part for you:
"It is also probable that Roosevelt saw in Darlan the ideal pawn for his postwar plans for France--a country for which the president had low regard. He not only favored stripping the French of their sprawling overseas empire but intended to carve up the nation, significantly reducing its area, to deny France any part in the eventual peace settlement, membership in the United Nations, or role in the postwar occupation of Germany. Darlan evidently struck Roosevelt as a malleable puppet whom he could use to further his ideas for postwar France."
I didn't know teaching you a bit of history was "nationalism";-) your statement that your beloved US of A only provides unconditional help throughout the world is a day dream dude. As any good country, the US does things for self interest.
Corporations side with neither left nor right.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
---
Not economics. Please see above: "Corporations side with neither left nor right."
And let's not talk about whether or not corporations pay taxes. We'll save that for another time.
East-West Dialogues
East-West Dialogue: Rex & I, September 10, 2005
This morning, Rex and I had a long discussion which started with the Milton Paradise Lost Thread.
http://thebookforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2714
Rex has given permission for me to edit and post our discussion here.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Me:
Rex, you are immersing yourself in the study of Milton and Cromwell, and many other writings which are outside of Chinese cultural heritage and tradition. Do you perceive within yourself something which you see as uniquely Chinese culture/thinking/feeling which is then somehow changed when you digest all this western literature/history/philosophy? I mean, are you different in any way now that you study such things, than if you had never pursued such studies? I am asking if you sense or perceive a change within yourself, of any kind, as a result of deep exposure to these topics/studies
Rex_Yuan:
I sense no change within myself.
Me:
I was raised with no religion. College exposed me to the "100 great books" (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc) and that changed me very much.
Then, I became Greek/Russian orthodox christian in my 20's, and spent time in monasteries, and that again changed me. In my forties, I studied Zen and Hinduism and many other religions, and that changed me.
Rex_Yuan:
My thought or my way of thinking, is typically Chinese. And I don't think I will change in the future. The Chinese culture is such one that can enclose anything, accept anything "good." that is basically beneficial to the human kind in general.
Me:
That is a curious statement. If I read into it, or read it differently, it seems to be saying that you are resistant to the possibility of change (just my guess... conjecture), no offence intended; just being my usual analytical self.
Rex_Yuan:
No resisting, just because by comparison between the western culture and the Chinese traditional one.
Me:
You see, I have learned or recognized that I may change drastically during my lifetime. So, I accept this possibility. In my 20's I was convinced that ancient Indian and Chinese writings were nonsense, and now I am of an entirely different opinion. I have come, in my lifetime, to see much that is contemptible about my country and culture, and my ancestors
Rex_Yuan:
The more I read, the more I respect my own culture. Do you find something different from the western culture and that from China in the development from the most ancient time up to now?
Me:
I have seen statements made with regard to Japanese/Chinese culture/art, which are striking, in contrast to Western culture/art.
For example D.T. Suzuki contrasts a poem by Tennyson with an haiku by Basho in a most astounding manner. Suzuki demonstrates that Tennyson's poem "I plucked a flower from the crannied wall" is paradigmatic of destructive western analytical thinking. The Western thinker knows what it WAS (after destroying it in the analytical process). The flower wilts in Tennyson’s hand is wilting as he philosophizes about it. Whereas Basho simply observes the blue flower, the Nazuna, by a wall, and leaves it undisturbed. Basho does not dissect and destroy, but rather merges subjectively with his surroundings. And here is another observation regarding European paintings, where the person, the face, takes up most of the canvas, and nature is in the distance, very small. By contrast, Japanese paintings have people as very small, in the background, and the bulk of the canvas is the mountains, nature.
Me: Say... listen... I am serious... this discussion we are having is very good... give me your permission to edit it and post it at the forum. Other readers may become interested and join in.
Rex_Yuan:
Ok . Yes, you have my permission to post our dialogue.
Me:
One major thing we can offer on the Internet, is a dialogue between cultures.... seriously! You are a most respected representative of China, doing advanced studies in English, in literature.... and you live near the nation's capitol. This shall give a wonderful opportunity to post regarding D.T. Suzuki's analysis of Tennyson vs. Basho; West vs East
Rex_Yuan:
I would do anything beneficial to the human kind.
Me:
Yes, in another of our conversations, some months ago, I remember you expressing your humanitarian desire to help society at large
This desire of yours, to do good, is most commendable. It was Gandhi who said, "We must ourselves become that very change which we desire to see in the world." by sharing this dialogue of ours, we give others the opportunity to join in, and to set them thinking along the same lines, of how we as individuals might help the world at large.
Rex_Yuan:
The real spirit of Chinese traditional culture (not the modern one which is changed greatly by the influence from abroad)is by doing good to everyone else that the giver receives real happiness. I found that the Chinese development of thinking is a history of interpreting what has been said by the ancestor. While in the west, it is one that the offspring overturn their ancestors. This is the fundamental reason why I said to you that I don't think I will change. i.e., Harmony or Conflict, that is the title of my thesis Chinese culture sees everything as a whole, (harmony); The West one sees human kind split from nature, from others (conflict). Descartes said "I think, so I exist." He actually put himself detached (or alienated) from the world around him. Being detached creates conflicting state of existing.
My Chinese screen name in MSN can be translated as "The highest good is like water. The heaven and earth exist long." I took the name from “The Way of the Tao” by Lao Tse or Laotzu. Water benefits all the other creatures (things, matters), but will not compete with them. Heaven and earth foster, or provide materials nourishing not themselves, so they exist long.
Me:
Wu-Wei, action through non-action
Rex_Yuan:
So when I say I don't think I will change, I am serious and the conclusion is derived from fundamental comparison between two cultures and I feel so lucky to be brought up in so great a culture, and now (not too late) to know something concerning its real essence. After my realizing this, I became happier. The more I know about it; the happier I am. I accept the Chinese culture, because I don't want to refuse happiness. tranquility, happiness
that is something Irving Babbitt, the humanist or neo-humanist found.
Emerson said that human kind has ridden on a horse and he sways from one side to the other, but never stay in the middle. Confucianism emphasizes the importance of the "Golden-Mean", which is a term said by Aristotle. But Babbitt thought though the Greeks produced something really great, they didn't make a good balance between diversity and unity. So Socrates was put to death. Then the last hope died.
Me:
Yes the ancient Greeks and Romans spoke much of a mean between extremes
Rex_Yuan:
Hegel announced that romanticism is the ending of art. The philosophy of modern western countries especially in the America, is in a confusion. or too diversified.
Me:
Hegel is very important, and unique... I wrote my senior paper on Hegel, and it is at my website
Rex_Yuan:
"From the extremes the middle always looks like another extreme."
Me:
The synthesis between thesis and antithesis becomes a thesis to repeat the cycle
Rex_Yuan:
Hegel is a genius and very knowledgeable. But he sees things in too simplified a fashion.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unravelling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
Thank you, Rex, for bringing this fascinating converstion to our attention. I (for one) will be reading with interest.
StillILearn
I have found a great wealth of information in the search engines regarding Milton and Calvinism and Arminianism and Cromwell.
And I shall be posting shortly in this thread regarding a book I have in front of me by Erich Fromm, D.T. Suzuki, and Richard De martino entitled Zen and Psychoanalysis. It is the opening pages of this book which count Suzuki's analysis of the differences between Basho's Haiku and Tennyson's poem, each regarding a flower.
I have also succeeded in locating, on my shelves, my copy of Nancy Wilson Ross' World of Zen - East/West Anthology
Just yesterday I learned that the actor, Bob Denver, who portrayed Maynard G. Krebbs in the Dobie Gillis Show has passed away. I mention his character, because he portrayed a beatnik in a show created just at the end of the beatnik era and just prior to the beginning of the hippy era. And I mention beatniks because Alan Watts and D.T. Suzuki were possibly the first to write extensively about Zen for the western audience, and such popular writings had many influences in popular writing and culture, e.g. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Pirsig, which has little to do with Zen per se (and much to do with Platonic dialectic), but much to do with the influence of Zen on our thinking.
namuamituofo
The Master of Silence
I am going to recount here, and ancient Zen story which is related in The World of Zen - an East/West Anthology, edited by Nancy Wilson Ross.
My reason for bringing this story up in detail is that, for me, it illustrates in a wonderful fashion, how the reader may find a meaning which the author never even dreamed of.
A monk called himself the Master of Silence He was actually a fraud and had no genuine understanding. To sell his humbug Zen, he had two eloquent attendant monks to answer questions for him; but he himself never uttered a word, as if to show his inscrutable "Silent Zen". One day, during the absence of his two attendants, a pilgrim monk came to him and asked: "Master, what is the Buddha?" Not knowing what to do or to answer, in his confusion he could only look desperately around in all directions - east and west, here and there - for his missing attendants. The pilgrim monk apparently satisfied, then asked him: "What is the Dharma?" He could not answer this question either, so he first looked up at the ceiling and then down at the floor, calling for help from heaven and hell. Again the monk asked: "What is the Sangha?" Now, the "Master of Silence" could do nothing but close his eyes. Finally, the monk asked: "What is blessing?" In desperation, the "Master of Silence" helplessly spread his hands to the questioner as a sign of surrender. But the pilgrim monk was very pleased and satisfied with this interview. He left the "Master" and set out again on his journey. On the road, the pilgrim monk happened to meet the very two attendants of the "master of silence" who had been absent, but were now returning. The monk pilgrim began telling them enthusiastically about what an enlightened being this "Master of Silence" was. He said: "I asked him what Buddha is. He immediately turned his face to the east and then to the west, implying that human beings are always looking for Buddha here and there, but actually Buddha is not to be found either in the east or in the west. I then asked him what the Dharma is. In answer to this question he looked up and down, meaning that the truth of Dharma is totality or equality, there being no discrimination between high and low, while both purity and impurity can be found therein. In answering my question as to what the Sangha was, he simply closed his eyes and said nothing. That was a clue to the famous saying:
If one can close his eyes and sleep soundly in the deep recesses of the cloudy mountains, He is then a great monk.
Finally, in answering my last question, ' What is the blessing?" he stretched out his arms and showed both his hands to me. This implied that he was stretching out his helping hands to guide sentient beings with his blessings. Oh, what an enlightened Zen Master! How profound is his teaching!
When the attendant monks returned, the "Master of Silence" scolded them thus: "Where have you been all this time? A while ago I was embarrassed to death, and almost ruined, by an inquisitive pilgrim!"
+++++
We see in this ancient Zen story and excellent example of eisagesis, where the reader "reads into" the work or act something which the author of the work never imagined.
Often, one word, and one shade of meaning, can make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD, quite literally, in that it suggests an entire moral/ethical/salvific/theological world which IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT from that causal world suggested by some other, slightly different shade of meaning.
I was once discussing certain fine theological points with someone during a long train ride. Finally I pointed to the doors of the train, which were across from our seats. There was a sign on those doors which said "Do not lean on THESE DOORS." I pointed out that if this train car were discovered by archeologists thousands of years from now, they might very well translate that sign and assume that it meant "do not lean on THESE DOORS (because there are OTHER DOORS, elsewhere, upon which you MAY LEAN)". Then such future theologians/archeologists would go on a great quest for the mythical doors upon which LEANING WAS PERMITTED.
__________________
Notice how J.D. Salinger capitalized upon various "eastern" notions such as "reincarnation" and "prayer of the heart" (from the Philokalia), in the short story Teddy about the prodigy child who was a wise man, reincarnated, and in Franny and Zooey where Zooey is so beguiled by the Russian Way of the Pilgrim which instructs about prayer of the heart. And Salinger was writing these things around the 1950s, when Alan Watts was influencing the west with popularized writings about Zen.
I believe that the writings of Alan Watts and Christmas Humphries, in Great Britain, and D.T. Suzuki (Japan), who collaborated with one another, had an impact and influence upon western culture and literature and art.
It is curious that Alan Watts described himself as "a spiritual entertainer."
He was certainly gifted at writing and producing books and lectures which held great appear for the general reading public.
People in the West, perhaps bored, perhaps dissatisfied, turned to the East and extracted or abstracted certain elements which they characterize with some term, like Zen, and produce a caricature of that export. One day, that caricature becomes an episode in the Simpsons, with Bart, taking zen-like lessons from a Chinese restaurateur on the proper ninja gestures for tossing menus under doors. That episode is a take-off or spoof on a movie, The Karate Kid where a young Caucasian boy takes lessons from the wise old Asian man who happened to be a master of martial arts.
So, Rex, I wonder if, in Asia, there are pockets of bored and discontent people who create and then act out, caricatures of Gatsby or William F. Buckley, Jr. or some equally exotic Western personality.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unravelling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
Ell:
I find this topic quite fascinating but feel ill-equipped to contribute in a scholarly way. What I offer is from personal experience ony. I hope I'm not intruding on your discussion.
Quote:
Me:
Rex, you are immersing yourself in the study of Milton and Cromwell, and many other writings which are outside of Chinese cultural heritage and tradition. Do you perceive within yourself something which you see as uniquely Chinese culture/thinking/feeling which is then somehow changed when you digest all this western literature/history/philosophy? I mean, are you different in any way now that you study such things, than if you had never pursued such studies? I am asking if you sense or perceive a change within yourself, of any kind, as a result of deep exposure to these topics/studies
Rex_Yuan:
I sense no change within myself.
Me:
I was raised with no religion. College exposed me to the "100 great books" (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc) and that changed me very much.
Then, I became Greek/Russian orthodox christian in my 20's, and spent time in monasteries, and that again changed me. In my forties, I studied Zen and Hinduism and many other religions, and that changed me.
Rex_Yuan:
My thought or my way of thinking, is typically Chinese. And I don't think I will change in the future. The Chinese culture is such one that can enclose anything, accept anything "good." that is basically beneficial to the human kind in general.
Me:
That is a curious statement. If I read into it, or read it differently, it seems to be saying that you are resistant to the possibility of change (just my guess... conjecture), no offense intended; just being my usual analytical self.
Rex_Yuan:
No resisting, just because by comparison between the western culture and the Chinese traditional one.
I think I understand what Rex-Yuan means when he says he senses no change within himself. It is not a matter of resisting change, but of embracing that which you find worthwhile. Or as he put it, "The Chinese culture is one that can enclose anything, accept anything 'good' that is basically beneficial to the human kind". Hence, new or different ideas don't 'change' you in the western sense, they merely become part of your totality.
As I stated earlier, this East-West dialogue is quite fascinating to me because at a young age I was raised by my Confucius-scholar grandfather. Later, I was sent to a Protestant Sunday school, attended both regular public school and Chinese school, and was indoctrinated in all things western by an aunt who thought we should all 'blend in' (hah!). At any rate, l never thought I needed to choose one way of thinking over another (change). In the course of my life, I've been exposed to many different ideas as you have, but rather than think I've 'changed', I think of it more like a progression and journey of the same person. Everything blends and becomes the sum total of what I am today.
I find this topic quite fascinating but feel ill-equipped to contribute in a scholarly way. What I offer is from personal experience only. I hope I'm not intruding on your discussion.
Ell, you stole the words right out of my mouth, though you managed to arrange them in a much more elegant and graceful manner.
I'll be reading this thread with much interest, though I'm not sure how much i can contribute, being so obviously outclassed, intellectually.
I was born in India, but came to England when I was 5, so the whole east/west dialogue resonates with me. Since there wasn't anyone to show me the way, i 'discovered' reading and learning by myself and began to expose myself to different ideas at a young age. When I realized that these ideas clashed with the thinking of the people around me, i would once again hit the books and bug everyone until they would answer my questions. I cannot say that my thinking is completely western or eastern, its an amalgamation of not just my cultural heritage but also of my life experiences.
At the same time though, your point about change is very valid, because the more you experience or immerse yourself in other ideologies/ways of thinking the more you understand people and because you are understanding someone better, your response to them is going to change.
What i do find interesting though, is that the more literature I read, both western and indian, the more parallels and similarities I see.
I hope this post makes even half the sense it did in my head
__________________
"I've developed a new philosophy... I only dread one day at a time" - Charles Shultz
Eli: thaks for your post. I was quite impressed with your quote from Pynchon about our ignorance having "a shape and contours". I am anxious to see his book of short stories one day.
Gem: As I read your post, I am thinking of Sarvapali Radhakrishnan. I have a large paperback here filled with essays that people have written about Radhakrisnan's life and works. SR was truly a giant with one leg firmly in the East and the other firmly in the West.
(I shall be adding more to this post presently..)
I am tempted just now to get up and find my book on SR. But, instead, I have been meaning to add to this thread some things in my mind concerning the life and career of Alan Watts. Watts wrote his own autobiography, In My Own Way. After Watts death, Monica Furlong wrote a biography of him entitled Zen Effects. She took her title from a term coined in nuclear physics. She explains in her Preface: In advanced particle physics some remarkable phenomena occur when two particles bearing opposite charges are forced to collide. Some of these events can be explained by standard theory, but others - zen effects - cannot be explained in terms of any known processes.
Watts autobiography, naturally, tells nothing of his last years. Watt's paints a picture of himself that is somewhat flattering, revealing nothing which might diminish our esteem for him.
Zen Effects paints a more accurate picture of a man caught in an economic and social vice, who drank a quart of vodka a day to keep himself going.
Watts started as an ordained Anglican minister married to a wife who had no idea, initially, of Watts secret side.
Watts had experience some bizarre relationships in a private boys school which left him jaded in his appetites. Watts asked his wife to join him in a menage au toi with another man. She could not understand his behavior. She was confused and distressed and sought the counsel of a bishop.
Watts became disillusioned with Christianity, resigned from the ministry, and turned to Buddhism.
I have a paperback copy of one of his early books, where he was still passionately preoccupied with criticizing Christianity and justifying his change to himself and to the world.
By mid-life, Watts was under the pressure of backbreaking alimony payments from several divorces, and his only means of income was to write and lecture. And they only way he could cope with everything was heavy drinking.
There are still some radio station which play his taped lectures once or twice a week.
Alan Watts described himself as "a spiritual entertainer."
A person such as Sarvapali Rhadakrishnan has very different reasons than someone like Alan Watts for keeps a foot in the East and a foot in the West.
We each have our special reasons why we do the things we do. Sometimes they are of our own choosing. For others, there is no choice.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unraveling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
TIMECUBE
What is Zen?
I'm very glad you asked that excellent question, "What is Zen?"
Perhaps long before the 6th. century B.C.E. (Before the Christian Era), which was the century of Siddhartha Gautama, the historical figure known as The Buddha, in India, in the Sanskrit language, the language of the sacred Hindu Vedas, there was a word, dyana used to describe a form of concentration or meditation.
Now, it is from that word dyana that, centuries later, and a continent away, we finally arrive at the word zen. We shall see that the migration of dyana to become zen is a gradual eastward journey, to the Land of the Rising Sun, Japan, by way of China.
That journey started with Bodhidharma who brought dyana to China, where it became known as chan (because they couldn't pronounce dyan and we all know that the Chinese talk funny). Many centuries later, someone brought chan to Japan, where they pronounced it zen (because they couldn't say chan and we all know that Japanese talk funny.)
I cant let you go away without adding some archeology to all this.
In ancient India, there are various representations, carvings and engravings of someone seated with crossed legs, erect posture, folded hands, and closed eyes. Now, who or what do you suppose that figure represents?
I thought I would be very clever, just now, and search on Siva "Lord of the Beasts" archeologists. Google returned only one browser page, which was one of mine, written 8/5/99.
I have been searching just now for a picture to show you regarding that ancient seal discovered, showing a figure in meditation.
http://www.jainsamaj.org/literature/harappa-150104.htm
One may study the engraved seal from Mohenjo-Daro (Cambridge Hist. of India, 1953, Pl. XXIII) of the third millennium B.C. Rudra (Pasupati) Mahadeva seated in meditation in the midst of mortals such as men, animals such as rhinoceros, buffalo, tiger, elephant, antelopes, birds and fish and exhibiting the peniserectum (Urdhva-etas) pose standing for the upward force of creative activity. The iconography of the God noticed in the Mohenjo-Daro seal is fully explained by the following Riks from the Rig Veda:-
1. "Brahma among gods, leader of the poets, Rishi of sages, buffalo among animals, hawk among birds, axe among weapons, over the sieve goes Soma singing."
2. "The thrice-bent bull goes on roaring-The Great God has completely entered the mortals."
3. "Rudra is the lord of creatures."
Folks, it took me a while, but here is a photo of that ancient seal:
http://www.harappa.com/indus/33.html
According to Ninian Smart, Professor of Comparative World Religions, it is a toss-up between Jain and Saivite worship as to which is the more ancient continuously practiced religion.
Now, Mahavira, the 24th Jain Tirthankara was a contemporary of Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (around 600 B.C.E.). I believe that Zarathustra dates also to around 600 B.C.E in Persia.
By around 3500 B.C.E. in the Harrapan civilization, archeologists find brick platforms which it is assumed were used for Yajna fire sacrifice. And the discovery of the famous "Siva-Pasupati" (Lord of the Beasts) Seal indicates Saivism as well as the practice of Yogic.
At any rate, we see a lotus position meditative figure in artistic depictions of Siva, Mahavaira, and Buddha.
It is very interesting to note that, in the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis, there is an account of how Patriarch Abraham sacrificed several different animals, split them in half, arranged their halves in a row (with a path through the middle), and then sat all day in a meditative state. When he was in what sounds like a trance, then God appeared as a fire which passed along the path between the animal halves, through the middle of the sacrifice.
We may see the actual description of Abraham's meditative trance and vision
in Genesis 15:7-21 (King James Version)
7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8And he said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
9And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11And when the fowls came down upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
....
17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
We scholarly types love discover grand designs, symmetries and formulas which span millenia and continents and draw everything together into one, to organize it and keep it neat, and render it suitable for multiple choice testing.
And if we cannot discover such patterns, then we create them and impose them on the data, when everyone is looking the other way.
(I shall be adding to this much of Sunday morning, I hope, as I drink my many coffees. And I file ever 10 minutes. So keep your cursor near that refresh button, and, like Ole' Gabby Hayes used to say, "Keep those cards and letters comin' in!")
We may return somewhat to our thread topic, East vs. West by noting a number of things. First, in the Vedas, the words siva and rudra originally mean simple gentle and harsh. Later, Shiva and Rudra become personified as deities.
You may read about Siva and Rudra here:
http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/en...edia/rudra.htm
where Rudra is 'A howler or roarer; terrible.'
Now, it would be most convenient if we could show that our word CIVIlized is derived from siva (gentle) while our word rude comes from rudra (terrible).
At sometime around the 3rd millennium B.C.E., in India, a nomadic, aggressive, warlike people, light in complexion, began to migrate further and further south into India, to finally meet and merge with the very gentle and meditative, darker complexioned, people of the south. The warlike people admired Rudra, the howler. The gentle, thoughtful people admired Siva, lord of beasts. What took place was a cultural and religious synthesis, as well as some frolicsome intermarriage.
Several years ago, I watched a PBS educational television interview with
Richard Poe, author of Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
Richard Poe cites Aristotle's observation that the Greeks are an ideal mean or middle road between the fierce barbarians of the North (the Germanic tribes), and the gentle civilized people of the South (Africa). Aristotle felt that the Greeks combined the best qualities of both extremes of rudra and siva.
We easily see the rudra-siva polarity between Tennyson's destructive poetic analysis of a flower side by side with Basho's gentle haiku of the nazuna:
‘Flower in the crannied wall’
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892)
FLOWER in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies;—
Hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower—but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
Notice the violence, the aggression. We can almost see the tower of Babel rising, as human nature seeks to reach the very heavens of understanding.
http://www.brightdawn.org/dailydharm...structions.htm
“All around us are many wonderful, beautiful things. Basho, the most famous of all Japanese poets, wrote many poems which were expressions of his life. He saw universal life—the pure life—deeply within himself and in all things around him. One of his well-known poems is:
Yoku mire ba
Nazuna hana saku
Kaki ne kana
Look carefully
The nazuna blooms
Along the fence—Ah!
“The nazuna is a most insignificant, small flower. Unless one looks very carefully, one will not see it. Unless one understands life deeply, what significance can the nazuna have? Wild flowers bloom everywhere. What of them? Perhaps Basho had walked along that fence many times and had been totally unaware of that small, white flower until he saw it that particular morning. It was blooming with every petal, every leaf. How beautiful! When the sun comes, the nazuna opens up one-hundred percent. How about me? Am I living like the nazuna? I have so many complaints—no inspiration. But look at this small, insignificant wild flower. No one looks at it; no one praises it. However, it lives fully. Basho was inspired to live like the nazuna and crystallized his understanding into a 17-syllable haiku poem. Basho received a great lesson from the nazuna and this expanded his awareness.
__________________
A very interesting discussion. I have noted all the books you refer
to but so many, where does one start? Do you think 'The World of Zen - an East/West Anthology, edited by Nancy Wilson Ross' might be little heavy going for a beginner?
__________________
Nighthawk
We've got to live. No matter how many skies have fallen."
- D.H. Lawrence
but some days it's not worth gnawing through the straps.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
But you already know this.
The first Friday night lecture I ever heard at St. John's, in the Fall of my Freshman year, 1967, was given by Eva Brann, and entitled The Student's Problem. It might have been subtitled Poverty Amid Riches.
I still have a printed copy here. Allow me to quote something from it:
There is a sickness, traditionally called melancholy, which is particularly at home in communities of learning such as ours. Its visible form can be seen in the engraving by Durer called Melencolia Prima.
http://medieval.mrugala.net/Enluminu...Melencolie.jpg
Amidst the signs and symbols of liberal arts, especially geometry, sits heavily a winged woman. Her eyes are fixed intently on visions of nothing - she is a figure of "careless desolation" surrounded by undervalued riches. Almost all the older members of this - and any - community of learning, be they teachers or students, are well acquainted with her. So will you be, who are fresh to our enterprise, the later the more devastatingly.
...
Robert Buron, in his Anatomy of Melancholy makes reference to "a melancholy that is the character of mortality", i.e. the knowledge, implied in every feeling that has any urgency about it, that the time of our life is finite. Melancholy... is the sometimes paralyzing and sometimes frenzied dread of "missing out," which comes to those who have had tantalizing intimations of earthly happiness. It is stronger the more remote death is, and so, strongest in the young, for in them every day demands the renunciation of a hundred possible futures for the choice of one actual life.
...
Consequently the opposite of melancholy is riches in poverty, a serene ardor of the sort perfectly described in a Buddhist song of which the translation is as follows:
Well-roofed and pleasant is my little hut,
And screened from winds; - Rain at they will, thou god!
My heart is well composed, my heart is free,
And ardent is my mood. Now rain, god! Rain!
What I am saying, in quoting Eva Brann, is that we are surrounded by such a wealth of things, that we must choose something, we must start somewhere. But if we are so overwhelmed by that wealth that we make no choice, start nowhere, take no first step, then ours is a poverty in the midst of riches.
We must make some choice, and then begin, and do our best. Try to make progress. Perhaps we shall succeed. Perhaps we shall fail. But we must embark upon our journey.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unravelling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
Sergo:
Too bad I hadn't read all of this thread, but I hope I will some day.
But I have several comments right now, and I would like to post them now.
I think I need to confess that I've never read Milton. Really, I've never read anything serious on psychology, or culture. All my education has been strictly technical - so in no way I could be considered a person able of a serious opinion on cultural or psychological aspects.
After that stated I would like to point that I am sure that the only thing drastically wrong is antagonizing of one culture against another, one type of psychology against another, and commenting to that effect that one culture/psychology is destructive, and another is essentially good and never failing. I am sure that there are/were/will be people in both Western and Eastern cultures who misunderstand nature of their native culture and misuse it. That doesn't necessary mean that one culture is essentially wrong, and another - essentially right.
Thank you for attention, please forgive my unprofessional approach.
Currently Reading: Thomas Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Destructive is not necessarily a negative criticism.
The Hindu concept of god is a trinity of creation-preservation-destruction.
Some societies are war-like and see their colonial aggression in a positive light. Other societies lean more towards the extreme of pacifism and non-violence.
In the grand scheme of things, well lets take our own physical body and its cellular biology. We see creation, preservation and destruction at work on a daily basis. Our blood contains white cells which attack and devour things on a continuously. We see dead skin shed in the form of dandruff or scabs. A fertilized egg cell is totipotent in the sense that it has the potential to differentiate into any conceivable cell, muscle, nerve, skeletal, etc. A muscle or nerve (nerve cells can reach a length of several feet, an that is one cell) are so specialized that they can never again undergo division and reproduction. Their mode is a mode of preservation.
Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, speaks several times of misology, which means, basically, a hatred for discussion and dialogue. Socrates goes on to say that misology is always a symptom of misanthropy, which means a dislike of other people.
The discussion about east and west has been going on for many decades now, among people such as D.T. Suzuki, Erich Fromm, Alan Watts, and many many others.
It is said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Rabbi Kook was the first Ashkanazie chief Rabbi ever to be appointed for Jerusalem. He spoke of a dialogue which extends over centuries. He points to the 3rd chapter of Malachi (which is the last book of the Old Testament) where it says, "Those who fear God converse with one another. God listens, and it is written in a book."
Rabbi Kook raises the question, "Who are these people who converse with one another." Kook points out that we who are living may raise a question, and then seek for the answer in the writings of those long dead.
St. John's and the "Great Books Program" may be seen as an ongoing dialogue of "the dead poets" variety.
I think the most important thing, perhaps, is to find reasons to keep talking, keep reading, keep learning, keep growing, and not to look for reasons to be fearful and fall silent.
Suppose all those little cells in our body could converse with one another, in a dialogue, in their microcosm world. Suppose one of them were to say, "We are not merely individuals. We are part of a greater being which we cannot perceive. The reproductive cells must not boast of their productivity and denigrate the phagocytes. The creation-preservation-destruction which we see in our midst is not to be judged as good or evil, right or wrong, better or worse, but is a harmony which is consecrated to a grander goal than any of us as individuals can perceive."
What might all the other cells say or do in response to the speech of this one philosopher cell. Would they vote to ostracize their philosopher cell, like Aristeides the Just? Would they give the philosopher cell poison hemlock to drink? Would they crucify the philosopher cell?
We are all dimly aware that, somehow, there are palpable differences between the North and the South, the East and the West, and various nationalities.
Consider the following joke:
Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are French, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian and it's all organized by the Swiss.
Hell is where the police are German, the cooks are English, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and it's all organized by the Italians.
Now, why is it that we laugh at that joke? I will tell you why I think that we laugh. We laugh because we have preconceived stereotypical notions of the German character, the French character, the Italian character and the Swiss character.
Of course, no generalization is worth a damn (including this one.)
Most will agree that war is bad. Patton even said that "war is hell". And yet, our aviation and rocket technology would not be what it is today without the impetus of two world wars to drive research.
When we acknowledge the environmental problems which threaten the very future of life on earth, we are confessing the destructive and aggressive aspects of the industrial revolution and colonization.
Consider this one excerpt from Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow".
I see this passage as one of the strongest most controversial criticisms of European colonial aggression that I have ever read. Does anyone else see in this passage a rhetoric which censures destruction and aggression? And yet, Pynchon buries it in the midst of what some might deem "a dirty book." If it were in some different context, lets say, the front page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, I dare say it would raise more than a few eyebrows.
This is a literary forum, and I am currently reading Pynchon, according to my profile, so it cannot be too out of place to interject this passage.
http://thebookforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7594
A generation earlier, the declining number of live Herero births was a topic of medical interest throughout southern Africa. The whites looked on as anxiously as they would have at an outbreak of rinderpest among the cattle. How provoking, to watch one's subject population dwindling away like this, year after year. What's a colony without its dusky natives? Where's the fun if they're all going to die off? Just a big hunk of desert, no more maids, no field-hands, no laborers for the construction of the mining -- wait, wait a minute there, yes, it's Karl Marx, that sly old racist skipping away with his teeth together and his eyebrows up trying to make believe it's nothing but Cheap Labor and Overseas Markets....
Oh, no. Colonies are much, much more. Colonies are the outhouses of the European soul, where a fellow can let his pants down and relax, enjoy the smell of his own waste. Where he can fall on his slender prey roaring as loud as he feels like, and guzzle her blood with open joy. Eh? Where he can just wallow and rut and let himself go in a softness, a receptive darkness of limbs, of hair as woolly as the hair on his own forbidden groin. Where the poppy, and cannabis and coca grow full and green, and not to the colors and style of death, as do ergot and agaric, the blight and fungus native to Europe. Christian Europe was always death, Karl, death and repression. Out and down in the colonies, life can be indulged, life and sensuality in all its forms, with no harm done to the Metropolis, nothing to soil those cathedrals, white marble statues, noble thoughts . . . . No word ever gets back. The silences down here are vast enough to absorb all behavior, no matter how dirty, how animal it gets . . . . "
May We Be Inscribed in the Book of Life
In the final book of the Old Testament, Malachi, it says something like "The righteous converse with one another, God listens, and it is written in a book." Chief rabbi Kook of Israel (the first Ashkenazi to hold that position) explains how those separated by centuries may converse, in the sense that one reads the others writings, and comments (rather like a seminar), making a lively book.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Hillary's Wonky Prose
New Yorker Magazine Bashes Hillary
The Political Scene
THE CHOICE
The New Yorker
Jan 28, 2008
Page 26
- by George Packer
I commented on the above article:
I am not a very political person, but I know what I despise.
I consider it a cheap shot to feature an illustration of Hillary Clinton's backside, with a sly expression on her face as she glances over her shoulder.
The article actually mentions both strengths and weaknesses of Hillary and Barack, yet the general tenor of the article is to bash Hillary.
All the candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee), are fine people who have both strengths and weaknesses and have worked very hard to get where they are. The only "flaw" that they all share in common is that there can be only one winner. That is no reason to bash them, or take cheap shots. If you are curious why I cite Huckabee as an exception, you can see my blog of several weeks ago.
The opening paragraph of the article is kind of a cheap shot, mentioning the apartment which Bill and Hillary took together in New Haven, for seventy-five dollars a month, in 1971. Why not have an article describing the first time each candidate copped a feel, or got to second base?
We are all human beings. We all have a gluteous maximus. We all have an adolescence which includes sexual experiences.
The second paragraph of this article informs us that Greg Craig, who used to be a close friend of the Clintons, is now an Obama supporter, has been "inspired" by Obama, and doubts that Hillary could inspire him. Does this mean that Obama has inspired throngs, hordes, masses of people, and Hillary has never inspired anyone?
The article, as well as the caption beneath Hillary's butt cartoon, suggests that Hillary cares only about advancing her own personal career goals, and cares nothing about transforming society. I rather suspect that each and every candidate sees the presidency as a fabulous career goal achievement.
What does it really mean to "inspire" or to "transform society." Please list the times in history when society was transformed single-handed by one politician.
A young teenage relative of mine tells me that my blogs are too boring to read. Well, I mention booty and shacking up, which are two topics of perennial fascination.
(some hours later) OK, back to the New Yorker Article:
On page 32, we read that Hillary Clinton "filled yellow legal pads with incorrigibly wonky prose, in 'round, schoolgirlish handwriting."
What is "wonky" prose, anyway? I blogged a few weeks ago about all those letters that Hillary wrote during college to an English professor. There are actually photocopies of her handwriting and samples of her young adult prose. If you browse the above link, on page two, you will see her round schoolgirl handwriting when she was actually a schoolgirl. Looks better than my handwriting.
I feel its time to Google on "wonky". So, in all fairness, let us compare the handwriting and prose of all the candidates. We here them all speaking extemporaneous prose during debates, and I find nothing particularly egregious about anyone's prose. All candidates seem well spoken. The only person I can think of that does not always appear well-spoken is Bush, but, that is water under the proverbial bridge (hey, is this sentence wonky?)
A Google search on "wonky prose" example, yields 97 hits, among which are:
http://markcoatney.com/
What Does George Packer Know About Hillary Clinton's Book, Anyway?
January 26, 2008
George Packer: Fine, smart writer. But I'm curious about a section in an otherwise nice New Yorker piece this week about the contrasting political styles of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Take a look:
...
A search on WONKY DEFINITION yields:
wonky adj. Chiefly British. , -kier , -kiest . Shaky; feeble. Wrong; awry. [Probably alteration of dialectal wanky , alteration of wankle
.....
Let's see what literature professor Peavoy (above PHOTOCOPIES link) has to say about Hillary's schoolgirl prose:
Ms. Rodham's letters are written in a tight, flowing script with near-impeccable spelling and punctuation. Ever the pleaser, she frequently begins them with an apology that it had taken her so long to respond. She praises Mr. Peavoy's missives while disparaging her own ("my usual drivel") and signs off with a simple "Hillary," except for the occasional "H" or "Me."
As one would expect of letters written during college, Ms. Rodham's letters display an evolution in sophistication, viewpoint and intellectual focus. One existential theme that recurs throughout is that Ms. Rodham views herself as an "actor," meaning a student activist committed to a life of civic action, which she contrasts with Mr. Peavoy, who, in her view, is more of an outside critic, or "reactor."
"Are you satisfied with the part you have cast yourself in?" she asks Mr. Peavoy in April 1966. "It seems that you have decided to become a reactor rather than actor — everything around will determine your life."
...
In conclusion, may I say: My dear Hillary, it seems that your butt, your prose and your penmanship are all under attack! Is there nothing sacred?
The Political Scene
THE CHOICE
The New Yorker
Jan 28, 2008
Page 26
- by George Packer
I commented on the above article:
I am not a very political person, but I know what I despise.
I consider it a cheap shot to feature an illustration of Hillary Clinton's backside, with a sly expression on her face as she glances over her shoulder.
The article actually mentions both strengths and weaknesses of Hillary and Barack, yet the general tenor of the article is to bash Hillary.
All the candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee), are fine people who have both strengths and weaknesses and have worked very hard to get where they are. The only "flaw" that they all share in common is that there can be only one winner. That is no reason to bash them, or take cheap shots. If you are curious why I cite Huckabee as an exception, you can see my blog of several weeks ago.
The opening paragraph of the article is kind of a cheap shot, mentioning the apartment which Bill and Hillary took together in New Haven, for seventy-five dollars a month, in 1971. Why not have an article describing the first time each candidate copped a feel, or got to second base?
We are all human beings. We all have a gluteous maximus. We all have an adolescence which includes sexual experiences.
The second paragraph of this article informs us that Greg Craig, who used to be a close friend of the Clintons, is now an Obama supporter, has been "inspired" by Obama, and doubts that Hillary could inspire him. Does this mean that Obama has inspired throngs, hordes, masses of people, and Hillary has never inspired anyone?
The article, as well as the caption beneath Hillary's butt cartoon, suggests that Hillary cares only about advancing her own personal career goals, and cares nothing about transforming society. I rather suspect that each and every candidate sees the presidency as a fabulous career goal achievement.
What does it really mean to "inspire" or to "transform society." Please list the times in history when society was transformed single-handed by one politician.
A young teenage relative of mine tells me that my blogs are too boring to read. Well, I mention booty and shacking up, which are two topics of perennial fascination.
(some hours later) OK, back to the New Yorker Article:
On page 32, we read that Hillary Clinton "filled yellow legal pads with incorrigibly wonky prose, in 'round, schoolgirlish handwriting."
What is "wonky" prose, anyway? I blogged a few weeks ago about all those letters that Hillary wrote during college to an English professor. There are actually photocopies of her handwriting and samples of her young adult prose. If you browse the above link, on page two, you will see her round schoolgirl handwriting when she was actually a schoolgirl. Looks better than my handwriting.
I feel its time to Google on "wonky". So, in all fairness, let us compare the handwriting and prose of all the candidates. We here them all speaking extemporaneous prose during debates, and I find nothing particularly egregious about anyone's prose. All candidates seem well spoken. The only person I can think of that does not always appear well-spoken is Bush, but, that is water under the proverbial bridge (hey, is this sentence wonky?)
A Google search on "wonky prose" example, yields 97 hits, among which are:
http://markcoatney.com/
What Does George Packer Know About Hillary Clinton's Book, Anyway?
January 26, 2008
George Packer: Fine, smart writer. But I'm curious about a section in an otherwise nice New Yorker piece this week about the contrasting political styles of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Take a look:
...
A search on WONKY DEFINITION yields:
wonky adj. Chiefly British. , -kier , -kiest . Shaky; feeble. Wrong; awry. [Probably alteration of dialectal wanky , alteration of wankle
.....
Let's see what literature professor Peavoy (above PHOTOCOPIES link) has to say about Hillary's schoolgirl prose:
Ms. Rodham's letters are written in a tight, flowing script with near-impeccable spelling and punctuation. Ever the pleaser, she frequently begins them with an apology that it had taken her so long to respond. She praises Mr. Peavoy's missives while disparaging her own ("my usual drivel") and signs off with a simple "Hillary," except for the occasional "H" or "Me."
As one would expect of letters written during college, Ms. Rodham's letters display an evolution in sophistication, viewpoint and intellectual focus. One existential theme that recurs throughout is that Ms. Rodham views herself as an "actor," meaning a student activist committed to a life of civic action, which she contrasts with Mr. Peavoy, who, in her view, is more of an outside critic, or "reactor."
"Are you satisfied with the part you have cast yourself in?" she asks Mr. Peavoy in April 1966. "It seems that you have decided to become a reactor rather than actor — everything around will determine your life."
...
In conclusion, may I say: My dear Hillary, it seems that your butt, your prose and your penmanship are all under attack! Is there nothing sacred?
The Devil is in the Details
Originally posted: 18 Sep 2005 09:36 am
My wife is a very devout Roman Catholic. She considered herself a Democrat during most of her adult life, but has now registered as a Republican because she admires President Bush's positions on such controversial issues as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and physician assisted death.
She does have one son who is of draft-able age. She mentioned that she might favor the Democratic candidate, such as Kerry, if his policies would keep more young men out of combat. Our conversation inspired me to ask her a question which is for me potentially fascinating:
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a magic crystal ball which allows you to see what the future will be like based upon which candidate wins a presidential election. Suppose you foresee that a very liberal candidate, whose positions or personal beliefs are not to your liking, will successfully bring about many things beneficial to society as a whole, such as solving the health care crisis, balancing the budget, reducing unemployment and greatly reducing military action around the world, but through his liberal policies will legalize gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and physician assisted death. On the other hand, your magic crystal ball shows you that the opposing candidate, a conservative whose beliefs coincide with your own, would forever ban gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and physician assisted death, but would cause an increase in unemployment, inflation, the demise of social welfare benefits, and plunge us into a world war which would cost many lives. Which candidate would you choose then?"
She objected that such situations would never arise; that my example is too extreme.
I replied, "But, you miss the point of our hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. The point is not WHAT might actually happen in the future. The point of the exercise is to help you determine what your values really are if forced to make a tough decision, when you cannot have your cake and eat it too."
There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." Our wisdom and ethical metal is never tested until we are confronted by a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't choice. Ethics is only easy in movies where the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys all wear black hats and mustaches.
Emmanuel Kant offered as a moral rule of thumb that we should never make any person a means to an end, but always strive to make each person an end in itself. Jean-Paul Sartre was brilliant at contriving real life scenarios which truly test these the limits of our character. Sartre describes the dilemma of a young man in war-torn, occupied France during World War II. This young man is the sole support and comfort of his aging mother. He sees his comrades risking their lives to join the underground resistance movement to fight against the monster of fascism and defend the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. If our young hero chooses to be patriotic and join his comrades in their noble cause, then he treats his mother as an object, a means to his patriotic end, and her abandonment and suffering becomes a means to a greater end, the end of self-sacrifice to win the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet, if he chooses to be a good son, and remain with his mother, then he treats his comrades and his country as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
What is the answer? What is the rule of thumb or formula to guide us? It becomes as essential and existential as Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham's dilemma when a divine voice commands him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Or, consider the famous "Gauguin Problem" in ethics. The painter, Gauguin, abandons his wife and children, which society sees as something bad, but in so doing, is free to go to Tahiti and become a famous artist, which society sees as something good. So does the good of the result outweigh and justify the evil of the means? You may substitute a scientist in this scenario if you like, who abandons his family responsibilities but succeeds in discovering a cure for cancer and AIDS. In some sense, the success and prosperity of our great American society is founded upon a century of black slavery, the genocide of the native American, and various acts of colonial aggression and oppression in world history. The Pharisees would not take back the pieces of silver from Judas, but the land of the free and the home of the brave can never wash away the historical fact of the blood-money in its coffers which funded its success.
And the ultimate of all ethical paradoxes from antiquity is Plato's dialogue, "Euthyphro," when Socrates asks whether God loves the Good because of its inherent goodness, or is the Good good simply by fiat, because it happens to be what God likes or commands. And let us not forget that our very word "fiat" comes from the first words of Genesis in Latin vulgate translation: "Fiat lux" (let there be light.) If we say that God loves what is good for its inherent qualities, then we cast a doubt upon God's omnipotence. God is not free to hate what is good. God is not free to lie. This is the position of the Judeo-Christian heritage. If, on the other hand, we take the opposite position, and say that God is so powerful that, by fiat, whatever God proclaims as good, IS good, ipso facto, because of God's endorsement, well then we wind up in the position of Islam, which portrays God as so omnipotent that God may even abrogate His own commandments. Such a God is a capricious God who is not even bound by His own words.
Well, we have possibly uncovered here some sticky wickets. I wish I could be like a magician and pull a rabbit solution out of my top hat, but I have no solution for you; no easy answer. There is a joke in which someone is shown a vision of hell, and he sees a long table at which are seated people with very long spoons bound to their hands, far to long to reach the plate of food set before them, so all are frustrated in their inability to feed themselves, and slowly die of starvation. Then, he is shown a vision of heaven. He sees the SAME long table, and people with long spoons tied to their hands, BUT the difference is that each person dips his spoon into the plate of his neighbor across the table, and then places the food in his neighbor's mouth, so all are fed and satisfied. Sometimes I suspect that right and wrong, good and evil, are the same banquet, with the same utensils, but everything depends on how we choose to deal with the situation; on how we play our hand, the cards which have been dealt to us.
In the independent film, Zentropa, a young, idealistic German-American moves to Germany to help with the reconstruction. He meets a German Catholic priest and asks, "each side in this war prayed to God for victory, believing their cause was right, but BOTH sides cannot possibly be right. How does God judge amongst them?" The priest replied that God does not look to the outward right or wrong of the issues at stake, but to the heart of each individual. The priest quotes the verse from the New Testament about the person who is neither hot nor cold (i.e. has taken up no side or cause), but is merely lukewarm, and those who are lukewarm God spews from his mouth (i.e. rejects).
Once upon a time, a Buddhist monk had just taken his vows, which including a vow never to harm living creatures, and also never to tell a lie.
This newly ordained monk was taking a walk through the woods when, suddenly, he saw a terrified rabbit race by his feet and jump into a thicket of bushes. A moment later, a group of hunters arrive and ask the monk "Did you see a rabbit?" So, what is our poor monk to do? If he betrays the presence of the rabbit hiding in the bush then he harms a living creature but if he tells the hunters that he did not see a rabbit, then he has lied.
A young doctor in a hospice one commented to me, "it is not the hand of cards which you are dealt, but how will you choose to play it."
Epilogue:
I am reminded of a recent conversation with an old college mate of mine who became a physician. I have always perceived him as a model of ethics and compassion. We were discussing the topic of physician assisted death. I argued that a long slow death by removal of feeding tubes and hydration was more cruel and degrading to the patient than a quick death by the administration of a drug overdose. My friend argued that the cessation of feeding and hydration was more ethical, since a doctor is not ethically obligated to extend life artificially when there is no hope of recovery, and that the doctor is simply ceasing all intervention allowing nature to take its course. This is death caused through inaction rather than the overt act of administering an overdose.
I realize that my friend is a devout Protestant Christian and has no notions of karma or rebirth, but it seems to me that the physician who elects to simply pull the plug and stand back is in on some level doing so to avoid the karmic consequences of taking a positive action to hasten death and diminish suffering. Actions cause us to become implicated and involved.
I suppose I would not be a very good doctor, but were I a doctor in such a situation, I would prefer to take upon myself the sin of euthanasia, the sin of action, for the sake of the other, to diminish suffering, rather than choose the sanctity and blamelessness of inaction.
In an odd way, one may see Christ's submission to the authorities, allowing himself to be captured and crucified, as a form of suicide. Presumably, if we foresee our execution, but do not take measures to prevent it or escape it, then we are suicidal in our actions. Socrates is another example of someone who might have escaped his death sentence and survived, but chose to stay and submit to the judgment. Various Cristian theologians assert that Christ BECOMES sin, in that he takes upon himself the sins of all mankind throughout all past present and future.
If this is so, then there is something very Christ-like about someone who would willingly take sin upon themselves for the sake of alleviating the suffering of another.
I am rather pleased with the interpretation that I developed regarding King David, who wrote the 51st Psalm in repentance for his sin against Uriah.
As I see it, on the surface of things, David did nothing wrong TECHNICALLY. As a King, it was his right and duty to direct military battles and send anyone to the front lines whom he saw fit. Once Uriah perished in battle, his wife Bathsheba was now a widow, and there is no sin in marrying a widow. As a King, David is entitled to take many wives. So, where is the sin? The sin lies in the subjective aspect of David's "wickedness of the imagination," in David's hidden agenda, and "malice of forethought." Another King might have performed the same actions, but with a different heart, and there would have been no sin.
There is an old Taoist saying: "When the wrong person undertakes the right means, then the right means yield the wrong results."
There is always a dilemma, a tension, a dissonance between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, between willing spirit and weak flesh. Perhaps our dilemma between good and evil is like e. e. cummings "dilemma of flutes:"
"in thy beauty is the dilemma of flutes
thy eyes are the betrayal
of bells comprehended through incense"
- e.e. cummings, "My Love"
My wife is a very devout Roman Catholic. She considered herself a Democrat during most of her adult life, but has now registered as a Republican because she admires President Bush's positions on such controversial issues as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and physician assisted death.
She does have one son who is of draft-able age. She mentioned that she might favor the Democratic candidate, such as Kerry, if his policies would keep more young men out of combat. Our conversation inspired me to ask her a question which is for me potentially fascinating:
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a magic crystal ball which allows you to see what the future will be like based upon which candidate wins a presidential election. Suppose you foresee that a very liberal candidate, whose positions or personal beliefs are not to your liking, will successfully bring about many things beneficial to society as a whole, such as solving the health care crisis, balancing the budget, reducing unemployment and greatly reducing military action around the world, but through his liberal policies will legalize gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and physician assisted death. On the other hand, your magic crystal ball shows you that the opposing candidate, a conservative whose beliefs coincide with your own, would forever ban gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and physician assisted death, but would cause an increase in unemployment, inflation, the demise of social welfare benefits, and plunge us into a world war which would cost many lives. Which candidate would you choose then?"
She objected that such situations would never arise; that my example is too extreme.
I replied, "But, you miss the point of our hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. The point is not WHAT might actually happen in the future. The point of the exercise is to help you determine what your values really are if forced to make a tough decision, when you cannot have your cake and eat it too."
There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." Our wisdom and ethical metal is never tested until we are confronted by a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't choice. Ethics is only easy in movies where the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys all wear black hats and mustaches.
Emmanuel Kant offered as a moral rule of thumb that we should never make any person a means to an end, but always strive to make each person an end in itself. Jean-Paul Sartre was brilliant at contriving real life scenarios which truly test these the limits of our character. Sartre describes the dilemma of a young man in war-torn, occupied France during World War II. This young man is the sole support and comfort of his aging mother. He sees his comrades risking their lives to join the underground resistance movement to fight against the monster of fascism and defend the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. If our young hero chooses to be patriotic and join his comrades in their noble cause, then he treats his mother as an object, a means to his patriotic end, and her abandonment and suffering becomes a means to a greater end, the end of self-sacrifice to win the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet, if he chooses to be a good son, and remain with his mother, then he treats his comrades and his country as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
What is the answer? What is the rule of thumb or formula to guide us? It becomes as essential and existential as Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham's dilemma when a divine voice commands him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Or, consider the famous "Gauguin Problem" in ethics. The painter, Gauguin, abandons his wife and children, which society sees as something bad, but in so doing, is free to go to Tahiti and become a famous artist, which society sees as something good. So does the good of the result outweigh and justify the evil of the means? You may substitute a scientist in this scenario if you like, who abandons his family responsibilities but succeeds in discovering a cure for cancer and AIDS. In some sense, the success and prosperity of our great American society is founded upon a century of black slavery, the genocide of the native American, and various acts of colonial aggression and oppression in world history. The Pharisees would not take back the pieces of silver from Judas, but the land of the free and the home of the brave can never wash away the historical fact of the blood-money in its coffers which funded its success.
And the ultimate of all ethical paradoxes from antiquity is Plato's dialogue, "Euthyphro," when Socrates asks whether God loves the Good because of its inherent goodness, or is the Good good simply by fiat, because it happens to be what God likes or commands. And let us not forget that our very word "fiat" comes from the first words of Genesis in Latin vulgate translation: "Fiat lux" (let there be light.) If we say that God loves what is good for its inherent qualities, then we cast a doubt upon God's omnipotence. God is not free to hate what is good. God is not free to lie. This is the position of the Judeo-Christian heritage. If, on the other hand, we take the opposite position, and say that God is so powerful that, by fiat, whatever God proclaims as good, IS good, ipso facto, because of God's endorsement, well then we wind up in the position of Islam, which portrays God as so omnipotent that God may even abrogate His own commandments. Such a God is a capricious God who is not even bound by His own words.
Well, we have possibly uncovered here some sticky wickets. I wish I could be like a magician and pull a rabbit solution out of my top hat, but I have no solution for you; no easy answer. There is a joke in which someone is shown a vision of hell, and he sees a long table at which are seated people with very long spoons bound to their hands, far to long to reach the plate of food set before them, so all are frustrated in their inability to feed themselves, and slowly die of starvation. Then, he is shown a vision of heaven. He sees the SAME long table, and people with long spoons tied to their hands, BUT the difference is that each person dips his spoon into the plate of his neighbor across the table, and then places the food in his neighbor's mouth, so all are fed and satisfied. Sometimes I suspect that right and wrong, good and evil, are the same banquet, with the same utensils, but everything depends on how we choose to deal with the situation; on how we play our hand, the cards which have been dealt to us.
In the independent film, Zentropa, a young, idealistic German-American moves to Germany to help with the reconstruction. He meets a German Catholic priest and asks, "each side in this war prayed to God for victory, believing their cause was right, but BOTH sides cannot possibly be right. How does God judge amongst them?" The priest replied that God does not look to the outward right or wrong of the issues at stake, but to the heart of each individual. The priest quotes the verse from the New Testament about the person who is neither hot nor cold (i.e. has taken up no side or cause), but is merely lukewarm, and those who are lukewarm God spews from his mouth (i.e. rejects).
Once upon a time, a Buddhist monk had just taken his vows, which including a vow never to harm living creatures, and also never to tell a lie.
This newly ordained monk was taking a walk through the woods when, suddenly, he saw a terrified rabbit race by his feet and jump into a thicket of bushes. A moment later, a group of hunters arrive and ask the monk "Did you see a rabbit?" So, what is our poor monk to do? If he betrays the presence of the rabbit hiding in the bush then he harms a living creature but if he tells the hunters that he did not see a rabbit, then he has lied.
A young doctor in a hospice one commented to me, "it is not the hand of cards which you are dealt, but how will you choose to play it."
Epilogue:
I am reminded of a recent conversation with an old college mate of mine who became a physician. I have always perceived him as a model of ethics and compassion. We were discussing the topic of physician assisted death. I argued that a long slow death by removal of feeding tubes and hydration was more cruel and degrading to the patient than a quick death by the administration of a drug overdose. My friend argued that the cessation of feeding and hydration was more ethical, since a doctor is not ethically obligated to extend life artificially when there is no hope of recovery, and that the doctor is simply ceasing all intervention allowing nature to take its course. This is death caused through inaction rather than the overt act of administering an overdose.
I realize that my friend is a devout Protestant Christian and has no notions of karma or rebirth, but it seems to me that the physician who elects to simply pull the plug and stand back is in on some level doing so to avoid the karmic consequences of taking a positive action to hasten death and diminish suffering. Actions cause us to become implicated and involved.
I suppose I would not be a very good doctor, but were I a doctor in such a situation, I would prefer to take upon myself the sin of euthanasia, the sin of action, for the sake of the other, to diminish suffering, rather than choose the sanctity and blamelessness of inaction.
In an odd way, one may see Christ's submission to the authorities, allowing himself to be captured and crucified, as a form of suicide. Presumably, if we foresee our execution, but do not take measures to prevent it or escape it, then we are suicidal in our actions. Socrates is another example of someone who might have escaped his death sentence and survived, but chose to stay and submit to the judgment. Various Cristian theologians assert that Christ BECOMES sin, in that he takes upon himself the sins of all mankind throughout all past present and future.
If this is so, then there is something very Christ-like about someone who would willingly take sin upon themselves for the sake of alleviating the suffering of another.
I am rather pleased with the interpretation that I developed regarding King David, who wrote the 51st Psalm in repentance for his sin against Uriah.
As I see it, on the surface of things, David did nothing wrong TECHNICALLY. As a King, it was his right and duty to direct military battles and send anyone to the front lines whom he saw fit. Once Uriah perished in battle, his wife Bathsheba was now a widow, and there is no sin in marrying a widow. As a King, David is entitled to take many wives. So, where is the sin? The sin lies in the subjective aspect of David's "wickedness of the imagination," in David's hidden agenda, and "malice of forethought." Another King might have performed the same actions, but with a different heart, and there would have been no sin.
There is an old Taoist saying: "When the wrong person undertakes the right means, then the right means yield the wrong results."
There is always a dilemma, a tension, a dissonance between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, between willing spirit and weak flesh. Perhaps our dilemma between good and evil is like e. e. cummings "dilemma of flutes:"
"in thy beauty is the dilemma of flutes
thy eyes are the betrayal
of bells comprehended through incense"
- e.e. cummings, "My Love"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)