From jk Thu Oct 24 11:54:20 1996
Subject: Re: Common Prayer Volume 2 Issue 12
To: common-prayer@covert.ENET.dec.com (Common Prayer Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <9610240236.AA29032@us2rmc.zko.dec.com> from "Common Prayer Mailing List" at Oct 23, 96 10:36:31 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2609
Status: RO
A couple of thoughts on items in the last Common Prayer:
>We have been plagued for thirty years by a mechanistic concern solely
>with the validity of the sacraments, a theology a friend calls the
>magic cookie theory - and one which justified continuing in intimacy
>with heretics, because through them you still received your dose of
>grace.
I thought that the idea is that Christ is active in and through his
church without necessary reference to the specific beliefs, intentions
or moral character of those on the scene at the moment. The church is
not the same as those who visibly compose it at a particular time and
place. I suppose that's a magical way of thinking about the matter if
magic includes everything that doesn't reduce to the empirical sciences
including sociology.
It does seem that at some point an organization that in form is a
church, with priests, bishops, sacraments, organizational continuity
with the past etc., could no longer be recognized as part of Christ's
church. So I agree that pure formalism seems troubling. At what point
does that happen, though? The implication seems to be that as soon as
there is a heretic communicating (anywhere within the Anglican
communion?) you should withdraw because the alternative is intimacy with
a heretic.
Can anyone suggest recent or classic discussions of this kind of issue?
>"Yet ours seemed and seems a simple point: sharing in the Eucharist
>(like sex) both expresses and creates a unity with others, and one
>should agree with them quite substantially before sharing it with them.
But the unity created by marriage goes deeper than the current beliefs,
intentions and moral conduct of the partners. When does it become wrong
to continue consorting with your spouse? At what point do you get a
divorce? You can't answer those questions by asking whether your spouse
is someone with whom given free choice you would now choose to join in
moral and spiritual unity.
And an aside on capital punishment:
>If you want God to give you time to be sorry so that he can forgive
>you, then you also have to give the murderer time to be sorry so that
>you can forgive him.
It's hard to know. If I murdered someone, would I be better off in a
situation that "concentrated my mind wonderfully," or in one in which I
would never be forced to look at the bottom line? Assuming O.J. is
guilty, would he be better off as things are or if he had been found
guilty and condemned to die?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Yo Bob, mug a gumbo boy!
From jk Tue Mar 4 15:28:54 1997
Subject: Re: Reply to Mr. Michael Gortney
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:28:55 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2682
Status: RO
> Black racism is serious because it fails to live with the fact there
> is but one human race.
>
> What then of WHITE racialism? I would call it fighting fire with
> fire. It is a weapon that is doomed to fail because our Creator made
> us all one human race and expects us to learn to live civilly with
> each other.
"Racism" and "racialism" can mean a lot of things. What we have in
common as human beings is no doubt more important than what divides us,
but life can't go forward without division of the human race into
lesser groups with shared loyalties, culture, way of life, etc. But if
that's so what is wrong with ethnic loyalties from a Christian
viewpoint? Are they worse than loyalties based on common citizenship,
family membership, the old school tie or whatever?
The reason I ask and consider the question important is that all even
marginally respectable Christian leaders seem to consider ethnic
loyalty to be a serious sin in the case of a white person. That view's
a novelty and I think it mistaken and socially destructive.
You mention St. Paul, who said "we are all one". In spite of that he
thought that members of families had specific obligations to each other
beyond what they owe to human beings as such, recognized the social
distinctions of his time, between men and women and master and slave
for example, thought Christians should establish their own social
services and judicial system, and within the Church favored whatever
distinctions were needed for good order.
So the issue seems to be whether ethnic loyalties serve a function
promoting order, the good life or whatever, perhaps by helping maintain
community and the coherence of specific ways of life. If they do then
a social order that recognizes their legitimacy should benefit
everyone. I think that's the case; the post-60s period has severely
damaged white institutions but it hasn't been good for the coherence of
the way of life of black people either, and they've suffered
accordingly, more than we have.
All parochial loyalties can lead to emnity but that is not their point,
and it is better to have them than not.
> If we got the rest of the whites off their backsides and rebuked
> black racism, we would not need to spend a lot of concerning
> ourselves with "white" interests.
Very likely. If government is limited so that it doesn't redistribute
and respects freedom of association people can spend their time
promoting the good of those they care about and feel connected to
rather than fighting over it with others.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal--rise, sir!
From jk Mon Mar 17 16:56:12 1997
Subject: Re: radio show on "equality" this Wednesday
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:56:12 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <01BC3250.0868F540@pm03a03.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Mar 16, 97 09:21:28 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2570
Status: RO
> "the line in the Declaration of Independence, that among the truths we
> 'hold to be self-evident' is that 'All men are created equal.'
>
> "I wish to ask: what is meant by that notion of equality? do we
> believe it to be true? what are the implications of such a belief? and
> how does this bear upon the issues we face in America today?
>
> "In other words," I conclude, "let us discuss equality."
>
> If any of you feel moved to share thoughts, questions, ideas, stories,
> puzzles, etc, that can provide useful ways of framing a conversation on
> this topic with 30,000 to 40,000 listeners in an area of Virginia
> politically mostly to the right of the center of today's Republican
> Party, please do email or call to share them with me.
How are all men equal? Some possibilities:
1. Moral equality. All men can choose between good and evil.
Therefore the good can not be fully realized without the voluntary
participation of each of us. Therefore, each of us matters ultimately,
and none can be treated merely as a means to an end, however good and
important the end may be. The political implications of this kind of
equality are pervasive but not specific.
2. Political equality. The polity is understood as a contract among
equals, with each having an equal voice in the management of its
affairs. This conception seems to me somewhat artificial. It is
consistent with 1. but it stops making sense to the extent government
stops being limited and local.
3. Social equality. The government is to regulate social
relationships so they benefit everyone equally. I don't think this
conception is really consistent with 1. or 2. since it calls for a
single central agent to greatly restrict the effect of the choices of
all other agents. Therefore the moral agency of the individual doesn't
much matter (contrary to at least the spirit of 1.) and the people
can't manage public affairs (contrary to 2.) because public policy or
at least its important points should be determined by analysis
(presumably by experts) of the requirements of equality rather than
accepted practice or the will of the majority.
4. Metaethical equality. The government is to regulate social life so
no conception of the good life is disfavored compared to any other.
This has the problems 3. does only more so.
I don't know how helpful any of this will be, but maybe it will suggest
something. Hope all is well with you.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Depardieu, go razz a rogue I draped.
From jk Tue Mar 25 22:00:03 1997
Subject: Re: a half-baked piece
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:00:03 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <01BC3888.007E0DA0@pm08a05.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Mar 24, 97 07:16:07 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1019
Status: RO
It's an interesting issue. New babies don't have habits, and they can't
do much. If *everything* has to be decided nothing can be controlled
-- decisions only make sense against a background of things that are
familiar and can be taken for granted. Also, to develop skill and
understanding you have to keep at things even when you're tired of
them. That's the basis of the difference between the professional and
the amateur.
Some routines are deadening. Maybe it has to do with the purpose of
the routine? Musicians can spend hours doing scales without finding it
deadening. With the orientation of the life of which they are part?
With the particular routine? Simone Weil had a theory that the reason
for the beauty of Gregorian chant is that if any were of less than
supreme aesthetic quality the monks who had to sing them again and
again year after year would have gone bonkers.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Depardieu, go razz a rogue I draped.
From jk Fri Apr 25 08:14:20 1997
Subject: Re: reply
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:14:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2915
Status: RO
> Who has made these things sound good to them and why? Are the people
> who made these things sound good to clinton and powell the same as
> the one who made it sound good to every tyrant in history?. Its
> philosophy that causes men to think things good, bad, funny, sad etc.
> It's philosophy that rules men in ALL things and the consequences of
> a philosophy are always the same.
This is believable if "philosophy" means "understanding of what the
world is like." How men understand the world has a complicated relation
to what philosophers have said. To some extent people pick up
thoughts, slogans, what have you from philosophers and it affects how
they understand things. To some extent people look for thoughts or
slogans in philosophers that can be used for purposes that don't have
much to do with what the philosophers wanted. To some extent
"philosophers" become well known by putting into words what people
believe or are coming to believe anyway.
What I think is going on with the uniforms and national compulsory
"volunteerism" is that people are worried about loss of social cohesion
and discipline. When people are worried about something today Federal
programs are the solution that comes to mind. The reasons include (1)
the success of modern science and technology, which makes "social
engineering" seem plausible; (2) the pervasiveness of the mass media,
especially TV, which radically centralize political discussion and
therefore make everything into a national problem calling for a
national solution, preferably one that's simple and easy to dramatize;
(3) the real loss of local social cohesion and discipline, which makes
people think the way to get something done is to have experts and
professionals do it somewhere at government expense rather than rely on
themselves and their family, friends, neighbors, and local
institutions; (4) the social power of the classes that benefit from the
expansion of the power and responsiblity of government, including
judges, bureaucrats, lawyers, "experts" of various kinds, "educators"
and other providers of government-funded services, journalists who for
professional reasons want everything to be a public issue and like a
simple schema that makes it easy for them to write stories, etc.
Philosophical reflections on government do play a role. People tend to
believe for example that government is just the people in action so it
should presumptively be able to do anything at least if what it does
relates to a matter of public concern, doesn't undermine the
functioning of the political system, and doesn't make some much worse
off than others. That's a minimal philosophy though. If people want a
more elaborate statement there'll be someone who will put it together
for them, but I don't think that's the person who causes things to be
as they are.
Jim
From jk Sun Apr 27 08:16:33 1997
Subject: Re: Volunteerism & clicking heals
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 08:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4483
Status: RO
> "To some extent people pick up" You can march chaos through that
> innocuous little phrase; it allows a mixture of whim and philosophy
> to guide people in their beliefs. Which is easier to follow, whim
> (the heart) or reason ( philosophy [ie.work]) when they conflict?
We were talking about what actually determines what people do. I said
that philosophy plays a role but it's not the only thing and usually
not the dominant thing.
Now you seem to raise a different point, that regardless of what people
actually do the only way their lives can have coherence and integrity
is by following reason in the form of philosophy - everything else is
whim.
I don't see it that way. There are honest men who have never theorized
about honesty. Honesty is I think more a matter of what is important
to you - of your heart - than of your theories about things. Reason of
the sort that people can state explicitly is not the only source of
order. There are people who are good at any number of things -
cooking, telling stories, running a business, making investments - who
can't explain how they do what they do. If they could then they could
write books that would make anyone who read them equally good at those
things. They can't, though, which shows that acting without reference
to reason that can be put in words - without reference to philosophy -
is very different from whim.
> "(3) the real loss of local social cohesion and discipline , which
> makes people think the way to get something done is to have experts
> and professionals do it somewhere at government expense rather than
> rely on themselves and their family, friends, neighbors, and local
> institutions;" WHAT causes them to think this? Ans.; philosophy.
>
> If people reject reason, the alternative, force will be used. This
> is why every alleged problem is a governmental issue.
Reason and force are not the only human motives. There are also love,
loyalty, self-respect, public spirit and so on.
If people are honest, reliable and have steady habits, and they love
and trust their families and those around them, they won't have many
problems and will be able to deal with the ones they have without
bringing in force and distant authorities. Those characteristics are
mostly matters of the heart. Where they are present people have a way
of life they're proud of and want to preserve, and prefer to deal with
things themselves among the people they're used to rather than bring in
the bureaucrats.
If there is nothing within people that makes them feel tied to others
so that they trust and feel obligations to them (including the
obligation not to burden them unnecessarily), then reason may tell them
to rely on force and fraud in getting what they want. Certainly it
won't tell them to look to family, friends and their own resources for
help rather than the government if they can get something from the
government.
> A philosophy can also disable its victims. Just look at the
> conservatives tremble at the prospect of being accused of being mean
> to children. Why is any proposal to cut taxes labeled silly and
> unsophisticated ? Why are people too embarrassed defend themselves
> (oil companies)?
>
> Ans.; philosophy.
I agree that philosophy is important especially in explaining and
defending a way of life known by experience to be good. "Philosophy"
can be used aggressively to make the worse appear the better cause. If
you're smart and your opponent is unsophisticated then you can set the
terms of discussion and suddenly Bill Clinton or Madonna or somebody
becomes a pioneer of a superior way of life and ordinary people become
narrow-minded and ignorant. If you think it is ordinary people who
have the better grip on things then philosophy can help you counter the
aggression.
> Because he refused (whim) to understand why the smile of an imbecile
> {Bea Stockwell} could defeat him on the Farmington schoolboard.
> Remember "Roberts Rules of Order"? Dad thought that his parliamentary
> maneuvers could fight an ideological battle and would rage and thrash
> about whenever he spoke about her and his defeats.
It sounds like he believed in formal and explicit reason and was upset
because that's not the key to human affairs. He should have put more
effort into figuring out how to appeal to the heart of the man in the
middle. That can be done honestly, by showing him how the thing at
issue relates to concrete things he cares about.
Jim
From jk Mon Apr 28 06:09:24 1997
Subject: Re: clicking
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 06:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 547
Status: RO
> If a man believed your note above to be true he would be forced into
> the supernatural (religion).
An interesting comment. I suppose it's true that the view that we all
live by and must trust a rationality that is not fully our own is a
religious attitude.
> And, even religion is mankind's earliest attempt to discover the
> nature of the world and on that basis determine good and evil and how
> men should live.
The question then I suppose is whether it can ever be fully superseded
by our own conscious and articulate knowledge.
Jim
From jk Mon May 12 08:30:56 1997
Subject: Re: A response.
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 08:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 5416
Status: RO
>Protestantism rejected Tradition which exists in the Catholic Church
>(Catholic in general and Roman in particular).
The discussion I thought was whether Protestants could have tradition
understood politically and culturally as a natural human institution.
Can there be a Lutheran, a Calvinist, an Anglican tradition, and if
there can is there necessarily be something self-defeating about them,
or something that keeps them from doing the work tradition does as a
natural institution? Big-T Tradition refers to true tradition and that
of course raises additional questions.
>In rejecting the Authority held by the Pope and bishops in Communion
>with him, intellectuals reject
But a tradition can be authoritative without any particular man or
hierarchy being authoritative in the way the Roman Pope and bishops are
authoritative. So simply rejecting the Pope is not rejecting tradition
in concept. To identify pronouncements of a particular man as
absolutely authoritative is in principle it seems to me somewhat at odds
with traditionalism.
>(stripping the use of personal interpretation of the Bible in light of
>reason down to personal reason alone, independent of Christianity)
I agree that if you try to get by on scripture and individual conscience
alone you're going to have problems. I'm not qualified to comment on
the extent to which the various Protestant churches actually do so. It
seems to me they don't though. If they do how can they have confessions
and creeds?
>The prophets most assuredly adhered to Tradition.
But not necessarily to tradition as a human and cultural institution.
They sometimes told people for example that the customary sacrifices
and other religious observances stunk.
>the Roman Catholic Church since abandoning its struggle to reunite
>those orthodox and protestants back under the Church, has rendered
>itself at best irrelevant.
Is this a difficulty with your position? It seems that here you are
relying on private judgment or that of a group of people who
sociologically constitute a faction, but whom you identify with the
invisible true church, rather than on a publicly recognizable
institution. If that's OK for you why not for John Calvin?
>You don't seem to understand that conservatism has no natural basis in
>permanence, and in that since it contradicting itself.
I understand the problem. Conservatism is not complete in itself, it
needs to be oriented toward something that transcends tradition. As a
practical matter that seems to mean that tradition must be supplemented
by an authority other than itself. Martin Luther wanted perhaps to
anchor the necessary transcendent orientation in the Bible, prayer and
conscience; you want to anchor it in the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox
perhaps would anchor it in a series of Ecumenical Councils that could be
continued. From the standpoint of human reasoning is it possible to say
that one solution or the other is better?
>Protestantism is also intrinsically liberal, which causes yet another
>quandry for those wishing to maintain or conserve protestantism.
The widespread appeal and success of liberalism shows I think that there
is truth in it. Perhaps the truth is that a man is not absolutely
subordinate to any institution. As I understand the matter the Roman
Catholics acknowledge the primacy of conscience as well, although they
emphasize the obligation of conscience to form itself in accordance with
truth. The issue it seems to me is whether the Protestant churches are
in principle unable to hold that truth in check with other truths, for
example the need for authority. Right now they're not being successful
in doing so, but neither as you point out are the Roman Catholics.
>>>No protestant can likewise argue conservatism because their churches
>>>are based upon a rejection of authority and tradition.
>
>Our Lord never equivocated; never gave an out. For any protestant
>church to argue conservatism or tradition is to argue man-made
>traditions, not Divine traditions. We are exhorted to follow those
>traditions passed on by the Apostles, and he also warned against
>following the traditions of men.
I don't see how you've joined issue with the Protestants here. Their
point is that there has to be a criterion for distinguishing what the
Apostles passed on guided by the Holy Spirit from the traditions of men,
and the criterion is the Bible.
>You will notice that the orthodox are very liberal in the US since they
>are not bound by both culture and the Church.
Actually I hadn't noticed. My impression had been that on the whole
they were less liberal than the Roman Catholics.
>That is an excellent example of two problems: Anglican/Protestant
>insistance on some level of separation of Church and state(a collosal
>error), and two the resultant alienation of the Church from the culture
>that inevitably has weakened societies.
Here I digress from the main line of the discussion to disagree. The
Church must necessarily be somewhat at odds with the world. And another
nonsubstantive digression:
>without Scripture and Tradition one cannot call themselves Catholic
^^^^^^^^^^
Should that be "himself?"
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Drab as a fool, aloof as a bard.
From jk Thu May 22 18:47:54 1997
Subject: Re: Belloc Books
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1315
Status: RO
> Pardon my ignorance, but who was Alain de Benoist?
He's the most prominent thinker of the European New Right, who thinks
the problems all began with Christian universalism instead of pagan
multi multi.
> What do you think accounts for the EOs' ability to maintain faith
> under such adverse circumstances?
Emphasis on unchanging tradition that provides a comprehensive way of
life. Ties to ethnicity. Those work for the Orthodox Jews, why not
for the EOs?
> By this do you mean how the flag is still used as a symbol of
> self-determination here and abroad?
Yes, it seems to stand for the assertion of local freedoms against the
empire.
> I've noticed this, too, in network news reports, although there's
> never any attempt to get a close shot of the flag. In every picture
> I've seen, the battle flag almost seems to ahve been caught in the
> corner, as if the photographer's deliberately trying to crop it out.
> Is that your impression?
Dunno, I don't watch enough TV to say. TV newsmen have trouble with
anything being a symbol of more than one thing, and so far as they're
concerned the Battle Flag stands for Hate. They're right, I suppose,
as they use the word "hate."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Drab as a fool, aloof as a bard.
From jk Tue Jun 3 07:33:53 1997
Subject: Re: Alain de Benoist
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1479
Status: RO
> Several months ago, someone on the SL listserv made some passing
> remark about longing for a return to Celtic paganism. Needless to
> say, this sparked a flood of responses from the Christian
> traditionalists, who comprise the overwhelming majority of SL
> members.
It's a definite streak of thought on the right. If the problem today
is the tyranny of universalism then monotheism the religious form of
universalism must be bad. Also, the Europeans didn't invent it so it
must be opposed to their natural outlook on things.
People who make race the basis of their outlook (as opposed to those
who merely think it matters) seem to like paganism. I've read very
little de Benoist (very little is in English) so I'm not sure what he
means by it. I don't think he means a revival of the Druids or Odin
worship or whatever. Something more modern.
> Indeed, I was amazed at a comment by SL President Michael Hill in
> _Dixie Rising_ in which he said that an ideal world really would be
> modeled along the lines of Althusius as opposed to, say, John C.
> Calhoun.
Judging from his comments in _Chronicles_ Fleming seems to want
something like the social order traditional in the Scottish highlands
or maybe the Borders.
>P.S. What's your take on the Canadian election?
Don't have one -- I haven't been following it closely enough. _E tu_?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base life defiles a bad age.
From jk Wed Jun 4 15:14:51 1997
Subject: Re: Alain de Benoist
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 950
Status: RO
> Living closer to Canada, you probably have a better handle than I do
> about this.
Unlikely. The only place I go to in Canada is Quebec. Everyone likes
Americans there, the French because you're not English and the English
because you're not French. My impression of the rest of Canada is that
their identity is based on not being American. All very subjective
though.
> I think you're right, though, the breakup of Canada will spark more
> debate in this country about national indentity, especially if some
> provinces are tempted to join this union.
If it breaks up it'll simply be yet another demonstration how bad
racism and how good diversity is. If provinces apply for admission to
the union it will raise messy issues all round. I can't help but think
there would be a concerted effort to avoid the issue.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base life defiles a bad age.
From jk Tue Jun 24 16:31:38 1997
Subject: Comments
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:31:38 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3613
Status: RO
Dear Andy,
Things have been quiet and I've read your latest. Some random comments:
1. It still seems very difficult to give shape to the discussion and
bring it to a conclusion in a way that doesn't seem forced. What's
most interesting is to see the views and their interrelationships
presented as forcefully and provocatively as possible. That doesn't
make for agreement though. If you gave each of the real-world models
of your characters the opportunity to edit, so his point of view didn't
get slighted, I doubt the discussion would converge as it does. *I*
wouldn't let it if I were one of the editors.
We've discussed this problem before. Since it seems easier to bring the
character Andy Schmookler to some sort of personal conclusion in a
convincing way I say again emphasize the novelistic aspects.
2. I'm still not sure what evolution has to do with morality. The
moral view upon which the email discussion ends seems analytically to
be a variant of rational hedonism, a sort of rule utilitarianism or
rather institutional utilitarianism. Those moral institutions are best
and should be supported which reason and experience show best promote
the satisfaction of the needs of sentient beings, where "needs" is
apparently defined by reference to what causes pleasure or pain to such
beings. That's a possible view with pros and cons but I don't see the
connection to Darwinian evolution. It looks like a principle intended
to be self-evidently true and therefore more a skyhook than a crane.
How does it emerge from natural selection or whatever? Specific rules
("don't seduce and abandon teen-age girls") might be based on empirical
facts about human nature but the underlying principle of general
utility does not I think arise that way.
3. The view emerging toward the end appeals to evolution in a number
of ways. It suggests for example that because of evolution we function
in specific ways, to which moral institutions will necessarily have to
conform if they are to make things better rather than worse for us.
That's fine, but mentioning evolution seems to add nothing to the
observation that we have inborn qualities and propensities. If the
question is what morality will work for beings of a particular sort what
difference does it make how they came to be beings of that sort?
To some extent the view seems to depend on an understanding of
evolution as a source of ever greater goods. Your friend Barbara
therefore attributes purpose to it. For that matter Herman says we're
at the cutting edge of evolution, which also makes it seem rather
purposive. It's almost as if Evolution has become an emergent deity
that attains pragmatic reality through our actions. How can such a
view be justified given that the point of Darwinian evolution is the
abolition of cosmic purpose?
Also, if Evolution is to be the source of morality it's not clear what
it tells us. Whatever wins, is good? Promote the propagation of your
own genes? Do what's traditional rather than what seems rational
because tradition reflects more of an evolutionary process than a line
of reasoning? Saying "well, we have the responsibility to choose well"
seems to do little good because there are no criteria to determined
whether we have discharged that responsibility well or poorly.
Hope these comments are somehow helpful. If there's anything specific
you want me to say something about do let me know.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From jk Fri Jun 27 05:49:47 1997
Subject: Re: Translation, please.
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:49:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2110
Status: RO
> Mainly, a contextual explaination of "particularisms",
> "self-referential", and "fanaticisms."
A "particularism" is something that holds a group of people together
and distinguishes it from other groups. The word also refers to to the
resulting solidarity and separateness. "Self-referential" here means
impervious to external influences and "fanaticisms" means groups and
their beliefs, attitudes, etc. that have a strong and fixed
determination to achieve some goal and no tendency to take into account
the views and goals of others except instrumentally.
> So what happens is that the conglomeration of global power and its
> resultant governentalism (the NWO), will seek to homogenize disparate
> cultures in order to better "manage" them. But, an international
> scale is not conducive to local control, and will lead to gross
> inefficiency and corruption.
One point here is that solidarity based on something shared with
everyone seems impossible, so in short order no particularism means
gross inefficiency and corruption. There's no effective principle to
counteract individual self-seeking.
> Nonetheless, as a result of its sheer mass, it will result in
> destroying what are considered legitimate cultural, political and
> religious differentiations leading only to the formation of virulent
> groups of people who will rise up to fight the bohemoth, or the BEAST
> for short.
The problem is that it's the groups that don't care in the least what
others think and don't recognize the legitimacy of any social order
they do not create themselves that will survive.
> A second question. I got The Road to Serfdom(Hayek), and Mises
> "Socialism" from a friend. Pretty interesting books, but I was
> wondering where these two men "stand" in political theory now? Are
> they very influencial, or dated...
Not dated, and while still not mainstream the Austrian economists are
probably more influential now than ever.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From jk Fri Jun 27 15:13:49 1997
Subject: Re: Comments
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01BC826F.5C25E7A0@ns01a60.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Jun 26, 97 08:26:09 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3929
Status: RO
> As you read through this material, not finding its arguments
> altogether satisfactory, what arguments were arising in your mind
> that you felt were important and germane and not being included in
> this discussion?
When points of view are basically different one can find fault almost
anywhere. So before criticizing I should emphasize that I thought your
effort admirable. Some random points that occur to me:
1. About a year ago we had a long exchange on the "suppose God were
just like Saddam and anyway who cares what he says just because he's
bigger than we are" issue. I just looked at the exchange again and
what I said still seems cogent and clear to me but it made no sense
whatever to you. For that reason it's probably not worth rehashing.
If you're interested you can find my half by doing a HotBot search for
your name in conjunction with mine.
2. The "theodicy is silly and anyway there can't possibly be free
will" discussion seemed unsatisfactory to me.
On free will, there seems to be a metaphysical presumption that
everything that happens can be accounted for by reference to initial
conditions and efficient causes acting in accordance with invariable
laws, with maybe a little utter randomness stirred in, so our
experience of free choice can be discounted as illusion. Why make that
presumption? Has it been determined by pure reason or experiment that
it is correct?
The discussion of theodicy seems based on that same understanding of
causality, with the additional ideas that God set up the initial
conditions and the invariable laws and so rigged everything, and anyway
he can cause things to come about any way he chooses. Suppose though
universal mechanical causality (perhaps fuzzed a little by randomness)
is not the way things are, free choice is real, and God's omniscience
is not the omniscience of a being who knows in advance how his creature
Adam will behave but rather that of an atemporal being who in the
eternal now he inhabits is in a position rather like one who sees after
Adam's freely chosen action what that action has been. Does God's
omniscience still mean he rigged everything? Does his omnipotence mean
he can't grant Adam true freedom? If so, it's rather a paradox!
The foregoing words don't prove anything, of course. The point though
is that our understanding of freedom, causality, and the knowledge and
moral responsibility of an atemporal being who nonetheless acts in time
is rather limited. The purpose of theodicy is attained I think if we
come to understand something of the reasons for our failure to
understand a problem as incomprehensible as that of evil.
3. Toward the end the book seems to envision man devising his own
morality, subject to certain constraints but also with a great deal of
freedom. How conscious an act is that "devising?" To the extent it
becomes a conscious act the rules that govern us become more purely a
matter of positive law devised by some men and imposed on all. Since
rational deliberation by assemblies and especially large assemblies
becomes difficult or impossible as the range of topics and possible
decisions expands, it seems that the laws of morality would have to be
devised by a small group and everyone else brought somehow to accept
them. The "everyone else" couldn't base its acceptance of the laws on
the assumption that the small group knows best since the constraints
underdetermine the laws and within a broad range of choice there is no
"best." An element of pure choice is involved, so the end effect is
that the society as a whole has to accept as its morality the arbitrary
decisions of some small group. That seems a troubling result.
Let me know if there are other particular points you want me to comment
on.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From jk Fri Jun 27 20:28:11 1997
Subject: Re: Translation, please.
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:28:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2144
Status: RO
> but the common effective principle is that which undergirds
> Freemasonry. The freemasonic principles that the US is a model of,
> and vast portions of Europe emulate. It centers on a non-descript
> religiousity and the "brotherhood of man" who believe in god (or more
> accurately the god-principle) -- irrespective of how this belief
> exhibits itself so long as it does not contradict or countermand the
> fundamental organization whereby the unification of man as an
> inevitable destiny of the principles of 1775 and 1789.
All very well, but non-descript religiosity and the brotherhood of man
don't last long as motivating principles. They don't tell you enough.
the consequence is that sacrifice and rectitude give way to
self-seeking perhaps with a veneer of niceness.
> It is in a single word - anthropocentrism.
I agree that is the tendency. My comment is only that anthropocentrism
has no content except in opposition. "Man the standard" is no standard
whatever for man. How could man possibly *fail* to come up to the
standard of man? So when anthropocentrism triumphs (as it has) it soon
falls into corruption and anarchy.
> >The problem is that it's the groups that don't care in the least
> >what others think and don't recognize the legitimacy of any social
> >order they do not create themselves that will survive.
>
> That used to be the founding Catholic temporal principle.
I don't think so. If Christ and Saint Paul weren't Catholics you have
a serious problem, and Christ told us to render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar's and Paul told us that we should obey the powers that
be even if non-Christian.
> >Not dated, and while still not mainstream the Austrian economists are
> >probably more influential now than ever.
>
> Who heeds them? Anti-socialists (of which I am militantly a member)?
Yes. They have the clearest argument why socialism isn't going to
work, and the failure of socialism has given them quite a boost.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From jk Sat Jul 5 20:39:03 1997
Subject: Re: markets
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 20:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2185
Status: RO
> seems to me more important is the conjunction of notionally fierce
> competition with the (entirely legal) suppression of all information
> enabling the buyer to make a rational choice between suppliers.
I'm not sure I got the whole piece -- the discussion seemed to be cut
off in the middle of the first example, her experience comparison
shopping for hotel rooms.
My impression from her account is that lone travellers walking up to
the registration desk and asking for quotes is not the market the
hotels were interested in. That's awkward for someone in that
position, but doesn't show information is suppressed for the bulk of
those with whom they deal. Actually, there are hotels in DC that *do*
quote fixed rates for individuals. Some of them advertise in the
travel section of the Sunday _New York Times_. I gather that the ones
she visited and quite possibly most hotels there do most of their
business with corporate travel agencies, tour groups, etc., and are
constantly adjusting rates depending on the shifting demand for rooms
in the DC market.
Actually it doesn't seem information is suppressed at all -- the
background seemed to be that there was *no* set rate for a room for a
single person not taking the room just then. That's believable to me.
The last time I rented a car from one of the major agencies the
situation turned out to be similar. You could call and get a quote,
but if you didn't agree to rent the car and give them your credit card
number just then you couldn't rely on the quote later. If you called
back half an hour later the quote often was very different depending on
how the situation was shaping up for the period for which you were
requesting the car. I suppose if AT&T wanted to negotiate a fixed rate
at which cars would be available that could be done, but the major
rental companies evidently didn't find it worth their while to
incorporate a general fixed offer open to the world at large into their
pricing structure. There are, however, minor companies that do so.
What do you infer from all this?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"The greatest genius is the most indebted man." -- Emerson
From jk Mon Jul 7 06:29:39 1997
Subject: Re: markets
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 06:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4115
Status: RO
> Would you like me to try resending it?
Yes, do.
> Dejevsky notes that there are such hotels, at least in the small
> business sector, but suggests that they are gradually being taken
> over by big chains with the attitude she discusses.
How far it goes would depend I suppose on the size of the market they
serve -- individuals who might or might not want to engage a room at
some point in the future and want a quote. A problem I suppose with
bucking the trend is that people might go to the fixed quote hotels
only when the quote is less than the spot rate at competing
variable-rate hotels -- they could make a phone call or two from the
airport and see if they could get in cheaper elsewhere.
> That the deregulated market is not, in fact, serving the customer
> effectively; and that in the case of those services a market
> regulated at least to the extent of obliging suppliers to advertise
> prices and stick to them for some minimum period of time, which is
> the practice in most European countries, serves the customer better.
> That is the only way that competition on price can benefit the
> public.
Does "the public" include only persons going door to door like Miss
Dejevsky? The obvious interpretation is that the market in DC hotel
rooms is becoming like the market in pork bellies. The forward price
of a July 14 class A hotel room in DC now varies continuously in
accordance with shifting demand. If you want to contract at the
current market you can do so, if you want a commitment at a fixed price
you pay for an option. The option etc. market isn't set up for people
who just want one pork belly or one hotel room though. A large user
might find it worth his while to negotiate a long-term supply contract.
I would expect on average the overall result to be that occupancy rates
are higher, periods of unavailability are reduced, and travel agencies,
tour operators, and other people with immediate electronic access to
the shifting arrays of rates offered by suppliers secure rooms more
cheaply for their customers. So it's not at all clear from the
examples that the public is not being served.
> Dejevsky notes in the case of the airlines that, while deregulation
> initially promoted competition and lowered prices, in the long run it
> is resulting in renewed monopoly and higher (and apparently
> irrational) prices; it can be cheaper to fly from Washington to
> Boston via London than directly. She also quotes telecoms confusion
> in the US, where she gives the impression that it will develop either
> in the direction of chaos (where the customer is deluged with
> information about prices and rates covering everything except what he
> wants, in a form which makes it difficult for him to make a
> straightforward choice between services; we have that here for mobile
> phones but not for fixed phones, where there is still a limited
> regulatory system and the tariffs are clearer) or towards monopoly
> and higher prices for calls.
I know too little about airlines to comment on them. One very
important difference between airlines and hotels or suppliers of
telecommunications services is that the former are far more likely to
be the only show in town.
> More generally, I would suggest that a situation similar to the one
> Dejevsky describes arose when goods formerly offered (and obliged by
> bylaws to be offered) on sale in public markets were instead only
> offered for sale on private contract. Large contractors would benefit
> from discounts and the convenience of bulk transactions; weaker parties
> might also initially benefit, but would eventually find themselves locked
> in to a system where they were faced with an effective monopolist at the
> point of contract, since in contrast to the situation in a public market
> they didn't have enough information to choose alternatives or enough
> time to seek out the information and the alternatives.
Sounds like there's room for Quaker travel agents to act as
go-betweens.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"The greatest genius is the most indebted man." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Jul 15 13:10:32 1997
Subject: Re: DINKdom:
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1330
Status: RO
> I would exclude logic for the NWO. There is an objective logic:
> however, the individual DINK or NWO ascriber operates on will, not
> logic.
The objective logic is what I meant. Markets for example have a logic
that does not depend on the subjective logic of their participants.
That's what bureaucratic process is intended to achieve as well. Those
two things are to free us from the necessity of having our own logic
and virtue. That is what "liberation" now means.
> DINKs will ultimately hurt the economy of a post-industrial society
> because it will fail to replenish itselfand allow sufficient growth.
Agreed. My general view is that the objective logic of the NWO and
DINKdom -- basically, the logic of liberated self-seeking -- is very
hard to counter in the short run but in the long run will destroy the
societies in which it exists and so will be replaced by something else
with more of a place for private virtue.
> It could be argued that the deficiencies of the recently implemented
> Socialist education model is going to kill the US in the long term
I think the same will apply to all other developed societies. The same
things are at work in Europe and the far East as here.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"The greatest genius is the most indebted man." -- Emerson
From tempaa Sun Aug 3 06:34:29 1997
From news.panix.com!panix!howland.erols.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!not-for-mail Sun Aug 3 06:29:47 EDT 1997
Article: 149583 of bit.listserv.catholic
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Comments: ********************************************************
Comments: * The following "Approved" statement verifies header *
Comments: * information for gateway passage. No approval of the *
Comments: * content is implied. *
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU *
Comments: ********************************************************
Path: news.panix.com!panix!howland.erols.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!not-for-mail
Lines: 26
References:
Message-ID: <5rsg4d$9fj@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:09:01 -0400
Sender: Free Catholic Mailing List
From: Jim Kalb
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Subject: Re: Oh, the Ivory tower of it all
Comments: To: bit-listserv-catholic@uunet.uu.net
In Scott Carson
writes:
>Should I give the student good marks for having made a valid argument,
>or should I mark down for arriving at a false conclusion, or should I
>pretend that there is no "true" or "false" when grading students who
>may not be Catholic?
It would be rather out of place to mark him down, wouldn't it? After
all, you are working for an institution committed by its basic
principles to "free inquiry," which means that work is judged by how
well it meets expectations regarding process rather than its
conclusions. Also, you are giving grades on behalf of a state
institution disabled by the fundamental law of the state from
recognizing truth and falsity with regard to ultimate questions. So
truth and falsity are irrelevant to what you are doing, regardless of
the student's religion.
In addition, it seems clear that the "philosophy" you teach is not
wisdom or love of wisdom but technical standards and practices relating
to carrying on free inquiry. If it were otherwise it would be hard to
understand why you withhold from your students the truth about the
wrongness of abortion but not about say the validity of syllogisms.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Aug 6 08:01:32 EDT 1997
Article: 10131 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Turn off the lights
Date: 6 Aug 1997 07:59:49 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <5s9ovl$29a@panix.com>
References: <5s8m4l$ecj@chronicle.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <5s8m4l$ecj@chronicle.concentric.net> drotov@concentric.net (dimitri rotov) writes:
>Based on the evidence offered by my news server and the quality of
>posts currently getting through to arc (exclusively), I hereby declare
>this newsgroup abandoned.
Everybody's away for the summer, playing polo, training in Montana, on
retreat at sedevacantist monasteries, what have you. As for me, I'm
working on my essay "Emerson -- the Massachusetts de Maistre."
How about you?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Aug 7 07:49:34 EDT 1997
Article: 10137 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Turn off the lights
Date: 7 Aug 1997 07:48:53 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <5sccn5$jib@panix.com>
References: <5s8m4l$ecj@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s9ovl$29a@panix.com> <01bca309$663df1a0$b40764c3@win95.algonet.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <01bca309$663df1a0$b40764c3@win95.algonet.se> "Pyar Durrani" writes:
>> As for me, I'm working on my essay "Emerson -- the Massachusetts de
>> Maistre."
>What is the connection between Jospeh de Maistre and Ralph Waldo
>Emerson? How are their thoughts related?
A good question!
Actually, the comment was intended as a joke -- Mr. Rotov earlier had
suggested it was incongruous for me to quote Emerson in postings to
a.r.c. I really am writing an essay on him, though, even though he's
not much like de Maistre.
Emerson tends to reject tradition and authority and favor radical
individualism. He represents something that perpetually reappears in
America, a movement away from traditional and concrete religious and
social arrangements that have come to seem dead and frozen and toward a
shining but ill-defined and self-contradictory vision of the unlimited
that, it turns out, is incapable of useful development. The same thing
happened in the 1960s, although more ignobly.
Emerson himself is more interesting than the things he is taken to
represent. In a sense his "positions" don't matter -- they can always
be refuted by quoting other things he said. He is basically a poet
rather than a theoretician, with a gift for concrete images of
spiritual situations. He said what he felt inspired to say. His
writings are mostly assemblages of sentences from his journals that
rang true for him. One consequence is that he doesn't falsify his
perceptions. That and his poetic gift are what make him valuable.
Also, reading him helps one understand what has happened in America.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Thu Jul 31 17:19:20 1997
Subject: Re: Rosenstock-Huessy
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1164
Status: RO
> Catholics and Orthodox Christians would contend that Anglicanism has
> failed because of its doctrinal inconsistencies: a strange
> combination of pelagianism, Calvinism, etc. I disagree. I think the
> failure of Anglicanism stems from its lack of universality.
It was too tied to a particular culture. That was its appeal, of
course, establishing a connection between a particular world and God.
It had too little doctrine and discipline to maintain integrity when
that culture decided it could do without God. It was after all the
Establishment, even in America it couldn't break the habit, and that's
where its ultimate loyalties turned out to lie. It's very very sad,
part of the death of England.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Mon Aug 4 08:12:04 1997
Subject: Re: Rosenstock-Huessy
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:12:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2336
Status: RO
> What I find so endearing about Anglicanism is how it reflects the
> quintessentially English habit of "muddling through." Methodism, to
> some extent, reflects the same traits, and I think this partly
> explains its decline.
It's the problem with conservatism, as least the sort that accepts the
actual world and tries to make the best of it in concrete ways. That
works fine if everyone concentrates on specific issues and concrete
accommodations among differing outlooks that happen to arise, but it
can't deal with ideological activism.
In the end the activists will get what they want through a series of
compromises. The "centrists," who in fact function as agents of the
activist takeover, view themselves with a great deal of justification
as the true loyalists with regard to the specific qualities of the
tradition. The problem of course is that the important thing about
Anglicanism and Methodism was not that they were Anglican and Methodist
or that they muddled through but that they were Christian.
> You said in an earlier post that you thought Orthodoxy more
> effectively combined the various historic strains of Christianity
> into a cohesive system, although you personally preferred
> Anglicanism. Would you mind explaining this?
I don't remember just what I said. It seems to me that Orthodoxy is in
fact more coherent than Anglicanism. Part of it is the far greater
emphasis on concrete tradition, when you fast or what have you.
Another point is that Anglicanism is not answerable to anything outside
itself except the British government. While Orthodoxy is national or
ethnic in implementation it is not so in essence. The various
jurisdictions are equally part of Orthodoxy and are answerable to each
other.
I prefer Anglicanism mostly I suppose because it is the ethnic
implementation of Christianity to which I feel most kinship. Very
likely that is all in the past, though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Mon Aug 4 21:12:31 1997
Subject: Re: Rosenstock-Huessy
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:12:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 935
Status: RO
> As for "centrists" I echo what Chesterton stated so eloquently in
> "What's Wrong With the World." Practicality, bereft of idealism, has
> led us to this sorry state.
One problem is that practicality is based on a sort of idealism.
People are basically good, America is basically good, if you work with
the process things will turn out for the best even if you yourself
can't see just how that will happen. After all, who's wiser and
better, you or America? The same attitude comes up in religion.
Christ will manage his church, so accept things even if they look bad.
> My background is in telecommunications, and I've often toyed with the
> idea of doing a free-lance piece on this phenomenon.
Why not do it? It's worth looking at.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Mon Aug 4 14:22:49 1997
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: forgiving
References:
Status: RO
In Scott Carson writes:
>But God has given us a kind of a model: only forgive when forgiveness
>is warranted by repentence. To forgive someone who is unwilling to
>repent seems to me like changing God's standards around.
Very often whoever did the wrong and the wronged person don't
understand the situation the same way. That may be because the wronged
person is overly sensitive, self-centered or enjoys being resentful, or
because the person who did the wrong is self-centered himself, callous,
willfully self-deceiving, unconsciously sadistic, what have you.
Amazingly enough, the situation may also be completely innocent on both
sides.
How does one deal with such situations? Forgiveness because there is
repentance doesn't seem possible, because what A repents of is not
really what B thinks was the offense. "Talking it over" doesn't
necessarily make things better. For one thing a discussion can be just
another occasion for conscious or unconscious manipulation. For
another the mere fact that A looks on whatever it was as not so bad
while B thinks it was terrible is another affront for both.
The analogy to divine forgiveness is an interesting one, because
presumably our offenses almost always fall into this category -- we
almost never see what was so bad about them from God's (by definition
correct) viewpoint.
From jk@panix.com Tue Aug 5 06:08:04 1997
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Smith's Misstatements [Counter from Paul Halsall]
References: <33E13875.3363@access.digex.net> <33E15631.24F90EF5@onramp.net> <33E1EB75.D21@cle.ab.com> <33E288AE.3A23F335@onramp.net> <33E28ADF.2DA797AF@onramp.net>
Status: RO
In Abp Lewins writes:
>>My husband is sometimes a very coarse man, but he would never say
>>something like that to a female aquaintance of his. I'd be ashamed
>>of him if he did.
>You would not mind your husband being crude to a man only a woman?
>Why? I am truly interested.
Do you find that the relations between a man and a man, and a man and a
woman, differ at all with respect to sexual matters?
Many do, and find that the relations between a man and a woman offer
superior opportunities for brutality. It is harder to shrug things off
and easier for one to touch the other to the quick. The ultimate
reason I think is the lurking possibility of sexual intimacy with
someone like the other party. Since man is normally the pursuer and
woman the pursued, the brutality is usually masculine although women of
course can be remarkably cruel as well.
Many people find such a situation, in which there are gender
distinctions, unjust, psychologically odd, hard to put in rational
form, inconsistent with the spirit of modern life, what have you.
Quite possibly Mr. Ursic's style of humor is beneficial, because it
helps train people out of their anachronistic respect for such
distinctions. We are all to be interchangeable units in the market or
bureaucracy who treat sex and everything else in a matter-of-fact
instrumental fashion and hold each other uniformly at arm's length,
except maybe when attending self-help groups.
Such a program if successfully carried out would certainly reduce the
possibilities of bad sexual conduct. Nonetheless, gender distinctions
have been around a long time and may have certain benefits for human
life. Also, it may be impossible to eliminate them, and attempts to do
so may no more promote human happiness than attempts to eliminate
private property or government. In any event they are still with us so
one shouldn't be surprised when people act as if they matter.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Aug 7 21:28:32 EDT 1997
Article: 10143 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Turn off the lights
Date: 7 Aug 1997 21:20:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <5sds8s$pda@panix.com>
References: <5s8m4l$ecj@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s9ovl$29a@panix.com> <01bca309$663df1a0$b40764c3@win95.algonet.se> <5sccn5$jib@panix.com> <01bca382$8c014260$7d0464c3@win95.algonet.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <01bca382$8c014260$7d0464c3@win95.algonet.se> "Pyar Durrani" writes:
>"In many respects, Emerson's philosophy appears to be a last attempt,
>within the framework of modern secularization, to save a traditional
>world-view with Christian as well as Classicist tenets. At the same
>time, his ideas belong to the fore-front of liberalism of his day,
>since they absorb and adapt contemporary currents of thought of which
>Emerson draws the radical consequences. Depending on one's view, then,
>Emerson may to be both traditional and anti-traditional. This is a
>basis of the Emersonian enigma...".
All true enough. One can say a great many things about Emerson, all of
them true. His perceptions were often very acute, and he didn't care
about consistency, so talking about what he meant can be somewhat like
talking about what the world or what America means.
He had an enormous amount in common with his Puritan ancestors and
loved the Greeks. He had absolute and enduring faith that the essence
of that heritage (and for that matter every other great heritage -
given your choice of pen name I should mention that he also loved the
Persian poets) could somehow be reconciled with the practical, analytic
and scientific spirit of the modern age. He knew perfectly well just
what that spirit was, and what the radical consequences of contemporary
currents of thought were. He tried to bridge the gaps with concepts
like "nature," "soul," and "poet," and with a demand that every man be
in effect his own Jesus. All impossibly vague or clearly impossible.
After a while - after _Conduct of Life_ say, in which the gaps grew far
too wide to fudge although he still claimed in the end they weren't
real - his thought reached a dead end and he basically stopped
producing new work.
>Can one, btw perhaps say of Emerson as well as thinkers in his time,
>that by the standards of their age some of their thoughts could easily
>be defined as liberal. But had they lived in our materialistic,
>hedonistic, nihilistic and secularized age "when nothing has a value,
>but everything has a price", they would probably be seen as
>traditionalists or conservatives?
He had extremely demanding standards for all his openness (I think he
was the inventor of "openness"). I find it very interesting to reflect
on what he would do if he were brought back to life today. Would he
say, "well, I can see the whole thing didn't work, I made a mistake
objecting to the Lord's Supper and getting rid of historical
Christianity at the beginning of my career, particular incarnation in a
fallen world is the only concept that will fly" or would he stick with
the "go with it and it will come right in the end, maybe in a couple
more centuries, because the contraries are all aspects of the same
thing" theory?
>The common thing between de Maistre and Emerson could be the
>reflecting intellect's reaction to a system/cosmos out of order, but
>that their approaches and conclusions were different, according to
>their enviromental context and intellectual atmosphere...
Both had unconventional minds and wrote beautifully about fundamental
issues. Neither cared whether his conclusions pleased anyone. I don't
think Emerson considered that the world had fallen into disorder. To
some extent he thought that God or whatever was always equally present
and available, to some extent he believed in progress.
Of course it's always difficult to articulate anything specific and say
that was what he believed since you can always find a place in which he
says the contrary. He tends to think that whatever you say the truth
is something else. Truth he says is "such a fly-away, such a
sly-boots, so untranslatable and unbarrelable a commodity, that it is
as bad to catch as light."
>Is de Maistre often read by traditionalists over there in the US?
Few people read him here and his works are hard to find. People read
Burke but not much from the Continent.
>Tage Lindom the foremost swedish conservative traditionalist (who I
>have had the pleasure to meet several times this year. A gentleman of
>87 yrs.) wrote an excellent essay about de Maistre, unfortunately it's
>not yet translated into English. The only books of his availible in
>English so far is "Tares and Grains" and "The Myth of Democracy".
It's shocking how little is available by him over here. Incidentally,
do people in Europe still read Emerson? I know Nietzsche liked him,
and I recall a reference in _Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften_.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Aug 9 12:51:04 EDT 1997
Article: 10156 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Turn off the lights
Date: 9 Aug 1997 12:49:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <5si73l$cbs@panix.com>
References: <5s8m4l$ecj@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s9ovl$29a@panix.com> <01bca309$663df1a0$b40764c3@win95.algonet.se> <5sccn5$jib@panix.com> <01bca382$8c014260$7d0464c3@win95.algonet.se> <5sds8s$pda@panix.com> <01bca43f$fe9f9f20$970164c3@win95.algonet.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <01bca43f$fe9f9f20$970164c3@win95.algonet.se> "Pyar Durrani" writes:
>I recently read Telos nr 98-99, Winter '93-Fall '94. An issue dealing
>with the European New Right. What is the american equivalent to this
>movement, is there one?
No exact equivalent. The paleoconservatives tend toward radical
localism and rejection of universalism but not with the attempted
logical rigor of the ENR. We're Anglo-Saxons and not Frenchmen after
all. Paleocons tend to be Christian for example. I can't think of any
substantial group of right-wing neopagan sexual libertines, although
maybe someone reading this will yell at me for saying so. (If so, I'll
wiggle out of the situation by arguing about the meaning of the word
"substantial.")
There's not much available here on the ENR. There's the Telos issue
you mention, a book by some Croat whose name I forget, and some
references in _Chronicles_ etc. that show a few intellectuals are aware
of it.
>Do people read Alain de Benoist? To me many thoughts of his are
>interesting, except for his paganism, sexual liberty and cyclical
>conception of time. He talks about "ethno-pluralism" as an antipole or
>an alternative to multiculturalism.
He's very little known. One problem is that American right-wingers
tend not to read Continental writers. Not many Americans read foreign
languages, for one thing, and not much is available in translation.
For another, liberals and the left have always dominated American
intellectual life so American right-wingers have tended to be less
intellectually adventurous than perhaps in other countries.
I think people are becoming aware that the times call for more radical
ways of thinking, and there's more interest in non-American and
non-AngloSaxon writers than in the recent past. The current issue of
_Modern Age_, for example, includes a good annotated bibliography of
Ultra-royalist works. Not exactly de Benoist, but not what has been
the American mainstream either.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Aug 15 22:42:15 EDT 1997
Article: 10185 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Turn off the lights
Date: 15 Aug 1997 22:40:22 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <5t33um$kjo@panix.com>
References: <5s8m4l$ecj@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s9ovl$29a@panix.com> <01bca309$663df1a0$b40764c3@win95.algonet.se> <5sccn5$jib@panix.com> <01bca382$8c014260$7d0464c3@win95.algonet.se> <5sds8s$pda@panix.com> <01bca43f$fe9f9f20$970164c3@win95.algonet.se> <5si73l$cbs@panix.com> <01bca9c1$7bf57f40$b50564c3@win95.algonet.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <01bca9c1$7bf57f40$b50564c3@win95.algonet.se> "Pyar Durrani" writes:
>Would books like Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselfes to Death" and Jerry
>Mander's classic "Four Argument for the Elimination of Television" be
>suitable to your booklist? I recently read both of these critiques of
>the modern culture and enjoyed them greatly. Do you know anything
>about Mander and Postman?
Postman I think is an aging leftish 60s person who however is dubious
of mass culture. I don't know about Mander. Postman at least belongs.
>And what about Leo Strauss' books?
Good question. I have no explanation for his absence. I should add
him.
More later - I'm escaping the wilderness of Brooklyn for the wilderness
of Quebec for a couple of weeks. A better class of wilderness I'm
told, especially in August.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
Back to my archive of posts.