A Bradburyan Nighmare: The Shunning of Intellect

Gendanken: Those adjectives!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey, you know what I remember? I remember that you said that sometimes you have to get up at night and write. I have stayed on Word, typing until six in the morning more than once, because I had an idea for an article or suddenly wanted to read something again that came to mind. The difference between folks who have joy and those who seemingly do not, is having or not having enthusiasm. It was Spinoza's passion that attracted me. Get this amazing thing: It was his passion for truth. One does not need to agree with every statement to love the passion! Nietzsche raved and ranted, but his ravings and rantings were important to him. This passion of which I speak can also help one enjoy whatever they do, because it gets to the bottom line, it is the feeling that you get when you see a job well done, and know that you did it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or Shared It. Yeah, Should Have Included That! Pmt

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PMT, there is an 'edit' option on the upper right corner for your absent mindedness you know.
*grin*

Jesus lord, how I loathe Microsoft Word, I loathe typing. Here, its an occupational hazard- I'm forced to type to you damn people, its irritating. Of course I'm getting better but my fingers are clumsy and given any post after submission I have to go back in and edit, edit, and re-edit out the fucking errors.

ITS ANNOYING.

Now, I've been motived to transcribe all my written crap into digital crap and its daunting. But I'll do it.

Not necessarily- Joan Collins reputedly celebrates over cognac after finshing a book, Mary Higgins Clark another one who blushes at the fullfillment of a job well done. Stephen King and Michael Chricton (sp?) no doubt just as enthusiastic but their work- those rare times I've actually braved reading a paragraph of their bullshit- lacks flavor, heat, espiritu.

Its got a very....watered-down something in it.

You know?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And, no, I do not know. Where is the edit thing. I know there is a preview, but it will not allow editing, right? When these things get a bit complicated, I write on WORD, then cut and paste. It seems I am always rushing when I type. I know, I know, it shows. Yes, I do tend to be absentminded. I guess that is what it is. I am concentrating so hard on what I mean that I forget to say it, or something like that!

Hey you, I stand by my statement. How can one have joy without enthusiasm?

Catch you later. Thank you for responding. I enjoyed it.

 

gendanken: If I have misunderstood you I sincerely apologize and plead that you set me straight. You say I don't address your point. What is it?

There has clearly been a misunderstanding. I said [deleted]. You may judge that it is still vulgar and I may agree with you, but while I may, from time to time, consent to a degree of vulgarity, I will not tolerate to be misunderstood : this was the image I was attempting to create, [deleted].

That said, gendanken, and to get back to the matter at hand, once again if I have misunderstood your point I really apologize for the ensuing quiproquo. If I have misunderstood, then what is it you're trying to say?

Please don't retort with just an insult and an instruction to read one of your posts, clearly I didn't understand the first time.

And now P. M. Thorne:

No, obviously I don't see that. What *is* the essence of her argument? That nowadays people are stupid, that intellectuals are reviled? Sure, but once again -- (1) that situation has always existed (2) and if anything it's better now than before and besides, (3) even if we could change it I'm not sure we should.

Let me see if I understand you correctly : you say that before people used to be more passionate about what they believed in, so much that they did not shy at the prospect of dying for their beliefs or their honor, and that today we are comparatively much more tame.

I have two objections :
1- Once again, how true is that? Today you will find many people willing to die for a cause, or for a friend or a loved one, and how many cowardly patricians were there for one ready to die for the Urbs? Virgil may have written that there is nothing more beautiful than to die for one's country, but how many among Rome's glorious legions had signed up for the love of senatus populusque romanus? Human nature is a constant. There have always been heroes and cowards, passionate people and dull people.

2- You have to compare what we have gained to what we have lost. Our "tameness" comes also from a much greater belief in the value of human life. If one has so little concern for human life that he (or she!) wouldn't hesitate to die over a point of honor, how will he treat his fellow men and women? The world has been outraged by the pictures of the men tortured in the Abu-Ghraib prison when what abuse has happened is tame compared to what normally happened under similar circumstances in medieval times (or when the so-civilized Europe colonized the world).

But once again we must compare. The common man today may seem dreadfully uncultured, but he is extremely cultured compared to the common man 400, 200 or even 100 years ago, I quote myself: "much in the same way that the change in our pockets represents a microscopic sum to you and I and yet would mean a fortune to a person form the third world." We must acknowledge the fantastic priviledge it is to even know how to read -- how can anyone say that there has not been tremendous progress in the way of culture? You can't ask for overnight change.

The point you make that this picture is sadder because of the increased availability of culture is interesting, but once again I must make the point I've made before : culture is only a treasure to one who cares about it. If I were driven to despair by the lack of culture of our age and would grab the next man who walks by the public library without looking, tears streaming from the eyes, and ask, my voice broken, "Why don't you go in? Why?" he would simply say he's got other stuff to do. Maybe he goes to football practice. Maybe he's going to meet his girlfriend at the park. Maybe he'll just go get dumber in front of the TV. I think the latter is stupid -- but who am I to step on a soapbox in front of the library, and curse the sinners who watch TV? If anything I'll just drive people out of it, making readers seem more like elitist assholes than they already are.

And I couldn't agree more! This is the reason why I'm a volunteer teacher. However I think it's irrealistic to be appalled or even surprised that this promotion only appeals to a minority.

Upon reading that, I can't help but think of what Nora Barnacle once said about her husband, James Joyce : "I don't know whether my husband is a genius or not, but he certainly has a dirty mind." I don't really have a point for this one, except maybe that I would probably be prouder if a woman ever says that about me than if I were to write the Ulysses of the 21st century.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. But it's a bit easy to put the blame on "our times". The reason I read books as soon as I could and love them is because even as a baby I saw my parents read, and small kids learn by imitating their parents. But I also played a lot of videogames and watched a lot of TV, and dumb TV believe me. And I'm grateful I have, I don't want to read book after book, piling them in my mind until they form an impregnable forteress separating me from the world I live in.

The point I'm trying to make is that culture isn't an absolute good. While I may be a very cultured man for my times, I can't help but think that I know so little of everything, because the more you learn about something, the more you realise what you've left to learn. I would probably be an exceptional erudite if I had spent all my time studying. But I much prefer having spent it watching TV, playing videogames, chasing girls, just daydreaming on a park bench, getting drunk, being hung over, having irrelevant debates over the Internet, spending time with friends, in one word -- living! A kid who spent his childhood playing Nintendo will probably (probably!) end up much less cultured than one who spent his reading books and learning to play the violin. But will he grow up into a less happy man? It's highly doubtful. And yet isn't that what matters most?

Oh, it's certainly a truth, and I know it, but is it a sad one?

My grandfather often told me this quote : "Smart people, do not mock idiots, and think that it is the plain that makes the mountain seem so high."

Of course I think it's horrible that people will just live in a plant-like state, not concerned by much and won't try to do anything. To me, it's inconceivable. That said, if that's how they're happy, then who are we to tell them how to live? It was Gauss who said that quote, the same mathematician who came up with the "bell curve" that is sometimes referred to as a "Gauss curve". Psychology researchers agree that any human group can be mapped according to that curve. Whatever the criteria, whatever the people, you will find a 10% elite, a 10% low, and a tepid 80% in the middle. There are always going to be people much smarter than 90% of the world, no matter how smart the overall population gets. Everyone (at least in industrialized countries) knows how to read and write and do basic math. Most people have been in school till their late teens, and a growing amount have gone through some college. Those are very smart people, PMT! Very!

Yes, there's a semantic vagueness for this whole debate. I use intellectual/smart person/nerd indifferently, I amalgamate reading books and culture mostly for the sake of style : it's always nicer to read someone who owns a thesaurus... This is still a grave logical overlook, but then again my points remain.

What's a teacher's job? To make them into know-it-alls? To make them into citizens? To make them pass to the next class with good grades so he gets a bonus at the end of the year? If a teacher makes his pupils love reading, I say congratulations. I really do, I think it's fantastic. But if he doesn't, does that mean he's failed? I'm not sure.

It's good to have strong convictions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I share your conviction, but I'm also realistic, not everyone can assimilate or care about knowledge, and furthermore I believe that a world of PhDs would be a very dull one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, I agree. But sadly I think it's the law of human nature.

And this is your best point.

Where we (or I, since I seem to misunderstand so much!) have answered an ethical question you asked a political one. So far we have been asking, at the individual level, "Is it good for man to be more cultured?" and at the collective level "Would more culture better human condition?" and I have answered to both questions "Not necessarily." Now you (and maybe this is what gendanken has been saying all along and I missed all along (and if I have, I apologize, and present for my own defense that I'm a bloody moron)) don't ask about the man, but the citizen.

It is an other dubious priviledge of modern times that the modern man has an infinitesimal chunk of the power of the people thrust upon him when he comes of age, under the form of the right to vote. He must therefore be not just a man but a citizen. Like a Lord of feudal times, the power that is thrust upon him comes with the obligation to use it for the greater good of all -- whatever that is.

And it's in that whatever that is that the whole problem lies, doesn't it?

Now, every man and woman has the penible duties of leadership thrust upon them. She must be informed (or rather inform herself) of the state of her country and of the world, she must consider alternatives, and pick which one she believes will be "best" (however she defines that) for her country. Does she believe a small government and liberal economic policies are the best way for a prosperous, happy America? Then she will join the G.O.P. Almost as if she were playing President, she must figure out the best way for her country, and then vote for the candidate or party she feels reflects that way the best.

And of course it takes a cultured man to play President with any sense of realism. A responsible citizen should read, keep himself aware of his surroundings, of the intricacies of politics, both at home and abroad. He must know and he must care, he must be a card-carrying member (that expression has always perplexed me: is there a kind of member that doesn't get to carry a card? Do you have to pay more to get to carry the card, or do you get to pay less because you carry the card? What do you get? Bragging rights? "That's right sweetheart, I'm a card-carrying member, now that's not like every member."), whether it be of the NRA or the ACLU (or both, maybe he's a gun-totin' libertarian, they make those too)...

Clearly this is only the case with a minority, and certainly the world wouldn't be such a grim place if it weren't. For people to become good citizens, they must be educated into that, they must be taught not only to read, but to enjoy reading, and their minds will blossom like flowers in the springtime (see! I ain't afraid of no cliché!). Then certainly they will become aware, concerned citizens, who will take the reins of this planet with their wisdom, and lead it into calm prosperity and peace.

Sure.

Oh, I agree. Nation-states took over schools for that very purpose: teach children to be citizens, responsible leaders of a better world instead of labourers for the prosperity of a King and a noble elite. And I fight for that cause. As often as I can spare it, I get in a room with sixth graders, and try to talk to them. And I do it with passion, but I also do it with the calm resignation of a Knight who rides to certain death for his duty. Because no matterhow hard you try, it isn't going to work for all of them. If you say that a teacher which hasn't gotten his pupils to love reading is a teacher that doesn't do his job, then you say that Pygmalion was a bad sculptor because only one of his statues came to life.

That said, and this is where our fundamental philosophical difference lies : I don't believe culture is a virtue. I don't believe a cultured man is a better man. It takes a man with a lot of culture to build a concentration camp. It was one of the great moments of enlightenment of my life, this heartbreaking irony to find out that an SS commander who worked at a concentration camp would listen to Bach's Passion. Closer to home, my grandfather, who is a renowned University professor, also was an abusive father. It takes a really smart man to make really stupid things and to excuse terrible evils. An intellectual can as easily turn into Hannibal Lecter or Josef Mengele as he can into Benazir Bhutto or Raoul Follereau. It was the great revelation of the Holocaust : Germany in the 1930's was the most civilized, the most cultured land on the planet, and no matter how high they were they fell to the lowest of lows. This was the country of Kant and Goethe! For all our progress, we are the same. For all our progress we will always live in a land where the majority are idiots, and even if we make them into very smart idiots it won't change much.

But, for all my cynicisim, I agree with you.

 

Gendanken,

No! Hesse suggests that Cain wasn't the bad guy at all! Hesse doesn't think that Cain was carnal or jelaous and all that: Hesse suggests that all these bad characteristics were ASCRIBED to Cain, because he was a nerd, and because the majority didn't like nerds.

The biblical story presents a totally skewed picture of Cain, because the Bible is trying to make the point: "Being a different than the crowd (= being a nerd) is bad."

Yeah, it's diluted.
To make a bold comparison: There is only so much energy around in this Universe, and it gets distributed to all the elements of the system. >> There is only so much creative energy, espiritu, Geist, l'esprit in human society, and then it gets distributed to all the artists and everyone else. There are many many aritsts (" "), so the portion of Geist that each gets is smaller than in earlier days.


PMT,

But that's basically the same thing, joy and enthusiasm, isn't it?

Rule #1 for readers and writers: If the author had joy or passion or whatever when writing/painting/sculpting/whatever this doesn't mean that the reader/viewer will feel this same passion.

A modern passion in writers is graphomania: To write for the sake of writing, because one feels the need to write. This need will not necessarily produce something meaningful or passionate.

In fact, graphomania is more likely to produce very dull, boring, empty stuff. "An elaborate, circumlocutory expression of a failure to communicate," as BBH said it.
In order to communicate meaningfully and with passion, we have to be able to distance ourselves a bit from communication, we have to be able to control ourselves so that what we do give away is redable, understandable.

A good example of this: raving musicians. A pianist, all crazy while at play, will not necessarily play the most passionately. He may be passionate, but the music he thus plays can be far from passionate.

One of the best examples for that is probably Rach. 3, the Concert for Elephants.
I have seen players, raving with passion at it. But the sound is just not it.
While on the other hand, there are players, just sitting there, barely sweating: and their performance is far more passionate than the one of the raving.

The raving are trying to *be* Rach. 3, while the calm are *playing* Rach. 3.
Fact is, you cannot be Rach. 3, but you can play it.

 

LeoDV: Ya said

And all I could think is Aristotle saying "Not having your boobs sag is the essence of the good life."

I guess that's "brassiere", pardon me. But "brazier" is still spelled with a "Z".

The Holocaust is a rather dissipated event at this point; I don't deny that it happened or that six million Jewish people were killed, but it does somewhat bother me that the black people and Gypsies and homosexuals and Communists who were killed (also numbering in the millions) are totally forgotten by history because now, as then, they don't have anyone who can adequately represent them. "Weep for these guys but not for those ones," doesn't work so well for me.

In addition, WWII has been twisted into a kind of "Good Vs. Evil" conflict, a justification that it doesn't really deserve. If you don't believe this, try looking at how Jewish people (our favourite WWII judgement demographic) were treated by the U.S. in 1938. (Hint: Not very well.)

Savage people commit savage atrocities and civilized people commit urbane atrocities; during the French Revolution, the guillotine was considered a technological advancement in humane execution - painless, so they said. Certainly less cruel than the axey "whack whack whack" method that they used before... but without that technological advance, some of the condemned would have died of old age before their name came up on the ol' head-whacking rota. And the headsman would have got pretty tired, and probably pulled a muscle or something.

When someone drinks my blood, do I care if they drink it out of a crystal goblet, instead of their hands? When someone roasts me over a fire, do I care if they add lemon peel and cilantro? Your ascription of a greater horror to the civilized seems hollow to me.

 

Just OT, the guillotine was not particularly humane. There were reports of the eyes rolling around for a full minute or more on occasion after decapitation. No vocal cords, so the lack of any ability to yell "hey, that hurts!" probably had more to do with the idea that it was "painless" than anything else.

 

PMT: Forgive me... I often decry other people's recourse to literary reference because there is a kind of argument I don't like - the Argument from the Authority of People Who are Far Away, where the further away someone is, the more weight their opinion holds. However, since I'll occasionally make literary references myself, this position is ... inconsistent at best. Heh.

I'll not claim to trash Goethe as I haven't read his works... I usually try to respond directly to the words people quote, for the sake of compactness.

 

Rosa: The idea of artistic spirit being a constant is difficult to support; artistic development is easier now, because of our plethora of tools, but I don't think that diminishes passion on the part of the artist. That theory seems a little too "Golden Agey" for me... maybe you could elaborate.

As for... Cain? Cain has been weirdly romanticised in recent years by the Vampire movement (that's White Wolf vampire, not Anne Rice... hard for me to keep track of these things). The original crime in the Bible seemed like a childish fit - seriously, Cain thought God liked Abel better, and clonk. These days Cain is supposed to be some kind of bitter world wanderer with a big sexy Cain tattoo, so that, I dunno, chicks will dig him or something. Cain's been pre-absolved, you see - same as Sanger or the Grandmother Witch. "Who here is strong enough to defy me?"

That's not really the same as the whole revilement thing, I don't think...

 

Fenris: Yes, I know it wasn't painless. Pain control research was probably less advanced in the days of the French Revolution. My point was the perception at the time. Also, beheading with an axe was still worse.

 

BigBlueHead, (as opposed to Big Blue Beard

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

BBH wrote: Forgive me... I often decry other people's recourse to literary reference because there is a kind of argument I don't like - the Argument from the Authority of People Who are Far Away, where the further away someone is, the more weight their opinion holds. However, since I'll occasionally make literary references myself, this position is ... inconsistent at best. Heh.

Hmm. Not sure I get all that. Are you saying that you are closer to the truth than Goethe, and if so in what way? I know he seemed rather despondant about the situation in Europe; however, I doubt that the power of positive thinking would have cured the spoiled lands, devasted economy, and so forth, that lay at the feet of Europe in the nineteenth century. But the quote I presented was, to say the least, worthy of consideration, so says I.

I meant nothing personal, and you seem you have realized this. It is just that sometimes I want to cover my head and weep! Prove this; prove that! Well, you can probably guess what I feel like saying. Nothing is proven absolutely. Moreover, I liked the quote from Goethe. I also liked the dontroversial saying attributed to the controversial Soc; this being, (something like) "the only thing I know ...is that I know nothing." This means something to me. To me, it means, my only conclusion thus far is that I know nothing for sure. Truthfully, I do not give a flying flip who said it. Apostle Paul said something similiar; however, when I quoted Paul, the responder did not trash him (this was in another thread) but denied that he ever existed. It just makes me tired. So, sorry if you received the blunt of my frustration. I wasn't too bad, was I?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

YOU WROtE: I'll not claim to trash Goethe as I haven't read his works... I usually try to respond directly to the words people quote, for the sake of compactness.

And you have every right to do that, by golly. Chow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ROSA WROTE: But that's basically the same thing, joy and enthusiasm, isn't it?

Not really. Enthusiam = zeal, interest, inspired intensity, eagerness;
whereas joy = great gladness, exultant satisfaction, delight, bliss, (“A thing of beauty is a joy forever.” Keats)

Think of it this way, …enthusiasm is the interest, eagerness and intensity that makes us want to know something, or get somewhere, and joy is what ensues; or in the “getting somewhere,” the never-forgotten thrill of the experiences and the glow of the lasting memories .

ROSA WROTE: Rule #1 for readers and writers: If the author had joy or passion or whatever when writing/painting/sculpting/whatever this doesn't mean that the reader/viewer will feel this same passion.

Yes, the viewer can feel a similar passion.

Interesting comments.

 

I am the one they call BigBlueHead/
BigBlueBeard's where it BigBlueLed/
So never ye mind what I BigBlueSaid/
And hie me off to my BigBlueBed.

What I meant by compactness is that I've never read Goethe and hence would not dream of denying the veracity of the body of his works. Rather, I'll only deny the veracity of what's immediately to hand (if I have a problem with it). As it happens, I have read Plato, and thus I am prone to criticize them as a whole. In general I view the words of Socrates in much the same way I view Clan of the Cave Bear - that is, fiction with a lot of effort behind it, but fiction nonetheless.

Plato's account of knowledge, which is one of the roots of his entire philosophy, requires the existence of Plato's heaven with all its perfect forms. I think this is crap, and so I find any of Socrates' words highly suspect. Of all of the characters in his collected dialogues, I most closely identified with Thrasymachus, pissing around because Socrates is, honestly, kind of annoying. (I thought the Republic was particularly bad news... anyway.)

It's not that I wish to engage in some kind of metaphysical wrestling match with a long-dead authors who can't account for themselves... rather, I don't always like when people come to the table armed with analogies and pithy quotes. So when you say

I say nooooo.... but dropping Goethe on the conversation like a ton of bricks isn't necessarily the best way to achieve clarity. Similarly, Plato's love letters to Socrates are not always the answer to any question about educating the stupid... it should be noted in the Republic, much as LeoDV's throwing around, that Plato believed an underclass of the stupid had to be maintained, in order to take care of those duties that were beneath the wise and benificient. No egalitarian Plato... and I have no idea what he thought about nerds. That's why I'm not interested in bringing him into the discussion.

It is best, if you can, to use your own words and defend them yourself. This isn't a respected periodical and I'm not going to call you out for not citing your sources. If you want to display your academic influences, then fine, but quotes can obfuscate, particularly when one tries to bend them to a discussion they didn't originally concern.

For instance (as from LeoDV) NERD does not equal GUY COMING OUT OF PLATO'S CAVE. The nerd may have a different way of looking at things - perhaps mathematics is an open book to them because of a more developed understanding of polar coordinates or something - but that doesn't mean that they have a more perfect understanding of the world. Hence Plato quotations are misplaced...

... and bringing Goethe to bear to try to support the Socrates quoting doesn't really bring us back to the point of the discussion, but rather Further Away, which is where we are now.

So, tell me about Nerds. Not the candy.

 

[deleted]:

Simple shit my boy:

" What I'm really getting at is the difference in treatment.
Jane loves "Friends" to a fault, she can chat and gossip about everything on televison down to a history and it is seen as a funny novely cute to be around.
But Joanna with the same passion for Freud's analysis of the rat man and the magic of Shakespeare or Nietzche is seen as an odd vice, and is avoided as if she had headlice.

Both these people have the same malfunction in their interactions with humans, yet one is more reviled than the other."

Addressed to bigbluehead about 4 posts ago for which [deleted] has yet to respond to.

And only because you've been sitting here like [deleted], insisting on making this a case of me looking down on 'bad culture' ( "Culture", by the way, a word you introduced- not I) I asked you this:

How many buckets of water does it take to 'culture' wine if all one has is water?


Rosamagika:
In that case Hesse is greviously [deleted]- the Biblical symbolism of Cain as pariah is clearly a disparaging of evil. There is nothing evil to 'nerdom'.

 

LEO/DV WROTE: No, obviously I don't see that. What *is* the essence of her argument? That nowadays people are stupid, that intellectuals are reviled? Sure, but once again -- (1) that situation has always existed (2) and if anything it's better now than before and besides, (3) even if we could change it I'm not sure we should.

Fair enough, but! I am not saying stating that one time is necessarily better than another. I am not, because this would be too difficult for my collective knowledge and experience. If I think spinach tastes better than broccoli, and you come back with “carrots have been proven to be the best-tasting vegetable,” whereas this may be true, saying so at this place in our discussion would only dilute and confuse my point. Does this make sense to you or seem relevant? I am saying that people in general do not have the passion for their creations that they had in days gone by, ~while realizing….and I do…..that there are reasons for this, beyond defining one’s intensity. Neitzsche and Van Gogh come to mind. Who could have been more intense? Hannibal became increasingly intense. You can bet on that. Those are—to me at least—rather negative examples, and none that I would care to see repeated, even though similar behavior has been, in various ways and times. But, if I may: Let us quieten (my word; leave it alone) our intensity and watch Lord Byron as he pens:
I loves - but those I love are gone;
Had friends - my early friends are fled:
How cheerless feels the heart alone,
When all its former hopes are dead!
Though gay companions o'er the bowl
Dispel awhile the sense of ill'
Though pleasure stirs the maddening soul,
The heart - the heart - is lonely still.
He was a young man! Yet, this is not the most impressive example of his depth and perception. I say it could be found in The Prisoner of Chillon, which, though I have read it many times, cannot read——without tears, but what a sensitive soul that man must have had. Was it his childhood disillusions, his club foot, his lack of motherly nurturing? One could scarcely expect a happy well-adjusted child of a large family, who made many trips to the river, and always had birthday cakes with folks that hugged and whispered lovely things in their ears, to create such a sad picture as does Byron. I say this is much of the reason that this kind of passion is not often found today. Times being tough, brings out the gentle. Books being scarce make folks want them more. You get my point here; I need not go on and on, right? (Because I could!)

LeoDV wrote: Let me see if I understand you correctly : you say that before people used to be more passionate about what they believed in, so much that they did not shy at the prospect of dying for their beliefs or their honor, and that today we are comparatively much more tame.

Still Leo: I have two objections :
1- Once again, how true is that? Today you will find many people willing to die for a cause, or for a friend or a loved one, and how many cowardly patricians were there for one ready to die for the Urbs? Virgil may have written that there is nothing more beautiful than to die for one's country, but how many among Rome's glorious legions had signed up for the love of senatus populusque romanus? Human nature is a constant. There have always been heroes and cowards, passionate people and dull people.

Here again, I say that, in general, our present circumstances do not evoke such passion. The middle east conditions are a good indication of what makes passion, or at least one aspect of it. We do not have the religious fervor; we do not have the emotional connection to land, or personal property, (such as we can always buy another). Most of us do not carry such intense hate, (however I have witnessed some rather intense statements on this forum from time to time). I know from experience that when acquisitions, even the bare necessities, are hard to come by, one guards them, and can become very concerned or sentimental when something is broken, lost or stolen. Contrast this to a good income, Home Owner’s Insurance, and a mind-set of replacing rather than repairing, and what’s to sweat?

YOUR SECOND POINT: 2- You have to compare what we have gained to what we have lost. Our "tameness" comes also from a much greater belief in the value of human life. If one has so little concern for human life that he (or she!) wouldn't hesitate to die over a point of honor, how will he treat his fellow men and women?

A very reasonable consideration, Sir. Now, that I have said this, would you not agree that this thing of being willing to die, would have much to do with the WHY (you were willing to die)? May I stretch your socks, and use the stoning of Stephen (biblical accounting in Luke’s book of Acts) to exemplify one who was either agitated to heights of passion, or perhaps elevated to touching heights of eternal joy. Even so, the circumstances demonstrated in that scene are certainly not common now! And, as I said before, that dude that was expounding his willingness to die for the Senate, lived not too many decades after this scene from Acts. (I am not sure about the timing.)

YOU WROTE: But once again we must compare. The common man today may seem dreadfully uncultured, but he is extremely cultured compared to the common man 400, 200 or even 100 years ago, I quote myself: "much in the same way that the change in our pockets represents a microscopic sum to you and I and yet would mean a fortune to a person form the third world." We must acknowledge the fantastic priviledge it is to even know how to read -- how can anyone say that there has not been tremendous progress in the way of culture? You can't ask for overnight change.

I get your point, even though, I rather choke on the possible overuse of the word culture, and might disagree with the “100 years ago,” statement used with the word “extremely.” In another posting, I referred to an example of very simple folks. I knew these people. They were honest, dependable, clean, hardworking, loving, well informed for their level of education, skilled in ways that are now foreign to most Americans. The interesting part, was that they seemed to have almost no desire to envy their bosses, their bosses houses, the fact that everything they did made money for their boss, even though their bosses lived off the land as did they. Nowadays, it is “I deserve this, and I deserve that; I am beautiful and sexy and charming.” Pardon me while I recover. Thank you.

Seriously, it makes me sick. How can there be passion, when Americans are inclined to be so self absorbed? My God, if a good thought interrupted their bubble bath, they would stick with the bath. Some of our poorest have it easier than some of the most high, say in the days of all the kings horses and men. Our soldiers, as gloomy as it is, cannot compare to the hardships of the soldiers in WWI, for example, and surely not in say the war between Finland and Russia, say during that oh so hard Finland winter. Was that not in the 1700’s. (If you want proof, just let me know….uhhh I can do it.)

LeoDV: The point you make that this picture is sadder because of the increased availability of culture is interesting, but once again I must make the point I've made before : culture is only a treasure to one who cares about it. If I were driven to despair by the lack of culture of our age and would grab the next man who walks by the public library without looking, tears streaming from the eyes, and ask, my voice broken, "Why don't you go in? Why?" he would simply say he's got other stuff to do. Maybe he goes to football practice. Maybe he's going to meet his girlfriend at the park. Maybe he'll just go get dumber in front of the TV. I think the latter is stupid -- but who am I to step on a soapbox in front of the library, and curse the sinners who watch TV? If anything I'll just drive people out of it, making readers seem more like elitist assholes than they already are.

My goodness! Although I know you not, Sir, I suddenly had this picture in my mind of the scene you describe, (above). I laughed and laughed. That would be a good one for Candid Camera!

LeoDV: However I think it's irrealistic to be appalled or even surprised that this promotion only appeals to a minority.

You coining words now? I am not appalled or surprised. Is it okay—however—if I am a bit sad that when I first checked Spinoza’s two chief works from the main library in a big city that these books had not been checked out for eighteen months, and two years, respectively. Then when I decided that these books were not the kind that I could simply read, I sought to purchase them. Brand new, …five bucks a piece! Shocking! About the price of two TV Guides. Here are a couple of verses that say it rather well.

“They saw beyond today’s surmise,
and stopped to share their inner pain.
Frustration wrought those endless hours,
while truth was all they had to gain.

We, who blindly follow the masses
—which lead no cause—in trivial flight,
scarcely wonder enough to mine
for the silent treasures of their time;
thus much of what they gleaned for us
yellows with age in bindings of dust.” …………………..Words in Motion, a book of poetry

Yes, Leo, ……….sometimes it makes me want to cry.

LeoDV: Oh, I couldn't agree more. But it's a bit easy to put the blame on "our times". The reason I read books as soon as I could and love them is because even as a baby I saw my parents read, and small kids learn by imitating their parents. But I also played a lot of videogames and watched a lot of TV, and dumb TV believe me. And I'm grateful I have, I don't want to read book after book, piling them in my mind until they form an impregnable forteress separating me from the world I live in.

Watch those blanket statements.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I did not learn my love for books from my parents. My family was big on reading….comic books, the funny papers (comic strips from newspapers), and were very prolific letter writers. So, I suppose these attempts to partake of the then culture, and attempts to be creative by writing interesting and funny letters, about simple lives, came from something that I latched on to. But, it is a stretch at best.

LeoDV: A kid who spent his childhood playing Nintendo will probably (probably!) end up much less cultured than one who spent his reading books and learning to play the violin. But will he grow up into a less happy man? It's highly doubtful. And yet isn't that what matters most?

Are you sure about that? I know such a man, a young man. Of course, when anything is overdone, it can reap havoc with our drive for living. So, yes, in such an example it is sad. To be totally unmotivated and unable to become enthused, and yet knowing you are now grown, and must do something besides being depressed and suicidal. Yeah, I think that sort of thing is sad.

LeoDV: Whatever the criteria, whatever the people, you will find a 10% elite, a 10% low, and a tepid 80% in the middle.

I am not much for statistics. Not being educated does not make people unhappy, necessarily, of course not! ‘There is sadness in knowledge,” so it is written. This can be true. There is also a good deal of responsibility that comes with learning. Yet, this is not to say that those who are not well educated are irresponsible. Some so-called intellectuals become professional students and offer little else other than, “Now, we know!” But, oh, how I admire someone who is learned and dedicated. You say you are a teacher. That can mean so many things. I can see, nonetheless, that in spite of your admittedly carousing and wasting time, you know how to express yourself. This in itself is a great gift for a teacher. Besides, we are actually all teachers, and we are all students, whether we care to put any effort into it or not. We are all ministers, leaving feelings everywhere we go, and impressions with every step. You have a better platform for this, and a more responsible one. Best wishes to you and your students. Wow, what an (scary) opportunity!

“Everyone (at least in industrialized countries) knows how to read and write and do basic math.”

Oh come on! You know better than that! Take a trip away from academia for a while. Spend some time in the more southern states. See those places that never quite recovered from the civil war. Mix with their poor, and then come back and tell me that everyone knows how to read, write and so forth. Bull, I say!...in a nice way, of course.

LeoDV: Yes, there's a semantic vagueness for this whole debate. I use intellectual/smart person/nerd indifferently, I amalgamate reading books and culture mostly for the sake of style : it's always nicer to read someone who owns a thesaurus... This is still a grave logical overlook, but then again my points remain.

Try it sometimes without the labels and statistics. It takes more thinking, but I cannot say that it would necessarily be more accurate. I do say that it gives one a different take…..AND shows that you can think beyond all that, (not that I would ever doubt you…Ho, ho, just a thought!)

LeoDV: What's a teacher's job? To make them into know-it-alls? To make them into citizens? To make them pass to the next class with good grades so he gets a bonus at the end of the year? If a teacher makes his pupils love reading, I say congratulations. I really do, I think it's fantastic. But if he doesn't, does that mean he's failed? I'm not sure.

Oops! I stepped on your proverbial toes. I did not know that you were a teacher when I made that statement; nevertheless, I stand by it, and believe it had clarity. To inspire, my dear teacher! This is what I said, just before you jumped off the train of my thought. Just kidding you.

LeoDV: It's good to have strong convictions. I share your conviction, but I'm also realistic, not everyone can assimilate or care about knowledge, and furthermore I believe that a world of PhDs would be a very dull one.

You agree with me, but you “are also realistic…”. Huh, are you, Sir. Interesting, because I believe that I too am a realistic individual. (Now, do not say that I am too sensitive, because that irritates me, okay?) Of course, I understand that everyone will not have PhDs. Let me ask you this: Have you ever been deprived of an opportunity to learn? It sounds as though you were reared in a home of educated parents. I was fortunate to have step father who was not only well educated, and well informed in current events, but an extreme, bigoted, religious misfit, so to speak, with many admirable skills and qualities (to go with those not so admirable traits), including writing, debating and working hard. From age eight through fourteen, I spent a good deal of time learning how to hold my own with him. My mom had finished no more than the third grade; therefore her family and friends were usually in that general category until she met my stepdad. This “paradox: in parenting was an education in itself.

LeoDV: And it's in that whatever that is that the whole problem lies, doesn't it?

Insightful comment. What is our answer? Grasshoppers are not the only living things that get confused in the cities. There are so many young folks who have no idea what to do with their lives. I say cities, because there is far less pressure in small towns. If the town is at all friendly, folks are happy just to have you stick around and keep your yard fairly well kept, even if you work at the gas station until you are sixty. This can be true even in places with well respected colleges, Abilene, Texas being a good example, IF you do not come from parents with ties to the colleges or the well paying jobs. There it is either minimum wage, or a profession, for many of the inhabitants. In Pixley, California, no one cares what you do. In San Francisco, you need a story; in Seattle and Portland, you need either an impressive position, or a good story. And the beat goes on. If your parents—no matter where you live—are affluent, then you need a plan.

How close am I? Did Schopenhauer ask someone, “What is success?” Did Shelly? Did Mozart, Wagner? Maybe they did; I have to wonder. I will tell you what I think. It is so simple, but I say, “Believe in what you’re doin’, and do what you believe in.” A musical diddy about graduation day, Nat King Cole.

I appreciated your comments about the “card carrying member.” I know a couple who uses those boy-are- you-impressed-or-what comments, mostly about others, or compliments about them made by others. It must be kind of fun to be so easily impressed. Rarely, am I impressed. No matter what anyone says, educated or not, able to process information, or not, ignorant to almost everything that most folks seem to know, or I-don’t-give a rip belchers, ….it does not matter, if I see good, I know I have a surprise coming. If I observe some not-so-good things, I know there is some good there somewhere, or a fantastic story as to why there is not. Just as you said, some time back in this posting, people are basically similar, and if you know them long enough, or are around people for a sufficient time, or read history much, this will become obvious. So, what is culture? Is it not a way of living? Are we not all of some culture. Is this not too broad of a brush with which to paint. Mmm, I think so.

LeoDV: Clearly this is only the case with a minority, and certainly the world wouldn't be such a grim place if it weren't. For people to become good citizens, they must be educated into that, they must be taught not only to read, but to enjoy reading, and their minds will blossom like flowers in the springtime (see! I ain't afraid of no cliché!). Then certainly they will become aware, concerned citizens, who will take the reins of this planet with their wisdom, and lead it into calm prosperity and peace.

Oh brother, put away the wine!

LeoDV: Because no matter how hard you try, it isn't going to work for all of them.

You have my sympathy, but like you said, that is just the way the pickle puckers. (Did you say that?)

LeoDV: If you say that a teacher which hasn't gotten his pupils to love reading is a teacher that doesn't do his job, then you say that Pygmalion was a bad sculptor because only one of his statues came to life.

Then lucky for me I did not say that!

LeoDV: An intellectual can as easily turn into Hannibal Lecter or Josef Mengele as he can into Benazir Bhutto or Raoul Follereau.

No argument here.

LeoDV: “……we will always live in a land where the majority are idiots,….)

Now, now. Did you put that wine away yet?

LeoDV: But, for all my cynicism, I agree with you.

Yeah, I think we are mostly in agreement, but with some varied exceptions. Nice post.

Later, pmt.

 

BBH,

I too think that it is difficult to support it. But sometimes, when in something that appears like a blind alley, the method of many hypotheses seems appropriate: Make as many hypotheses, no matter what they are, and then refute them. In trying to refute them, you may get a clue to the real solution of the problem. The idea of artistic spirit being a constant is difficult both to support and to refute. So it may be, that what is called 'artistic spirit' is so far not properly defined, or indefinable or something like that.

Authors are one thing, interpretators (esp. music) are another. While there certainly is a plethora of tools for interpretators, and they as interpretators can make good use of them (and they do!), I do think that those theories of "creative writing" and all that are not that good. I hear they stifle creativity and shape it in an expectable way.
But maybe: maybe the ratio (according to Gauss) is the same now as it was back then, and we are just as aware of our contemporary art as the people of old were of theirs.

I'm not sure. Maybe we are not used to read ('read' as Barthes uses it) passion in such an all-consuming manner those of old did.
Wait! [*flashlight*] Maybe they didn't do it either! Maybe it will turn out that that passion of old (say 16th-19th century and so) is the same kind of scam as Minnesang! In fact, it is very likely to be so.

In fact, I think that you've just addressed a most interesting point of this thread: that passion, that esprit of "the Golden Age" is an illusion, it is an idea of how things *should be*.

And now, longing for these ideals, and having them as a "guiding light of what art should be and what a passionate reception of art should be", we believe that Goethe and the old chaps were *really* so passionate and all that. Of course they were, *now and then*, just as we are today.

The happenigs around LOTR show this exact tendency of human spirit: to glorify the past, believe in it, as if it was real. Fill the past with the ideals we long for now.
It's like Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen!

Meaning that when we are accusing people of not being "passionate enough about art", we are accusing them on the basis of an ideal that was never real, our cusses are based in prejudice.

I think this makes sense now.

What do you think?

Thanks for the remark.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I give you all merit for it. You just reminded me that I am an old-fashioned European, yes I am.

***

Hesse suggests that the biblical story is basically invented, in order to serve as a moral parable. Whatever happend in reality back then, the writers of the Bible arranged in a manner that served their purposes.

I see where you're coming from, but Hesse was before most of that I think.

I can actually come with personal experience that does show how revilement happens, and that this then can be construed the same way as the Cain story.

Such things do happen. They can be an example of "shunnig of intellect" or simply of reviling those who are not like the majority.
***

Well, you just sparkled some awfully nice circuits in my head. Keep'em coming!

 

Gendanken,

While I agree that Hesse was ..., hell, he was even in a mental institution for a while, I think at least. He had some serious drug problems though.
Anyway, I presented Hesse's take on the Cain story as an example of revilement and how things can get *misinterpreted* or interpreted according to someone's needs.

Who says that there is nothing 'evil' to nerdom? You, I, many people. But in a more *bigoted* society, it is a short step from being regarded as a nerd to being regarded as evil.


***
As for Goethe. Please!!!
I read "Faust", "Die Leiden des jungen Werthers", most of the "Wahlverwandschaften", some theoretical writings and some poetry.
Of course, I can quote them only in German, so I guess I'll neatly spare most people here. Hehe.

 

Nerds/goth-know-it-alls etc are just annoying.
We dullards are not intimidated by your genius, we are just embarrassed for you when you try to make your genius apparent in public. Yes it makes us uncomfortable, again, not because we feel inferior, but because your behaviour is socially inappropriate. Its like if people were playing poker and someone jumped up on the table to show his basketball moves. They may well be impressive moves, but he just knocked beer off the table and interupted the focuss of the players, basically looking like a jackass.
The shit we do here has its place, here. In public its just so unnecessary, and really doesn't mesh with living life. I truely hate it when innocent light simple communication between idiots sparks up some deep and meaningfull statements from some eavesdropping intellectual douche.
I am against people showing off their intelligence in public. If you're so smart, write a fucking book. Stop being a buzz kill for me and my simple friends

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Stop it fellas... if you keep this going, they'll need another HDD!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!