Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From jk@panix.com Mon Oct 5 06:40:58 1998
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA10498
for jk; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199810051040.GAA10498@panix.com>
Subject: NAACP Supreme Court demo
To: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
> a national demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on
> Monday, October 5, 1998, at 9 a.m., in protest of the discriminatory
> hiring practices of minority law clerks.
>
> A promising demonstration. Drive home to the members of the Supreme
> Count what Affirmative Action means in practice.
My first reaction too, but that's not what happens. Newspapers and
universities are subject to affirmative action, so everyone there knows
how it works, but that doesn't make what are laughingly called news
coverage and scholarship more anti-AA. It just makes them more
mindlessly pro-AA.
Radical egalitarianism is a fundamental moral principle in our public
life, and there's nothing in sight to replace or outweigh it, so
whatever sacrifices of intelligence and integrity it calls for it gets
and the sacrifices are felt as virtuous. The greater the sacrifices
the more unthinkable retreat becomes.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, so crowded with paltry
interests -- in one word, so anti-poetic -- as the life of a man in the
United States." (Tocqueville)
From jk Sat Oct 3 08:52:46 1998
Subject: Hello! and query
To: t
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 08:52:46 -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: 1627
Status: RO
Hi!
Query -- what are the best books, articles, whatever to read on whether
the American founding was really individualist/Lockean/atheist or
communitarian/classic-republican/religious?
I vote for the former, on the grounds that Lockean principles were the
distinctive and active ones and owned the future, even though it took a
long time for them to purify themselves (in the process becoming
Rawlsian principles) and thoroughly transform social reality. As that
progresses the American public order is degenerating into a mixture of
anarchy and tyranny, because non-liberal principles are necessary for
any political society actually to exist, and if all the civilized
non-liberal principles are done away with we have to get by with
uncivilized ones. That by the way is why the non-Lockean theory of the
founding is plausible; if the _novus ordo seclorum_ had been purely
Lockean it couldn't have existed at all, so anti-Lockean principles
*were* in fact essential to the society actually established.
Anyway, that's the theory I want to test. The immediate background is
that I'm writing something on Emerson, who I'm interpreting as the man
who created an _ersatz_ God for a Lockean world. The more Lockean or
liberal America is the more important Emerson then becomes.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, so crowded with paltry
interests -- in one word, so anti-poetic -- as the life of a man in the
United States." (Tocqueville)
From jk Tue Oct 6 22:01:31 1998
Subject: Re: Hello! and query
To: tw
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:01:31 -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: 1025
Status: RO
> I read Gordon Wood's book on The Radicalism of the American
> Revolution some time ago, and as I recall it drove me crazy. It
> definitely reveals that there was something in the American founding
> that worked to elevate the individual and to dissolve organic
> relationships.
It was quite effective apparently. Wood himself seems unable to feel
or understand anything except as a late-20th c. liberal. His
understanding of hierarchy, family life etc. is altogether external.
Odd, because we today certainly have plenty of hierarchy, feelings that
some people count and others really don't, etc. Was he surgically
lobotomized, or was it a matter of training and maybe ambition?
Anyway, his book's no pleasure, but no doubt the info will be useful.
(I've only read 50 pages or so.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, so crowded with paltry
interests -- in one word, so anti-poetic -- as the life of a man in the
United States." (Tocqueville)
From jk Thu Oct 8 19:11:43 1998
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:11:43 -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: 1746
Status: RO
From the Stanley Fish letter:
> in my analysis, there is no such thing as reason as an entity
> independent of the substantive positions that fill its spaces and
> give it content. The battle between positions is always a battle of
> opposing rhetorics (moral points of view or comprehensive visions)
> A cursory reading of both the article in _First Things_ and the
> longer Law School piece which was the subject of the panel ("Mission
> Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State,"
> _Columbia Law Review_, vol. 97, no. 8 [December 1997]) would show
> that I was strongly speaking out for religious interests and
> religious discourse and against the tendency of liberal thought to
> dismiss both.
The article is at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/fish.html.
Its title is "we can't just get along" or something of the sort, and
what it says is that religion and liberalism simply can't coexist.
I'm not sure where that view, together with the strong sympathy for
religion Fish manifests in the article, the extreme seriousness with
which he takes it, and his current strong insistence on dissociating
his (meta?)theoretical positions from the substantive views usually
associated with them, put Fish personally. He struck me as someone
tempted by a way of resolving an impossible intellectual etc. situation
who couldn't quite bring himself to do it.
I would think someone with a reasonably clear head, which he seems to
have, would eventually get tired of saying "it's all just rhetoric" if
only because if true then "it's all just rhetoric" is itself just
rhetoric and hence a non-assertion.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine, from Isaiah 7:9)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Fri Oct 9 15:02:26 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id PAA12122
for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA44868;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:13:10 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5866027 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 9 Oct
1998 14:13:10 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:BjSvn+bdJKOBh8tZBqUkfHGAouwGjqiQ@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
OAA19996 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:13:01 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA12006
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810091812.OAA12006@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:12:39 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 9, 98 06:35:30 pm
Status: RO
> > It is interesting to me that religious conservatives are often
> > unremmitingly hostile to post-modernists like Fish and Derrida, who
> > seem to take religious belief very seriously, while they embrace
> > Leo Strauss, who it seems to me embraces religion only in a
> > pragmatic way a la Comte or Maurras as a sort of potted Platonism
> > for the masses, while remaining an atheist and nihilist at heart.
> What you have there is nothing theological as such, but the
> temperamental affinity of different types of pragmatists
> (Christian pragmatists and agnostic pragmatists) and their
> mutual anti-intellectualism.
Strauss liked esotericism, which makes it easy to interpret seemingly
favorable things he said about religion as indicating acceptance of
religion as an exoteric image of truth, a noble lie, prolefeed,
whatever. Esotericism seems different from pragmatism and
anti-intellectualism though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Fri Oct 9 18:22:53 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id SAA20097
for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:22:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA47610;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:15:53 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5875184 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 9 Oct
1998 18:15:53 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:LtqafHu0DFzMmKZoI0vIuHlRZqOwIcuy@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
SAA22732 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:15:45 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id SAA08982
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810092215.SAA08982@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:15:38 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Status: RO
> The reason religious conservatives are "unremittingly hostile" is
> that these men you refer to are deconstructionists, supporting
> beliefs that deny the very existence of an objective truth. Part of
> their rather nebulous set of beliefs maintains that a text carries no
> meaning of its own but rather has only that which the reader
> attributes to it.
Still, it's not clear to me that such views are more at odds with
Christianity than the kind of view they attack. If they convince
everyone that in the end truth is personal and texts require an
interpreter of some sort what's the problem?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Oct 10 13:06:05 EDT 1998
Article: 12867 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: FASCISM IS THE ANSWER!
Date: 10 Oct 1998 13:03:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <6vo406$f14@panix.com>
References: <19981010045210.15497.00004810@ng63.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <19981010045210.15497.00004810@ng63.aol.com> promtheus@aol.com (Promtheus) writes:
>Conservatism has never worked.
Fascism hasn't worked so well either.
>Fascism is a system of political and governmental philosophy based on
>authority, natural inequality, transcendence of the class struggle
>into an organic whole and exaltation of the national good above all
>selfish and private interests, be they the excessive demands of labor
>or the predatory greed of capital.
That sounds fine, but the instances of fascism I know of seem to rely
on military-style organization, marches, mass meetings, absolute
loyalty to a single leader, elimination of local, class and other
traditional distinctions and loyaties and their replacement with a
single principle of national solidarity, etc. It doesn't sound organic
to me. Nor does the emphasis on will, action and struggle.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Sat Oct 10 12:52:32 1998
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Oct 10, 98 04:22:44 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: 1485
Status: RO
> The second half of your equation (the inference to 'and texts require
> an interpreter') was not added by the first wave of Christian
> postmodernists. The newer wave of Christian postmodernists,
> Millbank's disciples in Cambridge, who call themselves 'Radical
> Orthodoxy', and who are called by others 'Millbank's rottweilers'
> have drawn this inference. It seems to me nonetheless to have
> radically modernist implications. Moreover, it strikes me not only
> as modernist but as counter-intuitive to trust the interpreter(s) but
> not the text itself.
I thought that even pre-Millbank RCs didn't like _sola scriptura_, in
part because _scriptura_ doesn't interpret itself but needs to be read,
understood and interpreted in line with the Church and its tradition.
The notion that texts are radically defective as authorities goes back
at least to Plato. See his 7th letter for example. The difficulty of
course is to find an interpreter one can trust. I was under the
impression that a personal God who became incarnate as man, as Truth,
and as head of the Church, and the infallibility of the visible head of
the Church hierarchy, were ways of dealing with that difficulty.
Promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility was a response to
the situation created by modernism, so I suppose it has implications
for modernism a.k.a. modernist implications.
--
Jim Kalb (qualified neopaleoconservativesymp)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Oct 10 16:29:56 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id QAA20133
for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA41082;
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:25:05 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5893209 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct
1998 16:25:05 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:8L76Wb4XNZGVQyuqzxbHPsDXsrSXtON4@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
QAA18730 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:24:59 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id QAA27906
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:25:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810102025.QAA27906@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:25:14 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 10, 98 06:58:10 pm
Status: RO
> 1) Both classical catholics & protestants believe that the biblical
> text has intrinsic meanings
>
> 2) classical catholics believe that tradition helps us to locate
> these intrinsic meanings
>
> 3) modernism states that there are no intrinsic meanings in the text
> but that, as Jim puts it, 'truth is personal'
"Intrinsic meaning" sounds to me like an idea in the mind of God. If
so, then truth is personal ("God is Truth") and also there are
intrinsic meanings in the text.
If there were no personal God, but there were nonetheless somehow texts
because for some reason or non-reason you don't need God for other
things to exist, could the texts have intrinsic meanings? My answer is
no. The issue's come up on this list before, in the discussion of
atheistic poetry, in which I said in effect that I thought atheistic
poetry would be the end point of late Samuel Beckett, in which nothing
connects to anything except through the dying remnants of habits and
compulsions that point to nothing outside themselves. No God, no
meaning. At least that's my theory.
> 4) Both some kinds of modernism, and some kinds of postmodernism
> state that there is no intrinsic meaning in the Biblical text, but
> what the heck, we have tradition as an interpreter.
That of course is far from what I meant when I said "If they convince
everyone that in the end truth is personal and texts require an
interpreter of some sort what's the problem?" Tradition recognizes and
does not construct God and meaning.
> ('never drink anything that was invented after the Reformation' H
> Belloc, attrib.)
Is it worth giving up champaigne to get rid of say fruit-flavored wines
or for that matter McDonald's shakes? I suppose it probably is in the
greater scheme of things ...
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Oct 10 13:06:11 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by panix4.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) with ESMTP id NAA18872
for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 13:02:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA36294;
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:52:20 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5890686 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct
1998 12:52:20 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:Bf6jRAsSyWtKLb1HUWMiVC0Vvrw0nwqy@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
MAA16032 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:52:17 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA15058
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810101652.MAA15058@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:52:32 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 10, 98 04:22:44 pm
Status: RO
> The second half of your equation (the inference to 'and texts require
> an interpreter') was not added by the first wave of Christian
> postmodernists. The newer wave of Christian postmodernists,
> Millbank's disciples in Cambridge, who call themselves 'Radical
> Orthodoxy', and who are called by others 'Millbank's rottweilers'
> have drawn this inference. It seems to me nonetheless to have
> radically modernist implications. Moreover, it strikes me not only
> as modernist but as counter-intuitive to trust the interpreter(s) but
> not the text itself.
I thought that even pre-Millbank RCs didn't like _sola scriptura_, in
part because _scriptura_ doesn't interpret itself but needs to be read,
understood and interpreted in line with the Church and its tradition.
The notion that texts are radically defective as authorities goes back
at least to Plato. See his 7th letter for example. The difficulty of
course is to find an interpreter one can trust. I was under the
impression that a personal God who became incarnate as man, as Truth,
and as head of the Church, and the infallibility of the visible head of
the Church hierarchy, were ways of dealing with that difficulty.
Promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility was a response to
the situation created by modernism, so I suppose it has implications
for modernism a.k.a. modernist implications.
--
Jim Kalb (qualified neopaleoconservativesymp)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Oct 10 23:38:06 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id XAA19004
for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA35536;
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:31:46 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5899541 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct
1998 23:31:46 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:otj7erEQgLKB7Bw8myi1pLGKTl10+RwT@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
XAA48672 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:31:42 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id XAA05310
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:31:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810110331.XAA05310@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:31:43 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 10, 98 10:01:57 pm
Status: RO
> Yes but you can
> 2) discover the existence of God by virtue of a discovery of the
> existence of meaning.
Did you mean to insert a "not" somewhere? If you didn't, you've just
presented my argument. [meaning => God] => [~God => ~meaning]. In
other words, meaning depends on God and thus on a person. So meaning
and thus truth is personal.
> Ready for any sacrifice,
Are the people you'd want to have a beer with the same or different
from the people you'd be willing to have a McDonald's shake with if
necessary? The people you'd like to drink champagne with?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sun Oct 11 03:09:29 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id DAA24993
for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 03:09:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA26990;
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 03:06:55 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5893735 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sun, 11 Oct
1998 03:06:55 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:uzDOXe2HWm17gbUP8AalqK4echjcJVYT@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
DAA22382 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 03:06:47 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id XAA04335
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810110316.XAA04335@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:16:52 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 10, 98 09:56:46 pm
Status: RO
> The fact that the intrinsic meaning of words in texts depends (like
> everything else which contingently exists) ultimately on the
> existence of God, does not require us to identify the intrinsic
> meaning of words in texts with meanings in the mind of God.
You mean maybe there are texts with intrinsic meanings but God thinks
they mean something else?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sun Oct 11 08:28:08 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id IAA16301
for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA18826;
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:26:48 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5894781 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sun, 11 Oct
1998 08:26:47 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:YCL068ebDEO5+KTgpOViTH453MpUv2LJ@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
IAA27082 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:26:46 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA00805
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 07:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810111117.HAA00805@panix.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 07:17:07 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199810110316.XAA04335@panix.com> from "Jim Kalb" at Oct 10,
98 11:16:52 pm
Status: RO
> > The fact that the intrinsic meaning of words in texts depends (like
> > everything else which contingently exists) ultimately on the
> > existence of God, does not require us to identify the intrinsic
> > meaning of words in texts with meanings in the mind of God.
>
> You mean maybe there are texts with intrinsic meanings but God thinks
> they mean something else?
A lurking point in all this is that it seems to me meanings aren't as
contingent as other things. I can decide arbitrarily whether I will
punch someone in the nose, but not what the meaning of the punch will
be. That inclines me to identify the intrinsic meaning of something
with what God thinks of it. Also, the Berkeleyan notion that the
objective existence of something is its existence in the mind of God
seems strongest in the case of meanings, since meanings seem more
plainly connected to mind than say rocks. Also, if you ask an atheist
why rocks exist if there is no God and he says "they just do, the world
isn't rational" it seems like more of an answer than if you asked the
same question about meanings.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sun Oct 11 18:33:47 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id SAA24220
for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:33:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA36102;
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:27:43 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5901712 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sun, 11 Oct
1998 18:27:43 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:0hzx8+qc6cc4N1uYwomdt8Qjd7iQT9hs@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
SAA32426 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:27:40 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id QAA03425
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:03:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810112003.QAA03425@panix.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:03:45 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 11, 98 02:37:54 pm
Status: RO
> God doesn't get the meaning wrong, but the text's meaning does not
> depend upon his ability to get it right. Apart from its sheer
> existence, one can fully describe the hows & whys of the meaning
> without reference to God.
Would you say that apart from sheer existence, one can fully describe
the hows & whys of all things without reference to God? If not, what
are the things that are more difficult to account for than meaning? I
thought that meaning was at least as hard to understand as other
things. On the other hand, if everything except sheer existence can be
fully accounted for without reference to God I'm not sure what religion
can amount to. Also, is your "fully describe" claim an article of
faith, or has someone actually succeeded in fully accounting for
meaning or showing how it can be accounted for, with or without
reference to God?
In my last post I listed some thoughts that lead me to identify
"intrinsic meaning" with "what God thinks." I suppose the Bishop
Berkeley line of thought impresses me most. It's hard for me to
understand meaning as hanging in the air, so to speak, without being
meaning for a mind. Perhaps my problem is that I imbibed the
fact/value distinction at too early an age and can understand values
etc. as objective only by understanding them as valued by an absolute
mind.
Another consideration -- it seems to me that oriental religions that do
away with a personal God also do away in the end with meaning -- our
understanding of the world is illusory through and through, in the end
good, evil etc. are simply our constructions so they're illusory too,
and so on. Enlightenment is the dissolution of illusions and is not to
be found in what is ordinarily called "knowledge" which is just part of
the illusion. Our meanings, therefore, are meaningless.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Have I not drunk of the soma? (Pre-Reformation Rig-Veda)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Oct 11 20:34:34 EDT 1998
Article: 12877 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: FASCISM IS NOT THE ANSWER!
Date: 11 Oct 1998 16:20:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <6vr3va$477@panix.com>
References: <19981010045210.15497.00004810@ng63.aol.com> <6vo4he$lab$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <361fa309.3398869@news2.cais.com> <6voq1d$j3u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <362010d6.10291732@news2.cais.com> <6vr0vn$doh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <6vr0vn$doh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> tonywf@my-dejanews.com writes:
>> I didn't say DISAPROVAL. I said DISPROVEN
>Disapproval is a noun appendage of disproven. Saying "disapproval" as
>a noun to the verb "disproven" in a sentence carries the same meaning.
I urge Mr. Frye to learn some Polish so he can post to a Polish
newsgroup in that language. Perhaps Yakub could then arrange to have
someone lie to him about the meaning of some of the Polish expressions
he uses. Or maybe not -- the Poles I've dealt with would consider such
conduct beneath them.
>Stalin killed about 18-21 million people during his rule of the Soviet
>Union
I thought most current estimates for the numbers murdered in the Soviet
Union were considerably higher. Obvious sources include Bryan Caplan's
Museum of Communism (do a web search) and the French Black Book on
Communism, whenever it becomes available in English.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Mon Oct 12 20:14:21 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id UAA12950
for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:14:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA43784;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:13:47 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5922267 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Mon, 12 Oct
1998 20:13:46 -0400
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:GEbic4y/94fj7aYr2GWez5Nk+1m1i9xK@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
UAA48028 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:13:45 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA05295
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810130014.UAA05295@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:14:12 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 12, 98 10:28:38 pm
Status: RO
> Von Balthasar says somewhere that values are an emergency substitute
> for being.
So I suppose my view is that if being is separated from God we have an
emergency.
What does it mean to say that God is truth?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Mon Oct 12 20:18:15 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id UAA23048
for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:18:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA23586;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:17:51 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 5922368 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Mon, 12 Oct
1998 20:17:50 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA45378 for ;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:17:49 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA05405
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:18:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810130018.UAA05405@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:18:06 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Is this amazing, or what?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Oct 12, 98 10:27:12 pm
Status: RO
> It seems to me you are turning your =>s into =s. Implication is not
> identity
It's not clear to me that saying "intrinsic meaning is meaning for God"
is saying "God is meaning" rather than "God is necessary for meaning."
I suppose it's a bit stronger than the latter but doesn't seem as
strong as the former.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Oct 12 20:35:48 EDT 1998
Article: 12893 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: FASCISM IS NOT THE ANSWER!
Date: 12 Oct 1998 20:33:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <6vu74v$6f3@panix.com>
References: <19981010045210.15497.00004810@ng63.aol.com> <6vo4he$lab$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <361fa309.3398869@news2.cais.com> <6voq1d$j3u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <362010d6.10291732@news2.cais.com> <6vr0vn$doh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6vr3va$477@panix.com> <6vu321$i8c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <6vu321$i8c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> tonywf@my-dejanews.com writes:
>Now, tell me, what's the notable difference [between "disproven" and
"disapproval"], outside of the fact that one is a noun and the other a
>verb? If used in a sentence to describe a political ideology, both
>can be inferred to contain virtually the same meaning, unless you
>think a "condemnatory feeling" or "censure" has nothing in common with
>"refute" and "invalidate."
If you think there's a distinction between "what is true" and "what I
want" you'll think there's a distinction between "disproven" and
"disapproval." More to the point, I can't imagine a reasonably
intelligent and honest native English speaker believing that one is a
form of the other and lecturing a foreigner on the point.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Oct 13 16:17:12 EDT 1998
Article: 12901 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: FASCISM IS THE ANSWER!
Date: 13 Oct 1998 16:15:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <700ccm$413@panix.com>
References: <908054566snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <19981013095533.11761.00000038@ng98.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <19981013095533.11761.00000038@ng98.aol.com> tminnix@aol.com (TMinnix) writes:
>Pray tell, what is the good of the nation as a whole?
The good of a collectivity is the good that makes it one, and the sort
of thing it is. For example, the good of a school basketball team
would be some combination of winning games, having fun, developing the
skill and sportsmanship of the players, gaining glory for the school,
and so on. Those are the things that make the team a team. If no-one
cared about them a team might exist on paper but it wouldn't amount to
anything.
In the case of a nation or people, I suppose the good of the whole --
the public good -- mostly has to do with the preservation, enhancement
and success of institutions that promote the well-being of the
citizens. I say "institutions" because the obvious way for goods to
become shared by the people as a whole and thus become public goods is
for them to be somehow institutionalized.
The public good would then involve a number of things, for example an
adequate understanding of human well-being and what conduces to it;
established attitudes, habits and laws that help people attain it;
friendship, loyalty and willingness to sacrifice among the citizens
with regard to each other and their institutions.
No doubt a lot more could be said. Any other thoughts?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Oct 13 20:35:25 EDT 1998
Article: 12905 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: FASCISM IS THE ANSWER!
Date: 13 Oct 1998 20:32:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <700rf5$qcr@panix.com>
References: <3623D2AA.4373@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <3623D2AA.4373@msmisp.com> cjahnes@msmisp.com (Carl Jahnes) writes:
>Seems like a bit of question begging here. Whether a system is 'good'
>or not can only be determined by measuring it against a standard of
>Goodness.
I didn't deal with all the questions. That doesn't mean I begged them.
Mr. Minnix asked what the good of a people as a whole might be. I
tried to show how that question could be answered if you know what the
good for man is. One could then go on and show that in order to act
rationally one must have a view on what the good of man is. I didn't
go on because you have to take things step by step, and in a discussion
you don't know in advance what steps will be troublesome or unnecessary
for the other party.
If the second point were granted it would be demonstrated that each of
us if he is rational must have a view on what the good of a people as a
whole is. I think that would be a sufficient answer for the particular
concern Mr. Minnix seems to have. I might be wrong of course. It's
also true that I haven't yet said what the good actually is, but that
didn't seem to be his particular concern, the attribution of a good to
a collectivity. Even people who disagree about the good can agree
there is a good for man individually and collectively, just as even
people who disagree what the high temperature will be at La Guardia
Airport on December 31, 1999 can agree that it will be something or
other.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Oct 13 20:35:26 EDT 1998
Article: 12906 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Challange
Date: 13 Oct 1998 20:34:00 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <700rho$qfg@panix.com>
References: <3623D6A3.459@msmisp.com> <3623de70.12185723@news2.cais.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <3623de70.12185723@news2.cais.com> 3rd@friko6.onet.pl (Jakub K.) writes:
>NLNR Greetings Carl,
Just out of curiosity, what are "NLNR Greetings"?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Thu Oct 22 17:59:33 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id RAA29972
for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id WAA04770
for confucius-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:55:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:55:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199810222055.WAA04770@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Confucius: re: daily - 14:11
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
> Confucius said: "To be poor without resentment is difficult. To be
> rich without arrogance is easy."
>
> It's sad, at least to me, that the "poor" that Confucius is referring
> to, are not the masses of poor people that existed during his lifetime.
> He is referring to those few- very few people - who were intellectually,
> and perhaps "spititually", head and shoulders far above the common
> people and who understood that outward form and dress did not define the
> inner person.
>
> This chapter is a back-handed pat-on-the-back to persons who had made
> great spiritual strides.
I don't see it as sad.
Confucius doesn't present a scheme for reorganizing society, to give
everybody just what he should get by some administrative scheme maybe.
Such schemes might be a good thing but not always it seems, judging by
recent history in China and elsewhere.
Instead he proposes cultivation of a moral understanding. That
requires moral leadership, if only because someone has to take the
first step, and the role of moral leader is difficult because the
attempt to play it has its own acute risks. One obvious risk is
self-righteous resentment of those who aren't so moral and are
therefore more successsful. Why isn't it right and praiseworthy in
Confucius to point out such risks?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From jk Thu Oct 22 20:29:52 1998
Subject: Re: ????
To: a
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:29:52 -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: 1209
Status: RO
> to what extent is conservatism a disposition rather than an ideology
> as asserted by Oakshott?
I suppose you could look at almost any political outlook as a
disposition. Go about things one way and you'll end up as a Marxist,
another and a liberal, another and a conservative, and so on. Or you
could look at political outlooks as ideologies -- you could have a
theory of the world that justifies conservatism as the best way to deal
with politics, for example, and then that theory could be thought of as
conservative ideology.
I do think though that conservatism has more of the "disposition"
component and less of the "ideological" component than other outlooks.
Conservatism tends to accept practices and attitudes that arise
historically and socially, rather than specifying from general
principles what practices, attitudes and ultimate consequences should
prevail and then designing ways and means of bringing such things
about. The latter sort of activity seems "ideological," while the
former seems at least in most people more the expression of a
disposition than a theory.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Thu Oct 22 22:17:19 1998
Subject: Re: Tage Lindbom
To: d
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:17:19 -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: 2389
Status: RO
> But for me it is more important to adhere to islam( seen as the only
> way), than to speculate to much, although I read and like Guenon,
> Schuon, Nasr and some others. And I belong to a tariqa well rooted i
> othodox sunni islam.
I agree with the general principle. Schuon for example is a very
intelligent and perceptive man, but religion is a matter of what one
ultimately thinks is true. He seems to suggest that behind particular
religions is some truer religion that he can tell us about. I don't
think that's possible. Why should he be able to give us a truer truth
than the founders of actual religions and the traditions they
established? One must I think be of some particular religion and
regard that religion as the truth behind which one cannot go. He's
nonetheless well worth reading.
> I hope I dont become to curious and personal if I ask about your own
> religious background? Are you a pro-Catholic Anglican?
Yes. Which is a problem, because it means I belong to a tariqa no
longer well rooted in orthodoxy. I am still connected to it though by
personal ties and by lack of readiness for one of the alternatives.
The Anglican Way isn't what it was. That brings into question I
suppose how well founded it was in the first place. Very depressing
because it is the form of Christianity that made the civilization I
love most and am most at home in.
From christ-and-culture-return-14-jk=PANIX.COM@egroups.com Sun Oct 25 01:27:26 1998
Received: from findmail.com (md.findmail.com [209.185.96.154])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id BAA08210
for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 21106 invoked by uid 505); 25 Oct 1998 05:26:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 19338 invoked by uid 7770); 24 Oct 1998 21:02:41 -0000
Received: from panix.com (?ujXjvFK5/ZwPjmR666IHtuDsoGv2w9oq?@166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 1998 21:02:41 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA09985;
Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199810242103.RAA09985@panix.com>
To: stamper@stamper.com (Chris Stamper)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: from "Chris Stamper" at Oct 21, 98 07:10:59 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Some Get-Things-Started Questions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Chris Stamper writes:
> 1.) What is the Christian approach to culture and society? (OK,
> that's the BIG question, but it was the first thing on my mind.)
Some thoughts:
We are partly constituted by participation in society, and have an
obligation of loyalty to the society that helps make us what we are.
Any society is going to have basic features at odds with Christianity,
just as the character and habits of any man (other than a saint) are
going to have basic features at odds with it. There seems a necessary
conflict. Saint Paul says evil communications corrupt good manners,
and advises us not to be unequally yoked. It's not clear how Paul's
advice can be acted on except as a relative matter. You try to make
your ties to those going the direction you think right your closest
ties.
What you do I think is start locally, choosing your (social) locality
to the extent you can. You begin with your own way of life and
understanding of things, expand that concern to those with whom you
live, and eventually get to The Culture. Some people today want to
reverse the process, partly because exercise of power is more fun than
self-control, partly because we swim in a sea of electronic sounds and
images springing from The Culture. Maybe the very first thing to do is
yank the plug so we can hear ourselves think.
I think of culture as the beliefs, attitudes and habits constituting a
way of life. A fundamental religious orientation -- an understanding
of what is ultimately most important and what the world is ultimately
like -- is I think implicit in any culture. In America the theory
seems to be that the public culture should have *no* fundamental
religious orientation. The theory is naturally a failure, and that's a
problem, because it's sheltered the growth and apparent dominance of a
religious orientation inconsistent with Christianity. If so, it's not
clear to what extent Christians in America can now be other than an
isolated or subversive minority.
"Culture" of course also means stories, music, images etc. that express
the Good, Beautiful and True as understood through what I'm calling
culture.
> 3.) Why do so many Christians fall asleep at the concept of culture
> nad worldview?
*All* Americans fall asleep. Our national existence has been based on
an attempt to avoid fundamental issues.
> 4.) Christian thought is being ever-marginalized in Western society.
> Can that be reversed? Should that be reversed?
Supply-side? You can't offer thought that doesn't exist, doesn't say
anything specifically Christian, doesn't deal squarely with the issues,
and doesn't express a distinctive way of life that works.
> 5.) Should the producers of "Touched By An Angel" be burned at the
> stake?
Most likely, although I have no idea what it is.
> 6.) Is Evangelicalism breaking up?
How about a list of things that aren't breaking up?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the absolute lowest price on Video/PC Games visit:
http://ads.egroups.com/click/58/1/bottomdollar
Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Oct 27 06:40:12 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id GAA24953
for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:40:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA03362;
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:39:56 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6252502 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 27 Oct
1998 06:39:55 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:sLzMxIb1IgNd9h4Hsl7GVS/QcLyDAX6+@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
GAA44730 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:39:54 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA03146
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:41:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810271141.GAA03146@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:41:22 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Did Reno actually say this?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <016001be0145$9bb9d150$adf463ce@sethwill> from "Seth Williamson"
at Oct 26, 98 08:03:24 pm
Status: RO
Seems doubtful. If she said it, why did it take over 4 years for
someone to pick up on it? 60 Minutes is after all a very public venue.
If she did say it, I'm not sure how much to make of it. It suggests
she's stupid, but that's been known for years. Also that American
ruling circles tend somewhat to view people who don't see things their
way as mentally unstable and probably violent, but that's been known
for a while too. Isn't that after all what "therapeutic state"
implies?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Oct 27 17:17:42 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by panix4.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) with ESMTP id RAA15197
for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:17:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA47662;
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:11:06 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6273226 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 27 Oct
1998 17:11:06 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:gaRQ9xISIjbRGILtH+luOZ+wfFs0wKQ2@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
RAA42764 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:11:04 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA04640
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:12:33 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810272212.RAA04640@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:12:33 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Did Reno actually say this?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <19981027152809.JMPN649@localHost> from "Rhydon Jackson" at Oct
27, 98 09:28:00 am
Status: RO
> Now, it seems to me that the most striking examples of disorder in
> contemporary America are the urban black communities. So, I wonder
> why there don't seem to be any indiginous quests for order arising
> from these. How does it happen that Booker T. Washington is
> extinguished and Du Bois is all over the place? Further, what is the
> etiology of this disorder?
The obvious i q's for o are in the churches. The spillover to the
public square is limited I suppose by the nature of American public
life -- increasingly antireligious, on the whole, and tending toward a
sort of universalistic technocratic hedonism unfriendly to any quest
for order.
I don't know that much about BTW and DB. I have the vague impression
that BTW mostly said something like "discipline and hard work are good
because they lead to economic success." Plato observed a long time ago
that that point of view doesn't give young men enough of a rational
understanding of virtue and the good, so in a generation or two they
become pleasure-seekers.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Oct 27 20:45:01 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id UAA18734
for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:45:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA39130;
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:44:05 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6279218 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 27 Oct
1998 20:44:04 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:qxKKyQ+HdC2Q9r4Cp4GlqtqLK4cSgM2j@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
UAA03696 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:44:03 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA13699
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:44:03 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810280144.UAA13699@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:44:02 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Did Reno actually say this?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Status: RO
Ardella writes:
> One of the mistakes he makes, in my opinion, is to portray Plato as a
> complete collectivist.
Sort of silly. One who takes the transcendent as seriously as Plato
can't be a collectivist. He's the man who likened a politician to
someone who had learned the habits of a great beast. The standard is
not the collectivity but the judgement of the one who knows.
> And if there's no good summary reading, well, just tell me if I need
> to start with _The Republic_ or something else.
Do read the Republic. Lots there. His other things are worth reading
too. The Symposium changed my life.
> I wonder if anyone else has noticed quite a resurgence of popularity
> in Ayn Rand's thought among the young--say early 20's. Or is this a
> stage that many people go through, as one of my friends suggested to
> me?
I think there are periodic localized Ayn Rand fads. People get sick of
the whole current scenario and Miss R gives them an escape.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Wed Oct 28 21:56:14 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id VAA00537
for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:56:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA20256;
Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:54:34 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6319389 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 28 Oct
1998 21:54:33 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:lq4k7cLgn181jfsb7oZ3jyWiyKg/cpW3@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
VAA17384 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:54:32 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id VAA20596
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:54:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199810290254.VAA20596@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:54:30 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Did Reno actually say this?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <19981028214122.WQEP20084@localHost> from "Rhydon Jackson" at Oct
28, 98 03:42:00 pm
Status: RO
Rhydon Jackson writes:
> Jim mentions that churches are the obvious places to look for such
> efforts and suggests that their influence has waned along with the
> rest of religious authority in these times. However, the prominent
> members of black churches are influential. Consider Rev. Jackson, for
> example. I assume that Jackson's vision of the provider state only
> adds to the problem.
I was thinking more of unsung local churches. They actually *have*
redeemed a lot of people. Black people may have an unfortunate
weakness for "yes I've sinned but now I'm redeemed" stories but there's
a basis for it.
Black churches of course have their corruptions like others, and
mainstream prominence and a quest for order don't always go together.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From bit.listserv.christia Tue Nov 3 21:19:40 1998
Path: news.panix.com!panix!howland.erols.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!panix.com!jk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
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: ********************************************************
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:50:36 -0700
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: World's greatest social problem/s
Sender: CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
X-Sender: drake@asuchm.la.asu.edu
Approved-by: drake@ASU.EDU
Message-ID:
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Comment: ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU: Mail was sent by post5.inre.asu.edu
Lines: 73
"Rowland C. Croucher" writes:
> The wealthiest 1% of Australians own 15% of the nation's wealth, an
> increase from the 12% it owned five years ago. The wealthiest 10% now
> own 48% of the wealth compared to 43% five years ago.
Not a good thing as a political matter, since more widely distributed
wealth and power are better for civic feeling and self-government.
There are lots of other things that break down civic feeling and self-
government though, for example big government, TV, the tendency toward
internationalization in all its forms, multiculturalism, etc., and I
don't think the increase in economic inequality is the biggest part of
it. It is certainly part of the problem. It's not obvious what to do
about it apart from keeping it in mind as a consideration in dealing
with other things.
More to the point, maybe, I don't see why Christians should be more
concerned by this statistic than other citizens. We *should* be
concerned when people are living in absolute deprivation, but the
statistic doesn't have much if anything to do with that.
Christ told us we're much too worried about money. He mostly meant I
think that we shouldn't be so concerned with our own money, because
there are more important things, but I don't see it as a big step
forward to be concerned about other people's money.
> The UN's annual Human Development Report says the gap between rich
> and poor is widening and that 1300 million people live on the
> equivalent of less than $1 a day. The three richest individuals in
> the world are richer than the poorest 48 countries. The number of
> undernourished Africans grew from 103 million to 215 million in the
> last two decades. To give everyone in the world enough to eat would
> cost $13,000 million; Americans and Europeans alone spend $17,000
> million on petfood. Each year the world spends $400,000 million on
> illegal drugs and $780,000 million on weapons of war.
The issue here seems to be all those undernourished people. I don't
care *that* much how rich Bill Gates is. One can look at absolute
poverty as something one should simply respond to as immediately and
directly as possible. It's hard to do that though when people are on
the other side of the world in a situation you have no experience of
and know nothing about, and that basically depends on actors you have
no control over. What will the actual long-term effect of your actions
be? Would it work out better if you did something else? Isn't
ignorant good-will an easy mark for manipulation?
Foreign aid for example sounds good but doesn't seem on the whole to
help people -- if there's chronic gross poverty someplace today it
usually shows that there's something fundamentally wrong with the local
set-up or the way it's being run, and foreign aid normally goes to the
people whose rule has already led to the bad results. No doubt there's
room for intelligent and productive action. What that action is needs
discussion. What I've done is give money to refugee organizations, on
the grounds that they're dealing with special situations and giving
money won't prop up whatever it is that caused the problem in the first
place. I suppose that Mother Theresa did something very important for
the people she worked with, although I don't think she made them much
richer let alone reduced the amount of money pro basketball players
make or cut the cost of cat food. I'm sure there are other things as
well.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
**********
To leave the list CHRISTIA, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA
to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU or, if you experience difficulties,
write to CHRISTIA-request@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Nov 3 21:20:46 EST 1998
Article: 163167 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.liberalism,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dr. Laura & Howard Stern
Date: 1 Nov 1998 07:42:46 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <71hl06$rr3@panix.com>
References: <01bdfea3$becef340$9c39e4d0@default> <70vflf$1oem$1@news.imagin.net> <909460233.995268@nntpcache1.nortel.net> <7159n1$srf$1@excalibur.flash.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:1130757 alt.politics.clinton:703727 alt.politics.democrats.d:338469 alt.politics.usa.republican:772929 alt.society.liberalism:118004 alt.society.conservatism:163167 talk.politics.misc:1093196
In <7159n1$srf$1@excalibur.flash.net> "D. Torres" writes:
>For this woman, Dr. Laura, to put on this act on the WABC talk show,
>put down people that have committed adultery, not that I think
>adultery is okay, I don't, but this lady is such a hypocrite.
Don't understand. I've only listened to Dr. L a couple of times, and
didn't much like her, but why couldn't someone who committed adultery
20 years ago honestly believe adultery is a very bad thing and strongly
urge people not to commit it when they call to ask her advice? Does
"hypocrisy" mean taking a position that makes something you did decades
ago less than perfect?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Nov 3 21:20:48 EST 1998
Article: 163169 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Ted Kennedy's Hate Crime Legislation
Date: 1 Nov 1998 08:07:40 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <71hmes$t5o@panix.com>
References: <3632BDA6.3DC0@erols.com> <714hk5$adj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com talk.politics.misc:1093199 alt.society.liberalism:118005 alt.society.conservatism:163169 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:1130762
In article ,
ta2eene@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> If you will remember, Bork had the nomination
> in the bag - until he took the stand in his own
> behalf. Out came the bizarre theories of "natural
> law", the theories regarding no constitutional
> right to privacy, the calls for birth control to be
> re-criminalized,et al. Kennedy did not kill the
> Bork nomination - Bork did that all by himself....
Bork *opposes* appeals by judges to natural law rather than to the
words and intention of positive legal provisions (statute, constitution
or whatever). He thinks it makes judges too much an irresponsible
governing class. That's why he doesn't believe in a generalized
judicially-enforceable right to privacy, although as he observes there
are plenty of more specific privacy rights in the constitution (e.g.
prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures) that courts should
enforce, and there are lots of things government should leave alone on
privacy and other grounds. The question is whose responsibillity it is
to see that privacy and other important things are respected -- judges,
or the people and their elected representatives. He thinks
"self-government" means the latter unless judges have definite grounds
for acting. On the "natural law" point you may be thinking of Clarence
Thomas.
Bork never called for birth control to be re-criminalized -- his
comment on the Connecticut case (Griswold?) that was the occasion for
the Supreme Court to begin its creation of a generalized
judicially-enforceable right of privacy was that the law was a dead
letter and the case a collusive suit to get the matter before the
courts so the courts would (unnecessarily and without authority in his
view) make law on the subject.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Nov 6 09:40:51 EST 1998
Article: 12961 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 4 Nov 1998 07:47:18 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <71picm$nsl@panix.com>
References: <363E7BAD.97C@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
cjahnes@msmisp.com (Carl Jahnes) writes:
> "Hitler and Stalin are the false puppets and the real thinkers of a
> political mutation the like of which the West has perhaps never seen
> since the dawn of its decline.
It's seemed to me that Soviet communism was an articially forced
growth, ahead of its time and therefore ill-founded, rather like 19th
century feminism and free love. The mills of the gods grind exceeding
slow but exceeding fine. Our way is therefore better and will be more
successful in achieving the annihilation of the transcendent and
consequent reduction of human life to an enormous technical system of
impulse and satisfaction.
> "But the State in its totalitarian perversion does nothing but
> destroy the codes and release the ancient brakes; It thereby finally
> attains to its true essence. This is the real mystery.
It *is* a mystery, the mystery of evil, and hence its fascination. How
can something that is essentially privation, a lack of something
necessary, appear to be a self-existent reality that we can hardly deny
since it can do with us as it wishes?
Part of the answer I think is that the "self-existent reality" part is
an illusion. Evil is evil only because it destroys good. Its
existence is therefore that of a shadow, but a shadow that can torture,
maim and kill. Maybe that's not so crazy -- a physical shadow can kill
plants after all.
Similarly, the absolute state, a.k.a. self-sufficient human society, is
illusory because it depends on what it cannot supply. Like all human
societies for example it relies on principles of truth, loyalty and
sacrifice, but it cannot motivate or make sense of them because they do
not follow simply or technically from the impulses of the actor.
> It seems to me that fascism, in its heroic form, tries to make man
> believe what he finds impossible to believe.
This is the same problem of trying to bootstrap a social and moral
order of things. The current local version is political correctness.
Since morality is taken to lack objective foundation, it is not the
sort of thing that can be believed (any more than a headache or an
optical illusion known to be such can be believed). Nonetheless common
principles strong enough to overcome personal interests and coordinate
action are needed. Therefore power insists on absolute adherence and
outward display of utter devotion to arbitrary moral formulas. To
question them at all is to attack the social order and therefore put
oneself outside the human community. It makes you an enemy of mankind,
a wrecker, a hate-filled extremist, whatever the current term is.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Nov 7 14:57:53 EST 1998
Article: 12970 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 7 Nov 1998 14:57:44 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <7228no$mmj@panix.com>
References: <363E7BAD.97C@msmisp.com> <3643D994.7045@ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
FELIX writes:
> The fact of our age, yes. Unparalleled, hardly. The domination of
> the folk by the barons was accomplished by and large with the
> religious propaganda of the priestly class.
Since in every society everything that happens can be attributed to a
chain of causation starting outside the agent, every society can no
doubt be understood as totalitarian. It is the distinctions that can
be drawn among actual societies that are the important ones. Here are
some that seem relevant:
1. Societies in which the highest law is understood to be the will of
a single man or some small group, beyond which there is no appeal even
in concept, and societies in which the highest law is not so
understood, so that the wickedness and injustice of the rulers is
publicly recognized as a possiblity.
2. Societies in which it is thought appropriate to organize all
thought and action toward the achievement of pragmatic goals chosen at
will by the small ruling group (in effect, centralized and heavily
militarized societies in which all aspects of life are subject to
arbitrary administrative control) and other societies.
3. Societies in which intellectual life and whatever counts as moral
authority are in principle, and to the extent practical, subject to
state administration, and societies is which they are not. The
distinction between Emperor and Pope, Church and State, the liberties
of the Church etc. show Christendom to be the latter sort of society.
I could go on, but I think I've said enough to show why medieval
Christendom and totalitarianism are different sorts of things.
> > In other words, the face of power must have been affected by a
> > corrosion that I showed to be controlling the fate of technology,
> > desire and progress. Schematically, this means roughly that power,
> > too, tends toward a kind of absolute death which resembles the
> > decadent slope down which it is moving;
>
> This is gibberish. Next thing you know we will be asked to start
> praying to the virgin Mary.
I think the idea is that "absolute power" is an incoherent notion.
"Power" presupposes an understanding of what is good, since without
such an understanding it is impossible to say what things one must be
able to do to be "powerful". I can force every cluster of galaxies in
the universe to change its position with respect to my big toe just by
wiggling it. Does that show I have amazing power? It depends on how
important it is that things change their position in that respect --
whether that kind of thing is a rational goal of action -- in short,
whether it is good.
Since the Good logically precedes the powerful, the Good is not simply
a matter of human choice, since choice is simply a decision to exercise
our power in a particular way. The Good, upon which all else depends,
therefore precedes human choice. It follows that in order to act
rationally we must know and accept a moral order that transcends human
goals. That's why sensible people do things like pray to the Virgin
Mary.
> Why not a rational politics which serves the people?
What is the good of the people? How does one cause the rulers to know
what it is and try to promote it?
> Belief in ones family, tribe, and nation, belief in one's own FLESH
> and BLOOD. That is the natural instinct of the healthy man, and THAT
> is the rational basis for a philosophy of government.
I agree that's instinctual, and healthy, and good, all up to a point.
On the other hand belief in FLESH and BLOOD in itself doesn't have much
content. Not enough to base a government on.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From christ-and-culture-return-125-jk=PANIX.COM@egroups.com Mon Nov 9 08:17:18 1998
Received: from findmail.com (m8.findmail.com [209.185.96.143])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id IAA26427
for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:17:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 32201 invoked by uid 505); 9 Nov 1998 13:09:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 23490 invoked by uid 7770); 9 Nov 1998 13:03:02 -0000
Received: from panix.com (?fQCzTrmzjjB6ZEp1Yu37DHDVvvMLjo1f?@166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 9 Nov 1998 13:03:02 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA17050
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:02:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199811091302.IAA17050@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:02:34 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "John Dayman" at Nov 8, 98 11:59:03 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Christ, Culture and The Kingdom
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Status: RO
> "Biblical Christianity is never apart from culture. There is no such
> thing as plain Christianity. Christianity always expresses itself
> through a culture. It is unique in that it can be expressed equally
> well in any culture."
> Is anyone familar with these authors or this book? Care to exegete the
> passage?
Never heard of either, not that that shows anything.
The authors seem to be contrasting Christianity, which converts nations
without destroying their separate identities, with say Islam, Judaism
or Hinduism, each of which at least in principle defines a single
people separate from other peoples. Christianity, it seems, is more an
additional dimension or perhaps the missing center that completes life,
and less a set of institutions, customs, laws etc. of the general kind
that always and everywhere constitute the social world.
An interesting notion and I'm sure there's been lots of argument about
it. Can anyone suggest where intelligent discussion can be found?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
______________________________________________________________________
For the absolute lowest price on Video/PC Games visit:
http://ads.egroups.com/click/58/1/bottomdollar
Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.
From jk Sat Nov 7 11:00:14 1998
Subject: Re: affirmative action
To: r
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:00:14 -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: 1686
Status: RO
Forceable social reconstruction is never fair. I would have thought
the American constitutional system made it impossible for just that
reason, but it seems not.
> Unfortunately Affirmative Action is a one-way street. Once a large
> segment of voters is granted special privileges they will never
> voluntarily give them up. It will become engrained status quo; we
> will all be old and grey and Black crime will still be where it is
> now, more or less - that is because oppressive Whites have nothing to
> do with it.
Part of the problem of course is divide and rule -- AA sets the people
permanently in conflict with each other and makes popular
self-government impossible and bad in theory -- the majority is bad and
does bad things, so it can't be allowed to run its own affairs. That's
great for our ruling classes, who of necessity include the media,
academics, educational professionals and others in charge of ideology
and indoctrination.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Mon Nov 9 08:47:31 1998
Subject: Re: Confucius: daily - 14:23
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:47:31 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199811081441.PAA14670@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE> from "tct@shinbiro.com" at Nov 8, 98 03:41:22 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: 571
Status: RO
> 14:23 Tzu Lu asked how to deal with a ruler. Confucius said, "If you
> have to oppose him, don't do it by deceit."
I find this saying extremely characteristic. It goes straight to the
difficult issue and deals with it in a way that is brief, to the point,
plainly correct, and surprisingly hard to follow consistently. In
order to follow it you have to become a much better man than most of
us. So it's something to focus your thoughts and efforts.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Mon Nov 9 10:11:10 1998
Subject: Re: your page
To: r
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:11:10 -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: 1901
Status: RO
> do you, anywhere on your page, address the issue of concensual
> polygamy?
All I say in the sexual morality FAQ is that major civilized codes have
a lot in common and that differences (e.g. polygamy) can be interpreted
in a rational way favorable to the Greco-Roman and Christian rule of
monogamy.
The FAQ deals with absolute non-starters, like the view publicly
proclaimed and apparently authoritative today, that the only
limitations on sexual conduct among consenting adults are specific
concrete consequences (disease, babies) and maybe those imposed by
contract.
I prefer monogamy and think it should be the rule because (1) it's a
defining characteristic of the civilization we live in, and I like that
civilization better than others, and (2) that's no accident, because
monogamy is more consistent with equality among adult male citizens,
and a respected and secure place for women, than polygamy. If you
prefer limited government with an important principle of consent and
popular participation and don't like despotism it seems to me you
should favor monogamy.
> have you read "why race matters" by Michael Levine?
No. I admire his work, but I don't have a copy readily available and
don't feel like putting out the $65. For me it doesn't seem like a
must-read -- I'm more concerned with other sides of radical
egalitarianism than he is.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Mon Nov 9 16:33:56 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id QAA13345
for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:33:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id VAA05554
for confucius-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:12:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:12:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <199811092012.VAA05554@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Confucius: Re: daily - 14:23
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
> 14:23 Tzu Lu asked how to deal with a ruler. Confucius said, "If you
> have to oppose him, don't do it by deceit."
I find this saying extremely characteristic. It goes straight to the
difficult issue and deals with it in a way that is brief, to the point,
plainly correct, and surprisingly hard to follow consistently. In
order to follow it you have to become a much better man than most of
us. So it's something to focus your thoughts and efforts.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Nov 11 09:28:10 EST 1998
Article: 12981 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 11 Nov 1998 07:35:01 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <72c09l$jc9@panix.com>
References: <3643D994.7045@ibm.com> <7228no$mmj@panix.com> <3647c07a.14919336@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
tasquith@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (T.Asquith) writes:
> >1. Societies in which the highest law is understood to be the will
> >of a single man or some small group, beyond which there is no appeal
> >even in concept, and societies in which the highest law is not so
> >understood, so that the wickedness and injustice of the rulers is
> >publicly recognized as a possiblity.
>
> But what about those situations where the highest law "comes from
> above"? ... the reference to 'something greater' is often used to
> obscure the fact that a small minority, or one person, is setting the
> rules.
Rulers always tend to be few in number, so a great deal depends on how
they understand their situation. For my own part I'd rather they
thought the ultimate standard of conduct was something other than "what
I want." In actual fact what they do will no doubt most often be what
they want, but the concept that maybe it shouldn't be because there's
some other ultimate standard has to be helpful I think.
I'd rather live in Islamic Iran than Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.
For that matter I don't see why the Islamic Republic is so much worse
than any number of other Third World regimes not based on a
transcendent vision. Jonestown and the like, which you mention, strike
me as temporary and localized situations and in any event mostly
injured voluntary adherents rather than others.
It's worth noting that a society in which religion is somehow
established is not always a theocracy. Religion or its equivalent is
established always and everywhere because those who claim the power of
life and death (i.e. the government) will always recognize and support
some moral basis for their claim, and that moral basis will have to do
with some general understanding of man, the world, what is obligatory
and most important, etc. Nothing less fundamental and comprehensive
can support life-and-death claims. To the extent that authoritative
moral basis and general understanding is institutionally separate from
and independent of the government what you have is not a theocracy.
One reason theocracy is bad is that the distinction between "what I the
ruler want" and "what is right and good" tends to evaporate if the two
things aren't institutionalized separately. Jonestown, in which the
political ruler was also the religious leader and in fact a prophet,
was an extreme theocracy, Iran a much milder one. Christian societies
have generally not been theocratic at all. See the discussion of
church and state below.
> It strikes me though that your second alternative is more likely to
> be publicly recognized where all laws are relative.
Don't understand. If all laws are relative, how could some of them be
wicked and unjust?
> >2. Societies in which it is thought appropriate to organize all
> >thought and action toward the achievement of pragmatic goals chosen
> >at will by the small ruling group
>
> I note though that the society in such a case needn't be
> centralized--in fact it can be very decentralized providing the
> minority is sufficiently scattered over a geographic area and working
> as a cohesive unit
You seem to be describing a society that is socially but not
geographically centralized (socially centralized because there is a
small cohesive ruling group that controls everything). For all I know
it may be possible. I know nothing about Libya, which you mention. I
would think geographical dispersion would make it harder to make and
enforce concrete decisions, but what is difficult is sometimes
achieved.
> >3. Societies in which intellectual life and whatever counts as
> >moral authority are in principle, and to the extent practical,
> >subject to state administration, and societies is which they are
> >not.
>
> This does not reflect what Christianity is--merely what the modern
> descendant looks like (after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation,
> after Darwin and after the humanism of the Enlightenment).
>
> We have to remember that the Emperor still had to answer to the Pope
> as did many of the Kings of Europe ... the earlier forms of
> Christianity produced one large government under God, with the
> people's governments being subject to the Church.
Don't agree -- there was a difference in principle between church and
state. There were theories that gave Pope or Emperor absolute
superiority but none was generally accepted and none fit actual
practice. There was Canossa but also Avignon.
The extent to which the ultimate moral authority has the concrete power
to command particular measures does matter. When it has that power, at
least routinely, it's corrupting, as in our own time the political
potency of claims of expertise corrupts intellectual life and the
political power of the United States Supreme Court corrupts American
law and jurisprudence.
> You have said in the past that you tend to favour Plato, Jim--more
> often than not, my guide is Machiavelli. Power doesn't know what is
> good or evil. It just is ... So as far as the changing of the
> position of planets vis a vis your big toe being power, I would have
> to agree with you that it is--but the movement of your toe as such
> lacks any moral value, good or bad.
So the movement of my big toe is the sort of thing Machiavelli concerned
himself with?
> One cannot know what is the "good of the people". It is an empty
> phrase.
What is the object of government if not the good of the people?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Nov 13 07:29:54 EST 1998
Article: 12987 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 13 Nov 1998 07:26:47 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <72h8i7$l33@panix.com>
References: <363E7BAD.97C@msmisp.com> <3643D994.7045@ibm.com> <722up6$d2j$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <364BC884.6A50@ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <364BC884.6A50@ibm.com> FELIX writes:
>I see no reason, other than systems based on the illusion worked,
>after a fashion, in the past, to require that a political order
>informed by the natural law necessarily require a "supreme being",
>much less the one described in the New Testament.
I'm inclined to think that if you don't have a personal supreme being
you won't have natural law either.
Natural law after all seems to be a system of purposes rationally
articulated as a set of standards for what we should and shouldn't do.
That system somehow proceeds and binds our will. I think people find
it hard to understand what a system of purposes is, not a hypothetical
one but a real one capable of changing the situation within which we
act (as natural law must change that sitution if it is not a dead
letter), without attributing it to a person.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Nov 14 16:18:47 EST 1998
Article: 12991 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 13 Nov 1998 19:57:10 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <72ikh6$qkq@panix.com>
References: <363E7BAD.97C@msmisp.com> <3643D994.7045@ibm.com> <722up6$d2j$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <364BC884.6A50@ibm.com> <72h8i7$l33@panix.com> <364CD179.1898@ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <364CD179.1898@ibm.com> FELIX writes:
>For every facet of the cosmos that implies the beautiful, the orderly,
>and the sublime there are evident countervailing forces of randomness,
>chaos, and destruction. Why must the entire universe be the result of
>a conscious being? I find the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be an
>ultimately compelling argument against the existence of God.
Still, it seems to me that existence, order and knowability are the
things to explain rather than their opposites. For me the fact things
run down raises above all the question how they got wound up. As for
the "must", it seems to me you go for the best explanation. If reason
and intention seem essential aspects of the world we know (and for me
at least natural law appears to suggest intention) those things seem
most readily comprehensible by reference to reasoning and intending,
which seems to require a person.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Thu Nov 12 07:25:45 1998
Subject: Re: Tom Wolfe
To: cullenbin@email.msn.com (Ellen Nathalia Kalb)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:25:45 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <000d01be0e33$e2676360$c85b2399@default> from "Ellen Nathalia Kalb" at Nov 12, 98 06:59:18 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 451
Status: RO
Haven't read it and haven't kept track of the reactions. It sounds
like he wrote a good book that's at odds with political and social
understandings presupposed by public discussions. When that happens
the first reviewers tend to give their individual reaction ("an
interesting piece of work") but soon the reaction based on collective
understandings ("this is an outrage") takes over. An extreme case was
the reaction to _The Bell Curve_.
Jim
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Nov 16 17:39:55 EST 1998
Article: 13007 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 16 Nov 1998 17:37:43 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <72q9fn$po8@panix.com>
References: <72nd3p$ngd$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <364F5BE8.477@ibm.com> <72pan7$cug$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
dmdeane@my-dejanews.com writes:
> Perhaps if Mr. Kalb could rephrase the whole metaphysical issue in
> non-religious terms
Difficult to do, except temporarily.
First, I don't see what the appeal to "reality" can do for anyone since
metaphysics is simply the study of what is real. Writers like
Nietzsche and John Dewey who try to do away with metaphysics seem to me
to achieve incoherence more than anything else.
So the question is what is real. Quarks? States of consciousness?
Numbers? Universals like "whiteness?" The objects of ordinary
experience like ducks and tables? And if ordinary experience is the
key, how about "nice guys," "funny jokes," "evil SOBs," "dumb ideas,"
and so on?
Which gets to what seems to be the real question, the metaphysical
status of things like goodness and badness. Are those words just a way
of talking about our feelings, or do they name something real? If the
former, it seems that a statement like "white people should support the
survival and florishing of the white race" is an interesting
manifestation of the speaker's psychology but not really an assertion.
If the latter, it seems the statement must be associated with some
metaphysical ethical system and a discussion of what the system might
involve would be sensible as part of evaluating the statement.
Once you start talking about metaphysical ethical systems, it seems
you're most of the way to religion, which has to do with ultimate human
obligations and loyalties in their connection with ultimate reality.
Even a personal God isn't far off, since (as I suggested) the most
direct way to make sense of something like "natural law," as a system
of objectively binding purposes, is to think of them as the purposes of
some person whose will creates reality and insofar as it relates to
moral matters creates moral reality.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Nov 20 09:38:07 EST 1998
Article: 13024 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: High Crimes and Presidential Privileges
Date: 20 Nov 1998 09:37:51 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <733urv$r33@panix.com>
References: <731o7o$neu$1@netnews.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
"John Carney" writes:
> Is there any doubt that the abuse of the public trust embodied in
> Executive Privilege calls for impeachment?
One basic issue running through the whole affair seems to be whether the
P. can or should be inpeached for conduct that includes crimes and is
grossly inconsistent with the orderly functioning of government.
The independent prosecutor law may not be the best law, but it exists,
it has strong and respectable support, it involves high-level
cooperation and commitment among the executive, legislative and
judicial branches, and it's intended seriously as a safeguard of
government integrity. So if a president lies publicly, repeatedly and
systematically, perjures himself, suborns perjury, tampers with
witnesses, raises baseless claims of privilege based on his high
office, and otherwise uses everything he has to defeat the i.p. law,
should he get bounced?
It's understandable I suppose that people who like Clinton and don't
much care about process so long as things go their way in the
particular case say "no." It's less understandable when legal scholars
come out the same way.
What's the sentiment at Penn Law School?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Nov 20 10:21:34 EST 1998
Article: 13025 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 20 Nov 1998 09:41:43 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <733v37$rhk@panix.com>
References: <72pan7$cug$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <72q9fn$po8@panix.com> <3654F3B3.30BB@ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
FELIX writes:
> What makes you think that a person's feelings or state of
> conciousness is any less real than, say, the computer monitor upon
> which you read these word?
Nothing.
My point was that if we're talking about where to find a computer
monitor, "there's a computer monitor in the next room" is more relevant
than "lots of people have the notion in their head that there's a
computer monitor in the next room." Further, if the speaker were
convinced that there is literally no difference in meaning between the
two sentences I would probably lose patience and stop talking with him
except maybe in desperation. Fundamentally I don't care about the
second sentence, only about the first, and someone who can't
distinguish the two isn't going to be able to carry on a conversation
with me about the thing I care about.
> > religion, which has to do with ultimate human obligations and
> > loyalties in their connection with ultimate reality.
>
> Not necessarily. Why does a religion need to be universal?
Don't see what you're getting at. I said "ultimate" rather than
"universal." A religion is final for those who accept it, and whatever
one's final views on man, the world, good, evil, obligation etc.
function as his religion
> > the most direct way to make sense of something like "natural law,"
> > as a system of objectively binding purposes, is to think of them as
> > the purposes of some person whose will creates reality and insofar
> > as it relates to moral matters creates moral reality.
>
> Why does this have to be a "supreme being"? There is after all a
> correct consensus about what constitutes physical reality at the
> human perceptual level. Aborigines and New York investment bankers
> both agree on the color red. This agreement does not require "God".
> And it does not require agreement on purposes.
Agreement on what things are red, even if as universal as you say, is
not a sufficient basis for a system of life. It's not even a
sufficient basis for natural science or identification of physical
objects and events. You spoke I thought of "natural law" as a rational
basis for conduct. As such it must be able to distinguish good from
bad purposes. Such law therefore sounds like it includes or implies a
system of purposes with which it would be irrational to disagree.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Nov 20 10:21:35 EST 1998
Article: 13026 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Barbarism Seeping from Every Pore
Date: 20 Nov 1998 10:19:20 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <73419o$1qs@panix.com>
References: <72pan7$cug$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <72q9fn$po8@panix.com> <3654F3B3.30BB@ibm.com> <733v37$rhk@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
>FELIX writes:
>> Why does this have to be a "supreme being"?
Your question, I suppose, is why the objectively binding nature of a
system of purposes (that contained in natural law) implies a supreme
being more than universal agreement about redness does. For all I know
they both imply a supreme being. Bishop Berkeley would tell you they
do. It seems to me though that the implication is stronger in the case
of the system of purposes.
A sensation of redness could be purely subjective and human, even
though it is the response of all physically normal men to light of a
particular range of wavelengths. We could recognize that as the case
and redness would nonetheless keep its function in human life. If I
had to say "that looks red to me and you, but that's just a subjective
feeling, the truth of the matter is that it's just something that
reflects light of a wavelength that causes us to have the sensation" it
wouldn't matter that much.
If we had to say something similar about goodness, though, it would
matter a great deal. Unlike redness, goodness can't be only a shared
perception -- a subjective sensation caused by something altogether
different in kind -- and rationally keep the same place in human life.
The reason is that the function of goodness is to trump subjective
feelings, desires, aversions, etc. If it can't do that, because it's
really just another sensation like "redness," why treat it as something
special?
So natural law -- a system of purposes -- has to be independent of our
wills and (unlike redness) what we feel. On the other hand, it seems
hard to imagine purposes apart from one whose purposes they are. How
to explain this? The concept of a supreme being suggests a way.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Nov 21 14:00:16 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id OAA06782
for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:00:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19132;
Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:51:43 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6457438 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 21 Nov
1998 13:51:43 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:o8/m/iquAZuD8FSasky0grdV7No3VZGc@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
NAA37868 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:51:42 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA29679
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:51:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199811211851.NAA29679@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:51:40 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Non-Anglophone Traditionalism
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <19981120173615.RDWA13094@localHost> from "Rhydon Jackson" at Nov
20, 98 11:36:00 am
Status: RO
> Thus, it seems to me that Corporatism is a self-conscious effort to
> achieve specific societal ends through the application of a
> theoretically determined political organization. This isn't meant as
> an indictment, since the position appears inescapable. Even the most
> ardent reactionary seeking a pure restoration of former political
> organization finds himself in the same position.
The situation may not be quite so bad. If a reac thinks man has
natural tendencies, say to form families, to establish other
fundamental loyalties and ties, and to work himself into an order of
things oriented toward goods that can't be reduced without remainder to
impulse and desire, then he might view his task more as removal of
obstacles and disruptions than applying a theoretically determined
political organization. He could view the question as one of
determining what it is that keeps us from doing the things that are
natural to us rather than as constructing something in accordance with
a preconceived idea of what should be.
An example might be sex roles. A reac presumably would not agree with
the abolition of gender as a principle of social order. He might
nonetheless view many of the specifics of what roles are appropriate as
something not determinable theoretically that should be sorted out by
the development of social habit and feeling. His chief theoretical
point might be that radical sexual egalitarianism -- the view that it
is simply wrong for gender to be a principle of social order -- is a
bad thing and should not influence developments.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Sat Nov 28 17:24:57 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id RAA17164
for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:24:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id WAA07818
for confucius-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 22:30:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 22:30:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <199811282130.WAA07818@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Confucius: Re: tdialog: daily - 14:36
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
> First of all, it would be wonderful to know which one of Confucius's
> contemporaries formulated this most revolutionary idea of replying (not
> repaying) to evil with goodness. This flys fully in the face of
> "Chinese" history up to this time, so much so that the concept is almost
> unthinkable.
Not many things that happen fly in the face of history. By Confucius'
time there had evidently developed a profound crisis of public order. From
his time onward a variety of responses were formulated. The responses
were a consequence of the historical crisis.
His own middle way was cultivation of the order felt to be implicit in
natural human relations through good faith and moral/aesthetic
traditionalism. The aim was to harmonize the explicit and public with the
ineffable and internal. To one side of it were proposals for a sort of
technologically rational order advanced by Legalists and Mohists
(depending on whether the goal was maximizing state power as such or the
material welfare of the people). Such views emphasized enforcement
through external sanctions of social order oriented toward a concrete
pragmatic goal. To the other side were views such as Taoism and the one
mentioned that were skeptical of explicit social order and compulsion
generally. It's easy enough to view the appearance of thinkers advocating
the whole range of possibilities as something brought about by the
historical situation.
> Thirdly, Confucius's reply, which was strictly legalistic, was the
> only reply he could make. To even have suggested that, in at least
> some crimes there were extenuating circumstances, would have weakend his
> entire theory of government. In the Confucian system, as in the
> "Chinese" world of the times, as, indeed, in all times, including ours,
> law is based on the idea that everyone has perfect knowledge and free
> will. Not to emulate the perfectly moral ruler is a crime that must be
> punished.
>
> Finally, none of the above should be taken as a criticism of
> Confucius. It is well to remember that he was not a god, but nor was he
> like everyone else of his time. Confucius was bound by an antique
> culture that he surrended too, almost completely.
You treat Confucius' reply as "strictly legalistic" and as culture
bound, but also (apparently) as characteristic of all legal systems at all
times, including our own. Are the two views consistent? The latter one
seems better to me.
I don't agree that his remark suggests that there are never extenuating
circumstances. He was dealing with the issue whether the fundamental
response to crime should be justice or kindness -- is there to be
punishment for crime at all? -- not whether mitigating considerations
should be entirely excluded. Also, I see no suggestion that mere failure
to reach perfection should be punished as a crime.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From jk Tue Nov 17 12:40:00 1998
Subject: Re: Columbia curbs conservative forum
To: l
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:40:00 -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: 454
Status: RO
Thanks for the note. Depressing isn't it? Someone holds a thoroughly
moderate meeting, the University announces itself unable to provide
security, and no-one in a position of responsibility seems to think
that's a major problem for the University. In the meantime we keep
hearing about right-wing extremists and what a threat they are.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Wed Nov 18 21:28:21 1998
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:51:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: A "Proposition Country" After All?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
> It is quite possible to take the position the person on television
> took -- that the Fouding Fathers were simply wrong in their racial
> views and that we need not follow them. However, doing so abandons
> the claim that the American nation is from its beginnings a
> universalist nation and an admission that it became a universal
> nation at some other time since the founding.
The question is what the real America is. On that egalitarians have a
couple of outs:
1. The Founding Fathers had not yet fully developed all the
implications (how could they have?) of their radical principle, the
basis of the _novus ordo seclorum_, that all men are created equal. To
be true to their most essential commitments we must apply that
principle as radically in our age as they did in theirs. If they had
all lived another 200 years why assume they would have turned off their
brains and refused to improve their understanding of the consequences
of the basic choice they had made?
2. The racism of the FF's was based on factual error. The best
anthropological science of the time told the FFs that blacks were
stupid and impulsive. We know now, based on authoritative
pronouncements of authoritative institutions as well as the example of
many eminent blacks, that they are not.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Mon Nov 30 06:31:45 1998
Subject: Re: healthy traditionalism
To: s
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:31:45 -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: 635
Status: RO
As for which traditions are represented on the page, what's there is
what I know about and what's on the web.
The general focus of the page, visible I hope in the [Traditionalist]
Conservatism FAQ and the essay on Confucius, is the principle of
tradition in general as manifested in various settings. In the long
run though I think each of us must accept some particular tradition.
Tradition in the abstract is somewhat a contradiction.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Wed Dec 2 08:21:43 1998
Subject: Re: Confucius: Re: tdialog: daily - 14:36
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:21:43 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199812012037.VAA04384@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE> from "Robert Rosenstein" at Dec 1, 98 09:37:37 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: 2616
Status: RO
> Yet, sometime after the death of Confucius, there was an explosion of
> intellectual activity. Why? Was Confucius, in some manner,
> responsible? (Although it doesn't seem so.)
> But why this particular situation? Court intrigues, petty wars, good
> and bad times: none of these were really that new.
A good question. Buddha was Confucius' contemporary, and at the same
time you have the beginnings of Western philosophy in Greece. Why all
at once in places so widely separated? It seems the problems
transcended the practical specifics of bad times. In some way men's
implicit moral and spiritual grasp of the world had become radically
unsatisfactory.
People speak as if Confucius were the first of the important Chinese
thinkers. Is that so, or does that view just reflect the limitations
of our knowledge? I would expect weird and inspired extremists to come
first, followed by the middle way.
> Either, as usual, I was not clear :-( - or I was misunderstood. The
> problem here is both a philosophical and a practical one. A person
> who commits a crime should certainly be "dealt" with - but that does
> not necessarily mean "punishment" in the ordinary sense. It may be
> that in dealing with him or her, "kindness" may be part of the remedy
> (punishment). The suggestion made by our unknown (But Bruce said he
> knew who it was) thinker that ill should be replied to with
> "kindness" does not mean overlooking or dismissing the action, or as
> Gandhi is reputed to have said to his assassin, "I forgive you."
Let's blame it on Confucius and say he's unclear, or at least that we
interpret him differently. He doesn't strike me as a rigorous advocate
of punishment. My impression is that he thinks it's part of life, but
if it becomes too prominent it shows the ruling class is corrupt. I
recall he says somewhere in the Analects that the gentleman always
comes off worse in dealing with the bad man because the gentleman never
pushes things to the limit. I think that means the gentleman has too
much compunction and kindness to be really effective at punishment.
So the view C. is rejecting it seems to me is the extremist
turn-the-other-cheek view you associate with Gandhi rather than a more
moderate remember-the-criminal-is-also-a-man view. I think some of the
Taoist writings propose the extremist view. The more moderate view is
supported by the Confucian saying that the gentleman is easy to serve
(because he understands human limitations) but hard to please.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Wed Dec 2 17:56:53 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id RAA00499
for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:56:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id VAA03688
for confucius-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:33:47 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:33:47 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <199812022033.VAA03688@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Confucius: Re: tdialog: daily - 14:36
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
>from "Robert Rosenstein" at Dec 1, 98 09:37:37 pm
> Yet, sometime after the death of Confucius, there was an explosion of
> intellectual activity. Why? Was Confucius, in some manner, responsible?
> (Although it doesn't seem so.)
> But why this particular situation? Court intrigues, petty wars, good and
> bad times: none of these were really that new.
A good question. Buddha was Confucius' contemporary, and at the same time
you have the beginnings of Western philosophy in Greece. Why all at once
in places so widely separated? It seems the problems transcended the
practical specifics of bad times. In some way men's implicit moral and
spiritual grasp of the world had become radically unsatisfactory.
People speak as if Confucius were the first of the important Chinese
thinkers. Is that so, or does that view just reflect the limitations of
our knowledge? I would expect weird and inspired extremists to come
first, followed by the middle way.
> Either, as usual, I was not clear :-( - or I was misunderstood. The
> problem here is both a philosophical and a practical one. A person who
> commits a crime should certainly be "dealt" with - but that does not
> necessarily mean "punishment" in the ordinary sense. It may be that in
> dealing with him or her, "kindness" may be part of the remedy
> (punishment). The suggestion made by our unknown (But Bruce said he knew
> who it was) thinker that ill should be replied to with "kindness" does
> not mean overlooking or dismissing the action, or as Gandhi is reputed
> to have said to his assassin, "I forgive you."
Let's blame it on Confucius and say he's unclear, or at least that we
interpret him differently. He doesn't strike me as a rigorous advocate of
punishment. My impression is that he thinks it's part of life, but if it
becomes too prominent it shows the ruling class is corrupt. I recall he
says somewhere in the Analects that the gentleman always comes off worse
in dealing with the bad man because the gentleman never pushes things to
the limit. I think that means the gentleman has too much compunction and
kindness to be really effective at punishment.
So the view C. is rejecting it seems to me is the extremist
turn-the-other-cheek view you associate with Gandhi rather than a more
moderate remember-the-criminal-is-also-a-man view. I think some of the
Taoist writings propose the extremist view. The more moderate view is
supported by the Confucian saying that the gentleman is easy to serve
(because he understands human limitations) but hard to please.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Dec 7 20:45:58 EST 1998
Article: 13132 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Back to Clinton
Date: 6 Dec 1998 08:48:22 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <74e1v6$kri@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Any comments on the apparent fizzling of all the Clinton scandals?
Some possibilities:
1. People who are comfortable don't want to be bothered. Especially
Americans brought up to be mere units of production and consumption,
with everything else a private hobby.
2. Unless the press institutionally doesn't like you and what you
stand for, it's always possible for someone well-placed to defuse any
situation through delay, obfuscation, raising other issues, what have
you.
3. There is a tide etc. If things are going your way, your mistakes
won't hurt you much and the things you do right will help you a lot.
Clinton and his administration incarnate the ideals publicly
authoritative among us that claim universal institutional support --
diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, multinationalism, partnership
between government and private business, and life in society as a
combination of private indulgence, sentiment, money and universal
hedonistic rational/bureaucratic order. His opponents, the
Republicans, have nothing to put up against him and to the extent they
oppose him don't believe in their own positions.
Also, what about consequences? Will there be any or will it all become
a nonevent in retrospect?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Sat Dec 5 18:11:38 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id SAA02550
for ; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:11:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id XAA05585
for confucius-outgoing; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 23:25:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 23:25:07 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <199812052225.XAA05585@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Confucius: Re: 14:36 ... 1 of 2
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
RR writes:
> To a philosopher, morality and justice should extend from the person
> through personal and local relationships to the country or
> world-at-large. And yet, Confucius is ambivalent on this subject. If
> someone in a family commits a crime, should a family member report it?
> Or should the crime be hidden? According to Confucius, the crime should
> not be reported. The only way I can see, at present, how this can be
> explained is by repeating what I said previously, that in many things he
> was culture=bound. As no one protested his conclusion, we must assume
> that what morality there may have been in force in his time stopped at
> the dwelling's door.
Plato was a philosopher, but the _Euthyphro_ has to do with a man who was
bringing a prosecution against his father for negligent homicide of a
slave who had committed a serious crime, and Socrates' rather amazed
questioning as to the conception of justice that would lead him to do such
a thing. Dickens was no philosopher, but he was concerned with social
justice, and one of the incidents in _Hard Times_ is a quite
matter-of-fact account of good people smuggling a family member out of the
country to prevent his prosecution for a crime. So the view that family
loyalty can sometimes trump the obligation to help prosecute criminals
doesn't seem to imply culture-bound indifference to general moral issues.
As you and Confucius observe, morality starts at home and extends by
stages to the world at large. The question is whether the stages
retain some relative autonomy, so that more parochial loyalties may
sometimes trump larger loyalties. Is the family, village, whatever to
remain an irreducible center of our loyalties, or is it in principle to be
wholly swallowed up in the universal state?
Confucius' answer is the former. The Legalists and I suppose Mohists
would say the contrary. I think Confucius was right. His view takes
account of the realities and complexities of human nature and social life
in a way that more universalistic and utopian views do not. I consider
the latter dangerous and I think 20th c. history supports that view.
> Confucius's reply is, in effect: it was a crime, which of the
> standard punishments apply, next case. A reply dictated by an aspect of
> culture that had not changed in many hundreds of years.
Is that what justice or righteousness meant to Confucius? I thought
the rather bureaucratic notion of a defined schedule of punishments
strictly and uniformly applied was a Legalist contribution. Your
account of Confucius here seems at odds with your account of him in the
would-you-turn-in-your-dad case. His views on how to act are not normally
lacking in nuance. Why assume they are here?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Mon Dec 7 16:27:13 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id QAA06396
for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:27:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id VAA27972
for confucius-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:12:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:12:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <199812072012.VAA27972@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Confucius: Re: 14:36 & Family Crime
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
Also sprach Robert Rosenstein:
> certain things immediately came to mind: the underground railroad,
> its rebirth in the 80's as the Sanctuary movement, any number of
> "families" including Mafia families.
The example I had in mind was the Russian boy held up as a model in the
'30s because he had denounced his dad for some offense or other. The
Mafia family I think is a special case that arose as a result of an
illegitimate public order imposed by foreign oppressors. It's not a fair
way to judge family autonomy in general.
> There is no question that in many situations, blood is thicker than
> water, pecadillos are overlooked, as are serious crimes.
Actually, I don't suggest anything be overlooked and I don't think
Confucius did either, just that your loyalty to the state should not
simply categorically trump family loyalty. C. said somewhere that if you
thought your parents were doing something wrong you should say so.
I think it was Mencius who discussed what one of the early sage
emperors would have done if his very troublesome father had murdered
someone. The answer as I recall was that he would have abdicated and left
China with his dad and lived somewhere among the barbarians where he could
have kept an eye on the old man.
> " So the view that family loyalty can sometimes trump the obligation to
> help prosecute criminals doesn't seem to imply culture-bound
> indifference to general moral issues."
> what it does imply is that a family that `trumps the obigation' is,
> itself, obeying a culture-rule.
Sure, but "culture bound" suggests obeying a cultural rule contrary to
reason which I don't think need be the case.
> Secondly, it does show a particular indifference to a general moral
> issue.
I don't think so. Dad commits a crime and you don't turn him in but
you talk to him about it and try to prevent a recurrence. The Emperor
commits a crime that would normally call for the death penalty and rather
than assassinate him you picket the palace. Does the first course of
action show indifference to a general moral issue but not the second?
> Confucius did not take into account the "realities and complexities of
> human nature ..." He had an opportunity to do so when confronted with
> this revolutionary idea of returning evil with kindness, but because of
> his mental-set, he couldn't see its implications at all. As a
> consequence his answer was all but formularistic (new word?), an answer
> determined by an aspect of culture that he never questioned for a
> moment.
This is what I don't understand. Confucius said "meet crime with
justice." How do you know that his conception of justice was not
thoughtful?
> Consider this: A person in a family commits a crime. The family knows
> about it. They are not proud of it but, without actually commenting on
> it to each other, they agree not to tell. Both the family and the person
> who committed the crime have to continue to live with each other, but
> things can not be exactly the same - as-if nothing happened. In effect,
> the family acts in a way that the guilty person knows is not the usual
> way criminals are treated. He reflects on this and, in time, comes to
> terms with himself and with the family. Isn't this what occurs and
> isn't this what that revolutionary idea of replying to evil with
> kindness was all about?
I think that's what C. would have proposed in the case, although I
think he would have given a place to discussion within the family.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org Thu Dec 10 20:41:29 1998
Received: from darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (majordom@darc.Toxikologie.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.19.12])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id UAA19799
for ; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:41:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE (8.8.8/8.8.5) id BAA26367
for confucius-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:45:54 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:45:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <199812110045.BAA26367@darc.TOXIKOLOGIE.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Confucius: Re: 14:36 & Family Crime
Sender: owner-confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: confucius@lists.gnacademy.org
Status: RO
RR writes:
> This is my final response to Jim Kalb because I'm afraid the co
> versation is going in circles.
I agree. I think I've mentioned a couple of places in the analects
that suggest to me at least that C.'s notion of punitive justice wasn't
particularly rigid or exacting. People connect dots differently though
and end up with a different picture.
> Jim replied, "I think that's what C. would have proposed in the case,
> although I think he would have given a place to discussion within the
> family."
>
> No. We can't go around critiquing Confucius, or any one else, by
> "thinking" what he would have said or done. If that is allowed,
> anything goes. There must be substantial and positive corroboration.
I thought my response followed from C's disinclination to turn dad the
crook, together with his view that if your parents did something you
thought wrong you should say so. Again, different people connect the
dots differently.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
---------------------------------------------------------+
Confucius Mailing List (confucius@lists.gnacademy.org).
Via the Globewide Network Academy (http://www.gnacademy.org)
Web archive (http://lists.gnacademy.org/gna/webarchive/lists/confucius)
If you would like to unsubscribe from the mailing list
send the following command to majordomo@lists.gnacademy.org
unsubscribe confucius
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Mon Dec 14 06:18:24 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id GAA19384
for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:18:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA49300;
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:18:00 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6848223 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Mon, 14 Dec
1998 06:17:59 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:k9/6BfoZ2LGwtHC1088FOLDAX6e/Vjde@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
GAA44398 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:17:58 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA24410
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:17:57 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812141117.GAA24410@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:17:57 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Paleos = racists?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <000301be26ee$9d607990$d9f463ce@sethwill> from "Seth Williamson"
at Dec 13, 98 06:16:24 pm
Status: RO
> In any event, I'd appreciate hearing if anybody else on the Newman
> List believes that Sam and the Chronicles people are racists as the
> term is commonly understood.
Chronicles is the same as always. As to "racist", it's a loose term,
even in common usage. Think of what the condition would be with
"fascist" if there had never been movements or parties calling
themselves fascist but only things classified as such by political
opponents. There would still be people whom even most of those called
"fascist" would find objectionable for extreme authoritarianism,
militarism, mindless brutal nihilistic activism, whatever, but in
general it wouldn't make much sense to argue about whether someone is
"really a fascist."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Dec 15 14:24:40 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id OAA09431
for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:24:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA40940;
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:23:04 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6889742 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 15 Dec
1998 14:23:03 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:kqWjhmTRCWlaDJsbdSTixDoapNlMKy1R@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
OAA13152 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:22:46 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA16571
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:22:39 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812151922.OAA16571@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:22:39 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Paleos = racists?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <19981214223026.IXEE18202@[166.35.145.36]> from "Rhydon Jackson"
at Dec 14, 98 04:30:00 pm
Status: RO
Rhydon writes:
> But I think that the common use of the term probably applies to the
> "Bell Curve" authors, in so far as they imply that other human
> characteristics may vary with pigmentation. This goes against the
> egalitarian ideals of most of contemporary society.
There's certainly something to what you say. The definition of
"racist" that I think most accurately captures usage is "person who
should be treated as something of a pariah because of the kind or
extent of importance he attributes to race."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Wed Dec 16 13:13:31 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id NAA16293
for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:13:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA37950;
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:12:32 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6885414 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 16 Dec
1998 13:12:31 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:7W9VXSUBxRXklGOOuzEbsVfUd7jVI4LW@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
NAA37940 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:12:23 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA11431;
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:12:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812161812.NAA11431@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:12:09 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Paleos = racists?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199812161553.JAA12810@aae.wisc.edu> from "Ardella Crawford" at
Dec 16, 98 09:53:23 am
Status: RO
Ardella's post and interest inspired me to dig out (grep!) some posts
from a couple years ago that seemed relevant:
Post 1
The problem regarding slavery is not that slaves were often very badly
treated. All social institutions are capable of being used to bring
about gross evil. As a general thing we are nonetheless required to
fulfill socially-recognized obligations, even when the institutions to
which the obligations relate are being horribly abused and could be much
better than they are. For example, we are obligated to pay taxes even
though the taxes are unfairly imposed and some things for which the
government, like most actual governments, uses taxes are very bad. We
are obligated to respect private property even when the property is that
of an abortion clinic or the headquarters of the Nazi Party.
The legitimacy of social institutions and therefore of moral obligations
regarding them depend on history and existing circumstances and
understandings. Thus, in a time and place in which slavery was
fundamental to the social order, in which so far as anyone knew it had
always and everywhere existed in societies of any size and complexity,
and in which there was in any case no one to free all the slaves, so
there was no prospect of a world without slavery, it seems that slavery
had to be recognized as something that was here to stay, and a slave
would (except in special circumstances) have been subject to a genuine
obligation of obedience. On this line of thought Paul was right to send
Onesimus back to Philemon and Philemon wasn't obligated to free Onesimus
because we are not in general obligated to free others from their
legitimate obligations to ourselves.
The foregoing of course falls apart if slavery is in itself a moral
monstrosity. That is so if it is always and everywhere inadmissible to
bind A without his consent to obey B. Some such principle is
fundamental to modern moral views, which are liberal in inspiration.
Our tendency to accept that principle today seems to be why we tend to
think we know better than Paul about slavery, that is, we tend to think
that if Paul had understood things better he wouldn't have sent Onesimus
back or would at least have told Philemon he was obligated to free him.
So far as I can tell, though, the principle requiring consent for
obligations is wrong. The world doesn't and can't work that way. Just
by existing I am subject to obligations and I didn't consent to being
born. My children ought on the whole to do what I tell them to do,
which means they are bound without their consent to obey me. I am bound
without my consent to obey the government within whose jurisdiction I
find myself. If I am drafted in wartime that obligation can be an
obligation to kill other people and to expose myself to certain death.
I could move to another country, if another country would have me, but
there's a finite number of countries to which I could move, I didn't
consent to the legal system of any of them, and all of them have laws to
which I could reasonably object. My actual government has promulgated a
theory of consent to justify its coercive power, but I don't believe the
theory.
So like Onesimus I'm stuck in a web of obligations I never chose and
that could have been designed much, much better. One difference between
a slave, my children, and me as someone subject to law is that my rule
over my children and the law's rule over me is ostensibly for the
benefit of those ruled, while a master's rule over his slaves was for
his own benefit. To the extent this point is valid Paul has addressed
it by telling Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother. The laws
governing slavery did not of course enforce such an obligation, but
neither does international law require governments to be motivated by
the good of the people rather than ruling-class self-interest; the
principle that a man is subject to his own local law is nonetheless not
considered an inconceivable moral outrage.
One might think of each household in the Roman world as a kingdom with
the _paterfamilias_ as the king and the laws of the state as the
international law of the world society constituted by the multitude of
tiny kingdoms. That view is consistent with the father's power over the
lives and fortunes of his children. From that point of view, what Paul
consented to in the Roman institution of slavery was simply an overall
rule that assigned each person to a petty kingdom, recognized the
absolute authority of the petty kings within their domains, and didn't
require any particular manner or form of rule within a kingdom. His
response was to tell the petty kings how to exercise their authority
rather than to denounce the overall constitution of the system. I don't
see necessary moral ignorance in such a response. How would Paul have
gone about devising and implementing a new and improved constitution for
society as a whole?
Post 2
In <4ct3dr$io2@farside.rutgers.edu> our esteemed moderator clh writes:
>Don't
>you think Paul expects Philemon to free Onesimus? What else could all
>those broad hints be hinting at?
I don't think that between the lines Paul was necessarily telling
Philemon to free Onesimus. He was certainly asking him to forgive
Onesimus for running away and any other misdeeds. He might have been
hinting that Philemon should send him back with instructions to help
Paul.
>I think his principles would eventually have to lead to the
>abolition of slavery. In principle it's not contrary to the Gospel.
>As long as you treat your slave as a brother, spiritually equal to
>yourself, and as long as the slave can accept this arrangement with no
>resentment, you haven't violated anything in the Bible. With saints,
>it might work.
To say that Onesimus was Philemon's slave is simply to say that he owed
Philemon an obligation of personal service. I'm not sure why treating
him as a brother would have meant that the continued existence of that
obligation couldn't be recognized. Family life is not necessarily
egalitarian. Most people think that in general children should obey
their parents and brothers should discharge legal obligations to
brothers (if my brother borrows $20,000 from me for a down payment on
his house he ought to repay it). Paul was quite comfortable with the
notion that wives should obey their husbands. It's not obvious the
abolition of that rule has multiplied justice and happiness. So why
wouldn't Philemon have responded adequately to Paul if he had forgiven
Onesimus and viewed him as previously as a permanent member of the
household he ruled, as long as in ruling that household he put
Onesimus's good on a par with that of the other members? Onesimus might
have resented this or that, or for that matter the whole arrangement,
but the same is true of all relationships.
In its purest form slavery means that A feels free do anything he wants
to B and treat him without limitation as a means to his own ends. I
agree that from any Christian point of view that's an outrage, so
Christianity naturally leads to changes in the legal forms that
facilitate such conduct. There are many forms of slavery, inequality,
and subordination, though, and I don't think that Christianity makes
inequality of rights or requiring A to obey B an outrage. Those things
are required by the necessities of social life among men as they are. I
think the current view that slavery as such is an *absolute* evil
results from the need modern men have to disguise inequalities and
relations of subordination. That need results, I think, from the modern
tendency to treat people's actual wills as the sole ultimate source of
value.
Having said that, I should add that I think the abolition of slavery was
a very good thing that was a natural long-run consequence of
Christianity. A question often asked as to slavery in the NT, though,
is not whether it's better not to have slavery (it would also be better
not to have armies and prisons) but whether the NT writers were right or
wrong to recognize slavery as an institution that created obligations
that slaves were bound in conscience to recognize and (apparently)
masters could in good conscience avail themselves of. Do we or don't we
know better on this point than Paul did? Mostly because at the time it
was an institution that was basic to the actual organization of society
and plainly there to stay I think they were right. Even if the
leavening of Christianity meant that eventually it would be restricted
and ultimately disappear, leaven of necessity works at its own pace.
Post 3
mbarry@u.washington.edu (Matthew Barry) writes:
[proposed analogy to slavery:]
>"In so far as anyone knew, murder had always and everywhere existed.
>There was no one to stop murder. So there was no prospect of a world
>without murder. It seems that murder had to be recognized as something
>that was here to stay. The alternative to recognizing murder as
>legitimate would have been to reject and put oneself in a permanent
>state of war with society."
Don't see the comparison. For starters, murder is an act that in
antiquity as today was universally subject to the strongest social
condemnation, while slavery is an institution that in antiquity was, and
so far as anyone knew always had been, fundamental to the social order.
The comparison would have made more sense if instead of "murder" you had
said "armies", "legal compulsion", "punishment of crime", "social
inequality", "relationships of superiority and subordination" or
"private property". Someone might think that at some point all those
things should and will disappear, and that may be right, but it's not
something that can be rushed and for the present you have to treat them
as legitimate.
I should add that not everything connected to slavery is approved by the
NT. (The same of course is true of the OT but I haven't gone through it
on the point.) For example in 1 Timothy 1 Paul puts those who kidnap
others into slavery in the same class as people who kill their parents,
murderers, adulterers, liars and perverts, and in Philemon Paul tells a
master to receive back his runaway slave as a brother and forgive him
what he owes or charge it to Paul himself.
Can we be multicultural for a moment? The post-18th century Western
attitude toward slavery hasn't been held in many other times and places.
That may demonstrate that we're better than other people, but it also
may simply manifest our idiosycrasies. It seems to me that what lies
behind the current view that slavery as such (that is, without reference
to how the slave is treated) is an *ultimate* horror is the modern view
that the human will creates all value, so to subject a will to an
authority to which it has not consented is to destroy utterly what gives
value to the life of the person whose will it is, and is thus the moral
equivalent of murder.
The Christians of course taught that the life of a slave *in slavery*
had value equal to that of the Emperor or the world's greatest
philosopher. That is very different from the modern Western view that I
think determines much of our attitude toward slavery, but it doesn't
strike me as a worse view. Such a view is likely eventually to result
in restrictions on the legal rights of masters against their slaves and
perhaps ultimately in their abolition, but in the meantime it makes
getting rid of those rights seem far from the most important thing to
which one can devote oneself.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Wed Dec 16 19:57:40 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id TAA21133
for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:57:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA19740;
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:50 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6898893 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 16 Dec
1998 19:56:49 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:R2BvxTFDEDp7NyD4UJKti1R1Q+0qEkkI@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
TAA90192 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:48 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id TAA22698
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812170056.TAA22698@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:47 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Paleos = racists?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Dec 16, 98 06:43:47 pm
Status: RO
Francesca Murphy writes:
> > It seems to me that what lies behind the current view that slavery
> > as such (that is, without reference to how the slave is treated) is
> > an *ultimate* horror is the modern view that the human will creates
> > all value, so to subject a will to an authority to which it has not
> > consented is to destroy utterly what gives value to the life of the
> > person whose will it is, and is thus the moral equivalent of
> > murder.
> I thought that slavery was wrong because it involved depersonalising
> or dehumanising someone - treating and thus perceiving another human
> being as if they did not have a human soul. Literally to treat
> someone as an object which can be bought and sold is to treat them
> like a truck or an ox, to behave towards them as if they did not have
> the value of a person.
Using people as a means only and not also as an end? But it seems to
me that the legal institution of slavery as such does not require that.
Nor does accepting responsibilities and at least some rights under that
institution. I don't see why there couldn't be a slaveowner who rules
justly and kindly just as there could be an oriental despot who rules
justly and kindly. After all, a paterfamilias could rule his slaves as
he rules the other members of his household, with an eye to their own
good as well as his own and for that matter the good of the whole.
That seems to be what Paul requested Philemon to do. To me that looks
like hierarchy but not necessarily dehumanization except from a liberal
standpoint that makes nonconsensual hierarchy as such dehumanizing.
The question I'm concerned with is whether at least under some
circumstances (e.g., those prevailing in the Roman world in the 1st c.
A.D.) the institution of slavery can give rise to moral obligations on
the part of the slave and rights on the part of the master. Viewed on
the analogy of despotism as the constitution of a society (only of a
family and not a state) is it merely defective, because prone to abuse,
but nonetheless at least sometimes legitimate, or is it in itself an
ultimate evil, always illegitimate, incapable of giving rise to rights
and obligations?
Another way of putting the question is whether Paul was right or we
today know better. Somehow the answer seems relevant to whether we
have a general obligation to obey (and may accept benefits from) a
badly constituted regime. If you'll remember, that was an issue in the
_First Things_ flap. Since neocons (the FT crowd and their critics
such as Podhoretz) are liberals they find it hard to conceive that (for
example) a Catholic could have an obligation to obey a regime part of
the essence of which is protection of the right to have an abortion
since such a regime can not be understood to be based on his consent.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Dec 17 12:06:15 EST 1998
Article: 13146 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Will Clinton be extradited to Iraq?
Date: 17 Dec 1998 06:56:43 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <75arhr$8cm@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Sorry for more current events in a metapolitical newsgroup like this.
Still, a question: WJC has had the unbreakable loyalty of a large group
of influential people because he's "one of us," because he's at the
opposite pole from those creepy rightwing prolifers, Republicans,
fundies, sexual McCarthyites, racists, bigots, what have you. Is his
current escapade likely to reduce the influence of the view that no
matter what the Clinton presidency is fundamentally on the side of all
that is good, decent and hopeful in politics? (Remember that that
view, like all politically influential views, is the view of a
coalition.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Dec 17 12:06:16 EST 1998
Article: 13148 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Will Clinton be extradited to Iraq?
Date: 17 Dec 1998 12:03:01 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <75bdg5$3uu@panix.com>
References: <75arhr$8cm@panix.com> <75b2lp$968$1@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <75b2lp$968$1@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk> Andy Fear writes:
>: (Remember that that view, like all politically influential views, is
>: the view of a coalition.)
>for the liberal bombing arabs is part of all that's decent and
>hopeful, after all the muslim world is the only part of the world that
>has put up solid resistance to the global spread of liberalism - it's
>them not the likes of us they're afraid of.
That's right of course, as far as it goes, but still liberals are
fundamentally adverse to the use of force because in the absence of
tradition, transcendent authority etc. and rejection of "might makes
right" all politics and morality must spring from the will of the
individual.
Naturally that doesn't make sense, so as a practical matter they use
force and then deny it if possible or if not explain it on various
grounds, for example therapy (we're doing this for your own good and
you constructively agree with us) or the demonism of those against whom
it is used (Muslims, David Koresh, whoever).
I suppose what motivated the question was the reflection that
liberalism in the long run is not internally coherent, and the liberal
alliance less so, so things that accentuate the strains within
liberalism are likely to compromise support for its leaders. Say what
you like, there are in fact liberal ideals. Apart from opposition to
violence, for example, liberals like honest process and don't like
cynical manipulation and brutality. In practice of course they violate
the first and engage in the second to defeat their enemies and attain
their goals. No doubt on some level many of them enjoy doing so.
Nonetheless, they put a lot of effort into disguising their conduct
>from themeselves and others. Try to get a liberal to admit his system
depends on the rule of an irresponsible elite, for example. The point
though is that whatever increases the effort has to put strain on the
whole system, induce marginal supporters to drop off, cause factional
disputes, etc.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Fri Dec 18 15:33:26 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id PAA21552
for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:33:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA59194;
Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:31:20 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6910503 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 18 Dec
1998 15:31:19 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:Q4Jt+QVVIGS0OPvzHaXCT6OMT5iWkrcW@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
PAA13766 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:31:18 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA27473
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:31:16 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812182031.PAA27473@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:31:15 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Paleos = racists?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy"
at Dec 18, 98 05:50:39 pm
Status: RO
Francesca Murphy writes:
> It does not matter how benevolently a slave-owner may claim to regard
> his 'objects', if he can buy and sell them, then, trucks, horses, and
> human beings are being treated alike. This, I claim, is against the
> order of reality, in which persons have a uniquely high value, and
> not merely against some people's willed choices.
I don't see why it necessarily follows that a slave-owner is never
entitled to any rights whatever with respect to his slave. The law of
property may entitle me to take a ham sandwich and feed it to my dog or
toss it in the fire rather than give it to a man starving at my gate.
That would be against the order of reality since the first purpose of
property is human well-being. It does not follow that the law of
property is intolerable and confers no rights, only that in exercising
my property rights I should cut them down at least to something that
isn't outrageous. So I don't think the question can be disposed of by
saying you can't treat a human being like a horse or truck. To me a
necessary question if you're considering slavery from a universal
perspective seems to be whether all unconsented obligations of service
outrage human nature, and if some don't which ones those are.
> Individuals Christians could not do anything about slavery in the
> Roman Empire of the the first century AD. The best political option
> that was going was to encourage masters to treat their slaves
> fraternally.
Paul could have asked Christians who were slave owners to free their
slaves. He did give them advice, but the advice was fraternal
treatment not manumission. I don't see why it would have been a
political problem to give the latter advice. Didn't his correspondents
have the right to be informed what they really should do?
> Christian Europe would slowly commute slavery into serfdom, and then
> serdom into the idea of the free citizen. This is the very slow,
> political working out of the ethical principle of the value of the
> person, a principle perhaps inherent in Christianity.
I agree with this, at least in general. Some acts are wrong always,
everywhere, under all circumstances. Slavery doesn't seem to be in
this category because it's not an act. I suppose holding in slavery is
an act, but it includes lots of things not all of which seem
objectionable unless the demand that someone perform an unconsented act
is _per se_ outrageous.
Many aspects of morality seem to depend on the terms of our social
partnership with other people. I can imagine that if popular and legal
understandings shifted so that abolition of slavery became a real
possibility a slave owner's rights might change because the nature of
the partnership and the goods attainable through it would have changed.
At what point that sort of transformation takes place is hard to judge.
> One may compare the case with the widespread practice of infanticide
> in the Roman empire. First century Christians did not rush around
> trying to stamp out infanticide. Obvious political impossibility.
Did Christians engage in infanticide at the time? If someone had told
Paul "I want to engage in family planning through infanticide" would
Paul have said "don't do it" or something else like maybe "do it
painlessly?"
> I do apologise for the simplicity of my ethical opinions. I have
> only read two or three books on the subject in my life. Not Kant,
> and not Aristotle or even Aquinas!
What I'm presenting are of course my own speculations. They're a way of
puzzling over the relation between universal principles and obligations
in particular settings. Just how multicultural should one be? What
things evolve and why, and what stay the same?
> Americans were slave-owners for what? Two hundred years? Was slave-
> owning of the essence of the American polity? Did the essence of the
> American polity change when slave owning was outlawed?
If all reputable institutional authorities had held with no positive
legal support whatever that all free Americans had an indefeasible
right to own slaves sufficient to invalidate any legal attempt at
restriction, then yes I would say that slave-holding was of the essence
of the polity. Such a conclusion would have shown a profound settled
common understanding among responsible well-placed serious learned
trusted authoritative people that slavery was of the essence, and I
don't know of better evidence than that what is of the essence of a
particular social institution (in this case, the American polity). In
fact, there was no such common understanding.
> I can now announce that Kolnai's Memoirs, from which this was drawn,
> is finally being published, this spring, by Rowman and Littlefield.
> I sent back the camera ready a few days ago.
You seem to be doing a book every few months. Academic slavery I say.
Congrats though on being able to send it off just before Christmas.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Fri Dec 18 11:54:50 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id LAA16934
for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:54:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA50966;
Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:52:44 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6903671 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 18 Dec
1998 11:52:43 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:/xd5XzHvGpz1QLe6L+lhWM164dF5RjtW@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
LAA45004 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:52:42 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id LAA05900
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:52:40 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812181652.LAA05900@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:52:40 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Paleos = racists?
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <19981217230826.EMGS18494@localHost> from "Rhydon Jackson" at Dec
17, 98 05:08:00 pm
Status: RO
Rhydon Jackson writes:
> Jim is interested in demonstrating that slavery, in and of itself, is
> 2) not inconsistent with the teachings of Paul, yet inconsistent with
> Christianity
Not exactly. An intended point was that Christianity has immediate and
remote consequences, what every Christian must do right now and what
laws Christian societies will eventually adopt. Legal institutions
depend on moral understandings that can't be conjured up and made stable
out of nowhere.
Another was that the legitimacy of rights and obligations based on
positive social institutions is not a simple matter of whether the
institution is a good one. To choose a more modern example: the fact
that all reputable institutional authorities have agreed for a quarter
century with no end in sight that it is of the essence of the American
polity to secure the right to an abortion means I think that that really
*is* of the essence of the American polity. It does not follow that
Christians who believe that Christianity forbids abortion have no
general duty to obey American law.
> I agree with Jim that it is hard to fault Paul for considering slavery
> part of the natural order of things, both ancient and universal.
I'd leave out the word "natural." I have no reason to think Paul
thought slavery natural. It seems to me the question is what to do when
firmly established positive law fosters gross violations of natural law.
> It appears we do know better than Paul.
I don't see why. Our situation is different. What sense would it have
made for Paul to have acted other than he did even assuming he had
measured up to any standard of enlightenment anyone wants to impose?
Also, one can be against bad things for either good or bad reasons, and
what lies behind the current extreme disapprobation of slavery seems to
be the strength today of the view that the ultimate moral good is for
everyone equally to have his own way. So our better knowledge might be
the clock that's right twice a day.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Dec 19 08:26:40 1998
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id IAA15183
for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:26:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA71538;
Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:26:19 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 6924140 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 19 Dec
1998 08:26:18 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:V6x7GVEdkfZQH8MHXsV2sU1hjTL4XVQP@panix.com
[166.84.1.66]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id
IAA54900 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:26:17 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA05707
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:26:11 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199812191326.IAA05707@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:26:10 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Owning a human being
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Status: RO
Sorry to keep beating a possibly dead horse but I'm puzzling over these
issues.
Part of what I have suggested is that current opposition to slavery is
based less on the thought that slavery is opposed to natural law or
human nature or whatever than the thought that there is no natural law
or human nature so the only question is what particular people want and
whose arbitrary will is going to prevail.
So far as I can make out, the most authoritative conception now is
self-ownership. I think that conception is fundamental to the legal
and moral order now publicly recognized in the United States although
it is not fully implemented in all respects. Under that conception I
have the right to do what I want with myself. That should include the
right to abortion, the right to any sort of sexual, pharmaceutical etc.
indulgence, the right to suicide, etc.
It's not obvious to me that an "I own me absolutely" theory is so much
better than a "I own you absolutely" theory. In the former case the
owner has a stronger personal motive to treat his human property
rightly, but in the latter the owner's control is less absolute as a
practical matter and he may be more subject to social pressure for good
behavior if only because what he does is less private. The owner has
the right in both cases to act in utter disregard for the humanity of
his property, and securing that right is a central purpose of adopting
the theory. So if laws adopting one theory confer no rights at all on
owners, because the theory is so outrageous, I'm not sure why things
should be different with the other.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Fri Dec 18 08:47:22 1998
Subject: Re: your mail
To: B
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 08:47:22 -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: 6971
Status: RO
> My thesis is that modern liberalism or "the new left" is actually
> collectivism, and will ultimately lead to tyranny. While we have
> categorized fascism as a form of extreme conservatism, that is not
> the case. Actually, it was a form of national socialism, a brother
> to international socialism or communism. The coming millenium will
> feature an indeological battle between individualism and
> collectivism.
> What I'm asking from you is your thoughts and suggestions on the
> matter, whether in places to research, books to read, internet sites,
> or points you think I should make. Also, I'd like permission to use
> some of your work -- properly referenced, of course.
You can of course use my stuff. It's there in the hope that people
find it helpful. A few thoughts:
1. Single-minded pursuit of individualism ends in collectivism. The
problem is that man is a social animal. We are raised by others, we
live by cooperation with others, we need to be protected and supported
by others in time of trouble and old age. If as extreme individualists
we end up breaking our ties to others (e.g., family, relatives,
neighbors, friends, community and church ties, what have you) those
needs remain. Since at that point we have no binding ties to
particular persons the obvious way to satisfy the needs is by setting
up a rational uniform system that takes care of them by taking some
money from everyone and using it to organize and pay for the necessary
services. That system is called the welfare state. Once the welfare
state is set up it leads as you say to tyranny because it destroys
market incentives and disciplines, so the government must force people
to do things, and it makes everyone dependent on government so there is
no countervailing power or possibility of holding government to
account.
2. Therefore the likely conflict is less between collectivism and
individualism than between universalistic bureaucratic collectivism and
particularism. And in fact in the eyes of modern liberals the most-
hated people are not individualists but particularists -- those they
call fundies, bigots, racists, sexual McCarthyites, neo-isolationists,
what have you. Bill Clinton bombs Muslims with one hand and does
battle with Republicans with the other, and from the liberal standpoint
it's the same fight.
3. In America the conflict between liberalism and particularism can
look like one between collectivism and individualism, because among us
particularism generally acts through accepted customs and private and
local associations that liberal government wants to "reform" through
greater central control.
3. I agree that in its most fundamental orientation national socialism
-- Naziism -- is not so different from liberalism. That's why liberals
are so obsessed with Naziism and why they believe that people who
disagree with them must really be Nazis or close to it. Both
liberalism and Naziism are based on the view that there is no absolute
good, only things that particular people like and call good, and
therefore what is good is to get your way and what is bad is to be
frustrated and suffer pain. The liberals conclude that everyone should
get and do whatever he likes, as much and as equally as possible in
accordance with a universal rational system, and that the overriding
goal is to reduce pain as much as possible. The Nazis conclude that
the triumph of the will of one's own group is the highest good, and
since there is no commonly-recognized good that triumph can be given
concrete reality only by conquering, torturing and exterminating other
groups. Both are rational conclusions from the underlying ethical
relativism.
4. More on individualism -- the reason liberal individualism collapses
into collectivism is that because of their ethical relativism the value
of the individual is for liberals only an arbitrary assumption -- at
most, something each of us says about others because we want others to
say it about us. That's not enough. What's needed is an overall
ethical outlook that gives a substantive reason why each individual is
important. Christianity can do that, and I'm not sure what else can.
Also, we need social understandings reflecting broad experience of both
the people and various elites that restrict what the strong and
enterprising can do while giving the weak and not-so-enterprising an
image of a good life and practical support in living it. Otherwise
some people will count for everything and others for nothing. Such
understandings can't exist I think without a very strong element of
tradition to preserve, refine and transform the thought and experience
of the whole society is into something concrete and useable. So it
seems to me that a state of affairs in which each individual really
does matter can best be brought about through some sort of Christian
traditionalism.
5. If you write about politics I think it's helpful to have considered
the best writings about politics. They free your mind by giving you a
better perspective on what's involved. My favorites include Plato's
_Republic_, which includes troubling discussions of problems with
democracy and an account toward the end of how political society
deteriorates as a sense of transcendent order is lost; Aristotle's
_Ethics_ and _Politics_, which tries to balance and integrate a broad
range of considerations regarding what is involved in politics; Ibn
Khaldun's _Muqaddimah_, a rather cold-blooded analysis of how political
regimes establish themselves and then become corrupt; Burke's
_Reflections on the Revolution in France_, a confrontation with the
modern age of ideological and utilitarian politics. Or you can find
your own way. If there's a political writer you like see what writers
*he* thinks are important and read them.
6. A few other books that might be helpful -- James Burnham's
_Managerial Revolution_. What does separation of ownership and
management actually mean? Who is now running the show? Charles
Murray's _Pursuit of Happiness_. To my mind he stands for the view
that the Founder's regime is the way to combine individualism and
necessary particularist solidarities and social standards. John Dewey,
maybe his _Individualism New and Old_ I think it's called, although I
haven't read that particular book. You have to know what the bad guys
say, and Dewey is a leading bad guy who wanted to abolish the
transcendent and institute social planning. You also might want to
read Chesterton and Belloc, maybe C's _What's Wrong with the World_
(available on the web, I think through the Chesterton web site linked
to my traditionalism page) and Belloc's _Servile State_. They liked
individuality, hated collectivism, and worried about what to do about
it under modern conditions.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Dec 22 06:34:45 EST 1998
Article: 13158 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Clinton a Closet Cultist and the Cult of the personality
Date: 22 Dec 1998 06:30:13 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <75nvs5$2hd@panix.com>
References: <19981221195644.26857.00003053@ng21.aol.com> <367F5C5D.338178A2@infinet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
In <367F5C5D.338178A2@infinet.com> "Tony W. Frye" writes:
>Bubba is one of yours. He hasn't seen an African or Iraqi that he
>hasn't wanted to bomb. Who signed the Defense of Marriage Act,
>Welfare "Reform" Act, cut capital gains taxes, carried the water for
>multinational corporations on NAFTA and GATT, pushed for fast track
>trade, expanded NATO, expanded the powers of federal law enforcement
>through "anti-terrorist" legislation, built more prisons, expanded the
>death penalty at the federal level, refused to sign the international
>ban on land mines, refused to join the ICC?
As you suggest, he believes in a world empire backed by American force
and ordered through some mixture of world markets and transnational
bureaucracy. To advance that goal he bombs Muslims, because they're
unacceptably particularistic, except when the Muslims are nominally so
and their enemies are Orthodox Christians, in which case he's inclined
to bomb the Christians. Admittedly he won't make a stand on principle.
I'm not sure why any of that makes him counterrevolutionary or should
make him one of Mr. Davis's heroes.
>As for him screwing around, what should you guys care? Jefferson bred
>with his own slaves.
It's been suggested that when an older man, a widower, he had an affair
with a quadroon half-sister of his wife who had lived in his household
for a great many years. From DNA evidence it seems practically certain
that either he or one of his numerous male-line relatives had an affair
with the woman. I guess you're right, he was just another Clinton.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Dec 22 06:34:46 EST 1998
Article: 13159 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Shakespeare and raging perversion
Date: 22 Dec 1998 06:32:52 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <75o014$2jc@panix.com>
References: <1dkc08d.1c5c11j9mn87iN@deepblue20.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
> Is society in any sense on a spiritual path? If so, we might say that
> the perverted psyhic elements of modernity (by which I mean simply
> the centrality of the ego, emphasis on the material, and confusion of
> means and ends) which began more less dormantly have now woken into
> "raging perversion" and threaten to overpower all. In the indivdual
> this is a necessary step, because the faults cannot be purified while
> they sleep. Would it also be true of society, and what would be the
> corresponding "initiation, followed up by the devotional and ascetic
> practices"?
Society involves spiritual unity, and it changes, so it's no doubt on a
spiritual path. I'm not sure how to compare that to the path of a man.
Is it a circle? A spiral? Comedy, tragedy, melodrama? The Roman
Empire, reputedly a hotbed of raging perversion, ended in Christendom.
Maybe something similar will happen this time around.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From a
Received: (qmail 8001 invoked by uid 505); 24 Dec 1998 04:06:21 -0000
Reply-To: ar
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 1998 23:51:47 -0000
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:51:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: ARmail - Re: Question For The Season
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
> If you don't grasp the essential validity of the Christian concepts
> of universality and equality, then try harder and stop making a sow's
> ear out of a silk purse.
"Universality and equality" seems to me one-sided. Not everything is
the same; if it were, why bother with the Creation? Isn't religion
supposed to make the fundamentals of the world comprehensible? Why not
just have a simple abstract schema rather than all those particulars
irreducibly different from each other?
Judaism treats a particular ethnic people as God's chosen. To my mind
it is obviously a precursor of something else with a more universal
scope. Islam treats a book -- a series of propositions -- as the
uncreated word of God. It is therefore antiparticularistic and turns
all believers into a single Muslim nation accepting a single law.
Atheism I suppose stands for doing what you like and the dominion of
the powerful, which provide no basis for the coherence of a people or
meaningful distinction from any other people.
The advantage of Christianity is that by treating a specific man more
or less as the Muslims treat the Koran it stands for the principle of
transforming particulars while retaining their particularity. As the
religion of the Incarnation, Christianity makes both the universal and
every particular real and valuable. It therefore recognizes the
legitimacy and value of the continued separate existence of separate
nations and cultures.
Views to the contrary are quite recent; the _New York Times_ recently
carried the obituary of the first Roman Catholic thinker to argue (in
the late 1940s) that racial discrimination as such is a sin. The
post-WWII period has not been a great period for coherent development
of Christian thought. Why think current views, which seem badly
founded, will last?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Mon Dec 21 20:14:20 1998
Subject: Re: Re[2]: your mail
To: B
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:14:20 -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: 3015
Status: RO
> Thank you for your kind words and thoughts.
I write mostly to clarify my own thoughts. So thank you for raising
issues, and if anything I say is useful to you I am pleased.
> My question then is probably what a liberal would first ask: then do
> conservatives support segregation? More specifically, do
> conservatives support institutionalized or legalized segregation? Or
> is the conservative arguement that the law should neither require
> that people associate, nor require that they be kept apart?
I favor what the libertarians call the "right of free association,"
meaning that private discrimination would be legal but not compulsory.
To the extent people like what is called "diversity," meaning a setting
in which no ethnic culture is dominant, and to the extent such settings
are more productive, that's the direction people would tend to go. To
the extent people prefer a setting with more ethnic-cultural coherence,
and that works better, then that's what would tend to dominate.
I also favor restrictions on immigration, especially immigration that
makes the country ethnically and culturally more diverse. Free
political life is difficult enough when people feel they have common
history, loyalties, ancestral memories, cultural habits and attitudes,
etc. Lose that and it becomes impossible I think.
Most Americans who think of themselves as conservatives today of course
support the "color blind" society, with antidiscrimination laws to
enforce colorblindness. I don't think that works, for reasons set
forth in the FAQ and in the other piece on my website about equal
opportunity laws, the one that was published in _Pinc_.
The basic problem is that race can't be separated from ethnic culture,
which can't be separated from the attitudes, beliefs, loyalties etc.
that lie at the base of social life. You can't force race to be
irrelevant without also making cultural background and loyalties
irrelevant. And if you do away with the relevance of culture there's
not much to organize things other than some combination of money,
central bureaucracy, ideological indoctrination, and brute force --
tyranny mitigated by corruption and incompetence. (Sound familiar?)
Many conservatives today try to make the virtues oriented toward
economic success -- thrift, industry, enterprise, economically-oriented
family discipline -- substitute for cultural coherence. I don't think
that works. Man does not live by money and economic mobility alone.
Also, not everyone can be economically successful, since success is
comparative, so that kind of conservatism naturally ends by provoking
socialism.
One possible solution proposed by some neoconservatives would be to
maintain the U.S. as a nation of immigrants, so people can compare
their attainments to their fathers' rather than to their fellow
citizens', but I don't think that can be maintained forever either.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From christ-and-culture-return-157-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Fri Dec 4 13:38:04 1998
Received: from findmail.com (ma.findmail.com [209.185.96.151])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id NAA24823
for ; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:38:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 7748 invoked by uid 505); 4 Dec 1998 18:06:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 31654 invoked by uid 7770); 4 Dec 1998 18:04:25 -0000
Received: from search.findmail.com (209.185.96.137)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 1998 18:04:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 12971 invoked by uid 7770); 4 Dec 1998 18:18:10 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by search.findmail.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 1998 18:18:10 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA22832
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:03:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812041803.NAA22832@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:03:30 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3668018d0df0001@mhub3.tc.umn.edu> from "Contra Mundum" at Dec 4, 98 09:34:15 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
> I mean that Anglicanism and Romanism are systematically corrupt from
> the top down, and by design.
>
> Further, you can't judge Romanism from the face is shows in nations
> where it has had to compete with Protestantism in the public esteem.
There are certainly big problems with established religions and
religions that are such in intention. There are also big problems with
disestablishment as a principle, with sectarianism, with the
marketplace of religions, with spiritual separatism, and no doubt all
the other possibilities. Men are corrupt, tares can't be separated
from wheat, and lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
One possibility would be to judge a church not by absence of corruption
but by maintenance of a standard of doctrine and ritual and aids to
right living and holiness.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great gifts for the Holidays or birthdays or anyday for that matter
Bugs Life action game, Thanksgiving Pooh, Disney videos, toys and CD-ROMs
http://ads.egroups.com/click/145/1
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-168-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Sat Dec 5 09:18:06 1998
Received: from findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id JAA09536
for ; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:18:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 3999 invoked by uid 505); 5 Dec 1998 14:17:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 4512 invoked by uid 7770); 5 Dec 1998 14:17:48 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 1998 14:17:48 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA25118
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:17:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812051417.JAA25118@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:17:44 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3668363a7498001@mhub3.tc.umn.edu> from "Contra Mundum" at Dec 4, 98 01:18:57 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
T.E. Wilder writes:
> The two great causes of failure to meet this standard are:
>
> 1) Attempts to form alliances with political power, and to expedite
> this to excuse the immorality of the elite. This has a second
> consequence of bring an immoral elite to power in the Church as well,
> as it become a center of power, so you have Renaissance popes and the
> like.
This appears simply to state the problem of an established church. To
stay established a church has to conciliate powerful men and
institutions. In addition those who govern the church tend to identify
more strongly with the governing elite than with the substance of
church tradition let alone Christ. The established Protestant churches
in Europe and for that matter their mainline American descendents seem
to me to exemplify both tendencies.
On the other hand to insist there be no church establishment causes
problems as well, since that tends to exclude the church from the
general circle of social commitments and loyalties, first and foremost
the life-and-death loyalties that the state (of necessity) insists on.
The consequence is that religion becomes a private sentiment permitted
to have no serious concrete consequences.
I'm not quite sure what the solution is. There do seem to be some
advantages from this perspective in an international hierarchical
church with consecrated celibate clergy since it can claim a right to
be viewed as socially fundamental without becoming captive to a
particular ruling group. Those advantages seem to be dissipating in
the NWO, and I take it you firmly reject if not the concept then its
most obvious implementation.
> 2) Syncretism with pagan religions in order to attract adherents and
> make "conversion" easy, is has happened all over Latin America with
> the native religions, or slave religions.
Some combination of emphasis on dogma, tradition, and centralized
hierarchy seems to offer as much protection against such things as is
humanly possible.
> Dry, Cracked or Irritated Hands?
> Try natural skin care from the hive. Discover it today!
> http://offers.egroups.com/click/159/0
Sounds a bit new agey. At some point do we get a choice what we will
advertise?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great gifts for the Holidays or birthdays or anyday for that matter
Bugs Life action game, Thanksgiving Pooh, Disney videos, toys and CD-ROMs
http://ads.egroups.com/click/145/0
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-175-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Sun Dec 6 06:57:18 1998
Received: from findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id GAA00830
for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 06:57:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 32506 invoked by uid 505); 6 Dec 1998 11:55:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 32705 invoked by uid 7770); 6 Dec 1998 11:57:11 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 1998 11:57:11 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA15903
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 06:57:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812061157.GAA15903@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 06:57:10 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199812060209.UAA20734@baal.visi.com> from "T.E. Wilder" at Dec 5, 98 07:48:59 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
T.E. Wilder writes:
> So what we need is an establishment of Christianity, not an
> establishment of a church. And the establishment of Christianity is
> simply this: the embodiment of Christian principles in laws and
> policies.
> If religion has public consequences to its principles it can never be
> merely a matter of private sentiment, quite apart from considerations
> of the place of religious institutions.
But for Christianity to go beyond the social status of private
sentiment, and be accepted as objectively binding principle, as
"establishment" suggests, it seems necessary for there to be a publicly
authoritative religious institution.
The case of the U.S. through the mid-20th c. is an interesting one. We
had an informally established religion I suppose but it was
nondoctrinal to the point of evaporation. It was a private sentiment
that had public consequences because in a democracy the private
sentiments of the majority have public consequences. A lot of what
made it last as long as it did was mindlessness and habit of conformity
to the feelings of the majority. Our explicit theory of government was
secular. Major public prophets who appealed to religiosity, like
Emerson and John Dewey, tended to be nonChristian believers in the
divine individual or democracy.
> >an international hierarchical church with consecrated celibate
> >clergy ... can claim a right to be viewed as socially fundamental
> >without becoming captive to a particular ruling group.
> I don't want them to be "socially fundamental".
The thought was that for articulable principles that are contested to
be socially fundamental they must be associated with a s.f. institution
that articulates, applies and defends them.
> >Some combination of emphasis on dogma, tradition, and centralized
> >hierarchy seems to offer as much protection against such things as
> >is humanly possible.
>
> I think this has been abundantly disconfirmed.
What is it that provides greater protection against syncretism?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More trinkets than the 1996 Olympics. Fewer lines than the Goodwill Games
ESPN gear, SportsCenter gear, NBA NHL MLB NCAA NFL gear, Memorabilia
http://ads.egroups.com/click/146/2
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-176-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Sun Dec 6 08:23:34 1998
Received: from findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id IAA24676
for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:23:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 14566 invoked by uid 505); 6 Dec 1998 13:21:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 15758 invoked by uid 7770); 6 Dec 1998 13:23:26 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 1998 13:23:26 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA20442
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:23:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812061323.IAA20442@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:23:25 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "John Dayman" at Dec 5, 98 09:19:32 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: From Plato to NATO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
> >Use of Hellenic philosophy may have been one of the great mistakes
> >that haunts us to this day.
> I agree with you that the use of Hellenic philosophy is perhaps our
> biggest hurdle today. It is an area I am very interested in and would
> appreciate any discussion on the topic.
I've heard such comments any number of times but have never had a clear
idea what the problem is. Anyone care to state it?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.
Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!
http://ads.egroups.com/click/154/0
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-180-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Sun Dec 6 22:31:49 1998
Received: from mc.findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id WAA20760
for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:31:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by mc.findmail.com with NNFMP; 07 Dec 1998 03:31:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 11499 invoked by uid 7770); 7 Dec 1998 03:31:16 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 1998 03:31:16 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id WAA17443
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:31:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812070331.WAA17443@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:31:05 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199812062255.QAA24383@baal.visi.com> from "T.E. Wilder" at Dec 6, 98 08:24:18 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
T.E. Wilder writes:
> What this amounts to is the following: The church cannot be trusted
> with the cultural task (even though that is what Christ did), so
> instead we try an alternative of stetting up an institution with
> power from the state for it to speak for God. Though this has been
> attempted continuously for over 1500 years, and can be seen not to
> work, it is still your only hope.
There were really two thoughts:
1. The church must have institutional form and a determinable
authoritative voice; and
2. Government should recognize the truth of Christianity, and thus the
authority of the voice of the church.
The church had the first in Christ's time and I think in apostolic
times. Given the first, it seems the second is simply what's involved
in recognizing Christianity as true. You seem to view institutions as
extraneous to the church, and acceptance of institutions as extraneous
to recognition of the authority of principles. I find it hard to view
things that way. I can understand the argument that the church is not
the same as its voices accepted as authoritative or its
institutionalization, but not that the latter are dispensible.
> The constitution was designed to leave room for the Emerson types.
The issue to my mind is whether the Emerson types are the ones who best
articulate the spiritual implications of the constitution. I'm
inclined to think they do.
> If, however, you say 'American' history rather than U.S., you have a
> lot more cases to look at, and a lot more time. In this regard a very
> interesting essay is "The Puritans in Old and New England" by Leon
> Howard, reprinted in _Essays on Puritans and Puritanism_ , University
> of New Mexico Press, 1986.
Thanks for the reference. Is it wholly irrelevant that the final
fruits of New England puritanism and Yankeedom appear to have been
Emerson and John Dewey?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.
Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!
http://ads.egroups.com/click/152/0
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-188-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Mon Dec 7 16:15:37 1998
Received: from mc.findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id QAA16376
for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:15:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by mc.findmail.com with NNFMP; 07 Dec 1998 21:12:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 24508 invoked by uid 7770); 7 Dec 1998 21:11:57 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 1998 21:11:57 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id QAA29142
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:11:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812072111.QAA29142@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:11:37 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <366bfa435f57001@mhub2.tc.umn.edu> from "Contra Mundum" at Dec 7, 98 09:52:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
T.E. Wilder writes:
> There is no "authority of the voice of the church" except with regard
> to the ecclesiastical discipline of its members. The authority that
> the state must listen to is the authority of Christ, in HIS word.
Presumably the authority the members must listen to is also the
authority of Christ. If so then it's not clear to me what force
ecclesiastical discipline could have except contractual. A church
might have rules as a book discussion group or hiking club might. Is
that your view?
> If Christians in the civil institution cannot hear Christ in his
> word, than neither can Christians in the ecclesiastical institution
> hear Christ in his word, so the notion of the state taking direction
> from the "voice" of an ecclesiastical institution contributes nothing
> to solving the problem of Christian direction to society.
Some possibilities:
1. Some believe Christ founded and sustains his church not only as the
collection of all believers but as an institutional structure. I take
it you reject the arguments for the truth and usefulness of that view.
2. Even if the first view is wrong, Christ is nonetheless present
whenever two or three are gathered together in his name. It seems to
follow that the consensus of a community of Christians should be more
reliable than the views of a single Christian. If so, then it seems
that a government recognizing Christ's authority should have some
definite procedure for guiding the actions of individual officials by
the consensus of a community of Christians. My guess is that any such
procedure would likely end up looking very like the establishment of an
authoritative institutional church.
3. Power corrupts. If the government recognizes the authority of
Christ but has no place but itself to look to for an interpretation of
what that authority demands, then government itself becomes the
religious authority. That seems bad. It seems important for there to
be tension between the demands of religion and those of holding and
exercising power. That tension is more likely to be maintained if
there is a division of role.
> The issue is: Who is lord, Christ or man? An whether or not the man
> puts on a robe and calls himself a bishop, or puts on a sword and
> calls himself a magistrate is besides the point. Neither has original
> authority.
The concrete issue for a government recognizing Christ as lord is what
Christ wants as to this or that. The concrete answer to that question
will always be delivered by a man. The relevant political question is
which man it will be and the institutional setting in which he will
act.
> I don't know what the "spiritual implications" of the constitution
> are apart from substantive law.
It's hard for government to stay altogether secular since it has to
touch us deeply enough to sustain its claim to life and death loyalty.
The fundamental principles of a government -- its constitution --
necessarily I think affect the whole man. The U.S. political order is
based on contract, majority rule, private property, equality, and
promotion of material well-being and security. It wants to give people
what they want, as much and as equally as possible, and violate their
desires as little as possible.
The implication I think is radical subjectivity as to value -- what
makes something good is simply that someone wants it. The U.S.
government thus stands for the ultimate in the principle of private
judgement. Emerson spiritualized that outlook as well as anyone
possibly could and John Dewey updated it for the age of social science
and big government. They are American prophets.
> >Is it wholly irrelevant that the final fruits of New England
> >puritanism and Yankeedom appear to have been Emerson and John Dewey?
>
> Your argument is like saying the Marxism is the final fruits of
> Eastern Orthodoxy, because that is what took hold in the EO nations.
A one-horse shay would make no sense as a metaphor for Eastern
Orthodoxy. The EO are still with us. They buried the Communists, and
didn't develop into anything radically at odds with what they once were
as the New England Congregationalists did.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egroups is a FREE service thanks to NextCard Internet VISA.
Apply online now for an intro APR as low as 2.9%.
http://ads.egroups.com/click/136/2
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-191-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Mon Dec 7 20:48:14 1998
Received: from mc.findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by panix4.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) with SMTP id UAA23302
for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:48:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by mc.findmail.com with NNFMP; 08 Dec 1998 01:41:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 5963 invoked by uid 7770); 8 Dec 1998 01:41:15 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 1998 01:41:15 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA26332
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:41:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812080141.UAA26332@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:41:04 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <366c614201b1001@mhub3.tc.umn.edu> from "Contra Mundum" at Dec 7, 98 05:11:08 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
"Contra Mundum" [a.k.a. T.E. Wilder] writes:
> such authoritarian institutions resist the instruction of the Holy
> Spirit through the word, and prevent the formation of the consensus
> you mention.
Adoption of creeds and a canon seems an authoritarian act.
> Anyway "an authoritative institutional church" and a "consensus of
> community" are two different things.
I'm not sure how to make the latter practically effective in government
without the former.
> >The relevant political question is which man it will be and the
> >institutional setting in which he will act.
>
> Either this is an argument for the inevitability of arbitrary
> totalitarian government, or there is an objective source of God's
> will, which being objective is equally as accessable to those in the
> civil institution as it is to those in the ecclesiastical
> institution.
Institutional setting -- for example, distinguishing those who wield
political power from those who speak authoritatively on ultimate issues
-- is the best human means I can think of for avoiding arbitrary
totalitarian power. Beyond that, the text of the Bible by itself seems
insufficient as a useable source of God's will since texts can be
variously interpreted. So if everything depends on having an objective
public source of God's will then it seems there must also be a divinely
appointed way of reading the Bible, and also determinable persons
divinely appointed to do the reading and say what it comes to.
> The role of government is to maximize the sphere of subjective value
> within the limits God sets.
It sounds like you're saying that God does not determine what is good
-- what is the proper object of human action -- but only what is wrong
-- what objects of human action are impermissible. As long as you
don't do wrong whatever you think is good really is good for you. Or
why would it be the role of government to maximize the satisfaction of
human desires unless that were a good simply as such?
> Puritanism, being more a way of life that an order of ritual can only
> survive as a social order.
Sounds like something not likely to be of much use until the end of
history. Here and now we need something more durable and possibly
therefore more primitive.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This FREE email group is sponsored by NextCard Internet Visa.
Earn free airline tickets WITH DOUBLE Rewards points. Apply online now.
http://ads.egroups.com/click/137/0
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From christ-and-culture-return-200-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Tue Dec 8 14:44:00 1998
Received: from mc.findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id OAA22652
for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:43:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by mc.findmail.com with NNFMP; 08 Dec 1998 19:37:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 9206 invoked by uid 7770); 8 Dec 1998 19:37:36 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 1998 19:37:36 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA19762
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:37:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812081937.OAA19762@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:37:29 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <366d488b1966001@mhub3.tc.umn.edu> from "Contra Mundum" at Dec 8, 98 09:38:14 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
"Contra Mundum" , otherwise TEW, writes:
> >Beyond that, the text of the Bible by itself seems insufficient as a
> >useable source of God's will since texts can be variously
> >interpreted.
>
> If this is the case, then we can have NO confidence in the
> interpretations by any institutional authority, as they are just
> making it up, like everyone else. Our own interpretations have at
> least the advantage that we know how we got to them.
It's clearly true that the Bible can be variously interpreted, because
it has been. What to do?
One possibility is that the Holy Spirit helps believers find the right
interpretation, but he illumines them collectively, by guiding the
interpretation that grows up and becomes accepted in the institutional
church. Otherwise particular believers would have insufficient
guidance publicly available, and we've agreed that very bad stuff would
be the consequence of insufficient guidance publicly available, which
the Holy Spirit presumably wouldn't want.
The institutional church is unfortunately divided; how true the
interpretation is therefore seems to depend on how much of a true
church it is. So on this view the greatest issue in interpreting the
scriptures turns out to be which institutional church is the true or at
least the truest church, the interpretations of which are to receive at
least a very strong presumption of correctness. To me that seems a
much more manageable question than how to interpret the scriptures _de
novo_.
Obvious criteria include:
(a) Does the church understand its necessary function as an
authoritative interpreter? If it doesn't understand what a church has
to be it probably won't do what a church has to do very well.
(b) Does the church have a way (e.g., ecumenical councils, papal
infallibility) for dealing with contentious and unavoidable questions
of interpretation?
(c) Do the church's interpretations seem continuous or anyway
legitimate and comprehensible developments of those generally held
among Christians from the earliest times?
(d) Do other aspects of the church's life -- e.g., ritual and
governance -- show similar connection to the historical life of the
Christian community?
(e) How much of the whole life of the Christian community, now and
historically, has the church included?
(f) Has the life of the church enduringly born fruit (holy lives,
profound learning, art, literature and music, what have you)?
It seems to me such criteria simplify the question, and even if they
don't give a single best church or it turns out no church is the one
true church because each has problems some churches look much better
than others and the criteria greatly reduce the number and scope of
differences of interpretation one has to worry about.
Another possibility is not to assume any special divine care of
ecclesiastical institutions. Even so, I'd rather an interpretation be
true than it be one I came up with myself, and to me it seems more
likely that an interpretation is true if it's been generally accepted
for a very long time by the greater part of the Christian community,
including major thinkers, saints, leaders of various sorts, ordinary
pious people, etc., etc., etc.
That kind of acceptance by very different and variously gifted people
over a long period of time under very different circumstances has for
me an effect like that of experimental verification in the natural
sciences. I like to be able to derive things myself, the laws of
thermodynamics or whatever, but it's more important to me that they be
true and able to stand up no matter what. If something's going to be a
one-horse shay that looks wonderfully logical but can easily be
overthrown and caused to disappear altogether by perfidious Albion or a
fashion for moneymaking or the passage of time that makes it look out
of place I don't want it.
One belief that I think has stood up is belief that the church has
authority in doctrine because the institutional church is somehow of
divine foundation. Those churches that hold to that belief typically
have a strong emphasis on continuity and tradition in other respects as
well. That adds to the plausibility of their claims in my view.
> They never say why it should be their tradition, as opposed to one of
> the others, that I should submit to.
Have you asked? The RCs and EOs certainly have views on why each
tradition to the very limited extent the two actually conflict is
better than the other. I don't know anything about Copts. The
Anglican tradition is in great disarray and doesn't seem worth bringing
into a general discussion of this sort.
> It sounds like your motto is: What is not commanded is forbidden.
Not at all. Many goods (generosity) are unattainable even in concept
without man's free choice. Others (eating a healthy diet) are as a
practical matter impossible or destructive to coerce. Nonetheless,
acts of government can encourage or dissuade such things and when it
acts government should recognize that. The issue might come up for
example if government ran schools, gave out civic awards, gave special
help to charitable organizations, and so on.
It's important I think to be clear about ultimate goals. Lots of
things government does are value laden -- what recognition to give to
marriages and other arrangements, what to count as an excuse or a
justification, what sort of public welfare arrangements if any to have,
and so on. Decisions on such things are often impossible except by
reference to ultimate goals. My basic point is that "love and do what
you will" is not the same as "obey the prohibitions of the law and do
what you will." It is the former and not the latter that constitutes
the good life and so is the ultimate end to which political order
should relate, however little it may be able to contribute to many
aspects of that end.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.
Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!
http://ads.egroups.com/click/156/0
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From jk Tue Dec 8 21:50:57 1998
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
To: contramundum@wavefront.com
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:50:57 -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: 5072
Status: RO
Since people don't seem to want a generalized prot/cath argument I
thought I would send you this on the side:
> The community and the history of interpretation is available to me.
> So interpretation is NOT de novo.
But none of it is authoritative for you, or so it seems. It appears to
me that for you those things are materials to look at in deriving your
own de novo interpretation.
> All I get is the dictat of an interested party, which may or may not
> have had recourse to the history of interpretation, and if it did may
> have disregarded it upon finding that it did not support its
> interests.
People have said this about the text of the Bible as well. I don't see
the gain in accepting the authority of a text but not of those who
certify the text to us.
> You forget flipping coins.
Grace completes nature. We do the best we can, humanly speaking, and
then rely on God.
> >(c) Do the church's interpretations seem continuous or anyway
> >legitimate and comprehensible developments of those generally held
> >among Christians from the earliest times?
>
> How does this allow for the correction of mistakes from the time when
> Christian thought was at its crudest and therefore mistakes most
> likely?
"Continuous or anyway legitimate and comprehensible developments" seems
to allow that. "Crude" and "mistaken" aren't quite the same, by the
way.
> >(d) Do other aspects of the church's life -- e.g., ritual and
> >governance -- show similar connection to the historical life of the
> >Christian community?
>
> Again, this mainly just disqualifies the contenders.
The thought was that for revelation to be adequate God must speak
through the institutional church. If that's right, then institutional
continuity is a solid plus. The picture seems to clarify if one thinks
of the church as a definite thing consisting of form (organization and
governance) as well as matter (the faithful collectively).
> >(e) How much of the whole life of the Christian community, now and
> >historically, has the church included?
> I am not aware of any serious attempts to even find this out.
What's the difficulty? How many serious contenders could there be
under this criterion? Not that any single criterion ends the issue,
but it does seem relevant to me.
> And of course, it is circular because Christian community is defined
> very often by inclusion in the church. E.g the gnostics said they
> were in and the bishops said they were out.
The gnostics might be more of a problem on this line of thought if they
hadn't dropped out of the picture so early on. Also if they had agreed
with each other. Coherence and durability do seem signs of truth. At
the time I suppose the issue would have been continuity with apostolic
teaching. Ditto for the Arians I suppose.
> Sure. And that ends it. They don't answer back.
What can I say? When I get email from people telling me what a dummy I
am they generally aren't ready to engage in useful dialog.
> But to "have views" means analysis, and thinking, and the individual
> coming to a judgement of which views have validity. The people who
> can't stand the burden of liberty, and just want to submit to a
> traditional authority are not going to go into those matters. Any
> really, why bother? It is much easier to interpret the Bible for
> yourself than to adjudicate the authority claims of traditions. If
> these people had the head and inclination for these questions they
> would be some sort of Protestant.
There are roman/eos who are world-famous deep thinkers and prots who
are mindless bigots. The reverse is true as well, but I don't see that
the balance is against the roman/eos.
The issue to my mind is where truth is and what my thought and what
other things can do to get me there. My thought is not the measure of
truth. In some settings, e.g. subatomic physics, it is obviously the
most sensible thing for me to find out who speaks with the most
authority and then presume his views correct. Ditto for the relative
merits of certain artistic compositions. I don't wholly lack knowledge
and taste, but what I have leads me to believe that there are people
who understand these things better than I do and to think I can
recognize at least some of them. So if they tell me that Schubert
lieder are wonderful I believe them and hope that some day I too will
know how wonderful they are even though right now they leave me cold.
Both of the foregoing are cases in which it is easier for me rationally
to recognize authority than to resolve the substantive questions
myself.
> Ditto Rome. And now the Eastern Orthodox are divided over whether to
> recognize the Armenian church: the bishops say yes, Mount Athos says
> no.
Authority can be useful in coming closer to truth even though it does
not resolve every question or when it is contested. And a church
capable of issuing a comprehensive and authoritative catechism can't be
in utter disarray.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Tue Dec 8 21:55:01 1998
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
To: contramundum@wavefront.com
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:55:01 -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: 1557
Status: RO
You write:
> The advocates of teaching magisteria, and whatnot, use every
> sceptical and relativistic argument in the book to attack the
> possibility of objective interpretation of Scripture. They then raise
> the curtain and display their favored authority as the solution. At
> this point they suddenly forget all their sceptical arguments. But if
> these arguments are sound they still apply. Because all the authority
> gives us is more texts.
If your point is that skeptical arguments should not be overdone
because they leave one with nothing further to say I agree.
I suppose one should keep to good sense and say we're not entirely
unable to get the meaning of texts, otherwise as you suggest language
would be useless, but it's difficult, and none of us without help are
likely to interpret a lengthy text that has implications for all of
life in all its ramifications without making serious errors.
Explanatory texts that cover general principles and particular points
of difficulty therefore find a use, especially if the original text
stays the same for thousands of years and errors of interpretation
change as people read it in different settings and with different
presuppositions. How much additional explanation is necessary when the
original text is misinterpreted of course varies. Hence the necessary
function that a continuing text-issuing authority could have even when
there is an enduring authoritative text.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From christ-and-culture-return-211-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Tue Dec 8 22:00:23 1998
Received: from mc.findmail.com (mc.findmail.com [209.185.96.153])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id WAA20176
for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:00:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by mc.findmail.com with NNFMP; 09 Dec 1998 02:53:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: list
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/christ-and-culture/
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 10907 invoked by uid 7770); 9 Dec 1998 02:52:54 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.1.66)
by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 1998 02:52:54 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id VAA00691
for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:52:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199812090252.VAA00691@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:52:44 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <366d88310cee001@mhub3.tc.umn.edu> from "Contra Mundum" at Dec 8, 98 02:09:49 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
"Contra Mundum" writes:
[In deference to the demands of the masses I am replying privately to
Mr. Wilder on the general prot/roman/eo stuff and trying to limit my
public response to things directly relevant to art, culture and so on.]
> >(f) Has the life of the church enduringly born fruit (holy lives,
> >profound learning, art, literature and music, what have you)?
>
> By what standard? Actually there are several problems here. It is
> that line of Cain that has been in the forefront of culture
> throughout history.
Whatever standard makes sense. Any proposals?
It seems to me that religion is what precedes all else. It's our basic
understanding of what man, the world, God are like and our relation to
those things. What makes art important is that it can touch on or
express things that precede the things we can articulate. It takes us
a little upstream from where our intellectual life usually takes place.
Ditto for the best philosophical writings. So there seems a connection
between art and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other.
If they are in good condition they will feed each other. Each will
bring us closer to what is most basic in the world. A good religion
will therefore promote what is called high culture. Similarly,
religious problems, which always exist, manifest themselves in high
culture.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This FREE email group is sponsored by NextCard Internet Visa.
Earn free airline tickets WITH DOUBLE Rewards points. Apply online now.
http://ads.egroups.com/click/135/0
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
From jk Wed Dec 9 21:06:49 1998
Subject: Re: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
To: contramundum@wavefront.com
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:06:49 -0500 (EST)
Cc: stamper@stamper.com, tgeorge@flash.net
In-Reply-To: <199812090403.WAA01308@baal.visi.com> from "T.E. Wilder" at Dec 8, 98 10:06:42 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: 6037
Status: RO
"T.E. Wilder" writes:
> To give institutions that authority that only belongs to God is
> idolatry.
The question to my mind is how God reveals himself and how we can know
and understand his revelation. Unless we are to live solely by inner
promptings that we identify as those of the Spirit (which I suppose
would itself be a sort of idolatry) it seems that the revelation and
its interpretation must be somehow institutionalized. Language after
all is an institution. Particular texts and canons are institutions
defined and transmitted by institutions. A tradition of scholarship
and understanding is an institution. My opinion I suppose is not an
institution but if stable it is a personal habit, and I don't see why
that's better. So the practical question is which institution to rely
on, and whether (since institutional reliance is necessary) God as part
of his self-revelation has taken a hand in the matter.
> But they don't certify the text [of the Bible] to us.
Where did you get the Bible from? How did you discover its status?
> >Grace completes nature.
>
> Another erroneous idea.
What's the objection? The notion is that the natural order is good but
not self-sufficient.
> If you want an example, _The Image of God in Man_ by Cairns is a
> mainly excellent study of the history of the doctrine (despite his
> neoorthodoxy) in which he traces the mainly miserable failure of
> theology in regard to this doctrine until finally Augustine got
> things partly right, but only with Calvin did an outline of a
> successful doctrine come together.
Doctrine develops. Also, dogma and theology are different. I'm not
sure what point you're making.
> If anyone has been conspicuously wrong on ritual and governance it
> has been Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc.
What conspicuous errors do you have in mind?
> there is that whole Nestorian extension into China. We don't know how
> numerous it was, how influential, or to what degree it avoided
> syncretism with paganism.
If we don't know much about it, and it's disappeared, the likely
conclusion is that it didn't bulk large in comparison with EO or the
Roman church or for that matter the Calvinists or Lutherans. China
after all is a civilized and literate country and many records survive.
> Then, too, from ancient times right up to today there have been
> nominal church members who practice a rather pagan folk religion. Are
> they Christians, and what proportion of the population have they been
> throughout history?
If the issue is how much of Christian life has been carried on in which
churches I'm not sure what difference this makes. Is your suggestion
that there is some church that is major if you take semipagans into
account but not otherwise?
> Well, [gnostics and pagans] claimed continuity with Apostolic
> teaching, and they were always around. Some fundamentalist Baptists
> claim descent of a "pure persecuted church" through these sects, or
> through Waldensians, etc.
And there was something in the paper a day or so ago about some guy in
Africa who claimed to be Jesus come back. So what?
> Science is actually a counter-example to the appeal to authoritative
> institutions.
There are scientific authorities, accepted scientific doctrines and
theories, even scientific facts. I rely on such things as do all
rational men, including scientists themselves as to things not part of
their special field of inquiry. Science also has presuppositions that
it can't prove itself without circularity and that scientists must
accept on faith if they are to be scientists at all.
> As for art, I should hope that when someone tells you a load of
> rubbish about, for example, the wonderfulness of John Cage, you can
> see through it without being an expert.
And if the Pope with the acclamation of all patriarchs and bishops
reissued the collected works of Mary Baker Eddy as encyclicals I'd have
to rethink my comments on ecclesiastical authority. So what? It's
impossible to recognize an authority without some notion of what makes
sense in the field of expertise. That does not make authority
nugatory.
> >And a church capable of issuing a comprehensive and authoritative
> >catechism can't be in utter disarray.
>
> Who believes it anymore, and what can/do they do when it is clear
> that ecclesiastical office holders to not believe the official dogma?
There are believers. The usual principle is that the personal unbelief
of a cleric does not reduce the value of a layman's participation in
the life of the church because the church and its offices have an
objective reality that don't depend on what officeholders think.
Naturally it is usually best for believers when they have the choice to
associate with other believers.
> The Bible is the word of God, and tradition and ecclesiastical
> pronouncements are not.
Tradition and ecclesiastical pronouncements are what from a human
standpoint determine the canon and text of the Bible. If God protected
his church from error on that point why can't he protect it on others?
> It is hard work, and it goes on for thousands of years.
It seems that God's revelation ought to be adequate. That suggests we
need more specific help now rather than the expectation that someday
our remote descendents will figure out what the Bible means. Also,
even if thousands of years from now scholars develop a complete and
final science of scriptural interpretation, from the standpoint of
ordinary people the results of that science will simply have to be
accepted on authority.
Another issue is whether after the thousands of years the
interpretations will converge so it looks like the true understanding
is emerging. In the natural science there is convergence or there
seems to be because some theories order phenomena and enable prediction
decisively better than others. I'm not sure that applies elsewhere.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Wed Dec 9 21:13:23 1998
Subject: Re: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:13:23 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199812090418.WAA04870@baal.visi.com> from "T.E. Wilder" at Dec 8, 98 10:21:43 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: 2674
Status: RO
"T.E. Wilder" writes:
> Religion is "our basic understanding" of only some things, not all
> things. And these "some" things are theological and philosophical
> topics with art somehow snuggling up to them.
Religion is our basic understanding of God, the world, and the
relationship of the two, which includes quite a lot.
> Then there is the other ordinary stuff -- carpentry and such like, is
> suppose.
An interesting question is whether there is something defective about a
technology (carpentry is a technology), in other words an ordering of
information wholly by reference to the achievement of arbitrary ends.
I'm inclined to say that technologies are abstract and incomplete
bodies of knowledge, somewhat as the grammar of English perfect tenses
is an abstract and incomplete body of knowledge. Consideration of
achievement of goals is I think rationally incomplete if it does not
take into account whether the goal and for that matter the means are
good or bad. So on this view it seems that for a adequate
understanding of even the matters with which carpentry is concerned
religion is necessary.
> I would venture to say that, at least chronologically, art trails
> philosophy and social theory and changes in art express previous
> changes in belief.
I thought the owl of Minerva flew at dusk, that a era could be fully
theorized only when it was coming to an end. Be that as it may, when I
talked about art touching "things that precede the things we can
articulate" the "precede" was intended logically rather than
temporally. It might for example express a sense of what life is like
that permeates everything we say and for that reason is difficult to
isolate and comment on.
> What is the relation between this "upstream" realm [occupied by
> philosophy and art], and some realm of "religion"?
Religion deals with that realm -- the things more basic than those we
find it easy to talk about -- as it relates to God.
> Going into the world we are confronted with a pagan culture, complete
> with art and literature, and we have to wrestle with it, test and
> sift it, in a continual cultural struggle to judge/change/replace it
> as needed.
It's complex. How does one judge/change/replace Southern Sung
landscapes? Plato? They go deeper than I can. As elsewhere your way
of talking about things seems to suggest that we can see around them
and master them. Loving such things perhaps is like loving a man who
is not a Christian. He is missing something but he may be more than we
can judge.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
From jk Thu Dec 10 07:23:24 1998
Subject: Re: [christ-and-culture] Re: Calvin's Geneva
To: contramundum@wavefront.com
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:23:24 -0500 (EST)
Cc: tgeorge@flash.net, stamper@stamper.com
In-Reply-To: <199812100427.WAA00877@baal.visi.com> from "T.E. Wilder" at Dec 9, 98 10:08:07 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: 529
Status: RO
"T.E. Wilder" writes:
> At this point you are using "institution" in such a flexible fashion
> that I don't know what to make of it.
I was using it to mean something like "established complex of human
habits, attitudes and beliefs upon which we rely and necessarily rely,
but which is different in different times and places and humanly
speaking is subject to all sorts of errors."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. (St. Augustine)
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.