Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Sep 2 06:16:13 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id GAA18075 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA42448;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:13:59 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1570358 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep
1997 06:13:59 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA58052 for ;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:13:57 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id GAA17227
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:13:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199709021013.GAA17227@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:13:56 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970831115337.006b36a4@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Aug 31, 97 11:53:37 am
Status: RO
> Today, we're told that the 'genius' of the Constitution is precisely
> that it has no fixed meaning: It's a 'living document." The court
> will let us know what it means from one year to the next..."
>
> It seems clear that this condition is fully equivalent to lacking a
> Constitution in the first place.
It's a puzzling situation, and I should have a better theory than I do.
Every political society has I suppose a constitution in the sense of
certain basic rules, an accepted fundamental distribution of power,
etc.
One function of our written constitution is to transfer power from
Congress and especially from state and local governments to the Supreme
Court, which by and large acts in accordance with the long-term
consensus of national elites. So the written "constitution" makes our
actual unwritten constitution more centralized and ideologically
coherent than it would be otherwise, not by anything it says but by its
effect on the location of power to decide.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Sep 2 06:22:34 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id GAA15815 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA57876;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:22:17 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1570411 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep
1997 06:22:16 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA33796 for ;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:22:15 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id GAA17543
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:22:14 -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: <199709021022.GAA17543@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:22:14 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970831164631.006c7a08@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Aug 31, 97 04:46:31 pm
Status: RO
> conservatives have largely been strangely silent on fundamental
> constitutional questions over the past 30 or 40 years. Certainly you
> can't say that National Review has given the matter of judicial
> usurpation anything but occasional attention. And the newer rags
> like the Weekly Standard appear to be comfortable with the status
> quo. I find this fact puzzling. The question of whether or not we
> are to be a nation ruled by law would seem to go to the very core of
> a conservative conception of politics.
But it seems to me that in a conservative conception the unspoken
precedes the spoken and always maintains its primacy. So it is
difficult I think to base conservatism on a written constitution. A
written constitution has in fact turned out to be a means of judicial
usurpation.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Sep 2 12:48:38 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id MAA16139 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA57000;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:46:49 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1579151 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep
1997 12:46:48 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA51578 for ;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:46:42 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id MAA14742
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:46:40 -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: <199709021646.MAA14742@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:46:40 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from
"Neill Callis -- Internet Developer" at Sep 2, 97 12:47:02 pm
Status: RO
The Neillster writes:
> The Constitution and Declaration are pretty clear on a few things, if you
> wish to take it literally; for purposes of census, African slaves were
> counted as 2/5 a person.
The slaveowners of course wanted slaves to be counted as equal to other
persons for purposes of apportioning representation, while
non-slaveowners preferred that only free persons be counted. Which
side do you prefer? (Historical nit: since it was 5 to 3 rather than 5
to 2 the slaveowners actually came out somewhat better than you
suggest.)
> For purposes of voting (which in the founder's eyes was the ULTIMATE
> right and responsbility), only land-owning, white men mattered.
Before the Civil War amendments there was of course nothing in the
constitution on who voted. The states decided. So I'm not sure what
you have in mind in talking about a literal reading of the C. and D. in
this connection.
> But the other side of that token is that some of those localities,
> given the choice, would have denied African-americans, and probably
> women, equal rights ad infinitum.
Dubious. National elites changed their minds a few years before local
elites, but I see no reason to think the ultimate result would have
been grossly different in many places. And if it were, so what? If
you can't stand the way the people live in Ashtabula the remedy, it
seems to me, is to leave Ashtabula.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Sep 2 12:54:55 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id MAA27242 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA14858;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:51:28 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1579230 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep
1997 12:51:27 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA53246 for ;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:51:26 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id MAA15475
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:51:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199709021651.MAA15475@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:51:24 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from
"Neill Callis -- Internet Developer" at Sep 2, 97 12:52:53 pm
Status: RO
> with the exception of the constitution, the majority of the laws on
> the books are written with exceptional clarity and articulation of
> the ideas they embody.
Don't agree. What's a "combination in restraint of trade" (Sherman
Antitrust Act) or a "reasonable accommodation" for a disability
(Americans with Disabilities Act). Even in the case of contract or
traffic law, what's an "unconscionable" contract or the difference
between merely "negligent" and "reckless" driving?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Sep 2 20:33:37 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id UAA22103 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA51528;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:30:22 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1590322 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep
1997 20:30:21 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA58662 for ;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:30:16 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA09851
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:30:14 -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: <199709030030.UAA09851@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:30:14 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from
"Neill Callis -- Internet Developer" at Sep 2, 97 07:12:30 pm
Status: RO
> clearly, there were localities who, a la George Wallace, were going
> to 'stand in the schoolhouse door' until forcibly removed by history,
> as it were. The problem was, they were not ever going to 'change
> their mind'; it took the rule of law to force them to accept
> African-americans as equals, at least in action, if not in spirit.
You seem to be mixing theories. If "history" was going forcibly to
remove them then it seems that particular intentional actions weren't
going to make much difference to the end result. And if it took the
rule of law to force Bug Tussle, Arkansas to modify its racial
attitudes what forced the United States Supreme Court to do so?
> what of individuals who are natives? Are you suggesting they forfeit
> their right to participate in the process if they disagree with the
> majority?
What's the process going to be that's so worth participating in if the
results on important issues are decided centrally anyway?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Tue Sep 2 20:35:04 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id UAA01310 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA51502;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:33:19 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1590375 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep
1997 20:33:19 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA58658 for ;
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:33:18 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA10219
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:33:17 -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: <199709030033.UAA10219@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:33:16 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from
"Neill Callis -- Internet Developer" at Sep 2, 97 07:15:35 pm
Status: RO
> Well, at least with regard to traffic laws, the difference is a
> number; in VA, 15 mph + over the speed limit is 'reckless.'
I'm confident that's not the only instance of reckless driving in
Virginia.
> Good examples, but the overwhelming majority of laws on the books are
> very precise.
The overwhelming majority of words, perhaps, but laws govern actual
situations and actual situations are hard to categorize.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Wed Sep 3 14:38:47 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id OAA03071 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA49312;
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:34:58 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1581914 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 3 Sep
1997 14:34:57 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20628 for ;
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:34:56 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id OAA15969
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:34:55 -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: <199709031834.OAA15969@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:34:54 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from
"Neill Callis -- Internet Developer" at Sep 3, 97 01:46:06 pm
Status: O
> > You seem to be mixing theories. If "history" was going forcibly to
> > rule of law to force Bug Tussle, Arkansas to modify its racial
> > attitudes what forced the United States Supreme Court to do so?
>
> The not-so-dawning realization that keeping African-americans
> second-class citizens was wrong; wrong in terms genuine liberty and
> equality.
Realizations, whether correct or mistaken, can dawn in all sorts of
places.
> What you are getting at, I think, is that the Supreme Court, while
> correct in this instance (forcing states and localities to treat all
> citizens equally) it has been wrong in a number of instances, across
> history.
That the SC is sometimes wrong was one part of what I was getting at.
Another part is that the same social and intellectual developments that
by around 1950 made the Federal government decide that e.g. compulsory
racial segregation was a bad idea were having effects elsewhere and
would have transformed life in the South in any event.
The real point, though, was that constitutional law (for example, who
fundamentally is responsible for deciding what) should not depend on
the most efficient way to get the particular result you want. Unless
of course your ideal is enlightened despotism.
> The point of having 'independent' justices at the apex of the system to
> begin with, is that they are free of political pressures and can examine
> legal issues in that light alone. The Supreme Court is flawed, but only
> because they (like we) are human.
Not only because they are human. They act in a setting like everyone
else. More specifically, they look to respectable national elites for
approval and legitimacy and on the whole rule in accordance with the
established consensus of such elites. So how much power you think the
SC should have will I think depend on how much power you think such
elites should have in comparison with local and non-elite groups (the
source of what you call "political pressure") or for that matter how
much weight should be given established custom and other non-decision
procedures.
Given the present state of constitutional law I'm not sure what
"examin[ing] legal issues in that light alone" means. Certainly the
_Brown_ decision was not arrived at by any such procedure. Ditto other
leading decisions.
> > What's the process going to be that's so worth participating in if
> > the results on important issues are decided centrally anyway?
>
> You doing an end-run around the issue; you said "if you don't like
> the way the town you live in is run, get out" ...I said (or tried to)
> "if you were born in the example town, you don't have a
> responsibility to leave, if you disagree, in order to placate the
> majority."
The issue I thought was whether if you don't like it, and especially if
you don't think you have enough ability to participate in local
politics, you should be able to appeal to the feds to come straighten
things out. My point was that a participatory local political system
is simply not something that can be delivered by higher authority.
Your proposed remedy is one that kills the patient.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Thu Sep 4 16:34:43 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id QAA04348; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709042034.QAA04348@panix.com>
Subject: Character and its alternatives
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:34:42 -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: O
One way to start thinking about character is to ask what the
alternatives are. Here are some possibilities:
1. Character. To have character I suppose is to have integrity. A
man with character has particular qualities which govern his actions in
a way that is consistent and consistent with morality. He's reliable -
when he makes a promise he delivers. You know what to expect when you
deal with him. He's not a trimmer or an opportunist and doesn't look
for excuses. Character seems a characteristically middle-class ideal.
To put an economic spin on the matter, it's what's needed for a free
economy of small producers to function most efficiently.
2. Honor. Is honor an aristocratic version of character? It is a
somewhat less moral conception, more dependent on the standards of a
class and the standing of a person within that class. It is always
somewhat at odds with morality, which character is not. Its standards
are more rigid and less useful.
3. Holiness. One gets character by working for it and honor by
maintaining his position or doing brave and splendid things. They are
possessed as one's own and one's desert. Holiness, at least in the
Christian conception, comes by humility, self-emptying, poverty,
chastity and obedience, finding wisdom in suffering, and so on. It is
an unmerited gift of God. Holiness may be irrelevant to the current
discussion, though, since it's hard to imagine a society based on it.
Still, it suggests that one difficulty with character is that it cannot
be an ultimate moral ideal since there are ideals that are loftier or
more demanding.
4. Perpetual openness. A modern ideal which Plato however says
characterizes a democratic society. As a practical matter it seems
possible to make it available to the majority only if there is a
comprehensive and extraordinarily well-managed welfare state to take
responsibility for the consequences of all the openness, provide
therapy, what have you. So while perpetual openness is the ideal the
organizing principle is the universal omnicompetent bureaucracy. Or
maybe some libertarian techno-optimists think the universal
omniflexible cybermarket will do the trick. To me it seems unlikely
that such things could work at all satisfactorily for any length of
time.
5. Tribal consciousness. The need for character arises when neither
following impulse nor the immediate guidance of others is sufficient to
avoid big trouble. When that's the case we need an internal moral
principle that is different both from what we want and from what others
want. In tribal consciousness unsocial impulse would be less common
and other people more continually present because life would be
thoroughly of a piece. Doesn't seem possible under any foreseeable
conditions.
6. Slavery. The absence of any internal moral principle except
seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, with the consequence that social
order becomes wholly dependent on the sticks and carrots provided by
those in power.
I suppose the argument in favor of character in America today is that
there has to be some fundamental moral principle at work in society and
the only other principle in the list above that seems at all realistic
is number 6.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Sep 2 17:53:46 1997
Subject: Re: Three New Catholic Books
To:
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:53:46 -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: 1951
Status: RO
> What's interesting to me is that so many simply can't grasp the fact
> that modern liberalism by its very nature is not only value-laden but
> inherently coercive. Even more amusing, they tend to be dumbfounded
> when one points this out to them; they still seem captivated by this
> notion that liberalism is entirely procedural and value-free.
Part of the crisis of liberalism is its incapacity to understand its
most obvious features, for example the points you mention, its
dependence on rule by a small ideological elite, its need to demonize
its opponents, etc. The problem is that it aims at the impossibility
of social order based on universal self-will and so must hide from
itself the practicalities on which it relies.
> I've been reading a book about Cardinal Newman, appropriately
> entitled _John Henry Newman_, which was written by the noted Newman
> scholar, Ian Ker. It's probably a good candidate for the resources
> list, although I won't formally recommend it until I'm finished.
I wish more of Newman was available on the net. His _Grammar of
Assent_ is for example a very good book. Too much of him is rather
difficult to find. With full-page scanners becoming so cheap maybe
more people will start scanning things.
> Incidentally, which branch is the most predominant now in the
> CofE: evangelical, Anglo-Catholic or liberal?
My impression is that the liberals have their usual talent for
occupying most of the prominent organizational positions but the
evangelicals are the only ones with energy and spirit. The A-Cs have
mostly become RCs.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 5 16:43:44 EDT 1997
Article: 10262 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Princess Di
Date: 4 Sep 1997 09:38:48 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <5umdl8$igo@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
So what does the to-do all mean?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 5 16:43:47 EDT 1997
Article: 10265 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Violent America
Date: 4 Sep 1997 21:26:31 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <5unn47$ag0@panix.com>
References: <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>The August 25th "New Republic" has a review by James Q. Wilson. He
>points out that although the rate of property crime in the US is
>roughly similar to that of Europe, the rate of homicide is notoriously
>higher in the US. The fact defies easy explanation.
I suspect the fact is a complicated one. A few years ago _National
Review_ ran a blurb with statistics showing that the American murder
rate among whites was now about the same as the murder rate in Western
Europe.
What have European murder rates been doing lately? Equality in
property crime is quite a recent development -- the rise in U.S. rates
has been insufficient to keep ahead of the far greater and historically
unprecedented rise in Europe.
As De Quincy observed, a connection eventually appears between the two
sorts of crime. His view of course was that even a single indulgence
in murder could at length lead to things like Sabbath-breaking, but
perhaps the relation goes the other way as well.
>I'm unclear as to exactly what he means. Class-based values =
>obedience to authority? What are these different values?
I suspect the "different" American values he refers to are things like
self-expression. "Class-based values" no doubt includes things like
obedience and deference. American exceptionalism is disappearing
though, in values and no doubt in their consequences. The Princess Di
stuff does not seem an indication of class-based values inculcated over
the centuries.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 5 16:43:49 EDT 1997
Article: 10270 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Violent America
Date: 5 Sep 1997 16:14:03 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <5upp6b$kc9@panix.com>
References: <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]> <5unn47$ag0@panix.com> <19970905064055301087@[206.29.226.205]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <19970905064055301087@[206.29.226.205]> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>Wilson indicates that although black males are six times as likely as
>white males to commit homicide, equalizing the racial difference would
>still leave America at least twice as violent as other countries. (He
>also warns that cross-country comparison of crime statistics is
>scientifically perilous).
Still, 2-to-1 doesn't sound all that gross a difference to me as things
go. And cross-country homicide comparisons seem less perilous than
most. After all, there's either a corpse or there isn't, and dead
bodies don't go overlooked. There may be some differences in what is
thought to constitute homicide but I would suppose they are marginal.
>I wonder if the American character includes a sort of "moral severity"
>or righteousness which escalates all problems to their ultimate
>conflict. No compromise with evil, unconditional surrender.
The murder rate has gone up as moral severity has declined, though.
It's much much higher now than a hundred years ago, and went up sharply
in the '20s and the '60s, not morally severe times. I would connect it
more with willfulness and refusal to recognize limits.
>> The Princess Di stuff does not seem an indication of class-based values
>> inculcated over the centuries.
>Is something out of the ordinary happening, given the violent death of
>a celebrity?
It's more extreme than anything I can remember. The local tabloids
(the _NY Post_ for example) have been devoting their first 20 pages to
Di news for days. I was thinking less of reaction here than in England
though. Others are surely better informed than I, but it seems that
the devotion to Di has an element of disatisfaction that the royal
family in general are not the sort of people who appear on TV talk
shows to talk about their personal problems.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 5 16:43:59 EDT 1997
Article: 108572 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 5 Sep 1997 16:33:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <5upqau$po0@panix.com>
References: <5ugtp5$p30@panix.com> <5ummmf$bnj4@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:108572 alt.fan.dan-quayle:154287
In <5ummmf$bnj4@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>>1.3 What's the difference between following tradition and refusing to
>>think?
>HAHAHAHA! No bias here, right? HAHAHA!
Don't understand. The questions are intended to set forth objections
people make to conservatism. It seems to me one objection people
actually make is that following tradition is simply doing what's always
been done, and that's mindless. Is your point that's not something
people say?
A similar point applies to several of your subsequent comments.
>>2.3 Wouldn't we still have slavery if conservatives had always been
>>running the show?
>>
>> Experience suggests otherwise. Slavery disappeared in Western
>> and Central Europe long ago without the aid of liberalism.
>I had no idea that liberalism was the only possible alternative to
>conservatism!
The objection is one most commonly made from a liberal position, and
has most force when made from that position (rather than say a fascist,
communist, or Islamic theocratic position). You have a point though
and I will think about the wording.
>>3.2 Why can't conservatives just accept that people's personal
>>values differ?
>>
>> Both liberals and conservatives recognize limits on the degree
>> to which differing personal values can be accommodated. Such
>> limits often arise because personal values can be realized only
>> by establishing particular sorts of relations with other people,
>> and no society can favor all relationships equally. No society,
>> for example, can favor equally a woman who primarily wants to
>> have a career and one who primarily wants to be a mother and
>> homemaker; if public attitudes presume that it is the man who is
>> primarily responsible for family support they favor the latter
>> at the expense of the former, while if they do not make that
>> presumption they do the reverse.
>This either/or binary world that presented here is ... not based on
>tradition.
The point is the simple one that our social setting inevitably supports
some possible choices more than others. I don't see that denying that
neutrality is possible throws us into an either/or binary world.
> MGWOATSI.
KOWANISQUATSU. If you translate I'll do the same.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Sep 6 08:17:41 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id IAA15711 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:17:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA14550;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:17:23 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1629673 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep
1997 08:17:22 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA60106 for ;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:17:21 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA24790
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199709061217.IAA24790@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:17:20 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970905202054.006a0908@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Sep 5, 97 08:20:54 pm
Status: RO
> >> The question of whether or not we are to be a nation ruled by law
> >> would seem to go to the very core of a conservative conception of
> >> politics.
>
> >But it seems to me that in a conservative conception the unspoken
> >precedes the spoken and always maintains its primacy.
>
> Not sure I follow you. We were set up to abide by a written
> constitution. There was no discussion in Philadelphia about the
> "unspoken preceing the spoken," was there?
I was commenting on a conservative conception of politics rather than
on Philadelphia.
I thought the last time we discussed whether America is a fundamentally
liberal polity you alluded to R. Kirk's view that our true constitution
is an unwritten one that preceded the one adopted at Philly.
It's possible my comment was not really to the point, since the concept
of a nation ruled by law might be of a nation ruled by unwritten law
some of which has never been fully articulated. A conservative
conception I think reduces government neither to will nor to a
rulebook, and views authoritative tradition as the vehicle of
transcendent truths that can not be made fully explicit. Such truths
to the extent they determine action could be referred to as "law." So
maybe your original language quoted above is correct.
> Two points. One, is America really based on conservative
> propositions? I doubt it.
I doubt it too. That means that if at present conservative
propositions are indispensibly needed for a tolerable common life we're
in very major trouble. Maybe loyalty to country requires us though to
resolve the question against our doubts as long as it makes any sense
to do so. One could make the argument for example that even though the
propositions on their face are liberal, propositions can not be
divorced from the unspoken practices, provisos and limitations implicit
in them when made.
> And two, wouldn't it be easier yet for usurpers to do their damage
> with an unwritten constitution?
The unquestionable necessity of judicial interpretation of a written
constitution, the imprescriptibility of its demands, and the law's
reputation for obscurity make it easier to make revolution in the name
of a written constitution I think.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Sep 6 08:29:29 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id IAA17157 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:29:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA39004;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:29:12 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1629734 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep
1997 08:29:12 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA59984 for ;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:29:11 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA25991
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:29:10 -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: <199709061229.IAA25991@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:29:10 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970905201817.006a0908@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Sep 5, 97 08:18:17 pm
Status: RO
> >One function of our written constitution is to transfer power from
> >Congress and especially from state and local governments to the
> >Supreme Court, which by and large acts in accordance with the
> >long-term consensus of national elites.
>
> Actually, you're not really describing a "function" of the
> document as conceived by those who wrote and amended it but the de
> facto situation that pertains now, right?
I was describing the actual function in our actual political order. At
what point does it no longer make sense to say our actual political
order is a usurpation? That, by the way, is the issue raised by the
_First Things_ symposium last fall.
> Well, it seems to me that the written constitution is
> actually a continual challenge to and a danger to the unwritten
> constitution you're positing. Would this not explain why the "living
> document" nonsense began to get widest currency precisely at the time
> that the Court rulings departed further and further from the plain
> sense of the written document? As an attempt at some kind of
> explanation of what really can't be explained away?
The threat from the constitution as written has been pretty well
contained, I think. *That* constitution is of concern only to
extremists and plays no role in respectable politics. The increasing
centralization of the educational system and the continuing dependence
of what passes for political life on the mass media suggest that the
threat will stay contained. Knowledge, discussion and thought, to the
extent those things are politically relevant, will remain in the hands
of elites with little use for the constitution as written.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Sep 6 08:39:34 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id IAA17636 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA61706;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:39:12 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1629847 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep
1997 08:39:12 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA40446 for ;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:39:11 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA26717
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:39:10 -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: <199709061239.IAA26717@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:39:10 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970905203457.006b7624@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Sep 5, 97 08:34:57 pm
Status: RO
> >Not only because they are human. [The Supreme Court] act[s] in a
> >setting like everyone else. More specifically, they look to
> >respectable national elites for approval and legitimacy and on the
> >whole rule in accordance with the established consensus of such
> >elites. So how much power you think the SC should have will I think
> >depend on how much power you think such elites should have in
> >comparison with local and non-elite groups (the source of what you
> >call "political pressure") or for that matter how much weight should
> >be given established custom and other non-decision procedures.
>
> So the Critical Legal Studies people were right all along?
Not necessarily. As recently as the 1950s the greater substantial
content and relative autonomy of the law made a figure like Learned
Hand possible. When Lord Coke spoke of the reason of the law as
something special that could be attained through long study he was not
obfuscating.
Think of theology as an analogy. Not all theology in all times and
places has been a vehicle of ruling class interests in the way it tends
to be in say ECUSA today. The theory that power is everything
describes some social worlds better than others.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Sat Sep 6 10:37:09 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id KAA21532 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA40672;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:36:51 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1631153 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep
1997 10:36:51 -0400
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA23508 for ;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:36:50 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id KAA06259
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:36:49 -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: <199709061436.KAA06259@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:36:48 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: The Big Picture from Sam
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970905201214.006a0908@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Sep 5, 97 08:12:14 pm
Status: RO
> Perhaps the weakest point might be the problem that the managerial
> class/New Class is not strictly speaking a class in the old sense.
Is that a weakness to the analysis? At most it seems to create a
problem of terms. The managerial class reproduces through the system
of education, training and selection. A degree from Harvard is our
equivalent of a patent of nobility. If you don't like to call that a
"class," that's OK, but what else should it be called?
The system of education etc. is in fact crowding out the family. Who
spends time with whom, and whose authority is taken more seriously, are
factors. Also, one of the evident functions of the system is to
undermine parental authority and the transmission of culture through
the family and other cultural institutions not controlled by the New
Class. That's what diversity education and values clarification are
about, for example. They teach the kids that things opposed to what
their parents, church, etc. tell them are OK, not that things opposed
to what the New Class tells them are OK. "The people in Bora Bora
engage in ethnic and gender discrimination and it works just fine" is
not so far as I know the name of a unit in any diversity curriculum.
One could of course discuss things like condom distribution and sex ed
in this connection.
Francis does not make much of the importance of New Class domination of
knowledge, thought and discussion (taken as sociological rather than
ideal categories) through bureaucratic centralization of those
functions. That may be a hangover from Marxism -- the Marxists viewed
steel mills as the material base and the press as the dependent
ideological superstructure. It seems though that industries dealing
with intangibles - the education, expertise, entertainment, journalism,
finance, and legal industries - are becoming ever more important and
even dominant.
> The relevant issue for people who don't like a particular elite or
> ruling class is not how to get rid of it and get along without any
> social and political hierarchy, but rather how to get yourself
> another elite that is more suited to your preferences—that is, to
> your social interests.
This is one thing I object to in Francis. If things are bad so you
have to think about fundamentals it seems you should think about the
real fundamentals, what is right and good, rather than how to get what
you want. "How to get what you want" is the technological question,
and it seems to me the basic problem with our times is the overemphasis
on technology. Contemporary liberalism for example is technology
applied to democratic political life - how can the world be organized
to maximize satisfaction of actual preferences, privileging none.
> When politics becomes interesting again, it will be a sign that
> someone or something other than the ruling class is beginning to
> reach for the power that the managers have all but monopolized.
Another possibility is politics won't become interesting because the
public sphere will be too vacant to sustain anything beyond the mere
battle of forces. That would lead to politics as inefficient and
corrupt despotism ruling inward-turning communities within which people
carry on their real social life. But maybe the battle of forces is
Francis' conception of politics anyway.
I repeat myself, though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 7 06:51:29 EDT 1997
Article: 10273 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Violent America
Date: 6 Sep 1997 07:48:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <5urfuc$n5n@panix.com>
References: <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]> <5unn47$ag0@panix.com> <19970905064055301087@[206.29.226.205]> <5upp6b$kc9@panix.com> <199709051533542224526@[206.29.226.220]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <199709051533542224526@[206.29.226.220]> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>> Still, 2-to-1 doesn't sound all that gross a difference to me as things
>> go.
>Wow!
Murder is extreme behavior, and a small change in the median can result
in a large shift at the extremes.
2-to-1 seems moderate in comparison with the 6-to-1 ratio between
American black and white murder rates, or the 7 or 10-to-1 rise in
crime in Western Europe generally from the 50s to the 80s. There was a
2-to-1 rise in murder in America in the 60s; just now there we seem to
be in the middle of a decline of comparable proportions in some major
U.S. cities such as New York.
>> it seems that the devotion to Di has an element of disatisfaction
>> that the royal family in general are not the sort of people who
>> appear on TV talk shows to talk about their personal problems.
>They can do it if they try! I heard just a bit of QEII's Friday
>address, and it was nausea-inducing sweetness. As bad as Clinton.
That seems to support the view that in England the class-based values
inculcated over the centuries (deference, restraint, what have you)
aren't what they once were.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 7 08:40:53 EDT 1997
Article: 108619 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Toryism Mini-FAQ v.1.00 or Ye Olde Other Conservative FAQ
Date: 7 Sep 1997 08:40:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <5uu7bs$5ig@panix.com>
References: <2CXuXBAfGrD0EwGp@virgin.net> <3411ab59.7615845@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Xref: news.panix.com can.politics:254033 can.general:148829 soc.culture.canada:206256 talk.politics.misc:821157 talk.politics.theory:170831 alt.society.conservatism:108619 alt.politics.british:101526
Sean Gabb writes:
>My ancient liberties are "large and sweeping".
Large and sweeping, no doubt, but also limited and distinguishable from
licence. Or so I would have thought. What to do about heroin and the
like could not have been an issue in olden times, but ancient English
liberties didn't cover kinky sex, or even not-so-kinky sex in many
respects.
>the centre zone between our movements - the zone where we shall find
>most of the great thinkers of these movements - Hume, Burke, Hayek,
>Oakeshott, et al.
Center zones are nice places to be. I would think that someone in the
center zone would hold positions irreconcilable with for example an
ideological libertarian position. Is that where you find yourself?
>I will repeat that I am a conservative - but not perhaps one as you
>know it. Yes, I want to legalise drugs, and porn and kinky sex, and
>want to cut taxes to about 5% of GNP. At the same time, I am solidly
>hostile to metrication, and am a staunch believer in the Monarchy and
>the House of Lords.
How about the Established Church? That appears to be no less ancient
and fundamental a part of traditional English polity. More so, I would
have thought. The position of one who is monarch by the grace of God is
after all based on an Established Church, while the reverse does not
seem to be true. Also, wasn't the Church recognized by law as a
fundamental part of English society before England was united under a
single monarch?
You do raise the very interesting issue of the relation between
conservatism and libertarianism. Even apart from the existence of
libertarian traditions to be conserved, it seems to me that there *is* a
connection in that both emphasize the self-organizing aspects of human
society.
Each however seems to require some basic conceptions that it can not
itself fully provide so that the self-organizing can proceed. Neither
is a system complete in itself. In the case of libertarianism the
basic conceptions are those of the self-governing individual and the
rights of property. Hayek as I recall in that 3-volume opus he wrote
in the 70s (whatever it's called) reflects on how those conceptions
arise and are maintained -- basically through a somewhat unreasoning
trust in tradition.
Conservatism admits a richer set of basic conceptions because it
recognizes that the market is not adequate to all human needs or more
broadly to the good life. For example, it recognizes that family life
can not be reduced to market relations, that family life depends among
other things on sexual attitudes and customs, and that liberty
therefore can not include liberty to engage in kinky sex, because
acceptance of such a liberty destroys a system of sexual attitudes and
customs that is no less necessary than property rights to the
productive self-organization of society. One can close the circle:
acceptance of sexual libertinism means disordered family life means
insecurity of property, because of increased criminality and because
the taxing and spending powers of the state replace the educational and
welfare functions of the family that the family can no longer be
counted on to carry out.
>"How long soever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of
>no force in law." -- Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)
It's worth noting that by "reason" Lord Coke usually meant an
understanding achieved by long study and meditation on the law rather
than arguments of the sort one most often sees in libertarian
publications. (Not that the latter exhaust libertarian thought.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 7 21:29:59 EDT 1997
Article: 10279 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Violent America
Date: 7 Sep 1997 20:38:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <5uvhea$f13@panix.com>
References: <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]> <5unn47$ag0@panix.com> <19970905064055301087@[206.29.226.205]> <5upp6b$kc9@panix.com> <19970907083400331451@[206.29.226.210]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <19970907083400331451@[206.29.226.210]> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>There is almost unanimous support for capital punishment here. Is that
>matched anywhere else?
Not almost unanimous, although I seem to recall that support is rising.
Most countries in the world have capital punishment I think; its
relative popularity I don't know. I would be surprised if it didn't
have more support somewhere in the world than it does in America.
My impression is that it was in the late 50s that capital punishment
pretty much disappeared in Western Europe, just about the time the
crime rate was beginning its unprecedented climb.
>Do you believe that NYC has had 5x the homicide rate of London for 200
>years? If so, what would explain that?
I don't question it if J.Q. Wilson says it's so. It's hard to comment
without knowing more. It could be something that happens to be true
for reasons that have differed over time. The reason the ratios were
the same in 1996 and 1796 might be similar to the reason the sun and
moon are exactly the same size seen from earth.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 7 21:30:03 EDT 1997
Article: 108650 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Toryism Mini-FAQ v.1.00 or Ye Olde Other Conservative FAQ
Date: 7 Sep 1997 21:19:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <5uvjrr$iod@panix.com>
References: <2CXuXBAfGrD0EwGp@virgin.net> <3411ab59.7615845@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <5uu7bs$5ig@panix.com> <3412e305.29139431@news.blarg.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com can.politics:254194 can.general:148903 soc.culture.canada:206338 talk.politics.misc:821470 talk.politics.theory:170912 alt.society.conservatism:108650 alt.politics.british:101629
In <3412e305.29139431@news.blarg.net> postmaster@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) writes:
>Heroin and the like: the list of psychoactive substances is long, and
>people have been manufacturing wine and ale for millennia.
No doubt, but I'm not sure of the relevance. The issue appears to be
whether the ancient liberties of Englishmen include the liberty to
shoot up on heroin. It's not obvious to me they do. A society in
which ale and later gin are freely available is not obviously similar
to one in which ale, gin, marijuana, opium, heroin, cocaine, speed,
LSD, etc., etc., etc. are all freely available. So the fact that
prohibition of alcohol was not attempted does not it seems to me show
that drug control is eternally inconsistent with the spirit of free
English institutions. Conservative liberties like other aspects of a
conservative polity are part of a whole system of life. However large
and sweeping they may be they are not absolutes determined by abstract
reasoning.
>Regarding kinky sex: technically correct. However the ancient English
>liberties did not give the government the authority to walk into your
>home and monitor your sexual practices. Thus, if you were discreet
>about it, your kinky sex was unregulated.
Has anyone proposed having the government walk into homes and monitor
sexual practices? So far as I know the issue has existed only in
libertarian rhetoric. So it appears there is no serious objection on
"ancient English liberties" grounds to any of the actual laws that have
criminalized deviant or even not-so-deviant sex in England and America
(I'm assuming fornication and adultery qualify as "not-so-deviant").
>The right of property derives from the right of self-ownership. The
>latter can be derived from the basic right of ownership and the
>inherent contradiction of a system that has ownership but not
>self-ownership. The basic right of ownership can be seen to derive
>from rather early in the evolutionary process: creatures of a great
>many species will attempt to defend their marked territory or their
>food from others of the same species. Libertarianism, as applied to
>humans, need not provide something that is so nearly universal and
>predates vertebrate life.
But creatures of species also share territory and food. Especially I
would think social animals that get food through collective action
share such things. Aristotle says man is a social animal. Few of us
make our own corn flakes from corn we grow ourselves. Even Ayn Rand
liked Aristotle. So I don't see why the line of thought you present
supports libertarianism more than socialism.
>As for the self-governing individual, every social, political, and
>economic system, no exception, relies on the large majority of people
>being self-governing the large majority of the time. If
>libertarianism has a fatal failing in not providing this, then society
>is impossible. However, society exists; so there is no fatal failing
>here.
Don't understand. No s. and p. system I know of assumes that any man
is self-governing always and in all things. All provide for various
means of social control, definitions of offenses subject to sanctions,
etc. All are based on common understandings of good and evil rather
than total individual autonomy in choosing goals. All have systems of
education and informal but authoritative standards of what it is to be
a good person that form members and create the moral world in which
they act.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Tue Sep 9 08:13:13 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA18186; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:13:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709091213.IAA18186@panix.com>
Subject: Character: initiating the interactions
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:13:13 -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
Andy writes:
>I'd like to ask Jim about why he would define character so much in
>terms of the bourgeois virtues. You use character in contrast with
>other kinds of qualities that, apparently, are more salient in other
>kinds of society (aristocratic honor, holiness...).
It's my response to the word when it's used to refer to a moral ideal.
As such it seems to refer to bourgeois individualism moralized.
I think of "character" as concerned with maintenance of principle and
personal identity in a society that offers freedom of contract and
opportunity for advancement. In such a society there are always
temptations to cut corners and sacrifice integrity to money, career,
social approval, the chance to be a freeloader, and so on. If you give
in to such things you lose yourself, with "yourself" understood as the
ability of the individual with his idiosyncrasies to live in accordance
with his own considered judgement and with the right to the respect of
others.
Whether that understanding is idiosyncratic and limited I will let you
judge.
>But let me ask you about a couple of specifics. When Thomas More
>stands on his beliefs in A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, is that not "character"
>that he manifests? When Jesus is tempted by Satan in the wilderness,
>does his resistance reveal some other kind of quality than would be
>embraced by "character"?
It's been a long time since I saw _A Man for All Seasons_. My
recollection is that it was about a particular man, Thomas More, who had
all the worldly goods -- family, friends, wealth, position, power,
learning, reputation -- and was willing to lose them all rather than
give up a point of ultimate principle. As such, I would say that it was
a case in which individual integrity becomes something more than
character. I have a hard time thinking of acceptance of martyrdom as
part of "character."
The temptation of Christ also has little to do with character, as I
understand the word. His conduct reveals absolute love of God. Satan
asks him if he wants exemption from the needs of his body, unlimited
worldly dominion and supremacy over the laws of nature, all at the cost
of turning away from God. He rejects the offer, thereby accepting his
own eventual suffering and death. Such a choice does not I think
follow from "character." For one thing it doesn't seem to have much to
do with personal idiosyncrasy or private judgement.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Wed Sep 10 07:40:50 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id HAA02636; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:40:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709101140.HAA02636@panix.com>
Subject: Character: Ed Schmookler responds re comparing ages
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:40:50 -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
Ed Schmookler writes:
>While things looked very charactered in a small college town in
>Michigan growing up, nowadays, I spend my hours during the week
>listening to stories from clients who were raised and abused by the
>generation of people with character.
>
>The early part of this Century, one marked by more character than we
>have nowadays, wa one of unprecedented numbers of civilian (or
>military) deaths caused by war in all of human history.
Do these examples support the point? My understanding is that the
problem of child abuse is most severe in the case of single mothers,
and that sexual abuse of children is mostly a problem of boyfriends and
stepfathers. These groups bulk larger in more recent generations.
As to the extreme violence of this century, it has mostly been due to
political movements with no use for the concept of character.
Deification of party and leader, uniforms and mass rallies, History or
Race as ultimate standards, all of these things seem inconsistent with
the emphasis on individual qualities that "character" suggests, at
least to me. The same goes for the militarized nationalism that (as I
understand) led to WW I and for that matter to crusades against evil to
establish universal democracy.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Thu Sep 11 08:03:26 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA21570; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:03:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709111203.IAA21570@panix.com>
Subject: Character: Schmookler comments
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:03:26 -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
E. Schmookler writes:
>the Nazis weren't virtuous. Neither I suppose were the Japanese at the
>onset of the war. Not from our viewpoint anyway. Nor was the Kaiser,
>nor were the English prior to WWI. But these were cultures which
>espoused character to the max, just as was Imperial Rome. They prided
>themselves on virtue and character.
It seems that you're using "character" to mean something like "readiness
to sacrifice immediate personal desires and interests to some larger
goal." I was using it in a more limited sense, to include as well an
important role for individual judgement and particular individual
qualities. So someone who treated the will of the Fuehrer as the
supreme law, or whose morality consisted in sincere acceptance of social
expectations, or who believed that might makes right, would not have
"character" in my sense.
The English gentleman, the Republican Roman, and the type of man praised
in the Confucian _Analects_ are a different matter. It is of course
possible for bad things to take place in a society that accepts those
types as ideals and for those who accept the ideals personally to commit
crimes. Nonetheless I would rather live in an empire dominated by such
a society than in one dominated by the Nazis or Imperial Japanese or
Germans or possibly even in most independent states.
>In the 1960's, when we were all happily misbehaving, a writing
>circulated in which the author decried the rebelliousness of today's
>youth and the loss of traditional morality, etc. The speech was
>written by Adolph Hitler.
The one I remember was a poster claiming to set forth a quote from a
speech to the _Reichstag_ on some particular date. It drew complaints
from people who asserted it was spurious. I was inclined to believe the
complaints because such a speech would be a matter of public record, and
because the Nazis after all had nothing against youth or overthrowing
the rotten system to establish a new order.
Your comments generally raise - at least in my mind - the same problem
Chuangtse raises in his parable of the strong thief. People think
they're being clever, he says, when they put their valuables in a
strong box and fasten it with chains and locks. In fact they're just
saving them for the strong thief who carries the box off on his back
and whose only concern is that the chains and locks will break and
spill his load. The same is true, Chuangtse says, of the customs and
institutions of the sages, which make a country cohesive and valuable
enough to tempt someone to steal it as a whole.
I'm not sure what the answer is, except maybe join the Unabomber.
A. Schmookler writes:
>Jim seems to think that character is a specific way of acting morally,
>but I did not really understand why Jim conceived of character in such
>a way that Thomas More's standing on principle --and Jesus's resisting
>Satan's temptations-- seemed to him to reflect something other than
>character.
Character is not to my mind the whole of morality. It relates to
personal qualities that make one independent of immediate appetite,
social pressure, blind force of habit and so on, and so enable one to
exercise and act on independent moral judgement. It does not include
ultimate object of devotion. The martyr acts directly for his ultimate
object of devotion. Personal qualities other than that devotion are
not what make his conduct what it is.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 11 08:09:33 EDT 1997
Article: 10283 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Violent America
Date: 8 Sep 1997 22:11:19 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <5v2b87$hej@panix.com>
References: <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]> <5unn47$ag0@panix.com> <19970905064055301087@[206.29.226.205]> <5upp6b$kc9@panix.com> <19970907083400331451@[206.29.226.210]> <5uvhea$f13@panix.com> <19970908084327611174@[206.29.226.212]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <19970908084327611174@[206.29.226.212]> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>If one society is consistently more X than another over a long period
>of time, inquiring minds would like an explanation.
My general answer is that social ties are looser in America. Social
hierarchy has generally been weaker than in Europe, family ties looser,
ethnicities and therefore cultural standards more mixed, residence more
shifting. Ideals have been correspondingly less social and more
individualistic. Therefore more gross deviance, crime for example.
These differences between America and Europe seem to be weakening,
though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Fri Sep 12 16:11:01 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id QAA07775 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA31970;
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:07:38 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1691557 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 12 Sep
1997 16:07:38 -0400
Received: from panix.com (jk@panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02774 for ;
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:07:37 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id QAA07897
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:07:16 -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: <199709122007.QAA07897@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:07:00 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Why we no longer have a Constitution
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Mark Cameron" at Sep 12,
97 10:28:37 am
Status: RO
> didn't somebody say that we were now in the American "Third Republic"
> - the first being from 1783 to 1865, the second from 1865 to 1933,
> and the third from 1933 to now.
A _Chronicles_ish theory, although I can't say who has made most of it.
My own theory is that we've had three sacred founders, Washington,
Lincoln and M.L. King, each more sacred than the last. That would put
the triumph of the 20th-century constitutional revolution in the '60s.
It was in that decade that the extent of the powers granted to the
Federal government by the constitution became an absolute non-issue,
and, with the school prayer cases, that the United States became
officially Godless.
> The interpreters are thus constrained by the degree to which they can
> create a plausible story connecting the written constitution and
> earlier precedents to those elite social values they wish to impose.
Their task is of course much easier if the fora in which plausibility
is determined are dominated by elites sharing those same values.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Fri Sep 12 20:41:37 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA22630; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709130041.UAA22630@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Character: One More Forray into Abstraction
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01BCBF6C.80BBDD60@ns01a47.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Sep 12, 97 11:07:19 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
Andy writes:
>(By that definition, I would say that Thomas More's stance does seem
>to me a matter of character.)
On further reflection I'm inclined to agree. More dies because he's a
man of integrity. I'm assuming (based on recollections that have grown
rather thin) that even though a religious issue was the occasion of his
death his motives had more to do with self-respect and moral
independence than his relation to God.
Maybe it would be good to contrast _A Man for all Seasons_ with another
movie I saw 30 years ago, _Beckett_. Beckett dies because he has a new
loyalty that takes precedence over everything - his previous course of
life, his loyalty and friendship to the King, eventually life itself.
In contrast to More, he's governed more by relationships than
principles.
>someone who lacks any consistency, whose various contending desires,
>values, impulses are not contained in any enduring hierarchical
>structure of priorities (does this correspond to anything about real
>people?)
You're a better man than I if you don't immediately recognize the
reality of that kind of conduct.
>someone who operates consistently toward a value, but in a less
>structurally-governed kind of way, such as Jim's devotional person (and
>does this alternative really contrast?).
If someone falls in love he can suddenly possess qualities not part of
his character - he can suddenly become honest, brave, hard-working,
thoughtful, whatever. At least until the first flush of love wears
off. If he displays the quality consistently enough long enough though
presumably he'll develop a structure of habits that supports it and
therefore character.
Maybe we could contrast someone who has good character but little
devotion, and so has good habits and does the right thing in normal
times but that's the best you can say about him, with his opposite, who
seems morally weak and has lots of vices but turns out to be the one
who dashes into the burning building to save someone when the occasion
arises.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Sun Sep 14 08:21:40 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA21977; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:21:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709141221.IAA21977@panix.com>
Subject: Character: the two senses
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:21:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Steve writes:
>To me, as I explained above, "non-evaluative" refers to the following
>usage:
>
>"Scrooge had a great degree of character--evil man though he was."
>
>but NOT to the following usage:
>
>"Mother Teresa ought to be a saint because of her extremely good
>character."
I don't follow. "Legs" is a non-evaluative term, even in the sentence
"Marlene Dietrich ought to be a pin-up because of her extremely good
legs."
An example of "character" in an evaluative sense might be "Send your son
to Osbert Military Academy because our program builds character!" To
respond "yeah, *bad* character" would I think be a witticism based on a
contrasting sense of the word.
>Isn't this the way we ordinarily use the word? In this sense Hitler was
>a man of great character, meaning that the "absolute value" of his
>character would be rated very high on the scale.
"Hitler was a man of great character" seems surprising or paradoxical
to me. Is it really an example of ordinary usage? It seems odd to
call great evil simply "great." Maybe that comment is more on the word
"great" than the word "character," though.
A different problem is that H. owed his success more to talent than to
what I would usually call character. He could mesmerize people, but
was something of a dreamer who paid little attention to the practical
work of governing. The Nazi state was in fact rather anarchic.
I'm somewhat stuck on an understanding of "character" in which the word
refers not simply to a coherent and stongly-marked moral constitution
but also to qualities that make one reliable in dealings with others and
with whatever practical issues life presents. If you have character you
don't avoid issues and problems. Whatever comes up, people know where
you stand, and they're likely to run into you whether they want to or
not.
>Incidentally, I believe the increasing lack of character in American
>society, which was one of the reasons for Andy's initial interest in
>this topic, has a lot to do with the nature of democracy, and the
>society's uncritcal acceptance of it as *the* correct political system.
Many would agree. Plato describes the democratic man as
"all-various and full of the greatest number of dispositions, the
fair and many-colored man, like the [democratic] city. Many men
and women would admire his life because it contains the most
patterns of regimes and characters." (_Republic_, 561e)
Tocqueville complains of the debasement of character in democratic
republics, and the absence of candor and independence of opinion in the
United States.
Beyond democracy, a possible influence is the impersonality of life
today. People watch TV instead of talking to each other. They don't
cook, they eat at McDonald's. Instead of raising their children, they
leave them to daycare centers, the schools, and MTV. Rich people think
they have to have *jobs* -- they don't feel they really exist unless
they're integrated with the universal network of bureaucracies and
markets through which life is carried on today. But if that network
does all the thinking and makes all the decisions then character loses
its function and even becomes antisocial, a cranky attempt to usurp the
function of experts and administrators that also makes it harder to
sell things.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Sun Sep 14 21:09:45 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id VAA08727; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709150109.VAA08727@panix.com>
Subject: Character: is Democracy its enemy?
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
Andy writes:
>Do you think that democracy tends to erode character? And if so, how
>does that relate to the concept of "republican virtue" (which I
>understand to signify that for a democracy like ours to work, it is
>necessary for the mass of the citizens to possess important dimensions
>of what we've been calling "good character")?
I think that the maintenance of character requires something
non-democratic in society. Which is not to say that lack of democracy
as such promotes character. Some freedom and equality help, but
there's a limit.
To say that a man has character, or a good character, is normally to say
that he might not have had it, and that it makes a great deal of
difference in one's regard for him that he does. If character is
important then people are unequal and the differences are important.
That's not a democratic attitude.
Character can be found anywhere, but it is not equally likely to
develop in all settings. That means it's likely to be more strongly
developed in some classes than in others. Adopting it as a social
ideal will increase the authority of the classes with which it is most
associated. The ruling classes in 19th c. England, the Roman Republic,
and Confucian China are examples. That's another antidemocratic
feature of "character."
I think character is most likely to develop when someone is born to
serious responsiblities. For one thing, there is most reason to bring
up such a person to have character. If that's right, then character
will be most important as a social ideal in a somewhat aristocratic or
oligarchic society in which those born to position play an important
role. It is likely also to be an important social ideal in a settled
commercial society of independent producers and merchants in which
established reputation counts. Such societies are not fully democratic
although they have democratic elements.
Character seems less likely to develop in a society in which you are
whatever you persuade others you are (the entrepreneurial open
opportunity free market society). Promoters aren't known for
character. It's also less likely to develop if people grow up feeling
that someone else will take care of serious problems so whatever is
permitted is OK, that is, in a welfare state. So the two leading
current proposals for implementing democratic ideals seem adverse to
character.
I think the point of "republican virtue" is that pure democracy tends
to destroy itself because if the people's will is the standard of good
and bad then the people lose the ability to deliberate intelligently
and simply go for anything that looks like it will get them what they
want. Since that doesn't work in the long run a standard of good and
bad different from the people's will has to be introduced and accepted
voluntarily and it requires republican virtue for that to happen.
Republican virtue while necessary for a society with a strong
democratic element is notoriously difficult to maintain in times of
settled peace and prosperity.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Mon Sep 15 20:25:50 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA24923; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:25:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709160025.UAA24923@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Character: is Democracy its enemy?
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:25:50 -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
Ken writes:
>Applying again the vector approach to character that I suggested
>earlier, one might hypothesize that it is not so much a question of
>democracy, aristocracy, or other form of public relationships as a
>matter of the diverse cultures and sub-cultures which compose a
>population.
I have been using "character" to refer not simply to moral qualities,
but to moral qualities forming a configuration on which others may
rely. So understood, character seems to me related to grand issues of
social organization -- to "form of public relationships." How people
can be organized and how they organize themselves depends on what they
are like.
It seems to me that "moral qualities on which others rely" is an
important sense of "character" as ordinarily used. When people say
that something "builds character," or oppose "character" to
deviousness, they seem to have some such thing in mind. There are of
course other senses. To me though it seems sensible to discuss moral
ideals by reference to their function in a society that accepts them.
>Each culture or sub-culture might hold up a different set of "ideal"
>vectors as good character or bad character. Within that cultural
>setting, there might be a recognizable distribution of members (maybe
>even a normal distribution) around the ideal. But looking at the
>population as a whole, you might not see it.
You seem to be saying that there could be ideal character types that
differ markedly for different social groups. Men and women, the upper,
middle and lower classes, country and city people, people from
different regions, ethnic and religious groups, all might all have
their specific characters. In other words, there could be illuminating
moral stereotypes for subgroups but not perhaps for the population as a
whole.
>Democracy might enter as an antecedent variable in the sense that is
>also reasonable to hypothesize that diverse cultures are more likely
>to coexist (or be allowed to coexist) in a democracy than in more
>hierarchical structures of public relationships.
I thought democracy was against stereotypes, though, and that
"inclusiveness" was a peculiarly democratic value. Those features seem
to make it impossible for democrats to take diverse cultures seriously.
Current democratic thought is "multicultural." That seems to mean that
no significant public institution or economic enterprise is to be tied
to any particular culture because that would be unequal for those who
adhere to other cultures. The membership of each institution and
enterprise must strive to include adherents of the various cultures
proportionally to their presence in the population. Under such
circumstances I'm not sure what function any of the diverse cultures
could serve, and I would expect them to decline, fragment, and
disappear since human institutions (like culture) that don't much
matter aren't maintained. Certainly if people exercised their
democratic right to identify themselves with a particular culture only
to the extent they choose, the function of culture as bearer of
particular character types would diminish radically.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ..."
-- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Sep 16 06:07:44 EDT 1997
Article: 10296 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Violent America
Date: 16 Sep 1997 06:01:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <5vlldo$h3m@panix.com>
References: <19970904142028797462@[206.29.226.213]> <5unn47$ag0@panix.com> <19970905064055301087@[206.29.226.205]> <5upp6b$kc9@panix.com> <199709051533542224526@[206.29.226.220]> <5urfuc$n5n@panix.com> <517672509wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <517672509wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> rafael cardenas writes:
>Irreverently, noting that violent crime is also high in Afriae (West,
>East, and South), it seems to be correlated with the attraction of
>evangelical or pentecostalist religion (which is growing rapidly in
>Latin America, as well as being traditionally very strong in the US,
>Jamaica, and Africa).
If you said to an evangelical or pentecostalist "when men are
comfortable and smug and secure they don't care about your religion but
in times of uncertainty and sin and social chaos and violence they turn
to it" I'm not sure he'd think you irreverent.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Wed Sep 17 09:43:49 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id JAA25619; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709171343.JAA25619@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Character: is Democracy its enemy?
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:43:49 -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
Ken writes:
>Again, I use democracy almost exclusively to refer to public
>institutions, not private enterprises. I agree that public
>institutions should not be tield to any particular culture, but I do
>not apply the same strictues to economic enterprises.
That's an unusual view now I think. Since the late 19th century the
tendency has been to treat economic life more and more as part of
public life. Hence the pervasive regulation of economic activity to
advance various public ends. In particular, your view seems
inconsistent with civil rights laws forbidding enterprises to
discriminate among employees on ethnic or national origin (or therefore
on cultural) grounds. Since an enterprise is after all most
fundamentally the people who make it up, it seems that those laws,
which are accepted as basic to our moral and political order, in effect
forbid tying economic enterprises to particular cultures.
>Ethnic grocery stores sell to all comers; I buy quite a bit of oriental
>groceries from Joyce Chen. But they are strongly tied (though not
>exclusively so) to their ethnic communities.
How long will the tie last? If Joyce Chen doesn't hire her sales
clerks, staff people, managers, whatever in rough proportion to the
ethnic composition of the pool of qualified persons and she gets hit
with an EEOC audit she's going to have some explaining to do and she'll
be in trouble if she doesn't try to do better. Once she has a very
mixed group of employees though there isn't going to be anything
particularly Chinese about her enterprise except the product line. To
reduce friction and resentment she'll probably have to go in for
diversity management techniques that downplay the organization's
original ethnic peculiarities. In the mean time, the little
Chinese/American kids will be watching the same MTV as everyone else
and going to multicultural schools, so they'll grow up with far less
that's Chinese about them than their parents.
>As for the functions that diverse cultures serve, in the best of cases,
>they make life richer for all of us. In challenging and complex
>situations, they may provide the "requisite variety" that Ross Ashby
>(in "Design for a Brain" asserts is necessary for any organism or
>organization to meet environmental challenges.
That's an explanation of how other people's cultures work for people,
not how their own cultures work for people who live and work all their
lives in an environment in which those cultures are not accepted as
standard and who in most respects are no more surrounded by "their"
culture than by multiple other cultures. Under such circumstances how
will cultures be maintained and carried forward?
My basic problem is that a "culture" seems to be a common way of
living, while "multiculturalism" seems to be rejection of every
particular culture as a basis for a common way of living. Culture is
necessarily particular though. At the same time it seems to me that
American democratic ideals as they have evolved require
multiculturalism and I don't see how that is going to change. It is
very difficult for people in public life squarely to reject
multiculturalism even though there's lots of grumbling.
Some have said here that democracy leads to lack of character, others
that multiculturalism has the same effect. I suppose the foregoing
arguments tend to merge the two lines of thought.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Wed Sep 17 07:32:53 1997
Subject: Re: British Monarchy, Vatican, and Rockefeller
To:
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2421
Status: RO
> As a traditionlist, what is your view of the (traditionalist?)
> British Monarchy? The Vatican? And, finally, David Rockefeller?
No special theories about them, alone or in combination. I know some
people believe all are important behind-the-scenes players. I'm
dubious and in any case am not much interested in that side of things.
I view the weakening of tradition, rise of a new world order, what have
you more abstractly, as a process something like the social devolution
described in bks viii-ix of _The Republic_. So even if they are
important behind-the-scenes actors if it weren't them it would be
someone else.
More directly in response to your question -- I think of the British
Monarchy as an element in the traditional constitution of England. As
such they should be dignified and public spirited but reserved. They
seem to be losing the ability to be so, another sign (like the state of
the Anglican Church) of the terminal decline of the traditional English
constitution. I don't much care about their other features, their
wealth for example, except that if other circumstances were more
favorable wealth would help them maintain their position.
I think of the main function of a religious hierarchy as maintenance of
the parts of religion that can and should be fully routinized, for
example doctrine and ritual. Since religion is not fundamentally a
matter of force hierarchs should not have more substantive
responsibilities. Substantive matters and new departures are for the
St. Benedicts and St. Francises and so on. The RC hierarchy has been
more ambitious, they've wanted to remake the Church for a new age,
treat the Spirit as something for bureaucratic administrators, and
they've bollixed it. The present Pope is trying to hold the line on
essentials while compromising on everything else. Most of the
hierarchy thinks he should go with the flow even more. How it will end
who knows.
As to David Rockefeller, I don't take seriously the importance of
particular international bankers. Money is becoming more and more
important because it's becoming more and more an abstract principle
that can adapt to and penetrate everything, the measure and
coordinating principle of all things.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Thu Sep 18 06:57:44 1997
Subject: Re: The Corporatization of US Universities
To: neocon@abdn.ac.uk (neocon)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:57:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 583
Status: RO
> The article proposes that the private universities are funding (or
> underfunding) departments on the basis of their potential for alums
> to donate. This is probably true.
University education, like government and running for political office,
has become far more expensive over the years. The natural result is
that the only thing people think about is how to improve the bottom
line.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Thu Sep 18 06:45:40 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id GAA06642 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:45:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA34060;
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:41:40 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1793746 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Thu, 18 Sep
1997 06:41:40 -0400
Received: from panix.com (jk@panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu
(8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA60672 for ;
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:41:39 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id GAA01245
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:41:37 -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: <199709181041.GAA01245@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:41:37 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Anita "speaking 'truth'"
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970917180646.0069d6a0@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Sep 17, 97 06:06:46 pm
Status: RO
> It's the chutzpah of the title that amazes me: "Speaking Truth to
> Power."
There's some sense to the fantasy though.
If liberalism is pure reason, the comprehensive rational ordering of
the world so that all individual purposes, tastes, and impulses are
equally favored, then in the eyes of its adherents it becomes
transparent. Deviations from liberalism, meaning the privileging of
some preferences over others, constitute oppression, whereas the
absolute rule of liberalism (and therefore of liberals) is simply the
absence of oppression. The absence of oppression can not meaningfully
be called "power" though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Thu Sep 18 17:55:40 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id RAA02400; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709182155.RAA02400@panix.com>
Subject: Greeks, romantics, character, and modern psychology
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Paul Ray writes:
>For [the Classical Greeks], character was an aid to becoming
>differentiated as egos from the tribal mass.
And also:
>In any society there will be kinds of character that are simply
>different from one another, often relating to different world views,
>different lifestyles, different values emphases, and different talents
>at psychological processes and social skills ... the moment we speak of
>differences in values/lifestyles/world views we are talking about
>subcultures ... I guess that cultures nearly always coerce people into
>rather definite patterns.
And also:
>a four-fold table for propositions about character:
>
> Prescriptive Descriptive
>
>Intrapsychic/spiritual Type A Type B
>
>Person in society Type C Type D
The first two bits of quoted language suggest to me another distinction,
between character as a rational or perhaps aesthetic structure someone
might choose and work toward, and character as the set of qualities one
has actually come to have. Both the former and the latter would have
both intrapsychic and social aspects, and each could be evaluated as
well as described.
This last distinction might make sense of the kind of "character" the
Schmooklers have been discussing, which neither identifies with moral
goodness as such but Andy seems inclined to say is good and Ed possibly
the contrary. Andy may think it good if one's moral qualities form a
recognizable rational or aesthetic structure so that one can be
understood as a person of a particular sort, while Ed may be inclined
to say it is self-alienating to subject one's moral life to structure.
If so we would have classical Andy and romantic Ed, and the issue
between them would be the value of Form. That issue is difficult to
make sense of in the language of value-free social science. It's like
discussing painting using the language of chemistry and optics.
Apologies to those who are weary of abstraction.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Thu Sep 18 20:59:50 1997
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9]) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id UAA06686 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [128.173.4.9])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA20612;
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:59:04 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with spool id 1813149 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Thu, 18 Sep
1997 20:59:03 -0400
Received: from panix.com
(w9cpvcRsykB2yzfCSuA4rnbejgXISm8e227325ERRORHIDDEN-USER@panix.com
[198.7.0.2]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA38008
for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:59:02 -0400
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA28584
for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:59:01 -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: <199709190059.UAA28584@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:59:00 -0400
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Anita "speaking 'truth'"
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970918192743.006b53c4@swva.net> from "Seth
Williamson" at Sep 18, 97 07:27:43 pm
Status: RO
Seth writes:
> >[From Anita Hill's standpoint t]he absence of oppression can not
> >meaningfully be called "power" though.
>
> Nor was I calling it that--or are you saying that she is?
You objected to her book's title on the grounds that her position and
what passes for her fame totally depend on the system of power dominant
in America in 1997. True enough, but I wondered whether her conduct
constituted chutzpah when an answer to the objection is fundamental to
contemporary liberalism, which views its triumph as simply the
abolition of oppression. On that view "liberal power" becomes
something of an oxymoron.
> does indeed seem as if uncut, laboratory-pure liberalism at this
> moment in history does have at its core some notion like this one,
> that no personal preferences can be privileged over others.
> But it only +seems+ that way, does it not?
For sure. It's an illusion that can be maintained as public "truth"
only through the lies and hysterical bullying that constitute political
correctness. Life can't be carried on without the recognition of
goods, but contemporary liberals are able to understand that
recognition only as the privileging of the preferences certain persons
happen to have. Still, it's not chutzpah to conform to what is
publicly proclaimed as right and true by all respectable authorities
and institutions. That's especially true in the case of AH, who so far
as I can tell is strong neither in mind nor character.
> I think the relative difference in power and influence of the
> respective constituencies of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is clear
> enough that even an honest liberal will be forced to concede that
> it's real.
An honest liberal who thinks like a normal human being. The
self-justification of Anita's constituency though is that they're
trying to abolish "oppression" (the privileging of some tastes and
persons over others), as represented for example by patriarchy, sexual
harassment, non-feminism, what have you. When they control things they
view it as a neutral situation in which power differentials play no
role, just as a libertarian thinks of a situation in which I own a car
because I worked for it and you don't because you didn't as a neutral
situation not to be explained by reference to power differentials.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Fri Sep 19 16:48:02 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id QAA22070; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709192048.QAA22070@panix.com>
Subject: Character: Greeks, Romans, Brits and Confucians
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:48:01 -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
Paul Ray writes:
>I'm not yet convinced that the notion of character is anything more
>than a survival from the Roman and early Christian era, one that got
>picked up in the Reformation and early Modernist era by European elites
>who wanted to learn how to build empires the way the Romans did
This raises another dimension -- in addition to character as a
configuration of moral qualities, whatever that configuration may be,
perhaps with a requirement of coherence tacked on (the descriptive
scientific modern view of character), and character as a configuration
of qualities judged by reference to a rational or aesthetic ideal (the
classical Greek view), we have character as a configuration judged by
reference to a desired polity (the Roman view).
In this last sense "character" normally isn't used as a term of praise
in connection with just any desired polity. It's used in connection
with a polity dependent on the individual judgment, initiative, and
free cooperation of a sizable class of citizens. Someone with
"character" can be relied on to meet his obligations and contribute in
his own way to the success of the political society, and doesn't have
to be told what to do or supervised except perhaps in a very general
way. So a despotism or thoroughly bureaucratic state wouldn't be based
on "character."
I don't think "character" in this sense has a necessary connection with
empire. It's republican, and empire is more likely to destroy it. That
would be consistent with both the "multiculturalism is anti-character"
view and my current "character means the self-rule of those who possess
it" view.
The interest of imperial Romans in character was I think mostly a
matter of nostalgia for the Republic or a desire to find a philosophic
way of life as a refuge in a degraded polity. Tacitus spends page
after page detailing the disgraceful conduct of the senatorial class
and searching everywhere for something better. He contrasts the
steadfastness of a female slave under torture with senators who were
falling all over each other to betray everyone in sight even though
they had no reason to think they had come under suspicion.
It is interesting to consider Confucianism in this connection. It
appears from the _Analects_ that Confucius' goal was to create a class
of cultivated civil servants who would be conditionally loyal to their
lords but habitually exercise independent moral judgement and protest or
resign from office rather than cooperate with serious ethical breeches.
As he said, "A gentleman is not an implement."
Confucius thought that such a class would help bring moral order to
China. In fact, China was unified by the Legalist ruler of Ch'in who
believed in the unlimited power of an absolutely centralized state
founded on agriculture and war. The people were not to be allowed even
to praise their rulers, since that would imply a capacity for
independent judgement. Confucianism and Confucians were to be
extirpated -- all available copies of the classics were destroyed and
hundreds of scholars buried alive. It didn't work. The Ch'in dynasty
didn't last long beyond the First Emperor's reign, and subsequent
dynasties mitigated imperial despotism by ruling through Confucian
scholars. Maybe the lesson is that enduring empires remembered for
their civilizing influence depend on character. There have been lots
of other empires, but I'd rather not live in one of them.
>It looks to me like conservative, class-biased thinking designed in
>part as a put-down of other groups in society as *lacking* character,
>when even in terms of its own theory, they merely had a *different*
>character structure.
This seems to mix character in the sense of "structure of moral
qualities, whatever that structure may be" with character in the sense
of "virtues that fit one to govern himself and others and so
participate in free political institutions." In the latter sense, which
I think is the one now under discussion, "character" is indeed a ruling
class characteristic, which is to say that the class that participates
in political freedom will be the class that has most occasion to
cultivate character.
On that understanding, to make character a more widespread ideal would
correspond to an extension of political freedom, while to abolish the
one would be to abolish the other. The problem with denouncing
"character" on anti-elitist grounds is that those who lack character
will be governed anyway, but not by themselves.
>In other words character development is all too easily bent to the
>service of coherent socio-cultural ideals that are "isms" which serve
>the needs of a ruling elite.
Anything whatever is all too easily etc. It seems to me that an ideal
that spreads independent judgement and responsibility around is likely
to be better than most. Consider for example the view that desirable
moral traits are to be judged by specially qualified elites,
psychologists for example, whose right to judge traits to be worth
promoting in no way depends on their exemplifying those traits
themeselves, and is said to depend on knowledge to which non-experts
must defer.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 22 16:58:06 EDT 1997
Article: 10308 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Kelly fired at New Republic
Date: 21 Sep 1997 21:32:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <604hs8$1ma@panix.com>
References: <19970920071533131339@deepblue2.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <19970920071533131339@deepblue2.salamander.com> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>I just read that Michael Kelly was fired as editor of TNR.
And not only that but Scott McConnell was fired, last week I think, as
editorial page editor of the NY _Post_. His crime it seems was wanting
to run one of Patrick Buchanan's columns, I forget which. Anita Hill
decided to call her new book _Speaking Truth to Power_. I somehow
haven't gotten around to reading it. Maybe it's about the Kelly,
McConnell, Graglia, S. Francis etc. situations?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Mon Sep 22 17:07:38 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id RAA14035; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:07:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709222107.RAA14035@panix.com>
Subject: Character - the spirit and the letter
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:07:38 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Some late comments on something Ed Schmookler said:
>"The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life."
Very much to the point. Still, how are the promptings of the Spirit to
be remembered, learned from others, discussed and interpreted, become
the basis of a common life, etc. without being put in a system and so
subjected to forms?
I agree that character and form are not ultimate, that they draw their
value from an inspiration or perception that can't really be
systematized and has a necessarily individual aspect. Still, I don't
think we can do without them.
>I think that living from the heart, and being guided by God the best
>one can, allows for an expression of goodness which is not of oneself
>but through oneself and which is more than one could do oneself.
In music and other arts doing it from the heart so you can't say where
it comes from is important and in the end it's the whole point. On the
other hand before you get there there's a lot of drill, practice,
repetition, memorization, studying what the masters have done, doing
what your teacher tells you, making things second nature that at first
seem quite foreign, etc. First mastery then freedom. Both Confucius
and Augustine have said something similar about ethics.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Mon Sep 22 21:28:57 1997
From jk Tue Sep 2 05:58:58 1997
Subject: Re: Anti-Feminism
To:
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 05:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 702
Status: RO
Thanks for your note.
> Could you suggest how can ordinary Men and Women resist the extreme
> feminist ideologies which dominate Western Societies throught the
> world today?
First become spiritually independent. Think clearly, understand
things, and spread the understanding. Make contact with those who
think as you do.
In day-to-day affairs resist the tyranny, at least passively and in
minor ways.
> Maybe add some links to your web page could be of benefit?
I add whatever helpful links I can find.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Mon Sep 22 21:28:57 1997
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: What is to be done?
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:43:16 -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
> Haven't you notice yet that you cannot live in the same geographical
> area and blacks on your terms. No one else has been able to in
> recorded histroy.
Actually, mixed but non-integrated societies have been rather common.
They've been usual in the Middle East and South Asia for example, where
the _millet_ and caste systems have involved separate communities
running their own affairs but living in the same country under a single
government. Unfortunately the arrangement has meant an absence of
public life and the governments have accordingly been dynastic
despotisms. Seems to me we're likely headed for something of the sort.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Mon Sep 22 21:28:57 1997
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: "What is to be done??"
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:14:09 -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
> Throughout history, has there ever been "another country" that
> allowed a peaceful invasion, elected to do nothing, then realizing it
> was losing it's sovereignty, acted?
Japan was closed to outsiders for a couple hundred years before 1853.
The traders and missionaries had come to seem a threat to the
established order. There have been other attempts elsewhere to cut
back severely on foreign influence after periods in which it seemed to
have become excessive. I believe there have been several such episodes
in Chinese history. 20th century examples include Iran and the
communist countries. Nationalization of foreign-owned enterprises and
protective tariffs imposed by various countries might also count as an
example. Some of the "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia as I understand it
has to do with attempts to restore things to some _status quo ante_,
for example to undo ethnic mixing that had come about during the Tito
era. Other examples might include legal action and sometimes very
large-scale violence against peaceful overseas Chinese in Malaysia and
Indonesia, although maybe the Chinese had been established too long for
their influence to count as a "peaceful invasion."
Closer to home, the United States limited immigration between the '20s
and the '60s much more strictly than before or since. The activities
associated with HUAC also sprung from concerns about excessive foreign
influence usually combined with disloyalty of high officials.
Quite a diverse group of situations. The conventional view seems to be
that anticolonialism is good and nativism is bad. Does anyone know
whether there is a more principled general treatment of attempts to
restrict or reduce the non-military aspects of foreign presence and
influence?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Mon Sep 22 21:28:57 1997
From jk Tue Sep 16 07:19:08 1997
Subject: Re: NYC Right
To:
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 918
Status: RO
> He lacks a religious perspective but nobody understands the utter
> futility of mainstream conservative politics and the need for a real
> counter revolution than Sam.
He is of course an excellent analyst.
The problem with the lack of a religious perspective though is that
politics becomes theoretically a matter of power relationships and
practically a matter of using the means available to get what you want.
We have enough of the technological attitude toward the world today,
though. In fact, it seems to me it is that attitude that is the basic
problem.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Mon Sep 22 21:28:57 1997
From jk Wed Sep 17 23:11:31 1997
Subject: Re: your mail
To:
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:11:31 -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: 3442
Status: RO
Hello, Kelly --
Thanks for your note.
>I believe that I should have the right to walk down the street without
>the fear of being raped. I believe that I have a right to protect
>myself (and my children) from my husband if he becomes physically
>abusive.
To my mind the question is how to promote productive association
between the sexes and between parents and children. If there's a basis
for that then violence and other bad things are less likely.
It seems to me that productive association is more likely if men and
women have definite concrete obligations to each other, and the same is
true of family members generally. "Definite concrete obligations"
means role stereotypes. Saying that whatever people agree on starting
from equality and dealing at arm's length is OK -- basically, applying
the principles of commercial law to intimate relations -- won't do the
job.
You seem to see the problem as one of masculine violence. That's not
the basic issue, I think. It seems to me the problem is more one of
the breakdown of traditional roles. Child abuse is most severe in the
case of single mothers, domestic sexual abuse of young girls is mostly
a problem of boyfriends and to some extent stepfathers, and not many
more husbands kill their wives than the reverse. Married women with
children are safer than any other group in the population.
>I believe that I should earn the same amount my male co-workers do, if
>we are performing the same task. I believe that men should be granted
>paternity leave if they so desire.
On these points whatever employers and employees settle on is fine with
me. Wage differentials between the sexes tend to disappear when things
like occupation and continuity of labor market participation are
factored in. It's also important that after having children men
typically increase and women reduce career commitment.
>What I do hate is the system that has raised so many (notice I did not
>say "all") men to believe that they are the better sex. Because we
>are different, there can be no "better".
I don't think there are many people, male or female, who think men are
simply better than women. A few years ago when I was reading feminist
literature I ran across a multinational survey on the subject. Rather
to their surprise, the (feminist) authors of the survey found that such
an outlook was quite rare worldwide. As I recall, it was the view in
Nigeria(?) but none of the other 10 or 20 countries surveyed.
I agree though that a contemptuous view of the opposite sex can arise
from a disordered social system. For an example, look at
http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/2.12/960612-gender.html
>Feminism is, quite simply, the radical notion that women are people.
The notion isn't radical, and it's not feminism. On my page I propose
that feminism is the view that "gender" -- the system of
socially-recognized sex roles -- is unjust in principle and should be
abolished. Do you disagree?
>I hope you realize that not all think men and women are supposed to be
>the "same". Just equal.
One problem is that if A is not the same as B then A and B are unequal
in some respect. A hammer is not the same as a wrench and therefore
they are unequal in many connections.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Mon Sep 22 21:28:57 1997
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: multiculturalism, immigration and the good
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Some thoughts for comment:
Sam Francis gave a talk in Manhattan last week in which he said that
what drives multiculturalism is immigration.
There's certainly truth in that. I'm convinced though that it's more
important that multiculturalism drives immigration. If our rulers
didn't view abolition of the authority of every particular culture as a
basic moral imperative they wouldn't be so protective of immigration.
Immigration does drive "diversity," affirmative action and the rest of
it, but not by accident -- that's what it's *for*.
Man does not live by bread alone, or power alone, or getting his own
way alone. Large and enduring coalitions that work together without
coercion toward comprehensive goals need a compelling common vision.
There is such a vision in America today that unites academic, cultural,
legal and media elites, all respectable religious leaders, top
financiers, businessmen and civil servants, foundation officials, the
Democratic Party, and the national leadership of every other
significant political grouping.
On the organizational side, the vision is one of a global society
rationally ordered by some combination of world markets and
transnational bureaucracies, both managed by the elites now promoting
the new order of things. The participants in this list are all very
much aware of the "power grab" aspects of that vision. It has a moral
aspect though that is absolutely essential to its appeal.
The moral aspect is that the rational global order stands for
liberation and fulfillment, as those things are now understood. It
stands for liberation because it will abolish traditional social order,
and therefore the traditional hierarchies and moral standards that
subordinate some persons and their preferences to others, and will
establish instead an order that to the extent possible treats all
alike. It stands for fulfillment because traditional restraints on
desire will be abolished, and to the extent possible peace, prosperity
and equality delivered to everyone, enabling all to satisfy their
private tastes, whatever they may be, as long as the security and
efficiency of the system are not injured.
Such a moral understanding is that of contemporary liberalism.
Morality consists in "respect for persons," understood as treatment of
each individual and whatever desires or goals he may have as no less
worthy than any other. In accordance with that understanding the task
of politics becomes creation of a stable rational system that maximizes
equal fulfillment of actual desires.
The fact that all this is moonshine, and that the consequences are
going to be a whole lot more unequal, impoverished, and brutal than
advertised, is beside the point. The moral vision is compelling, it's
widespread, it's deeply rooted in long-term social and cultural trends,
it has driven competing visions out of public view, and together with
powerful material interests it supports policies that are both
comprehensive and specific.
What's the point of saying all this? The liberal view is that wanting
things and going after them is what human life is about, and the task
of morality and government is to facilitate and equalize success in
such efforts. That view leads to to an attack on all traditional
cultures, because it is inconsistent with them, and that attack is the
essence of multiculturalism. It is to that attack and the moral
understanding motivating it to which opponents of multiculturalism must
respond.
A moral understanding can be fought only with a better one. A battle
against a moral understanding that like liberalism makes satisfaction
of preferences - pragmatic success - the _summum bonum_ is not like
other battles, though. Clarification of goals and strategy, no matter
how intelligent, is not enough, because to make victory the prime
consideration is join the other side. Liberalism can therefore be
defeated only by an understanding of life that recognizes goods that
precede our own desires and are more important than success.
What do any of us have to offer in that regard?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 24 06:16:02 EDT 1997
Article: 10311 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Immigration, multiculturalism and idealism
Date: 23 Sep 1997 06:27:29 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <6085ih$of7@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Some thoughts for comment:
Sam Francis gave a talk in Manhattan last week in which he said that
what drives multiculturalism is immigration.
There's certainly truth in that. I'm convinced though that it's more
important that multiculturalism drives immigration. If our rulers
didn't view abolition of the authority of every particular culture as a
basic moral imperative they wouldn't be so protective of immigration.
Immigration does drive "diversity," affirmative action and the rest of
it, but not by accident -- that's what it's *for*.
Man does not live by bread alone, or power alone, or getting his own
way alone. Large and enduring coalitions that work together without
coercion toward comprehensive goals need a compelling common vision.
There is such a vision in America today that unites academic, cultural,
legal and media elites, all respectable religious leaders, top
financiers, businessmen and civil servants, foundation officials, the
Democratic Party, and the national leadership of every other
significant political grouping.
On the organizational side, the vision is one of a global society
rationally ordered by some combination of world markets and
transnational bureaucracies, both managed by the elites now promoting
the new order of things. Several participants in this newsgroup have
called attention to the "power grab" aspects of that vision. It has a
moral aspect though that is absolutely essential to its appeal.
The moral aspect is that the rational global order stands for
liberation and fulfillment, as those things are now understood. It
stands for liberation because it will abolish traditional social order,
and therefore the traditional hierarchies and moral standards that
subordinate some persons and their preferences to others, and will
establish instead an order that to the extent possible treats all
alike. It stands for fulfillment because traditional restraints on
desire will be abolished, and to the extent possible peace, prosperity
and equality delivered to everyone, enabling all to satisfy their
private tastes, whatever they may be, as long as the security and
efficiency of the system are not injured.
Such a moral understanding is that of contemporary liberalism.
Morality consists in "respect for persons," understood as treatment of
each individual and whatever desires or goals he may have as no less
worthy than any other. In accordance with that understanding the task
of politics becomes creation of a stable rational system that maximizes
equal fulfillment of actual desires.
The fact that all this is moonshine, and that the consequences are
going to be a whole lot more unequal, impoverished, and brutal than
advertised, is beside the point. The moral vision is compelling, it's
widespread, it's deeply rooted in long-term social and cultural trends,
it has driven competing visions out of public view, and together with
powerful material interests it supports policies that are both
comprehensive and specific.
What's the point of saying all this? The liberal view is that wanting
things and going after them is what human life is about, and the task
of morality and government is to facilitate and to the extent possible
equalize success in such efforts. That view leads to to an attack on
all traditional cultures, because it is inconsistent with them, and
that attack is the essence of multiculturalism. It is that attack and
the moral understanding motivating it to which opponents of
multiculturalism must respond.
A moral understanding can be fought only with a better one. A battle
against a moral understanding that like liberalism makes satisfaction
of preferences - pragmatic success - the _summum bonum_ is not like
other battles, though. Clarification of goals and strategy, no matter
how intelligent, is not enough, because to make victory the prime
consideration is join the other side. Liberalism can therefore be
defeated only by an understanding of life that recognizes goods that
precede our own desires and are more important than success.
What does the anti-liberal side have to offer in that regard?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 24 06:16:03 EDT 1997
Article: 10313 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Immigration, multiculturalism and idealism
Date: 24 Sep 1997 06:09:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <60aoss$jgr@panix.com>
References: <199709231641012250526@deepblue22.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <199709231641012250526@deepblue22.salamander.com> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>> What does the anti-liberal side have to offer in that regard?
>If I propose something, do I run afoul of the Kalb Doctrine and become
>a positivist trying to rationalize society?
Actually, the article is intended as somewhat an explication of your
Kalb Doctrine, that you can't bring about a desirable state of affairs
by defining what it is you want and devising and prosecuting a
strategy.
>The regime co-opts resisters;
The regime is based on philosophical hedonism, a.k.a. satisfaction of
preferences as the _summum bonum_. The "Kalb Doctine" is simply that
you can't overthrow it by trying to get your own way because in doing
so you are joining it. The regime is simply the system of those who
agree that getting their own way is what life is about together with
the accomodations among them that permit the effort to go forward with
a minimum of friction.
>I am no longer certain of the power of ideas or of sentiments to
>change the world. The world changes, but how and why and when are
>mysteries to me. Intellectual analyses often seem like comforting
>mechanisms for those riding a wave not really susceptible to analysis.
It is not a question of power. It is true that when people attempt to
use ideas and sentiments to change the world, they necessarily fail.
The world changes when ideas and sentiments change, but that is a
different matter.
To use ideas and sentiments is not the same as to be made what one is
by them. If one tries to do the former the idea and sentiment that
makes him what he is is that of the regime - that the world is
something to be made and remade in accordance with human goals whatever
those goals happen to be. The ideas and sentiments that count are
those that are not rhetoric, but it is only as rhetoric that such
things can be used.
>I propose two such seeds: "nature" and "the feminine". Both are vastly
>popular subjects and the regime is accomodating both.
>Both, properly understood, are illiberal.
I agree, actually.
>If we read the dead wise men (the real ones) of our civilization and
>ask "How should we live?", they will advise us on ordering the State
>and cultivating virtues and finding faith. There is very little wisdom
>about relations with the non-human world, and now we need it.
The Chinese have reflected on the topic more than other people.
Consider the Taoists and Southern Sung landscapes. I don't know of any
Western conservative who has brought such things adequately into
relation with our own traditions. The most substantive discussion I
know of is by Irving Babbitt who has an appendix to _Rousseau and
Romanticism_ saying that the Taoists are basically romantics who oppose
his Inner Check.
The regime's response to the feminine has been to bring women into the
NWO (e.g., Take Your Daughter to Work day) and the NWO into the
immediate relations of daily life (day care, "the personal is the
political," etc.) The gross irrationality and dishonesty of feminist
thought reflect the inadequacy of that response.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Thu Sep 25 07:59:27 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id HAA11944; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:59:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709251159.HAA11944@panix.com>
Subject: Character: philosophy and religion
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:59:27 -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
Andy S. writes:
>I've been stressing things like principles, or beliefs about what's
>right, and such. Ed's good person has a relationship with God. But
>I'm wondering just how different essentially those two approaches are.
It seems that it's the difference between philosophy and religion,
a.k.a. reason and love.
Each side has its point of view and believes the other has only an
image of the truth. The philosophers (I'm using "philosophers" to mean
"those who rely on reason") view religion as a popular and poetic or
mythological version of truth, which they themselves possess or are on
the way to possessing in the superior form of a system of propositions.
The religious believe propositions can be true and helpful (religions
after all have dogmas) but they fall short of truth in its fullness
which is concrete rather than abstract and more adequately approached
through devotion than reason.
"Character" seems to me more a philosophical than a religious ideal.
It is finite and achievable by training and will, and it relates to the
particular individual especially in his social relations. It's fully
part of this human world of ours, which religion is not at least on its
own account. That doesn't mean that the religious don't develop
character or don't value things that go into character, only that
character is not as such their goal, at least not ultimately.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Thu Sep 25 05:41:56 1997
Subject: Re: Immigration, multiculturalism and idealism
To:
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 05:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2058
Status: RO
> I would add another twist: to a certain extent, multiculturalism is
> for immigration. While the international managerial elite (or
> whoever) might desire mass immigration for its culture dissolving and
> nation breaking qualties, we shouldn't ignore the organized groups of
> foriegners and immigrants who want to bring in more of their
> countrymen for various reasons (the availaiblity of social services,
> good employment opportunity, taking the Southwest back from the
> Anglos) and use multiculturalism as a means to this end. Many of
> these folks are not committed to a general cultural dissolution, but
> many of them are indifferent to the cultural dissolution of America.
> Their primary concern is bringing their brothers, sisters, neighbors,
> and countrymen to the Land of the Free. Multiculturalism serves both
> to allow them to break down America with a light heart (telling them
> that it either will not break down, or deserves to) and to disarm
> resistance to mass immigration.
Agreed. It's a circle since multiculturalism and immigration feed each
other. If you want the one you'll want the other since it supports
your own goal.
My argument was that multiculturalism is where the circle really gets
started - our rulers are not on the whole immigrants, they're
multiculturalists. They're making use of the Chinese, Mexicans etc.
and their needs, desires and aspirations for ends which are contrary to
the long run interests of the immigrants and everyone else.
The fundamental battle is therefore in the realm of moral
understanding, philosophy and ultimately religion rather than power
relations. SF's understanding seemed to go the other way. In any
event power relations seem to be what he sticks to in his analyses.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Thu Sep 25 16:34:10 1997
Subject: Re: multiculturalism, immigration and the good
To:
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:34:10 -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: 2515
Status: RO
> History tells us that multicultural, multiracial states are
> inherently unstable and doomed to bloody failure.
Multicultural states have been common outside the Eurasian continental
fringes (i.e., outside Europe and the Far East). They've typically
been aggregations of inward-turning ethno-religious communities
governed by dynastic despotisms. Think Middle Eastern.
What's planned for us though is something far more radical, a
culture-free state ordered by world markets, trans-national
bureaucracies, public relations, advertising, therapists, fashions in
consumption and entertainment and the like. "Multiculturalism" doesn't
really mean the presence of many cultures, it means the use of that
presence to destroy the authority and therefore the existence (in any
serious sense) of every culture. Communal conflict would become
impossible because there would be no communities, only
consumers/employees/welfare clients/Madonna fans/etc.
It seems unlikely to work, but it's a novel situation so more than
history is needed to show it won't work.
> Science tells us that 2 subspecies (races) cannot live in the same
> region without one of them either driving the other out or
> exterminating it (including by preventing the other from reproducing
> itself by the simple expedient of raping the others' females).
There are racially mixed human populations. Someone suggested (based
on an old Encyclopedia Brittanica article) the Portuguese as
amalgamation of European whites and African blacks.
> Religion means both passing on traditional wisdom and coming to terms
> with those others with whom we can live in peace only if we live
> apart. What passes for mainstream religion today is little more than
> liberal politics with a feel-good spin. But harken to the original
> writings and traditional understandings and practices, then see that
> religion means linking with God, not being Politically Correct.
I have a hard time thinking of anything capable of standing up to the
New World Order that does not involve separatist religion. Separatist
religion isn't something that can be controlled or used as a policy,
though. Also, it would mean the end of anything like the civilization
that has existed in Europe, which has tended to be territorial and
public rather than tribal and inward-turning.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Thu Sep 25 16:44:09 1997
Subject: Re: subscription
To:
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:44:09 -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: 1112
Status: RO
> "the '60's" and all that phrase represents -- the collapse of sexual
> morality, the rise of contempt for authority, the replacement of
> classical music by rhythmic rock and pop -- was coincident with the
> civil rights movement. Somehow the granting of civil rights led to a
> rapid negrification of the entire culture.
It seems to me that something that had become dominant within white
culture wanted the liberation of impulse. Otherwise none of this would
have happened. Plato, presumably with a purely white culture in mind,
describes how something of the sort can come about in bks. viii - ix of
the _Republic_. Blacks may have served as a wrecking bar, and
homosexuals and immigrants may be serving as such today, but it is I
think misleading to try to explain damage by reference to the specific
qualities of wrecking bars.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From x Fri Sep 26 05:04:29 1997
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Race and the Religious Right
Status: RO
~From: Jim Kalb
> Thus the christian is as deceived and controlled by the same political
> forces that manipulate us all.
> > Across the country, conservative congregations and denominations,
> > while sticking to other stringent principles of conservative
> > religious thinking such as the proscription of homosexuality and
> > abortion, are embrasing a concept called 'biblical racial
> > reconciliation'
Another explanation is that like other people conservative Christians
and especially conservative Christian leaders want to be respected.
They fall far short of established standards of mainstream
respectability in some respects (for example by being anti-choice
homophobes) so it would be surprising if they didn't try to make it up
in other ways.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From
From x Fri Sep 26 05:04:29 1997
From
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:46:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Diversity TV
Status: RO
~From: Jim Kalb
> I think the insipid and tedious movie 'Lost World' really brought
> home to me the extent to which this silent propoganda has spread
> throughout the media. A white scientist's daughter just happens to be
> black, with no explanations asked for and none given.
It's worth noting that it's not only in propaganda for the masses that
one finds "diversity." Most off-broadway plays I've seen recently have
had at least one non-white actor in an -- often major -- white part.
It can be quite disconcerting, as in the case of a coal-black Norwegian
divinity student in an otherwise visually realistic presentation of
Ibsen.
In part directors may simply be giving corporate and foundation
grantmakers what they want. In part, though, it seems an attempt to
construct a new reality by people who find existing and historical
reality intolerable. Fact is too oppressive.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"The greatest genius is the most indebted man." -- Emerson
From
From x Fri Sep 26 05:04:29 1997
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: subscription
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 04:48:30 -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
>But the question for which I have absolutely no answer is how this
>massive collapse (in sexual morals, dress, manners, art, music) came
>about.
The collapse seems a necessary result of the trend toward individualism
and hedonism in Western society. Conventions don't last forever if
people don't continue to feel their value, and when their time comes
they can fall apart like Holmes's one-horse shay. If a standard of the
good that transcends "this is what I want right now" comes to seem less
and less compelling and it goes on long enough then at some point there
is going to be a collapse of the sort that came in the 60s.
A variety of influences promoted present-tense individualistic
hedonism:
-Democracy made "whatever people want" the standard of political
goodness.
-The welfare state including things like social security and
ever-more-comprehensive public education relieved us of responsibility
for our own long-term well-being and that of those connected to us.
-Mass-market consumer capitalism made "give the people what they want"
the goal of economic activity.
-Peace, prosperity and technology multiplied comforts and dissipations
and reduced the need for effort.
-Advertising educated us in desire and its immediate satisfaction.
-Electronic entertainment offered immediate effort-free gratification
without reference to other people.
-The pill and more generally modern medicine made the human body and in
particular sex something we could control for our own purposes.
-Market and state supplanted the functions of the family and so weakened
its irreplaceable ability to socialize the young and connect them to an
order of things not reducible to their own personal wants.
-In a society run by impersonal market and bureaucratic relations
things like manners, personal integrity, sexual morality came to seem
less important. The components of a machine don't have to have good
moral character.
-The intellectual classes debunked accepted moral standards, and the
debunking went mass-market with mass higher education.
-Scientific materialism replaced religion as a way of understanding the
world. "Values" became something we invent and therefore hard to
distinguish from desires. In the physical world it was subatomic
particles and the equations linking them that seemed ultimately real,
and in the moral world it was immediate individual impulses and
sensations and schemes for satisfying them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Mon Sep 29 07:08:59 1997
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id HAA05968; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709291108.HAA05968@panix.com>
Subject: Character and anticharacter
To: CharacterForum@panix.com
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:08:59 -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
Andy writes:
>My most recent attempt to formulate what I mean by character, in the
>sense of good character, was: "that its possessor strives toward some
>ideal, model, standard that is held to define and embody what is good
>and worthy and of value." It has also been my assertion, supported by
>some and questioned by others, that character in that sense has
>declined over my lifetime in America.
Is there a new ideal radically opposed to the old that qualifies as an
ideal of "character" under Andy's formulation? It seems that the
virtues most authoritatively praised now are tolerance, inclusivity,
compassion, acceptance of change, readiness to grow and so on, and the
great vices rigidity, bigotry, narrowness, fear of change, and the
like. It's also accepted that one should be in touch with his
particular needs, wants, whatever, and assert them while also being
aware of those of others.
These virtues and vices form a definite ideal of human character that
corresponds to a particular ideal of what life should be like. The
goal seems to be for all our idiosyncratic needs and qualities to
satisfy and develop themselves without suppression and falsification by
internalized social stereotypes that further the dominance of some over
others. It's a political as well as moral and psychological ideal.
One difficulty with the ideal is that in the absence of rather concrete
commonly held principles (which in practice may be hard to distinguish
from internalized social stereotypes) there will be nothing within
people capable of resolving conflicts among all the manifold shifting
individual impulses. It seems unlikely that talking it all out will
work. The resolution will therefore have to come from some external
source, presumably one that claims to respect and further the new
ideal, for example a bureaucracy guided by an ideology of therapy that
is able and willing to back up its determinations with force. Would
that be a good thing?
Another difficulty is suggested by Andy's students who thought that
what those who ran Auschwitz did might after all have been right for
them. Is faith that the free development of idiosyncratic needs and
qualities will lead to harmony justified? Even if in some ultimate
sense it is, can something so abstract serve as the basis of social
order? Are concrete social rules that empower us as representatives of
Righteousness and Morality to judge and condemn others necessary? And
if so, how much is left of the original ideal of radical mutual
deference to each other's self-defined needs?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From Mail/x Mon Sep 29 07:15:44 1997
From
Received:
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199709271108.HAA12744@panix.com>
Subject: Re: multiculturalism, immigration and the good
To:
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:08:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: list-request@amren.com
Status: RO
> Yes, it's true that multicultural "states" have been common, but only
> by absorbing ehtnic "nations" and dominating them ruthlessly. What
> Saddam did to the Kurds of Iraq, the Turks did to their Armenian
> population, and the Russians did to the Chechens (and others)
These are all examples of multicultural states trying to be
nation-states of the modern European kind. The formation of a nation
state does I think tend to involve ethnic suppression. That's why for
example by 1500 the European states bordering on the Atlantic, which
were in a position to invent the nation-state because they were out of
the way of invasion and migration and so a lot less multicultural than
most, had all expelled their Jews.
Turkey is an interesting example. Before they decided in the 19th and
still more 20th century to imitate the Europeans, and were satisfied to
be a more traditional Middle Eastern dynastic empire, they were ruled
by a small group that was Muslim but was not identified ethnically with
any of the subject peoples. It included for example a great many
ethnic European slaves from the Balkans.
It seems to me we're headed in somewhat the same direction, toward a
multicultural society ruled by a self-selected and irresponsible elite
that maintains its independence of all the subject peoples and
therefore its ability to exercise universal despotic control in part by
being multiracial. Its cohesion like that of the Janissaries of Turkey
and earlier the Mamelukes (slave rulers) of Egypt will be based on
common training and on bureaucratic and ideological rather than ethnic
loyalties. As in the other cases there will no doubt be lots of
inefficiency, corruption and casual cruelty but not the large-scale
ethnic suppression we see in the examples you name.
> But even Europeans and related White peoples have known separatist
> religions. The Jews, of course, have always been a people apart until
> recent decades when many of them began disobeying their religious
> injunctions against marrying outside the group. The Greek Orthodox
> Church is really just an ethnic version of a nominally universal
> religion, as are the Russian Orthodox Church and the Armenian
> Orthodox Church.
Yes. All these groups combine religion with ethnicity, and the
religions feature elaborate ritual requirements that bring their
distinctiveness concretely home to their members (take a look for
example at the Orthodox rules on fasting). These characteristics are
most intensely developed in the case of the Jews, whose ethos developed
in the deeply multicultural Middle East, less so in the Eastern
Orthodox, who however had to endure invasion and occupation by
different groups of non-Europeans, and least so in the ethnically
simple and stable European West.
So it seems that strictly Orthodox Jews may show us the general form in
which it will be possible to live a tolerable life as the world is
shaping up. I don't much like that, since I prefer a society of the
European type to one of the Middle Eastern type, but even the latter
seems much better than the NWO envisioned for us and may be the best
possible.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Mon Sep 29 07:41:56 1997
Subject: Re: Immigration, multiculturalism and idealism
To: j
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1841
Status: RO
> > The fundamental battle is therefore in the realm of moral
> > understanding, philosophy and ultimately religion rather than power
> > relations. SF's understanding seemed to go the other way. In any
> > event power relations seem to be what he sticks to in his analyses.
> But, when it comes to multiculturalism, the people holding the ideas
> (both the militant alienists and the native anti-nationists) seem to
> be the ones who profit from their ascendency. In this case the ideas
> and the power relations seem to be closely correlated.
But each of them individually could pursue his interests any number of
ways. They fasten on the complex of ideas associated with
multiculturalism thereby joining in a common effort because that
complex of ideas has great social plausibility beyond the power and
interests of its proponents. It is an independent source of power that
they can use for their advantage.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Sep 30 08:12:15 1997
Subject: Re: A walk on the dark side
To: a
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:12:15 -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: 1621
Status: RO
> we must recognise that what is happening is at least partly religious
> in nature.
For sure. Intellectually we need to understand the world as an order
of things. Morally we need to understand good and evil as an aspect of
that world order.
Religion lets us understand the world order, including the moral world
order, as something not dependent on ourselves that we discover. That
view seems most natural and healthy for man. With the rejection of
religion the moral order becomes something we create. If the creation
is intended to be a public act in which all take part the consequence
is liberalism - the view that the _summum bonum_ is giving everyone
what he wants, as much and as equally as possible.
We can see the consequences of liberalism around us. One is the
annihilation of all particular cultures as barriers to liberty and
equality as understood by liberals - particular cultures create
distinctions among good and bad desires, and by their particularism
divide men from each other and therefore create inequality. The remedy
now being applied is to destroy them all through liberal
multiculturalism.
It is sometimes proposed as an alternative to both religion and
liberalism that the moral order be created through the act of will of
an elite. It's a fascinating idea, but not one that I think can be
carried out. "Might makes right" is a fantasy, because the superman
does not and will not exist.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Sep 30 21:22:10 EDT 1997
Article: 10325 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Immigration, multiculturalism and idealism
Date: 29 Sep 1997 22:01:53 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <60pmih$4js@panix.com>
References: <199709231641012250526@deepblue22.salamander.com> <60aoss$jgr@panix.com> <19970929094204699239@deepblue15.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <19970929094204699239@deepblue15.salamander.com> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>> you can't bring about a desirable state of affairs by defining what
>> it is you want and devising and prosecuting a strategy.
>Paul wanted to spread the gospel. Should he have stayed home? He was
>serving a force greater than his ego, but would it be unfair to say
>his ego and his strategizing were a necessary and legitimate part of
>his effort?
"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then
neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God
that giveth the increase." I Corinthians 3: 6-7.
His strategizing didn't involve an overall plan for how things would
turn out. There was something he thought was clearly good and
necessary and he pursued it without knowing what the response would be
or just what it would lead to.
Something that could be called strategizing is involved I suppose in
almost any intentional activity. If Paul spoke to the Athenians in
Greek rather than Aramaic then that no doubt reflected a strategic
decision not to address them in a tongue that was wholly unknown to
them.
I'm not sure what is meant by saying a saint's ego is a necessary and
legitimate part of his effort. "Ego" is a tricky word, though, so no
doubt a sense can be found in which that is true.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.