Changing names
Steve Hayes
"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
American edition.
Does anyone know why this was done?
Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
of US readers?
I notice that something similar happened to the Harry Potter books - "Harry
Potter and the philosopher's stone" became "Harry Potter and the sorcerers
stone" in the US edition.
Or was this done as a result of the evil machinations of Walter Hooper, that I
read about on
http://www.discovery.org:80/lewis/darktower.html
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/litmain.htm
Nicholas Young
<khan...@global.co.za> writes
>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>American edition.
>
>Does anyone know why this was done?
>
>Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
>of US readers?
I believe (but this is only hearsay) that the American publishers
considered that the wolf ought to be called something that Americans
wouldn't boggle at, and Fenris (Ulf) came to mind since he was a "real"
legendary wolf. I must say it's not terribly convincing.
>I notice that something similar happened to the Harry Potter books - "Harry
>Potter and the philosopher's stone" became "Harry Potter and the sorcerers
>stone" in the US edition.
I think something similar happened: in this case the publishers thought
that the readers would be puzzled by the original title and find the
replacement more reasonable. The fact that "philosopher's stone" is a
well-known (in England) phrase going back many hundreds of years and
that the replacement has no meaning either escaped them altogether (my
theory) or wasn't considered to matter.
I hope all you Americans on this list are suitably indignant about being
condescended to in this way by your publishers. Perhaps you could start
a mass-movement to get the title changed back.
>Or was this done as a result of the evil machinations of Walter Hooper
[...]
A new rumour starts ...
Nicholas.
--
Nicholas Young.
Dan Drake
<nichola...@edscss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>...
>
> I hope all you Americans on this list are suitably indignant about being
> condescended to in this way by your publishers. Perhaps you could start
> a mass-movement to get the title changed back.
>
Fergeddit. [Proper American phonetic spelling modified so it won't be
mistaken for obscenity.] We expect that stuff. If you're a very bad boy,
someone will force you to read the special new translation (new several
years ago) of Asterix the Gaul, edited for American tastes by the clever
method of omitting all the wit.
Do you remember the Wombles? Have you ever seen a Wombles video with an
American voice-over explaining what's going on? Lucky you.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
m...@mooreffoc.com
/snip/
>http://www.discovery.org:80/lewis/darktower.html
Back-tracking the url to
http://www.discovery.org/lewis/
led to some interesting links.
Here are three letters from Lewis to Vanauken which the site says are in public
domain. Is that correct?
http://www.discovery.org/lewis/articles/writingspblcdmn/
Mary
..........................................
http://www.sonic.net/mary/homepage/
My site on CSL story sources:
http://pub50.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?usernum=4248876121
m...@mooreffoc.com
the other terms.
Did Lewis in fact object to the Maugrim-Ulf change, or any other Americanization?
Of course lots of omissions/simplifications as are sometimes done with Barrie,
Andersen etc are a different matter.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:00:13 +0000, Nicholas Young <nichola...@edscss.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3a790a0e...@news.saix.net>, Steve Hayes
><khan...@global.co.za> writes
>>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>>American edition.
>>
>>Does anyone know why this was done?
>>
>>Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
>>of US readers?
>
>I believe (but this is only hearsay) that the American publishers
>considered that the wolf ought to be called something that Americans
>wouldn't boggle at, and Fenris (Ulf) came to mind since he was a "real"
>legendary wolf. I must say it's not terribly convincing.
Maugrim boggles me to this day. Let's see, wasn't he kind of a gloomy peer of
Kipling, or something.... :-) How did he get into Narnia? He might have been a friend
of Uncle Andrew, but breaking people's furniture doesn't seem his style....
And how did he get turned into a wolf? Can we restore him by giving him
chocolates? :-)
>>I notice that something similar happened to the Harry Potter books - "Harry
>>Potter and the philosopher's stone" became "Harry Potter and the sorcerers
>>stone" in the US edition.
>
>I think something similar happened: in this case the publishers thought
>that the readers would be puzzled by the original title and find the
>replacement more reasonable. The fact that "philosopher's stone" is a
>well-known (in England) phrase going back many hundreds of years and
>that the replacement has no meaning either escaped them altogether (my
>theory) or wasn't considered to matter.
It doesn't matter -- when you're marketing to US kids who never had a CHANCE to hear
about the p. s. If they buy the book, then they will learn that and many other
things from it.
Really smart kids will discover the discrepencies and write book reports about them
... thus learning many things.... as Kipling (and perhaps Lewis) would say.... :-)
Andy La Varre
I did start through all that.
It simply reaffirms my belief that my time is better spent in dealing with
reality, both physical and metaphysical.
I've never been particularly impressed by "opinions", which at least have
some basis in fact and may have some applicability if upborne with
intellectual integrity.
I am particularly unimpressed by fiction, science or otherwise, because it
is a complete fabrication.
The only reason that Hooper could possibly be successful is that his
audience was predisposed to accept lies as truth, since that is, in the
hardest light, what fiction is.
It is not real, it is imagination, hence, in comparison to reality, a lie.
I have far too much to deal with in reality to waste much time in lies.
Best, Andy
"Steve Hayes" <khan...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:3a790a0e...@news.saix.net...
AJA
>It is not real, it is imagination, hence, in comparison to reality, a lie.
>
all my life! :))
Best,
Ann
Steve Hayes
<nichola...@edscss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a790a0e...@news.saix.net>, Steve Hayes
><khan...@global.co.za> writes
>>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>>American edition.
>>
>>Does anyone know why this was done?
>>
>>Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
>>of US readers?
>
>I believe (but this is only hearsay) that the American publishers
>considered that the wolf ought to be called something that Americans
>wouldn't boggle at, and Fenris (Ulf) came to mind since he was a "real"
>legendary wolf. I must say it's not terribly convincing.
It's a pity, in a way, because I've often made reference to Maugrim and
assumed people would know what I was talking about. Now it seems that the
reference would have made no sense to them.
Of course there were times when I used it in the hope that some readers might
NOT understand - when living in the UK I used to write to a banned friend in
South Africa, and we frequently used Maugrim as shorthand for the security
police, who would probably have been reading his letters, but would also
probably not have been readers of C.S. Lewis.
>I hope all you Americans on this list are suitably indignant about being
>condescended to in this way by your publishers. Perhaps you could start
>a mass-movement to get the title changed back.
I don't know where it originates, or the context, but the phrase "the dumbing
of America" comes to mind.
>>Or was this done as a result of the evil machinations of Walter Hooper
> [...]
>
>A new rumour starts ...
I thought it was an old one.
Nicholas Young
>Mm. I tend to agree with both changes. These are books for KIDS. The kids don't
>know
>the other terms.
Why should they need to? Can't they learn them from the books?!
Perhaps they might ask the question and someone could tell them, thus
increasing their knowledge ...
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:00:13 +0000, Nicholas Young <nicholas-
>yo...@edscss.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3a790a0e...@news.saix.net>, Steve Hayes
>><khan...@global.co.za> writes
>>>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>>>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>>>American edition.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know why this was done?
>>>
>>>Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
>>>of US readers?
>>
>>I believe (but this is only hearsay) that the American publishers
>>considered that the wolf ought to be called something that Americans
>>wouldn't boggle at, and Fenris (Ulf) came to mind since he was a "real"
>>legendary wolf. I must say it's not terribly convincing.
>
>Maugrim boggles me to this day. Let's see, wasn't he kind of a gloomy peer of
>Kipling, or something.... :-) How did he get into Narnia? He might have been a
>friend
>of Uncle Andrew, but breaking people's furniture doesn't seem his style....
Mary, it's just a fictional name so far as I know. What on earth is the
point of changing fictional names in a fictional work? This doesn't
seem even to be dumbing down, it's just publishers being (more than
usually) stupid, arrogant or something.
Still, it's provided this group and many others with something to
complain about, so perhaps it was all worth while.
Nicholas.
--
Nicholas Young.
Christian Rendel
>Mm. I tend to agree with both changes. These are books for KIDS. The kids don't know
>the other terms.
And what's wrong with them getting to know the other terms?
--
Christian Rendel, Witzenhausen, Germany
"May your footsteps be heard in heaven
before the devil knows you're gone." -Robert De Niro in "Midnight Run"
http://www.drehbuchforum.de -- Die Mailing-Liste für Drehbuchautoren
Christian Rendel
>It is not real, it is imagination, hence, in comparison to reality, a lie.
Goodness. Take a look at your brain manual. I suspect your hardware could
easily handle a little more greyscale resolution. Maybe even a few colours?
Oops, using metaphors again. Imagination. Lie. Sorry.
Carrington Dixon
wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:00:13 +0000, Nicholas Young
><nichola...@edscss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I hope all you Americans on this list are suitably indignant about being
>>condescended to in this way by your publishers. Perhaps you could start
>>a mass-movement to get the title changed back.
>
>I don't know where it originates, or the context, but the phrase "the dumbing
>of America" comes to mind.
Lest anyone should think that is a wholy American phenominom, we
should remember that it works both ways. Some books originally
pubished in the USA have been renamed by their British pubisher when
reprinted in England.
(James Blish's "The Triumph of Time" comes to mind. It's British
title was "A Clash of Cymbals".)
-----------------------------------------------
Carrington Dixon
(For email replay change "nospam" to "home.com"
Steve Hayes
>Wow.
>
>I did start through all that.
>
>It simply reaffirms my belief that my time is better spent in dealing with
>reality, both physical and metaphysical.
>
>I've never been particularly impressed by "opinions", which at least have
>some basis in fact and may have some applicability if upborne with
>intellectual integrity.
>
>I am particularly unimpressed by fiction, science or otherwise, because it
>is a complete fabrication.
>
>The only reason that Hooper could possibly be successful is that his
>audience was predisposed to accept lies as truth, since that is, in the
>hardest light, what fiction is.
>
>It is not real, it is imagination, hence, in comparison to reality, a lie.
>
>I have far too much to deal with in reality to waste much time in lies.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Are you saying that changing the names of characters in Lewis's novels doesn't
matter because the novels are fiction anyway, and since they are lies you
don't think they are worth reading?
Steve Hayes
<nichola...@edscss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a790a0e...@news.saix.net>, Steve Hayes
><khan...@global.co.za> writes
>>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>>American edition.
>>
>>Does anyone know why this was done?
>>
>>Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
>>of US readers?
>
>I believe (but this is only hearsay) that the American publishers
>considered that the wolf ought to be called something that Americans
>wouldn't boggle at, and Fenris (Ulf) came to mind since he was a "real"
>legendary wolf. I must say it's not terribly convincing.
It's a pity, in a way, because I've often made reference to Maugrim and
assumed people would know what I was talking about. Now it seems that the
reference would have made no sense to them.
Of course there were times when I used it in the hope that some readers might
NOT understand - when living in the UK I used to write to a banned friend in
South Africa, and we frequently used Maugrim as shorthand for the security
police, who would probably have been reading his letters, but would also
probably not have been readers of C.S. Lewis.
>I hope all you Americans on this list are suitably indignant about being
>condescended to in this way by your publishers. Perhaps you could start
>a mass-movement to get the title changed back.
I don't know where it originates, or the context, but the phrase "the dumbing
of America" comes to mind.
>>Or was this done as a result of the evil machinations of Walter Hooper
> [...]
>
>A new rumour starts ...
I thought it was an old one.
m...@mooreffoc.com
wrote:
>In article <3a7abea2...@news.sonic.net>, m...@mooreffoc.com writes
>>Mm. I tend to agree with both changes. These are books for KIDS. The kids don't
>>know the other terms.
>
>Why should they need to? Can't they learn them from the books?!
You can't learn anything from a book you don't read. Many kids will not read a book
if they think it is about philosophy.
>Perhaps they might ask the question and someone could tell them, thus
>increasing their knowledge ...
If the term 'philosophers' stone' is used within the book, then a kid who reads the
book will probably learn what it means. But he is more likely to read the book if he
has a more accurate idea of its subject (sorcery, not philosphy).
>
>>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:00:13 +0000, Nicholas Young <nicholas-
>>yo...@edscss.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3a790a0e...@news.saix.net>, Steve Hayes
>>><khan...@global.co.za> writes
>>>>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>>>>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>>>>American edition.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know why this was done?
>>>>
>>>>Is there any significance in either name that could offend the sensibilities
>>>>of US readers?
>>>
>>>I believe (but this is only hearsay) that the American publishers
>>>considered that the wolf ought to be called something that Americans
>>>wouldn't boggle at, and Fenris (Ulf) came to mind since he was a "real"
>>>legendary wolf. I must say it's not terribly convincing.
>>
>>Maugrim boggles me to this day. Let's see, wasn't he kind of a gloomy peer of
>>Kipling, or something.... :-) How did he get into Narnia? He might have been a
>>friend of Uncle Andrew, but breaking people's furniture doesn't seem his style....
>
>Mary, it's just a fictional name so far as I know.
Then the kids will not miss learning something important if it is changed;
particularly if it is changed to the name of a 'real' mythological wolf, about whom
they may be inspired to learn something.
>What on earth is the
>point of changing fictional names in a fictional work?
Perhaps to avoid bogglng people like me who see:
Maugrim
Maughm
Or something similarly distracting. :-) Maugrim sounds like a patent medicine or
something. :-) Murine and Midol for Malaise of Migraine or something. Or what the
medicine cures: an attack of the Megrims.... Or just possibly a villian race of
Star Trek, doubtless kin to the Modoc....
Btw, a search turned up this from Auden:
bawling matches, sarcastic silences,
megrims, tears
along with
Some dull dogpatch a stone's throw
Outside the walls,
/snip/
>Still, it's provided this group and many others with something to
>complain about, so perhaps it was all worth while.
Think how much fun The Few kids will have sorting it out. :-)
Ben Brothers
>Someone mentioned that the name of Maugrim, the chief of the secret police in
>"The lion, the witch and the wardrobe" had been changed to Fenris Uld in the
>American edition.
>Does anyone know why this was done?
In defense of these admittedly silly editors, "Fenris Ulf" is a
much cooler and more ominous name than "Maugrim", which merely
sounds dreary and grey.
--
Ben Brothers - <b...@crhc.uiuc.edu> - www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~bjb/
Steve Hayes
Dixon) wrote:
>>>I hope all you Americans on this list are suitably indignant about being
>>>condescended to in this way by your publishers. Perhaps you could start
>>>a mass-movement to get the title changed back.
>>
>>I don't know where it originates, or the context, but the phrase "the dumbing
>>of America" comes to mind.
>
>Lest anyone should think that is a wholy American phenominom, we
>should remember that it works both ways. Some books originally
>pubished in the USA have been renamed by their British pubisher when
>reprinted in England.
>
>(James Blish's "The Triumph of Time" comes to mind. It's British
>title was "A Clash of Cymbals".)
And Hemingway's The sun also rises/Fiesta.
And Pan changed the title of Lewis's "Perelandra" to "Voyage to Venus" at one
point, though that was within the UK. Perhaps it was to encourage booksellers
to put it on the science fiction shelves -- I know a lot of booksellers put
Hal Lindsay's "The late, great planet earth" there -- quite appropriately, in
my view :-)
Star777nite
that were made by WonderWorks and the BBC. The movies use the name Maugrim
Steve Hayes
>>>Mm. I tend to agree with both changes. These are books for KIDS. The kids don't
>>>know the other terms.
>>
>>Why should they need to? Can't they learn them from the books?!
>
>You can't learn anything from a book you don't read. Many kids will not read a book
>if they think it is about philosophy.
Many kids did read it, in spite of its having "philosophers stone" in the
title.
>>Perhaps they might ask the question and someone could tell them, thus
>>increasing their knowledge ...
>
>If the term 'philosophers' stone' is used within the book, then a kid who reads the
>book will probably learn what it means. But he is more likely to read the book if he
>has a more accurate idea of its subject (sorcery, not philosphy).
The philosophers' stone, as (if I remember correctly) the book explains, was
the subject of a search of alchemists. At least that is what I learnt from my
8th Grade chemistry text book at the age of 11. I found that piece of
knowledge quite fascinating at that age, so I'm pretty sure I would also have
found the Harry Potter books interesting then, if the6y had been available.
The fact that it was the philosophers' stone was quite relavant to the plot,
so I wonder how that was handled with the name changed.
Daryl
>It is not real, it is imagination, hence, in comparison to reality, a lie.
Does a photograph give a truer picture of the essence of a thing than a poem?
Is Norman Rockwell a better artist than Renoir because his work is more
"realistic". "Reality" is amoral, unfeeling, and unthinking, and therfore far
less "truthful" about the human condition than imagination. Remember "We are
such stuff as dreams are made of".
For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son of Man be
ashamed when he comes in his glory... Lk9:25
Daryl
(remove tba for e-mail)
Andy La Varre
I've never seen a painting more beautiful than the sky, the sea, sunsets,
winter snowscenes, a beautiful child, and a host of other blessings. I've
never read a book or seen a movie more compelling than some of the events in
my own life. I've never seen a poem describe the love of another person more
powerful than love I have myself experienced. I've never seen a description
of a meal more delicious than I've tasted. I've never read or seen movies or
pictures of feelings and pleasures more powerful than some I've experienced.
As creatures of God we can never replicate the glory of His creation. I
would rather spend my time enjoying the glory of the real than fantasizing
about the possibilities of the impossible.
If you are miserable and depressed and unable to see or feel the beauty of
true life, including your own self and your participation therein, then by
all means go into a closet, close the door, and read fiction and poems and
look at pictures. Otherwise, go outside and, as they say, get a life. It is
all laid out in front of you, you need only to drop the scales from your
eyes.
Best regards, Andy
"Daryl" <dary...@aol.comtba> wrote in message
news:20010204023546...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
AJA
make inflammatory or rude unsubstantiated claims.
Agreeing with all you say below- and thankful that you've expanded on
the 'lies' post!
Would you perhaps agree that art may be an overflowing of the
plenitude of life?
All the best,
Ann
m...@mooreffoc.com
We're so made
We first see things when they're painted.
Lewis re Plotinus' "gentle answer" to the same objection. The painter does not copy
the apple, but both the apple and the painting are copies of the same Original
(archetype, Idea, whatever). This isn't indexed in /Discarded/, so might have been
OHEL??
Lewis re fiction as 'lies' -- yes, that word. "It took <long time> to get Europe as a
whole over that stile." OHEL maybe, or /Exp in Crit/?
William James /Principles of Psychology/ re 'ideal brick'. We have a sort of cache
file of 'a REAL brick', like a photo from just the right angle to show the rectanglar
planes at a particular time of day in full sun, which the mind pulls out and
substitutes for the leaf-shadowed sensation which changes every moment.
Lewis in /Screwtape/ talked about getting rid of those cache files and looking at the
real things: walk to old mill etc. Blake, Huxley etc: 'if the doors of perception are
clensed'. See Blyth's /Zen in Eng Lit/ re "the woodspurge has a cup of three".
Most entry-level meditation/yoga practices are designed for this 'clensing of
perception' also.
Depending on the quality of our cache file and how constantly we substitute it, and
the quality of the painting, the painting may be nearer the reality or further: it
may have more details, leaf-shadows etc than our perception. If it has more, then it
helps clense our perception.
Of course the main point of art is that it can combine elements so as to show us
things that don't have material replicas in this world at the moment.
Mary
..........................................
http://www.sonic.net/mary/homepage/
My site on CSL story sources:
http://pub50.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?usernum=4248876121
Rilstone's FAQ for alt.books.cs-lewis:
http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/cslfaq.txt
AJA
>Of course the main point of art is that it can combine elements so as to show us
>things that don't have material replicas in this world at the moment.
And even some things that do. To paraphrase CSL in _The Discarded
Image_, in comparison to mathematics all those ideas about the "real"
rocks and slopes and views are a metaphor. Observation is good but at
a deeper level the mathematics are now nearest to the reality of
things. Without a parable science speaks not to the multitudes. So
art and literature and poetry contribute a kind of metaphor or
parable, perhaps.
Of our 'Model' more could be said. What is that 'Model' today?
All the best,
Ann
Christopher J. Henrich
>
[Why did the American publisher of -LW&tW_ change "Maugrim" to "Fenris Ulf"?]
>
> Mary, it's just a fictional name so far as I know. What on earth is the
> point of changing fictional names in a fictional work? This doesn't
> seem even to be dumbing down, it's just publishers being (more than
> usually) stupid, arrogant or something.
>
I think it entirely possible that some editor did this for no other
reason than to assert himself. Dogs pee on fire hydrants for the same reason.
--
Chris Henrich
Andy La Varre
I was nor am neither drunk, nor intending to be inflammatory nor rude nor
unsubstantiated.
But I stand ready to be corrected... :-)
Blunt perhaps, a problem I'm trying to deal with. But so did Clive, see the
quote below.
Afterthe latest post it did occur to me that I should have quoted some dead
poet in my past:
"I think I that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree" or words to
that effect.
This is indeed the proper role of poetry, to glorify, in an eloquent
fashion, the wonders of reality...As you say,
> an overflowing of the
> plenitude of life?
OK,OK, OK, don't hit me again, I went and looked it up:
http://www.sunbeach.net/arborday/:
"I think that I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast
A tree that looks at God all day
And lifts her heavy arms to pray
A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair
Upon whose bosom due has lain
Who intimately lives with rain
*******Poems are made by fools like me*******
*******But only God can make a tree."*******
*******Emphasis added.
So there. :-)
{(Alfred) Joyce Kilmer. A him, apparently, not a her. News to me and I'm an
English major... But I digress.}
Poetry, paintings, and song are valuable as media for self expression; if
promoted as that (as in the Psalms) and accepted as that (as in their
inclusion in the Old Testament), then I have no argument with them. But when
promoted as such they are done so only for the author's own benefit of
expression, only as an offering to others to help them experience the glory
he has seen. They are NOT intended as a source of income.
We all deserve to glorify life, and if in doing so we are moved to music, or
poetry, or beautiful paintings, or other manifestations of love of life, and
seek to inspire others to the same glory, then Thanks be to God.
In this role we are only trying to express our gratitude and wonder at the
magnificence presented to us; our expressions are only reflections, however
imperfect, of what we have experienced, and as such are offerings thereof,
however weak, in gratitude therefor.
My quarrel is in having these things as ends, in and of themselves. As soon
as the author starts charging money for it, he has lost the valid purpose.
That is the point where the lie sets in. That is the point at which they
become vanity.
Vendors of poetry, paintings, and fiction have crossed that bar.
IHS, Andy
"The Christian replies, 'Don't talk damned nonsense.' For Christianity is a
fighting religion. It thinks GOD made the world...But it also thinks that a
great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God
INSISTS, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again."
Mere Christianity, p. 45.
"AJA" <ahne...@microdsi.net> wrote in message
news:3a82871d...@news.microdsi.net...
AJA
>
>My quarrel is in having these things as ends, in and of themselves. As soon
>as the author starts charging money for it, he has lost the valid purpose.
>That is the point where the lie sets in. That is the point at which they
>become vanity.
>
>Vendors of poetry, paintings, and fiction have crossed that bar.
Well...I, for instance, have purchased several Bibles in my life. And
paintings and hundreds of books, too. As an English major you must
have purchased a fair amount of books. I have a friend who is a
painter. She charges for her paintings, though she has a business
manager who takes care of all of that end. She has no business sense
and she says it's like selling her children. The walls of her salon
are literally covered with hundreds of her works she can't bear to
sell. I've talked her out of two of them. The price of canvas and
paint, not to mention a roof over her easel, necessitates selling the
paintings. You'll be paid some day for performing whatever art you'll
decide to perform. I'm paid for the art of teaching French.
Some would say that part of the measure of a society is how much it is
prepared to spend on the arts as compared to what is spent on, let's
say, Rolos, etc.
>"The Christian replies, 'Don't talk damned nonsense.' For Christianity is a
>fighting religion. It thinks GOD made the world...But it also thinks that a
>great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God
>INSISTS, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again."
>Mere Christianity, p. 45.
And CSL also knew that a clear path isn't always so easy to find.
Here's a bit from one of CSL's sources:
"To say 'Yes' to everything and everybody is manifestly to have no
character at all. The delicate and difficult art of life is to find,
in each new turn of experience, the _via media_ between two extremes;
to be catholic _without_ being characterless; to have and apply
standards, and yet to be on guard against their desensitizing and
stupefying influence, their tendency to blind us to the diversities of
concrete situations and to previously unrecognized values; to know
when to tolerate, when to embrace, and when to fight."
--A. O. Lovejoy, _The Great Chain of Being_, chapter X
All the best,
Ann
"I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
Dan Drake
> Well, I'm not going to get into a flame war over this, but:
>
> I've never seen a painting more beautiful than the sky, the sea, sunsets,
> winter snowscenes,...
>
> As creatures of God we can never replicate the glory of His creation...
Yes, artists just give us an imitation of the world around us, and that in
turn is a pale shadow of Reality. Why waste time on imitations of an
imitation?
It's all in Plato.
Alas, the shadows on the wall of the cave, accurate though they are in
terms of projective geometry, lack something or other. Sometimes they
seem, like, flat and colorless. An artist is a person who has some odd
and unobjective method of putting back the color and depth.
Steve Hayes
>ON topic, this Sunday's sermon was particularly telling and is a propos of
>this NG. It very much followed the themes of Screwtape. Satan doesn't mess
>with people who aren't committed, who don't care. He has already won their
>souls. The ones he afflicts are the ones who are strongest in their
>commitment to God. They are the soldiers he must conquer.
And the ones he bothers with least of all are the satanists. They've
volunteered, so they aren't likely to run away soon.
Dan Drake
> "Is beauty objective?" is a question that Lewis used to think he was assigned :-),
> along with many people of his culture, going all the way back to Plato and beyond.
>
> In /Abolition/ he seems to think most of his audience would agree that it was
> objective. :-)
>
> This gets into lots of fascinating, ON-topic subtleties. Dan, how do you understand
> the shadows in the cave? Any comparison to the scene with the witch and Puddleglum
> underground in /Silver Chair/?
Glad you asked that question. To start with, the Cave is a splendid
parable of someone who has seen something splendid and important and is
trying to put it across to people who haven't. You will recall the period
of Better Living Through Chemistry(tm) in the 1960s, when many people
suddenly experienced things they hadn't dreamed of, literally, and had no
way of conveying it to people who hadn't seen anything of the sort. The
Cave ought to have been on everyone's lips then, but hardly anyone
mentioned it. What DO they teach in the schools these days?
But of course a parable never proved anything. If you think you've
perceived the real nature of the world, and this world is a poor shadow of
it, and the people here won't listen, then there you are in Plato's cave.
But lots of people have perceived lots of weird things, and they can't all
be right [more or less deliberate provocation here, Mary], so the cave
story doesn't prove anything about how the world really is.
That's the negative side. It doesn't mean I'm convinced that Plato's
theory was dead wrong and the world _is_ just quarks & leptons (as
distinct from being merely _made_ of them). Still, if he had understood
his own theory better, he'd never have said such silly things about the
arts in The obscenely-misnamed Republic. And I think, if you edit out my
insults to Plato, that you can get general agreement around here on what
the arts do.
Trying to explain the parable in plain language: if there is anything
transcendent, anything not fully accounted for by the statistics of
fermions and bosons, then obviously we are not getting the whole picture
by observing the material world. If the larger and more real world is
something glorious, whether it's Plato's world or Dante's, we're missing
something important. In the Cave, projective geometry reduces the true
forms to flat black and white shadows, and that's a relly nice analogy to
what we perceive; from this, the importance of artists who put the life
and color back into the images is, I should think, obvious.
And, bringing it right on topic, the artist who tries to be edifying at
the expense of his artistic vision is betraying his calling and won't
succeed well even at edification. [Compare the role of the arts in The
so-called Republic.] Which could bring up the question of what happens
when someone's artistic vision is just plain damned evil, but I don't
think that's much on topic.
And, yes, the scene in Silver Chair is the same parable in a way. There's
an element of Christian tradition added to it: the prince of this world
(or princess of that world) is consciously and maliciously trying to
convince them that they haven't seen what they have seen, and how is that
to be resisted? And there are a couple of interesting new elements in
Puddleglum's answer. One is that I'm just not smart enough to have
dreamed up all the complexity of that world I remember. Another is that
that world is so good that I'm determined to be a Narnian even if there
isn't a Narnia. These give me pause far more than do any of the 2,500
years of attempts at logical demonstration.
AJA
Dan wrote:
> To start with, the Cave is a splendid
>parable of someone who has seen something splendid and important and is
>trying to put it across to people who haven't. You will recall the period
>of Better Living Through Chemistry(tm) in the 1960s, when many people
>suddenly experienced things they hadn't dreamed of, literally, and had no
>way of conveying it to people who hadn't seen anything of the sort. The
>Cave ought to have been on everyone's lips then, but hardly anyone
>mentioned it. What DO they teach in the schools these days?
>
>But of course a parable never proved anything. If you think you've
>perceived the real nature of the world, and this world is a poor shadow of
>it, and the people here won't listen, then there you are in Plato's cave.
>But lots of people have perceived lots of weird things, and they can't all
>be right [more or less deliberate provocation here, Mary], so the cave
>story doesn't prove anything about how the world really is.
Another POV about Plato's cave. The shadows need the sun, but the sun
also needs the shadows to give the Ideal concrete forms. Can one look
directly at the sun and live? Having no experience with the sun could
we even know what we saw without the shadows? Then, the business of a
Troglodyte is with the shadows in his cave. A God unsupplemented by
diversity would not be 'Good'. The _Timaeus_ posits that neither God
nor his creatures could conceivably been or done other than they are
and do. (Thanks Mary for pointing to A. O. Lovejoy's _The Great Chain
of Being_. It's been fun. And packed with Lewis stuff!)
> Another is that
>that world is so good that I'm determined to be a Narnian even if there
>isn't a Narnia. These give me pause far more than do any of the 2,500
>years of attempts at logical demonstration.
Amen. Me too.
m...@mooreffoc.com
On 7 Feb 2001 18:59:07 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:11:54, m...@mooreffoc.com wrote:
>
>> "Is beauty objective?" is a question that Lewis used to think he was assigned :-),
>> along with many people of his culture, going all the way back to Plato and beyond.
>>
>> In /Abolition/ he seems to think most of his audience would agree that it was
>> objective. :-)
>>
>> This gets into lots of fascinating, ON-topic subtleties. Dan, how do you understand
>> the shadows in the cave? Any comparison to the scene with the witch and Puddleglum
>> underground in /Silver Chair/?
>
>Glad you asked that question. To start with, the Cave is a splendid
>parable of someone who has seen something splendid and important and is
>trying to put it across to people who haven't. You will recall the period
>of Better Living Through Chemistry(tm) in the 1960s, when many people
>suddenly experienced things they hadn't dreamed of, literally, and had no
>way of conveying it to people who hadn't seen anything of the sort. The
>Cave ought to have been on everyone's lips then, but hardly anyone
>mentioned it.
Superceded by Galileo's telescope, wasn't it? :-)
Mass produced, more available.... :-) And the added feature of ridiculous to refuse
to look.
> What DO they teach in the schools these days?
>
>But of course a parable never proved anything. If you think you've
>perceived the real nature of the world, and this world is a poor shadow of
>it, and the people here won't listen, then there you are in Plato's cave.
>But lots of people have perceived lots of weird things, and they can't all
>be right [more or less deliberate provocation here, Mary],
Of whom? :-)
>so the cave
>story doesn't prove anything about how the world really is.
Plato's or Puddleglum's or both? I don't see that either story claimed to prove
anything, except maybe that certain questions were still open. Debunk certain claimed
disproofs, putting both sides back in the running.
>That's the negative side. It doesn't mean I'm convinced that Plato's
>theory was dead wrong and the world _is_ just quarks & leptons (as
>distinct from being merely _made_ of them).
Shall I refrain from mentioning poached eggs?
>Still, if he had understood
>his own theory better,
Did Plotinus 'gentle answer' get it right, then?
>he'd never have said such silly things about the arts
?
> in The obscenely-misnamed Republic.
It wasn't about Res Publica?
> And I think, if you edit out my
>insults to Plato,
Is Republic all you have against him? /Anthem/ was rather good.
Seems to me we're standing on the shoulders of 2400 years of hindsight and recorded
experiments. Plato didn't have all that, and meseems he was writing something more
like Erewhon than Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
Maybe Plato's contemporaries wouldn't have seen the distinction. Microcosm/macrocosm.
But weren't they as much making a metaphor for the internal workings of a single
human, as talking about a real proposed state? See /Discarded/ re the head as the
king -- heart/chest as chivalrous nobles/military/police -- belly as low-class
indulgent populace. Body politic?
Narnia is a land for a human to be king over?
(Btw, just how big a 'republic' was Plato talking about, anyway? Were'nt the Greeks
always going off in ships to found new 'ciites', trying out various constitutions?
Kind of like some of the utopian colonies in the early history of the US? I don't
think he was really saying let's convert the whole of Russia at once. IF he was
serious at all, wouldn't it be more like an experiment to be tried on a small scale?
And couldn't people leave if they really didn't like it? As with Skinner? I suppose
you could say they all had to wear special underwear or something. :-)
(And how did it compare with what was really done in Sparta, and which came first?:-)
>that you can get general agreement around here on what
>the arts do.
>
>Trying to explain the parable in plain language: if there is anything
>transcendent, anything not fully accounted for by the statistics of
>fermions and bosons, then obviously we are not getting the whole picture
>by observing the material world.
See also "Transubstantiation" in /Weight of Glory/ or some such, iirc. Puddleglum's
cave is very close to that: using the vocabulary of a 'poorer' system to describe a
'richer' one.
> If the larger and more real world is
>something glorious, whether it's Plato's world or Dante's, we're missing
>something important. In the Cave, projective geometry reduces the true
>forms to flat black and white shadows, and that's a relly nice analogy to
>what we perceive;
??
It almost seems the full cave thing is too many steps of unreality....
Did someone say Lewis mentioned a similar metaphor, of a child born in a dungeon cell
who never saw the outside world. Only the adults had seen it, and they drew pictures
for him. So he thought the real clouds and trees would be gray and thin, not solid
and colorful like the stones in the dungeon.
I get confused in Platos' cave when we can't even see the real objects or the
carriers. Hm. Maybe the shadows on the wall are the cache images, James' 'ideal
bricks', what society says about the objects. "Snakes are slimy" etc. Second-hand,
cliches....
Then if we could manage to see the objects themselves, they are much more
real,detailed, wholesome than the cliches/shadows. -- This would correspond with the
idea of the fellow who started the thread, Joyce Kilmer. :-) (Hm, shall I find my
old Norman Rockwell thread and introduce them?) Except that he saw artists as the
carriers, and I'm just seeing cliche-makers. I agree with you that the real artists
help us get from the shadows to the real objects.
But in turning from the dungeon stones to the pictures of the trees, we are turning
to something less real (in our experience)....
I'm not sure I'm right about any of this.
Anyway, there's something late in Phaedo that fits with Platos' cave (and kind of
with Silver Chair). I'll try to do a followup post about it.
>from this, the importance of artists who put the life
>and color back into the images is, I should think, obvious.
Mm. Ok. When we look at a Winslow Homer watercolor and SMELL the ozone...... Or an
Impressionist painting and HEAR the dragonflies humming....
Is that smell and sound maybe more like the essence than we would smell and hear if
really on those shores? (Paging Keats....)
>
>And, bringing it right on topic, the artist who tries to be edifying at
>the expense of his artistic vision is betraying his calling and won't
>succeed well even at edification.
Sounds like something Lewis would agree with, but did he say it?
>[Compare the role of the arts in The
>so-called Republic.] Which could bring up the question of what happens
>when someone's artistic vision is just plain damned evil, but I don't
>think that's much on topic.
All I can think of there is a comment in the British part of E. R. Eddison about
Beardsley.
>
>And, yes, the scene in Silver Chair is the same parable in a way. There's
>an element of Christian tradition added to it: the prince of this world
>(or princess of that world) is consciously and maliciously trying to
>convince them that they haven't seen what they have seen, and how is that
>to be resisted? And there are a couple of interesting new elements in
>Puddleglum's answer. One is that I'm just not smart enough to have
>dreamed up all the complexity of that world I remember.
Somewhere Lewis said something like, "Either so and so, or my subconscious must be a
much more interesting place than I had imagined" -- as tho that settled the matter!
>Another is that
>that world is so good that I'm determined to be a Narnian even if there
>isn't a Narnia.
Yes. That's the Existentialist/New-Age answer. Choice of conduct. Belief optional.
Not sure whether Pascal and/or Socrates went on to try to convince themselves into
positive belief. Lewis did, didnt' he? Or rather let some belief experinces happen
(SBJ) -- but didn't he positively try to cultivate 'belief' later also?
Also, Puddlegllum didn't just settle down to act like a Narnian in the cave, he set
out to try to find the way up toward the disputed 'surface' to find out what was
really there.
> These give me pause far more than do any of the 2,500
>years of attempts at logical demonstration.
Yep.
Mary
m...@mooreffoc.com
>Anyway, there's something late in Phaedo that fits with Platos' cave (and kind of
>with Silver Chair). I'll try to do a followup post about it.
All this fits with the /Discarded Image/ stuff around p. 62, see thread on 'black
tartar-whatsis dregs'.
http://pict.spiritweb.org/Plato/Phaedo/part-05.html
Well, then, he said, my conviction is that the earth is a round body in the center of
the heavens, and therefore has no need of air or any similar force as a support, but
is kept there and hindered from falling or inclining any way by the equability of the
surrounding heaven and by her own equipoise. For that which, being in equipoise, is
in the center of that which is equably diffused, will not incline any way in any
degree, but will always remain in the same state and not deviate. And this is my
first notion.
Which is surely a correct one, said Simmias.
Also I believe that the earth is very vast, and that we who dwell in the region
extending from the river Phasis to the Pillars of Heracles, along the borders of the
sea, are just like ants or frogs about a marsh, and inhabit a small portion only, and
that many others dwell in many like places. For I should say that in all parts of the
earth there are hollows of various forms and sizes, into which the water and the mist
and the air collect; and that the true earth is pure and in the pure heaven, in which
also are the stars-that is the heaven which is commonly spoken of as the ether, of
which this is but the sediment collecting in the hollows of the earth. But we who
live in these hollows are deceived into the notion that we are dwelling above on the
surface of the earth; which is just as if a creature who was at the bottom of the sea
were to fancy that he was on the surface of the water, and that the sea was the
heaven through which he saw the sun and the other stars-he having never come to the
surface by reason of his feebleness and sluggishness, and having never lifted up his
head and seen, nor ever heard from one who had seen, this region which is so much
purer and fairer than his own. Now this is exactly our case: for we are dwelling in a
hollow of the earth, and fancy that we are on the surface; and the air we call the
heaven, and in this we imagine that the stars move. But this is also owing to our
feebleness and sluggishness, which prevent our reaching the surface of the air: for
if any man could arrive at the exterior limit, or take the wings of a bird and fly
upward, like a fish who puts his head out and sees this world, he would see a world
beyond; and, if the nature of man could sustain the sight, he would acknowledge that
this was the place of the true heaven and the true light and the true stars. For this
earth, and the stones, and the entire region which surrounds us, are spoilt and
corroded, like the things in the sea which are corroded by the brine; for in the sea
too there is hardly any noble or perfect growth, but clefts only, and sand, and an
endless slough of mud: and even the shore is not to be compared to the fairer sights
of this world. And greater far is the superiority of the other. Now of that upper
earth which is under the heaven, I can tell you a charming tale, Simmias, which is
well worth hearing.
And we, Socrates, replied Simmias, shall be charmed to listen.
The tale, my friend, he said, is as follows: In the first place, the earth, when
looked at from above, is like one of those balls which have leather coverings in
twelve pieces, and is of divers colors, of which the colors which painters use on
earth are only a sample. But there the whole earth is made up of them, and they are
brighter far and clearer than ours; there is a purple of wonderful luster, also the
radiance of gold, and the white which is in the earth is whiter than any chalk or
snow. Of these and other colors the earth is made up, and they are more in number and
fairer than the eye of man has ever seen; and the very hollows (of which I was
speaking) filled with air and water are seen like light flashing amid the other
colors, and have a color of their own, which gives a sort of unity to the variety of
earth. And in this fair region everything that grows-trees, and flowers, and
fruits-is in a like degree fairer than any here; and there are hills, and stones in
them in a like degree smoother, and more transparent, and fairer in color than our
highly valued emeralds and sardonyxes and jaspers, and other gems, which are but
minute fragments of them: for there all the stones are like our precious stones, and
fairer still. The reason of this is that they are pure, and not, like our precious
stones, infected or corroded by the corrupt briny elements which coagulate among us,
and which breed foulness and disease both in earth and stones, as well as in animals
and plants. They are the jewels of the upper earth, which also shines with gold and
silver and the like, and they are visible to sight and large and abundant and found
in every region of the earth, and blessed is he who sees them. And upon the earth are
animals and men, some in a middle region, others dwelling about the air as we dwell
about the sea; others in islands which the air flows round, near the continent: and
in a word, the air is used by them as the water and the sea are by us, and the ether
is to them what the air is to us. Moreover, the temperament of their seasons is such
that they have no disease, and live much longer than we do, and have sight and
hearing and smell, and all the other senses, in far greater perfection, in the same
degree that air is purer than water or the ether than air. Also they have temples and
sacred places in which the gods really dwell, and they hear their voices and receive
their answers, and are conscious of them and hold converse with them, and they see
the sun, moon, and stars as they really are, and their other blessedness is of a
piece with this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dan Drake
> In haste....
>
>
> On 7 Feb 2001 18:59:07 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:11:54, m...@mooreffoc.com wrote:
> >
> >>... [snipped; will anything remain when I'm done? Shall I remember to snip this if not?
> >To start with, the Cave is a splendid
> >parable of someone who has seen something splendid and important and is
> >trying to put it across to people who haven't. You will recall the period
> >of Better Living Through Chemistry(tm) in the 1960s, when many people
> >suddenly experienced things they hadn't dreamed of, literally, and had no
> >way of conveying it to people who hadn't seen anything of the sort. The
> >Cave ought to have been on everyone's lips then, but hardly anyone
> >mentioned it.
>
> Superceded by Galileo's telescope, wasn't it? :-)
>
> Mass produced, more available.... :-) And the added feature of ridiculous to refuse
> to look.
[Warning: seriously off topic. It gets back on track later, I hope.]
That last bit is the problem, to us science-mongering types. I mean, you
can hold a telescope in your hands, you can examine it, and even if you
don't understand its theory of operation, you can look through it and see
what it does with the view of objects that are close enough to walk over
to and examine, and when you've looked at those and at the skies, you can
put it down and meditate on it. To refuse to look is stupid, and not just
in 400 years of hindsight.
Contrariwise, the fear that taking these ill-understood drugs will
interfere with the very ability to think about what they do, and may
interfere permanently with the ability to think about anything, is a
serious and valid problem. This is related to, though not the whole of,
the problem of messing with your internal instruments of perception.
Hence, opening those doors of perception requires a leap of faith that the
Cave seems to support better than the coldly rational argument of the
telescope can. But I digress.
>
>
> >... lots of people have perceived lots of weird things, and they can't all
> >be right [more or less deliberate provocation here, Mary],
>
> Of whom? :-)
Well, as a critic of the Christians' insistence on doctrine as well as the
scientists' insistence on provable material answers, you would perhaps see
it as a challenge to a multi-centered universe that has multiple right
answers. Perhaps not.
>
>
> >so the cave
> >story doesn't prove anything about how the world really is.
>
> Plato's or Puddleglum's or both? I don't see that either story claimed to prove
> anything, except maybe that certain questions were still open.
Matter of interpretation. Followers of an author often claim more for him
than he openly claimed, or perhaps more than he wanted to claim. The cave
is often cited as an exposition of the theory of Forms, though it's
nothing of the kind, just a fine parable.
On the other hand, it's widely argued that Plato was merely raising all
the questions in the world without insisting on an answer, as shown by his
use of dialogues. The reason I keep sniping at formal platonism, if not
necessarily Plato, is that the claim is in so many cases patently false,
as are the things represented as dialogues. Or maybe the open-endedness
is lost in translation? In the Republic as much as in the Meno, and these
are not alone, Socrates is expounding the truth, and opposing ideas are
shown to make about as much sense as Simplicio's arguments in Galileo's
big dialogue. (Which, we can admit now that the Inquisition is out of the
way, was advocacy, not an open inquiry.)
> ...
> >Still, if he had understood
> >his own theory better,
>
> Did Plotinus 'gentle answer' get it right, then?
I don't know. A good thing if it did.
>
> >he'd never have said such silly things about the arts
>
> ?
Their purpose is to make better citizens out of people, and in particular
better soldiers. Wrong-thinking musical modes, for instance, are not to
be used.
>
> > in The obscenely-misnamed Republic.
>
> It wasn't about Res Publica?
He didn't write in Latin. Seriously, the English word means more than
"public affairs", and so did the Latin phrase when you get down to it.
The name, of course, comes from later commentators; why he didn't get the
exclusive use of "Politics", which would have been a good enough name, I
don't know; after all, he had seniority.
>
>... [snipped too much here]
>... meseems he was writing something more
> like Erewhon than Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
Me seems not. Your mileage may vary. In all fairness, though, with a
mere lifetime of hindsight, including the experience of working for a
tyrant in a state recognizably like his Erewhon, Plato modified his views
a good deal.
>
> Maybe Plato's contemporaries wouldn't have seen the distinction. Microcosm/macrocosm.
> But weren't they as much making a metaphor for the internal workings of a single
> human, as talking about a real proposed state?
I always had difficulties with assignments that required me to prove that
an author meant something entirely different from what he said. (Not
talking about satires here.) The R starts with Socrates and friends
talking about What Is Justice, a fine question on which they make a fine
start. Then they decide (not debate open-endedly) that you can't have
justice except in a just state, so they try to figure out a just state.
If the rest of the dialogue is supposed to be a discussion of the
individual psyche and not of how to do a state, the intention is
brialliantly concealed. Or lost in translation.
>...
>
> Narnia is a land for a human to be king over?
Oh, you're asking for it. I read the R in a mini-course a few years ago,
with several other works including the Antigone. However, I find I can't
get at the quote I want because Netscrape has decided to hang and nearly
kill my system, so, later.
>
>... I suppose
> you could say they all had to wear special underwear or something. :-)
Beautiful.
>
> (And how did it compare with what was really done in Sparta, and which came first?:-)
Sparta came first, and he and his totalitarian friends liked it. Some day
I must read I. F. Stone's book on the matter.
>...
>
> > If the larger and more real world is
> >something glorious, whether it's Plato's world or Dante's, we're missing
> >something important. In the Cave, projective geometry reduces the true
> >forms to flat black and white shadows, and that's a relly nice analogy to
> >what we perceive;
>
> ??
Ah, well, I guess projective geometry is not a metaphor that has deep
emotional resonances for everybody. Let it pass.
>...
> >And, bringing it right on topic, the artist who tries to be edifying at
> >the expense of his artistic vision is betraying his calling and won't
> >succeed well even at edification.
>
> Sounds like something Lewis would agree with, but did he say it?
I'm sure he did, but can't give a cite.
> >... there are a couple of interesting new elements in
> >Puddleglum's answer. One is that I'm just not smart enough to have
> >dreamed up all the complexity of that world I remember.
>
> Somewhere Lewis said something like, "Either so and so, or my subconscious must be a
> much more interesting place than I had imagined" -- as tho that settled the matter!
Very nice. Do you know where? I won't say it settles the matter, but it
ought to make a solipsist uncomfortable.
>
>
> >Another is that
> >that world is so good that I'm determined to be a Narnian even if there
> >isn't a Narnia.
>
> Yes. That's the Existentialist/New-Age answer. Choice of conduct. Belief optional.
>
> Not sure whether Pascal and/or Socrates went on to try to convince themselves into
> positive belief. Lewis did, didnt' he? Or rather let some belief experinces happen
> (SBJ) -- but didn't he positively try to cultivate 'belief' later also?
Well, gee, here we're on topic, and I've got to sign off before Netscape
does me any more damage. But Puddleglum's argument is just the beginning
and is not argued very rigorously -- not surprising, since he was not
writing a philosophical treatise but fighting for his life. Why does it
matter that Narnia is good and its antithesis is evil? Why should I
bother to work for that side? What does "should" mean? Mammy Yokum's
answer, that good is better than evil because it's nicer, is also less
than adequate.
Andrew Rilstone
>would rather spend my time enjoying the glory of the real than fantasizing
>about the possibilities of the impossible.
A Vicar is taking a walk around his parish, and he sees a man working in
his front garden. It is an exceptionally beautiful garden, with neatly
pruned roses, and mown lawn, and a blaze of beautifully cultivated
flowers. "Isn't it wonderful" exclaims the vicar "What can be achieved
when God and Man work together."
"Maybe," says the gardener "But you should have seen what a mess this
place was when God had it all to himself!"
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
*******************************************************************************
"Then shall the realm of Albion come to great confusion"
*******************************************************************************
m...@mooreffoc.com
an Inklings meeting in HC's /The Inklings/.
On 9 Feb 2001 19:54:54 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:16:08, m...@mooreffoc.com wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2001 18:59:07 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:11:54, m...@mooreffoc.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>... [snipped; will anything remain when I'm done? Shall I remember to snip this if not?
>
>> >To start with, the Cave is a splendid
>> >parable of someone who has seen something splendid and important and is
>> >trying to put it across to people who haven't.
///
>> Superceded by Galileo's telescope, wasn't it? :-)
>> Mass produced, more available.... :-) And the added feature of ridiculous to refuse
>> to look.
/// /snip of point I agree with/
>and may
>interfere permanently with the ability to think about anything, is a
>serious and valid problem.
You're quite right of course. I didn't say the telescope was more valid, just why it
sold better. :-)
> This is related to, though not the whole of,
>the problem of messing with your internal instruments of perception.
>Hence, opening those doors of perception requires a leap of faith that the
>Cave seems to support better than the coldly rational argument of the
>telescope can.
I had forgotten about any aspect of danger in leaving Plato's Cave (other than
reaction of the cave people.) Certainly there was danger in leaving Puddleglum's
(other than reaction of cave people).
> But I digress.
Not necessarily, it leads back to Barfield. Didn't someone do a cartoon predicting
Barfield would open his doors of perception too far and go mad? Was it Lewis?
The conventional NA wisdom now says drugs are like tearing off the roof, and walks to
the old mill are like gently cleaning the windows and oiling the latches. Sfaik
Barfield was not doing drugs; however some austerities might also fit at that end of
the spectrum: more likelly to damage the mechanism than improve it, tho giving some
light and air for the moment.
I wonder what Lewis would have thought of clensing the d of p by the sort of
meditation techniques we conservative yuppie NA people approve: staring at a candle
flame (or a woodspurge :-) for a reasonable length of time, chanting, etc, maybe
jogging. We draw the line according to whether the activities are healthy for the
body in themselves.
I wonder (if it was L who drew the cartoon) whether it was Barfield's methods he
disapproved of, or the degree of clensing itself? My impression was the latter: some
things hobbits were not meant to know, or something. :-)
>> >... lots of people have perceived lots of weird things, and they can't all
>> >be right [more or less deliberate provocation here, Mary],
>>
>> Of whom? :-)
>
>Well, as a critic of the Christians' insistence on doctrine as well as the
>scientists' insistence on provable material answers, you would perhaps see
>it as a challenge to a multi-centered universe that has multiple right
>answers. Perhaps not.
And happy Valentine's Day to you too! :-)
>Well, as a critic of the Christians' insistence on doctrine as well as the
>scientists' insistence on provable material answers,
Insistence on them for what purpose? Lewis said that even if the current theory of
vitamins is discarded, people will go on eating their dinners just the same. (I think
maybe he was referring to Holy Communion. Wonder how that will get summarized by the
MacDowell types. :-)
If Puddleglum wants to risk his own life on the climb, fine. But he'd need proof in
order to round up the gnomes and herd them toward the One True Surface. What bothers
me is people who are so determined to herd the gnomes that they lower their standard
of proof.... :-( Or of need for proof.... :-(
>you would perhaps see
>it as a challenge to a multi-centered universe that has multiple right
>answers.
Multi- is not omni-. I never said every single one of them is right. :-) (Or did I?
Right in describing their own experience maybe, right about something, like the
curate's egg. :-)
As we discussed long ago, all cosmologies can't all be right in all details -- if
some of the details say "And all the others are wrong!" :-) Most of the positive
parts can be right in limited ways, I suppose. "There is a surface with air and a
sun" is right, but "and that is the only source of heat/light, and the only place to
live, and all the gnomes have to go there with me" would be wrong. Just as the gnomes
would be wrong to say their subterranean fire-cavern was the only place anyone could
live properly.
Btw the Phaedo V thing I posted last night sounds like this: surfaces within
surfaces....
/snip/
>
>On the other hand, it's widely argued that Plato was merely raising all
>the questions in the world without insisting on an answer, as shown by his
>use of dialogues. The reason I keep sniping at formal platonism, if not
>necessarily Plato, is that the claim is in so many cases patently false,
Lost me.
>as are the things represented as dialogues. Or maybe the open-endedness
>is lost in translation? In the Republic as much as in the Meno, and these
>are not alone, Socrates is expounding the truth,
/snip/
>> ...
>> >Still, if he had understood
>> >his own theory better,
>>
>> Did Plotinus 'gentle answer' get it right, then?
>
>I don't know. A good thing if it did.
In what points do you think Plato misunderstood his own theory? :-)
/snip/
>
>>... [snipped too much here]
>>... meseems he was writing something more
>> like Erewhon than Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
>
>Me seems not. Your mileage may vary.
A lot of stuff pre-1940s has to me a flavor of Erewhon, Flatland.... As Lewis said of
mappa mundi, it was art, no one expected to steer by it. Hm, remember L's 'recipe'
for making a landscape out of potatoes (whole, not mashed :-). It's in the form of a
recipe, but no one was expected to do it.
> In all fairness, though, with a
>mere lifetime of hindsight, including the experience of working for a
>tyrant in a state recognizably like his Erewhon, Plato modified his views
>a good deal.
Why not cut him some slack for juvenalia, then?
>
>>
>> Maybe Plato's contemporaries wouldn't have seen the distinction. Microcosm/macrocosm.
>> But weren't they as much making a metaphor for the internal workings of a single
>> human, as talking about a real proposed state?
>
>I always had difficulties with assignments that required me to prove that
>an author meant something entirely different from what he said. (Not
>talking about satires here.) The R starts with Socrates and friends
>talking about What Is Justice, a fine question on which they make a fine
>start. Then they decide (not debate open-endedly) that you can't have
>justice except in a just state, so they try to figure out a just state.
>If the rest of the dialogue is supposed to be a discussion of the
>individual psyche and not of how to do a state, the intention is
>brialliantly concealed. Or lost in translation.
Well, fractal. To have justice in the individual you need a state that suits the
individual, and they thought suiting meant mirroring?
>> Narnia is a land for a human to be king over?
>
>Oh, you're asking for it. I read the R in a mini-course a few years ago,
>with several other works including the Antigone.
Here my prejudices click on. I'd want to know who taught the course, who the textbook
writers read, etc. And what kind of prose the texts were in.
Hologramism. I trust bits and pieces I get from people like Lewis and Lovejoy, who
have obviously read most of the right books and got most of the right things. If they
quote a fragment, I trust that they've got the whole of the civilization in mind.
>> (And how did it compare with what was really done in Sparta, and which came first?:-)
>
>Sparta came first, and he and his totalitarian friends liked it. Some day
>I must read I. F. Stone's book on the matter.
Ok. Who didn't like it? Did the Spartans have a problem with people wanting to leave
or to change it?
/snip/
>Ah, well, I guess projective geometry is not a metaphor that has deep
>emotional resonances for everybody. Let it pass.
'Dynamic Plane Geometry' does for me. Headlights casting moving shadows on the St
Augustine grass under the elms....
>> >... there are a couple of interesting new elements in
>> >Puddleglum's answer. One is that I'm just not smart enough to have
>> >dreamed up all the complexity of that world I remember.
>>
>> Somewhere Lewis said something like, "Either so and so, or my subconscious must be a
>> much more interesting place than I had imagined" -- as tho that settled the matter!
>
>Very nice. Do you know where?
SBJ??? Or an early apologetic type of thing?
/snip/
>> >Another is that
>> >that world is so good that I'm determined to be a Narnian even if there
>> >isn't a Narnia.
>>
>> Yes. That's the Existentialist/New-Age answer. Choice of conduct. Belief optional.
>>
>> Not sure whether Pascal and/or Socrates went on to try to convince themselves into
>> positive belief. Lewis did, didnt' he? Or rather let some belief experinces happen
>> (SBJ) -- but didn't he positively try to cultivate 'belief' later also?
>
>Well, gee, here we're on topic, and I've got to sign off before Netscape
>does me any more damage. But Puddleglum's argument is just the beginning
>and is not argued very rigorously -- not surprising, since he was not
>writing a philosophical treatise but fighting for his life.
If anything, it was about not needing proof for such a decision. And he goes on to
say he doesn't believe it, doesnt' he?
> Why does it
>matter that Narnia is good and its antithesis is evil?
Puddleglum didnt' say anthing about good or evil or should. He just made his own
choice. He didnt' give his reasons. I suppose he might have had some Lawful Good
ones.
> Why should I
>bother to work for that side? What does "should" mean? Mammy Yokum's
>answer, that good is better than evil because it's nicer, is also less
>than adequate.
Isn't Huck Finn's the best of all?
Cheers,
Dan Drake
>
> On 9 Feb 2001 19:54:54 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
> >...
>
> > This is related to, though not the whole of,
> >the problem of messing with your internal instruments of perception.
> >Hence, opening those doors of perception requires a leap of faith that the
> >Cave seems to support better than the coldly rational argument of the
> >telescope can.
>
> I had forgotten about any aspect of danger in leaving Plato's Cave (other than
> reaction of the cave people.)
More problems with the analogy business. No, I didn't refer to danger in
leaving the cave, but just to the parable of the cave as a stronger boost
to the necessary leap of faith than the reasoning about the telescope is.
>
>... The conventional NA wisdom now says drugs are like tearing off the
roof, and walks to
> the old mill are like gently cleaning the windows and oiling the latches.
Not bad.
..
>
> In what points do you think Plato misunderstood his own theory? :-)
>
What I was saying was that at the time of the Republic, at least, he
completely failed to see the nature of the arts with respect to his own
theories, when he described them as bad imitations (imitations of
imitations) of the true reality. You'd almost think he'd never seen any
real art, which would be kind of odd in an Athenian, not to mention one
who started out as a poet.
>...
> > In all fairness, though, with a
> >mere lifetime of hindsight, including the experience of working for a
> >tyrant in a state recognizably like his Erewhon, Plato modified his views
> >a good deal.
>
> Why not cut him some slack for juvenalia, then?
Some slack, to be sure. Perhaps his _friends_ can explain why they cut
him none. At least, in my very slight reading of such things, I've never
seen the book treated as juvenilia by Plato experts. Well, hardly ever.
> ...
>
> >> Narnia is a land for a human to be king over?
> >
> >Oh, you're asking for it. I read the R in a mini-course a few years ago,
> >with several other works including the Antigone.
>
> Here my prejudices click on. I'd want to know who taught the course, who the textbook
> writers read, etc. And what kind of prose the texts were in.
Come now, you should know me better than that. I went on to say that I
had lost the quote I was looking for, not "...and the Professor told me
that ..."
Anyway, the course was the occasion for a little association of ideas. In
the play, Haemon goes off, belatedly, to join Antigone in dying for her
principles. In his last bitter fight with his father, king Creon, he
says,
[You ask about translation; this is Sir Richard Jebb's, at the Perseus
project site; the quote differes in no material way from the different
translation I saw before.]
You would make a fine monarch in a desert.
Perfect description for a philosopher king who thinks he can base a
government on mathematical relations backed by systematic lying by the
state.
I will be the first to agree -- all right, maybe not the *first* -- that
I'm babbling too long about Plato. The matter isn't really so important
as I would seem to be making it. Couldn't help looking up Haemon, though.