The Euston Manifesto
Bayle
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political
alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we
set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist
Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic
commitment. ...
***
Wanderng around the other day I noticed the above thru Gene's site. Not
much in the manifesto, based on a quick read, that Selene or Robbie or
I wouldn't support IMO. Perhaps that's why it's getting hammered by the
left.
Also strange that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it on
Horizon which seems to have time travelled back a few thousand years,
what with Herodotus and the Gnostics. Not that it isn't interesting.
Part of the problem with the Manifesto seems to be that it is agnostic
on Iraq, given that a fair number of its author and signers supported
the decision.
I any case I wish them well
Ben Brumfield
> Also strange that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it on
> Horizon which seems to have time travelled back a few thousand years,
> what with Herodotus and the Gnostics. Not that it isn't interesting.
>
Not strange at all, actually. I've got maybe 2 hours a week to spend
writing blog posts, and my cobloggers are more tightly constrained. I
can spend that time trying to say something interesting and new about
the EM, or about the old German textbook I picked up this weekend. I
judge that I'm more likely to succeed in the latter endeavor.
Given that there's really nothing new in the EM to anyone who's been
following Harry's Place and Normblog, nor reading what Michael Walzer,
Christopher Hitchens, Bruce Bawer, or a dozen or so commenters linked
from HP have been saying for years now, all I can really say is that
the EM seems nice, and I wish them well, though the prose isn't very
inspiring -- probably a result of composition-by-committee.
You may find that commentary more riveting than discussing translations
of Herodotus. Perhaps you don't, but think that echoing an important
drumbeat to an audience that's already heard it (and numbers in the
single digits anyway) is a nobler calling than musing on second-century
religious rhetoric. But it's how I choose to spend my time.
Not having the energy to do a decent job on the Great Issues, I don't
intend to try. I'd rather be a consumer of political opinion than a
producer of hastily-composed scribblings. There are plenty of those,
after all. I've got both Republican and Democratic friends who have
had brief runs on their blogs echoing whatever appears on Powerline or
Daily Kos, with a couple of sentence of their own. Frankly, I'd rather
read about what their children had for lunch. I think that they'd
prefer to write that sort of thing as well, as each of them has lost
interest and quit.
If you like, though, I'll crosspost this at Horizon. Then we'll have
dicussed the Euston Manifesto -- box checked. Time to move on to
insightful commentary on the Harriet Myers nomination.
-Ben
Bayle
Ben Brumfield wrote:
> Bayle wrote:
>
> > Also strange that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it on
> > Horizon which seems to have time travelled back a few thousand years,
> > what with Herodotus and the Gnostics. Not that it isn't interesting.
> >
> Not strange at all, actually. I've got maybe 2 hours a week to spend
> writing blog posts, and my cobloggers are more tightly constrained. I
> can spend that time trying to say something interesting and new about
> the EM, or about the old German textbook I picked up this weekend. I
> judge that I'm more likely to succeed in the latter endeavor.
>
> You may find that commentary more riveting than discussing translations
> of Herodotus. Perhaps you don't, but think that echoing an important
> drumbeat to an audience that's already heard it (and numbers in the
> single digits anyway) is a nobler calling than musing on second-centu> religious rhetoric. But it's how I choose to spend my time.
I think you misread my tone, my fault likely since I'm usually
sarcastic at the best of times. I would have thought however that since
I have always responded to most of (all?) your interests with
curiousity and interest you might have realized that. Especially since
I myself am have spent more that half of my intellectual life reading
and thinking about those same sorts of things. In fact I was pleased to
find that the experts had the same reaction to the Judas Gospel hype as
I had.
As to tranlsations I share your interest in spades. I own many bibles
translated by various sects and even by classical scholars like
Richmond Lattimore's Gospels. Have you seen Robert Alter's recent The
Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary ?
No doubt your greek is better than mine, which is extrremely minimal,
but I am still thinking about attempting Thucydides. I wasn't thrilled
with the older translation used in the Landmark Thucydides (though the
apparatus is wonderful) so I bought the Hackett translation which is
convoluted though so it seems is Thucydides.
For Herodotus you might check the Chicago translation by David Grene
(which should be Bloom influenced and therefore in theory a very
accurate modern translation) or the recent Oxford one by Robin
Waterfield - which was remaindered. In fact I really don't understand
why anyone would read an old tranlation other than something like the
Hobbes' Thucydides or the King James Bible. To much stuff was going on
in the old days, especially in the classical languages and the
victorian age, as Martha suggested. Plus the fact that when you have
that English upper class tone it can be toxic. Somehow I can't imagine
Proust using the word toff.
My point was that since Gene was close to the action, and we had a
similar fight here, I would have thought that engaged ex-Orwellians
would have found it notable. I do agree that we are all exhausted and
living in a kind of alice in wonderland. But the Judas Gospel might be
of more interest as history (I love it when the secular world uses
believers to attack those believers they disagree wtih - for a recent
example see the interview on Charlie Rose with the Newsweek guy John
Meachem and Kevvin Phillips and Garry Wills) if the same sects had not
written anti-texts on virtualy every figure in the main tradition. So
you are right. It is the best way of understanding the Chomskyite left.
ROBBIE
"Bayle" <pete_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145895622.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I find it faintly amusing - I would have found it richly amusing if things
weren't so crazy - that after everything that's happened, the Metro Left
have a little think tank and suddenly feel the need to say all that to
itself. It's the sign of a terminal decadence on the Left that they have to
reprimand their fellow comrades' idiocy at this late remove.
ROBBIE
Bayle
First I was going to say I agree and disagree. Now I'm not sure. Or at
least not sure of what or which parts ... lol. I do agree things are
crazy.
I've always felt that other than Martha perhaps, who to her credit is
sincere, Allport and Gene among others were reacting to our tone not
what we said. And now Gene's friends feel compelled to attempt to say
to others much of what we said to them. And to what end? I don't feel
that the authors of the Manifesto are decadent per se. I think they are
speaking common sense for the most part. Is it decadent to expect their
fellow socialists to listen to them?
For the most part I use our ex-abgo freinds to triangulate what is
happening in the real world. Because we were all so connected at one
time around a particular set of beliefs. At least I thought so. So if
they can't talk to us what do they expect to accomplish? Another good
question is, have they changed their minds about anything?
In a sense the Euston Manifesto is a Liberal Manifesto in the old
sense. The sense that makes many of us Liberals. A sense that makes the
old left closer to us than this insane new new left - who is in fact
the enemy.
ROBBIE
>
> I've always felt that other than Martha perhaps, who to her credit is
> sincere, Allport and Gene among others were reacting to our tone not
> what we said.
Odd cove, Allport. Far too New Labourish for my kidney. Clever, mind you
(Big Ego: they ought have him on screen instead of the MGM lion at the start
of films). But he likes to win and control the terms of debate with an iron
fist. Now I ain't saying I don't like to win. But I'd never stoop to
Stalinist censorship - and the Allport Clique have got that running through
them like 'Brighton' through a stick of rock. Martha, with that creative,
now you see it now you don't way of the Nu-Left, called it 'editing'. Awwww.
Gene I always found all right - I never quite believed he'd be in favour of
Israel if he hadn't been one of God's chosen people in the first place, know
what I mean?
And now Gene's friends feel compelled to attempt to say
> to others much of what we said to them. And to what end? I don't feel
> that the authors of the Manifesto are decadent per se. I think they are
> speaking common sense for the most part. Is it decadent to expect their
> fellow socialists to listen to them?
No of course not, it just seems that for a group of people who always think
they are right, I mean seriously, irrefutably *correct*, to have to go
through their basic, shitty and hypocritical laundry just now indicates that
a lot of people have gone decadent somehwere...
>
> For the most part I use our ex-abgo freinds to triangulate what is
> happening in the real world. Because we were all so connected at one
> time around a particular set of beliefs. At least I thought so. So if
> they can't talk to us what do they expect to accomplish? Another good
> question is, have they changed their minds about anything?
I'll have to go through it carefully. But really - when they airbushed
soviet communism and fudge Islamic fascism, then fuck 'em.
>
> In a sense the Euston Manifesto is a Liberal Manifesto in the old
> sense. The sense that makes many of us Liberals. A sense that makes the
> old left closer to us than this insane new new left - who is in fact
> the enemy.
>
That seems a fair appraisal.
ROBBIE
Ben Brumfield
Perhaps, but really your note triggered a dump of a bunch of thoughts
I'd been mulling over for a while. Assymetrical response and all that.
> Have you seen Robert Alter's recent The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary ?
I have not. Do you recommend it?
> No doubt your greek is better than mine, which is extrremely minimal,
> but I am still thinking about attempting Thucydides.
I have one semester of Attic Greek, taken pass/fail. So your
ho-hey-toes probably top mine.
Nevertheless, I have it on good authority from various coworkers that
Thucydides is not to be attempted by the fainthearted. Herodotus is
apparently quite easy by comparison.
Good luck, though, regardless.
Thanks for the Herodotus translator recommendation -- I'll check it out
when I get a chance. I suspect that that's the version I read about
half of a few years ago, before losing the book in a move.
-Ben
Bayle
Ben Brumfield wrote:
> > Have you seen Robert Alter's recent The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary ?
>
> I have not. Do you recommend it?
>
Not sure. I've only read parts of it. On principle it should be great.
Alter has written lots about biblical poetry and such. Plus, AFAIK, he
has no ax to grind.
What's your feeling about bible translations? I grew up with the
Revised Standard with of course the King James in the background. Have
also used the Jerusalem and remember being impressed with the fairly
recent Oxford/Cambridge one IIRC. Never liked the really "easy" ones.
Struck me as the bible for dummies. Too easy, couldn't be the word of
god. (Which makes me think, maybe someone ought to try and write
Orwell's bible - in clear prose.)
But anyway, I ran into a French bible in a bookstore. It was very easy
to read, i.e. clear. Not sure why, my French isn't that great. Maybe
it's the vocabulary or maybe the grammar. Or perhaps it is the French
version of the easy reader bible. In any case I don't know what the
"standard" French bible is, like the RSV or KJ. I do think it's a great
way to speed up your reading in another language though. You know the
stories, so you can read quite "naturely". Plus you learn the way the
French express things because you have English versions in your head.
For example to me Lord always meant Jesus or god. But then I learned
about feudalism and it changed. Reading the French Le Seigneur makes me
think middle ages.
I just found this. Awesome.
http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:0::0.vulgate
1. in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram (vulgate)
1. Au commencement, Dieu créa les cieux et la terre. (Louis Segond)
1. Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde. (Luther)
Bayle
native language (no Enlgish) but looks like a great way to learn. Not
sure how useful Luther's german is to understanding scientific texts ;-)
Ben Brumfield
It all depends. If I'm trying to follow some line of reasoning, I keep
shuffling through whatever I've got handy until I find something that
makes sense. For easy reading I'll go with either the NRSV or the NAB,
depending on annotations vs. heft. But you just can't beat the KJV for
prose.
I've got a theory that a lot of the "poetry" of the KJV comes from an
attempt on the part of the translators to mimic Hebrew's VSO word
order. "And there arose in the land a new Pharoah, who knew not
Joseph" is almost exactly 'va-{and} yaphe{arose 3sg) ba-(in the)
`eretz(land) and so forth.
> I do think it's a great way to speed up your reading in another language though. You know the stories, so you can read quite "naturely".
It is indeed. I've never had such highbrow aspirations -- reading
instead French translations of my old reread favorites, like _The
Hobbit_ or Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_ when I want to brush up.
Perhaps I should try to lay hands on a French Bible next time I have a
chance.
Speaking of religion and the French language, have you ever sung with a
group of French speakers, and discovered that suddenly all the silent
E's are pronounced? Surprised the heck out of me the first time it
happened.
> Not sure how useful Luther's german is to understanding scientific texts
Not very. I picked up a copy of _A German Theological Reader_ in a
secondhand shop in North Texas just over a year ago. It begins with
five chapters from Luther's translation, and the bit I remember being
odd was the use of the informal second person plural throughout. You
don't run into many second persons in scientific literature.
The other bit of trivia I remember was that it is easier for a rich man
to pass through a "Nadelohr" -- the ear of a needle.
Thanks for the link -- good stuff.
-Ben
Bayle
Ben Brumfield wrote:
> > What's your feeling about bible translations?
>
> It all depends. If I'm trying to follow some line of reasoning, I keep
> shuffling through whatever I've got handy until I find something that
> makes sense. For easy reading I'll go with either the NRSV or the NAB,
> depending on annotations vs. heft. But you just can't beat the KJV for
> prose.
>
> I've got a theory that a lot of the "poetry" of the KJV comes from an
> attempt on the part of the translators to mimic Hebrew's VSO word
> order. "And there arose in the land a new Pharoah, who knew not
> Joseph" is almost exactly 'va-{and} yaphe{arose 3sg) ba-(in the)
> `eretz(land) and so forth.
>
I love word order. In french for example IIRC the order of the
adjectives matters in the sense that the ones before the noun aren't
supposed to be matters of opinion, i.e. real. I know there are
exceptions but it seems to me that there is a difference in emphasis
starting from the nound and then adding qualifications or selectors.
Not sure if it encodes a real cognitvie difference. But I think that
translations need to follow word order as much as possible.
But maybe that's because I'm not fluent in another language. When you
read German and the verb comes at the end do you have a cognitive
experience of waiting or do you scan till the end and take it in as a
whole SVO?
I know it's harder in English because ours is a word order language -
but when the new Proust translation follows his word order I love the
surprises at the end of sentences. Perhaps the inflections in French
tip you off but I have a feeling that when the order - which i mostly
depend on - is enough its clearer and when it isn't non-native speakers
disagree about the meaning. There was a discussion in the NYRB about
this - talking about ablative absolutes for god's sake.
> > I do think it's a great way to speed up your reading in another language though. You know the stories, so you can read quite "naturely".
>
> It is indeed. I've never had such highbrow aspirations -- reading
> instead French translations of my old reread favorites, like _The
> Hobbit_ or Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_ when I want to brush up.
> Perhaps I should try to lay hands on a French Bible next time I have a
> chance.
>
> Speaking of religion and the French language, have you ever sung with a
> group of French speakers, and discovered that suddenly all the silent
> E's are pronounced? Surprised the heck out of me the first time it
> happened.
>
Never sung if you don't count singing along with records. But I love
the French music from the 30s and 40s. Especially Charles Trenet. I've
tried to use them to imporve my comprehension but when they pronounce
the vowels and the more lyrical they are the harder it is. Trenet's
french is clear and pure but so fast. He also loves song with puns and
word play - Débit de l'eau, débit de lait is a good example. I've
learned one more normal one - Le soleil et la lune - but it's still
like a tongue twister. Piaf say is easier for me.
http://www.nomorelyrics.net/fr/chanson/Charles_Trenet/Le_soleil_et_la_lune.html
http://www.nomorelyrics.net/fr/chanson/Charles_Trenet/Dbit_de_leau_dbit_de_lait.html
Ah qu'il est beau le débit de lait
Ah qu'il est laid le débit de l'eau
Débit de lait si beau débit de l'eau si laid
S'il est un débit beau c'est bien le beau débit de lait
Au débit d'eau y a le beau Boby
Au débit de lait y a la belle Babée
etc
> > Not sure how useful Luther's german is to understanding scientific texts
>
> Not very. I picked up a copy of _A German Theological Reader_ in a
> secondhand shop in North Texas just over a year ago. It begins with
> five chapters from Luther's translation, and the bit I remember being
> odd was the use of the informal second person plural throughout. You
> don't run into many second persons in scientific literature.
>
> The other bit of trivia I remember was that it is easier for a rich man
> to pass through a "Nadelohr" -- the ear of a needle.
>
Love it.
You know what raumstuck means? I had a friend who had to translate a
piece for his PhD in Philosophy of Science. He told me he looked in
about a million dictionaries never found it. He was translating Riemann
as in the following.
"Durch "Skalieren" des euklidischen Fundamentaltensorfeldes in der
oberen Halbebene wird diese zu einem Riemannschen Raumstuck gemacht."
Which still doesn't seem to show up in the few online dictionaries I
checked. Of course he did it in the pre-Google days.
Also, since we are wandering in the language world, do you have any
opinion of Ruby and Rails? Be interested to know if you do.
Bayle
Bayle wrote:
> You know what raumstuck means? I had a friend who had to translate a
> piece for his PhD in Philosophy of Science. He told me he looked in
> about a million dictionaries never found it. He was translating Riemann
> as in the following.
>
> "Durch "Skalieren" des euklidischen Fundamentaltensorfeldes in der
> oberen Halbebene wird diese zu einem Riemannschen Raumstuck gemacht."
>
> Which still doesn't seem to show up in the few online dictionaries I
> checked. Of course he did it in the pre-Google days.
Little more search and I found this. Only 39 hits for it in google
though so it isn't exactly a household word ... lol.
www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/bernays/Pdf/mannigfaltigkeit.pdf
a limited part of space [raumstuck - umlaut over second u]
Ben Brumfield
> opinion of Ruby and Rails? Be interested to know if you do.
I've been playing with Rails for a year now, and really like it.
Convention-over-configuration in particular is a brilliant concept. I
have some issues with Ruby -- mainly with syntax it borrowed from Perl
-- some of which I discussed here a few months back, if you're
interested: http://horizon.bloghouse.net/archives/000738.html
It will be interesting to see if share-nothing scalability pans out.
It seems perfect for certain kinds of problems, but I suspect that that
set of problems is smaller than it's made out to be.
-Ben
Ben Brumfield
Try again with the expanded version instead: Raumstueck. It means
something like space-piece or space-part.
-Ben
Ben Brumfield
Fascinating theory, whether it's true or not.
I can't speak to the cognitive experience of French of German word
order, as I am fluent in neither -- low intermediate in German, high
intermediate in French. In the science reader I'm working on, I'm
surprised by how often I can wait to the end of the sentence for the
verb. Only rarely do I need to scan ahead and transpose into SVO.
The thing about an intermediate knowledge is that the experience of
timing is different. This means that jokes which would be old to a
six-year-old are hilarious to me, since there's a delay figuring them
out.
Thanks for the Trenet -- I'll probably pass that along to some friends
who'd appreciate it.
Have you read _American Vertigo_ yet? I find BHL's sentence structure
to be very French, for better and for worse.
-Ben
Joe Fineman
> Speaking of religion and the French language, have you ever sung
> with a group of French speakers, and discovered that suddenly all
> the silent E's are pronounced?
Not all of them, actually (unless, I suppose, the song is old enough
that they were once pronounced routinely). It is done facultatively,
to fill out the scansion. Listen to Marlene Dietrich sing "La Vie en
Rose". In the line
Et ça me fait quelque chose
the e's in "quelque chose" are pronounced -- and the one in "me"
isn't!
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Our vices do more than our virtues to make us socially :||
||: acceptable. :||
Martha Bridegam
> Ben Brumfield wrote:
>>> Have you seen Robert Alter's recent The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary ?
>> I have not. Do you recommend it?
>>
>
> Not sure. I've only read parts of it. On principle it should be great.
> Alter has written lots about biblical poetry and such. Plus, AFAIK, he
> has no ax to grind.
>
> What's your feeling about bible translations? I grew up with the
> Revised Standard with of course the King James in the background.
As literature, it's King James or nothing. No question. In
terms of written language, the Christmas scriptures from the
Gospel of Luke are blasphemy in any other version.
/M
Bayle
I haven't read AV yet. Will definitely pay attention to the word order
when I do. Do you think I should move it to the top of my list?
On intermediate knowledge I think you are right. I have tried
translating, with a multilingual friend, some Holderlin, Rilke (whose
French seems more straightforward than his German) and Seneca. I work
at the intermediate level and then we debate word choices and try and
figure out grammar in the hard cases. I think our word order biased
efforts are better than most of the ones we see. They are better poetry
(or prose in Seneca's case) than translations that paraphrase which I
hate. My intermediate (in the language knowledge not the literary or
intellectual context) translations often seem to me to be showing the
chemical or molecular structure of the words, where experts attmept to
show you more of the surface or object level, and therefore lose things
IMO.
I think your point on timing is right. Part of that is due to chunking.
I have been reading the French papers alot lately, since the riots and
demos and now Villepin's Watergate, and find I am starting to chunk
repeated strange french phrases into my everyday english phrases. I am
faster with better comprehension I guess but I feel I'm losing
something. The peculiar way, to me, that the French organize their
world. Rio Grande is and is not big river.
I hadn't heard the adjective story before either but I found it in a
language reference book of some sort. If I see it again I will post it.
Of course sometimes grammarians pick up tendencies that aren't
predetermined. So it may be a post hoc observation.
Bayle
built a demo in Rails without even knowing Ruby. I just started reading
the Pickaxe book yesterday trying to actually learn the language and am
very impressed. It s an awesome language.
I agree about the convention part also. But most of all I like their
gut instincts. I am very unhappy when the code is totally ad hoc and a
tangled mess. Or you have to spend days trying to figure out some
arbitrary setup parameter. Useless knowledge. I saw David Heinemeir
Hanson at a conference on Ajax. Very impressive. But I agree with you.
I have been pursuing elegance most of my life in the computing field
and often the best stuff doesn't have a wide set of problems. I'm kind
of hoping Rails makes it. I was very persuaded by the arguments of
Bruce Tate in Beyond Java on the need for a new way of building modern
systems.
On the other hand I just read Joel on Software who makes convincing
arguments that seem to run against, at least mildly, the agile
ideology. He is hilarious on the endency to want to throw out old code
and rewrite it from scratch. Plus his jokes on the old days are great.
If you haven't read it's worth it, if you have interested in your take
on it. I read the book but most of it is on the website I think.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/
Now going to read your Horizon post.
Bayle
in January.
A small point. I agree with you that reading Ruby can be a nightmare,
especially Regular Expressions for me. But I think "anyone who's
programmed in the last decade or two knows that optimizing for
developer keystrokes is a very bad thing indeed" partially misses the
point. It's in reading the code where the saved strokes hopefully
produce value. The idea is that too much boilerplate obfuscates just as
much as too sparse obfuscates.