Requirements of Revolution from Vonnegut's "Bluebeard"
Craig E Pangus
Catching up on some reading which had gotten by me I came across a
passage in Vonnegut's Bluebeard wherein one of his characters
(Slazinger) has written a book titled "The Only Way to Have a Successful
Revolution in Any Field of Human Activity." Supposedly extracted from a
study of history this 'only' method requires a team of 'mind openners'
to break people out of their current mindset, regardless of how
unrealistic or dumb that mindset may be.
This team of 'mind-openners' consists of three people:
1)An Authentic Genius: a person with seemingly good ideas not in general
circulation. He adds "A genius working alone. . . is invariably ignored
as a lunatic." (copywrited in 1987)
2)A highly intelligent person in good standing in the community who will
stand up and attest that the genius is not mad.
3)A person who can explain anything, to anyone.
Since these requirements of revolution are for 'any' human endeavor I
think it allows for a peaceful revolution in as much as I have not heard
of a violent revolution in art or literature. The particular sub-plot
of the book described as revolutionary is Abstract Expressionism.
Thinking about Abstract Expressionism, is it not in itself a revolt
against Industry and Technology? With the advent of photography
portrait painting, long the basic moneymaker for painters, died.
Science is all clear logic and straight lines: no ambiguity of meaning
or purpose. Abstract Expressions cannot be created with a camara, it has
no logic and if there are straight lines they are in and of themselves,
not representational. Their meaning or purpose has little or no direct
relationship to the physical world. Should we call this Luddite Art?
Does TK qualify as the genius a revolution requires? Or is he a
prophet who has lost his head? (John the Baptist) Any suggestion of TK
being familiar with Vonnegut in TK's writings?
RossG12345
The tenets of the book you mention written by
a Vonnegut character reminds of Eric Hoffer.
If TK didn't read Vonnegut, maybe both read Hoffer,
who wrote:
"A movement is pioneered by men of words,
materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men
of action.
It is usually an advantage to a movement, and perhaps
a prerequisite for its endurance, that these roles
should be played by different men succeeding each
other as conditions require.
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1963)
On an unrelated note, I don't think Kaczynski would
appreciate abstract expressionism. He wrote
“Art forms that appeal to modern leftist
intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat
and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone,
throwing off rational control as if there were no
hope of accomplishing anything through rational
calculation and all that was left was to immerse
oneself in the sensations of the moment.”
Industrial Society And Its Future, (para. 17)
Craig E Pangus
RossG12345 wrote:
>
> The tenets of the book you mention written by
> a Vonnegut character reminds of Eric Hoffer.
> If TK didn't read Vonnegut, maybe both read Hoffer,
> who wrote:
>
> "A movement is pioneered by men of words,
> materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men
> of action.
> It is usually an advantage to a movement, and perhaps
> a prerequisite for its endurance, that these roles
> should be played by different men succeeding each
> other as conditions require.
> Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1963)
I wouldn't say that Vonnegut didn't read Hoffer but I see a large
difference in your quote of Hoffer and mine of Vonnegut(I realize
Vonnegut is not considered a serious thinker by many but he does make
piercing observations of life and relates them in a humorous enough
manner that they don't encourage people to commit suicide or blow things
up.)
Hoffer is speaking of three 'succeeding' people while Vonnegut has three
people working as a 'team', or at the same time. All of Vonnegut's team
would fall into Hoffer's catagory of "men of words". Vonnegut then
distinquishes between the types of men of words necessary:1) genius or
original thinker, 2) one of public standing who will more or less
'second' the original thoughts as having validity, and 3)an explainer or
person with the common touch who can make new ideas understandable to
all.
I would think Vonnegut has very little use for fanatics and would
consider all men capable of action if properly motivated. Hoffer sounds
like a recipe for violent revolution while Vonnegut sounds like a
revolution of the mind. I think changing the way people think, honestly
and without deception, is the more effective and result oriented method.
>
> On an unrelated note, I don't think Kaczynski would
> appreciate abstract expressionism. He wrote
>
> “Art forms that appeal to modern leftist
> intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat
> and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone,
> throwing off rational control as if there were no
> hope of accomplishing anything through rational
> calculation and all that was left was to immerse
> oneself in the sensations of the moment.”
> Industrial Society And Its Future, (para. 17)
Certainly, the above statement does exhibit some of TK's weaknesses.
Art appreciation is seldom limited to either leftist liberals or
rightest conservatives. While liberals may be more open to change and
new forms of art when they first appear entire schools of art which
develop over many years are seldom established without broad-based
appreciation.
I don't know what school of art TK was referring to above: Surrealism
and Cubism, to name only a couple, are also modern art. Perhaps this
lack of appreciation, or perhaps even ignorance, for art which has been
a relief from the stress of life for thousands of years all the way back
to cave drawings is one of the reasons TK went to the extremes he did.
This does not invalidate his thinking it only shows what can happen if
all of one's education is in math and science with no human relief. TK
becomes an example of his own thesis: excessive reliance on science and
technology leads to self destruction.
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
On 1998-02-06 craig...@sprintmail.com said:
cr>Catching up on some reading which had gotten by me I came across a
cr>passage in Vonnegut's Bluebeard wherein one of his characters
cr>(Slazinger) has written a book titled "The Only Way to Have a
cr>Successful Revolution in Any Field of Human Activity." Supposedly
cr>extracted from a study of history this 'only' method requires a
cr>team of 'mind openners' to break people out of their current
cr>mindset, regardless of how unrealistic or dumb that mindset may be.
cr>This team of 'mind-openners' consists of three people:
cr>1)An Authentic Genius: a person with seemingly good ideas not in
cr>general circulation. He adds "A genius working alone. . . is
cr>invariably ignored as a lunatic." (copywrited in 1987)
TK
cr>2)A highly intelligent person in good standing in the community who
cr>will stand up and attest that the genius is not mad.
I think our Dr. Peter Bell could attest for TK.
cr>3)A person who can explain anything, to anyone.
cr>Since these requirements of revolution are for 'any' human endeavor
PB here too.
cr>I think it allows for a peaceful revolution in as much as I have
cr>not heard of a violent revolution in art or literature. The
cr>particular sub-plot of the book described as revolutionary is
cr>Abstract Expressionism. Thinking about Abstract Expressionism, is
cr>it not in itself a revolt against Industry and Technology? With
cr>the advent of photography portrait painting, long the basic
cr>moneymaker for painters, died. Science is all clear logic and
cr>straight lines: no ambiguity of meaning or purpose. Abstract
cr>Expressions cannot be created with a camara, it has no logic and if
cr>there are straight lines they are in and of themselves, not
cr>representational. Their meaning or purpose has little or no direct
cr>relationship to the physical world.
Science always has a patron and an author, either present or not
and either living or dead.
Even if these peaples motives are not entirely explained, never the
less they are motives of living creatures evolving to survive as
life has always done and will always do, in some form.
So somtimes one has to guess as to the motivations behind each piece
of scientific work.
And then their is the motivations of the copyer of the work and
the reader and the engineer who encorparates the science into
the machine being created.
Nothing is just a resource, oil is not just oil for example.
cr>Should we call this Luddite
cr>Art? Does TK qualify as the genius a revolution requires? Or is he
cr>a prophet who has lost his head? (John the Baptist) Any suggestion
cr>of TK being familiar with Vonnegut in TK's writings?
TK writes like a mathmatician with his uniqe emotional views and values
that include the local as well as the overall systermatic changes.
Sadly this uniqeness may be born of an unhealthy personal life.
Yet another mumble of
John Biosicfix www.nine7.demon.co.uk Lots of links
*****Us neurons don't know that much that is limitless*****
When self-consciousness goes into overdrive.....(Sum up of SP)