Holiday Reading
htd
welcome for reads during holiday travels and travails!
Now Reading: David Kuo, *Tempting Faith*; Roberto Ierusalimschy,
*Programming in Lua*
Bruce McGuffin
I may have mentioned it before, but I really enjoyed T. R. Pearson's [1]
A Short History of a Small Place. Southern humor of the off-center variety
that manages to be neither sacharine nor mean-spirited.
Here's an idea, read Farley Mowat's People of the Dear and Never Cry Wolf
at the same time. Compare and contrast.
Bruce
[1] Or someone whose name is something like that
Sam Culotta
"htd" <heroth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165251211.6...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Boyd but, as always, great reading.
S.
smw
My lovely girlfriend (and wife of an almost equally lovely rabber) sent
a care package, including two William Boyds, _Restless_ and _Armadillo_.
I will probably proceed from there to _Special Topics in Calamity
Physics_. Alas, sabbatical's coming to an end, so much of my reading
will be for coursepacks.
Paul Ilechko
I decided to write a book for the holidays instead.
Marty Billingsley
smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>My lovely girlfriend (and wife of an almost equally lovely rabber) sent
>a care package, including two William Boyds, _Restless_ and _Armadillo_.
>I will probably proceed from there to _Special Topics in Calamity
>Physics_. Alas, sabbatical's coming to an end, so much of my reading
>will be for coursepacks.
That first sentence has me intrigued, trying to figure out the
relationship(s)....... :-)
Sam Culotta
"Marty Billingsley" <mbil...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Ij4dh.30$45....@news.uchicago.edu...
Maybe this will help.. she meant to say "an almost equally lovely rabbi".
S.
JC
> Here's an idea, read Farley Mowat's People of the Dear and Never Cry Wolf
> at the same time. Compare and contrast.
To make this experience more meaningful, I recommend changing
one (1) little letter in the first title.
--
"Eat sheep. Fifty million coyotes can't be wrong."
Lewis Mammel
smw wrote:
> I will probably proceed from there to _Special Topics in Calamity
> Physics_.
Clever and engaging home page - very pro. Reminded me of
Leminy Snicket, especially the music. "In life there are
no shortcuts" - not quite true.
htd
On Dec 5, 4:28 am, The Other <o...@other.invalid> wrote:
> "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I'm just starved for a thread that's about (gasp!) books.
> > Recommends welcome for reads during holiday travels and travails!Since you've expressed in the past some oblique interest in American
> Jesus-lovers -- a great novel I've been enthusiastically recommending
> since I read it about a year ago: _Gilead_ by Marilynne Robinson.
>
> As a complement to _Gilead_, the "other side" so to speak, I recommend
> _Gone To Texas_ by Forrest Carter, originally published as _The Rebel
> Outlaw Josey Wales_. It was the basis for the Clint Eastwood movie.
We went to see *Jesus Camp* over the Thanksgiving holiday, and I came
out of the theatre mad enough to spit nails. It wasn't so much the
petty lunacies - the Harry Potter obsession gives me the giggles - it
was the determined prioritization of conversion over theology combined
with the profanation of worship. About ten minutes into the movie I
started playing "Count the Heresies," about thirty minutes in, when
they started praying over a Powerpoint presentation to keep Satan from
playing tricks with it, I was too outraged to keep counting. I've been
refreshing the furies ever since by perusing Jack Chick comics
(www.chickcomics.com - wild stuff; my favorite so far is the one that
shows how Christian Rock is an instrument of the devil and will turn
you gay). It's probably not the best mood to bring to the Kuo book,
which I seem to be putting down almost as soon as I pick it up. Sigh...
Paul Ilechko
> I will probably proceed from there to _Special Topics in Calamity
> Physics_.
>
A fun book, reminded me a little of that old Donna Tartt one about the
murder mystery at the college in New England ... a good quick read, not
very deep.
Bruce McGuffin
> Bruce McGuffin wrote:
>
>> Here's an idea, read Farley Mowat's People of the Dear and Never Cry Wolf
>> at the same time. Compare and contrast.
>
> To make this experience more meaningful, I recommend changing
> one (1) little letter in the first title.
Picky, picky, picky.
Bruce McGuffin
> We went to see *Jesus Camp* over the Thanksgiving holiday, and I came
> out of the theatre mad enough to spit nails. It wasn't so much the
> petty lunacies - the Harry Potter obsession gives me the giggles - it
> was the determined prioritization of conversion over theology combined
> with the profanation of worship. About ten minutes into the movie I
> started playing "Count the Heresies," about thirty minutes in, when
> they started praying over a Powerpoint presentation to keep Satan from
> playing tricks with it, I was too outraged to keep counting. I've been
> refreshing the furies ever since by perusing Jack Chick comics
> (www.chickcomics.com - wild stuff; my favorite so far is the one that
> shows how Christian Rock is an instrument of the devil and will turn
> you gay). It's probably not the best mood to bring to the Kuo book,
> which I seem to be putting down almost as soon as I pick it up. Sigh...
And yet, the fact that you can talk about heresies with a straight
face (or the usenet equivalent) suggests you are not entirely free of
such lunacies yourself.
Bruce
smw
I suspect that those of us who appreciate the religious as an aesthetic
would be more susceptible to the sense of outrage Hattie describes than
the I'd-never-vote-for-an-atheist-but-don't-care-what-god-he-believes-in
or I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious folks.
delc...@mail.ab.edu
I will probably get a spate of books for Christmas, but one I just got
for myself to read over break is --White Mughals-- by William
Dalrymple, an account of the marriage of James Kirkpatrick, British
representative to the court in Hyderabad, to a Mughal princess and the
effect this had on British/Indian society.Dalrymple has also published
a new book,--The Last Mughal-- which is out in Britain but not in the
US. I have it on advance order from Amazon.
I'm also awaiting holiday delivery of the first volume of Prokofiev's
diaries.
J. Del Col
htd
On Dec 5, 1:31 pm, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > We went to see *Jesus Camp* over the Thanksgiving holiday, and I came
> > out of the theatre mad enough to spit nails. It wasn't so much the
> > petty lunacies - the Harry Potter obsession gives me the giggles - it
> > was the determined prioritization of conversion over theology combined
> > with the profanation of worship. About ten minutes into the movie I
> > started playing "Count the Heresies," about thirty minutes in, when
> > they started praying over a Powerpoint presentation to keep Satan from
> > playing tricks with it, I was too outraged to keep counting. I've been
> > refreshing the furies ever since by perusing Jack Chick comics
> > (www.chickcomics.com- wild stuff; my favorite so far is the one that
> > shows how Christian Rock is an instrument of the devil and will turn
> > you gay). It's probably not the best mood to bring to the Kuo book,
> > which I seem to be putting down almost as soon as I pick it up. Sigh...And yet, the fact that you can talk about heresies with a straight
> face (or the usenet equivalent) suggests you are not entirely free of
> such lunacies yourself.
>
> Bruce
I don't see how anyone with an appreciation for the absurd can help but
be attracted to religious practice. I can understand how someone who
is troubled by ambiguity would have to go one way or the other -
believing or disbelieving, as you like it, but I find that the more I
practice being terribly, terribly unsure of things, the easier it gets.
The birthing bed of Protestantism was a revolt of thinking against
mysticism, but you wouldn't know it to listen to these folks. There
are wicca covens that don't take witchcraft as seriously as do the
people meeting at that camp on (I kid you not) Devil's Lake to practice
speaking in tongues and to pray over cardboard cutouts of Our Busto
prez - the idolization of W by certain parties is not just a figure of
speech, in case you didn't know. Their approach to God was almost
purely totemistic - prayers were recited before a frame of bowling, in
much the same way as one might rub a rabbit's foot, for example. And
that was just the beginning of their heresies. I am channeling
Ignatius Reilly, I know, but I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
denomination really ought to have gotten out more.
Also, having seen him on film now, I am flabbergasted that anyone could
have been around Ted Haggard for more than an hour and not know that he
was teh gay. Wow. Just, wow.
htd
Interest officially piqued.
tbsa...@att.net
You'll really be scared when the fillum exposing Unitarianism comes.
<snarf>
ObUnitarianBumperStickerFrom1980'sAustin:
*HONK IF YOU AREN'T SURE*
T.
smw
The Other wrote:
> "htd" <heroth...@yahoo.com> writes:
I've been refreshing the furies ever since by
>>perusing Jack Chick comics (www.chickcomics.com - wild stuff; my
>>favorite so far is the one that shows how Christian Rock is an
>>instrument of the devil and will turn you gay).
>
>
> Sounds pretty off the wall, but not much more so than the creed you
> subscribe to, which is sometimes called the Protestant Deformation.
> My main complaint about evangelical Christians is that they're not
> *enough* off the wall; they embrace too much of the grotesquerie of
> normal modern secular life.
>
> I know it's just a matter of taste, but I like fundamentalist
> Christians, based on those I've known.
Seeing that you've never given any indication of faith hereabouts, this
sounds suspiciously as if you want others to do the dirty work of
irrationalism for you.
Bruce McGuffin
> I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
> Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
> been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
> inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
> thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
> denomination really ought to have gotten out more.
Yup. Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting to
get out.
Bruce
Bruce McGuffin
> I know it's just a matter of taste, but I like fundamentalist
> Christians, based on those I've known. Contrary to stereotype, they
> seem more thoughtful than secular folks of the same social class etc.
> I've got born-again Christian relatives and born-again Jewish
> relatives, and the born-again Christians are actually more circumspect
> in showing concern for my immortal soul. No snakes yet so far.
I would say evangelical &/or fundamentalist christians have a high
variance. About the slimiest people I ever knew were fundamentalists,
but on the other hand I've know a few who come closer to following
Jesus teaching than anyone else I've encountered. The same holds true
for intelligence. Though intelligence doesn't seem strongly correlated
with the slimy/truly-christian continuum.
Bruce
Kater Moggin
> > I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
> > Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
> > been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
> > inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
> > thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
> > denomination really ought to have gotten out more.
Bruce McGuffin <no...@ll.mit.edu>:
> Yup. Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting to
> get out.
"Man is the measure of all things" is full-color dogmatism.
Contrariwise, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good" is a principle at home in Missouri no less than in Tarsus.
-- Moggin
htd
On Dec 6, 12:52 pm, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
> > Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
> > been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
> > inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
> > thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
> > denomination really ought to have gotten out more.Yup. Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting to
> get out.
>
> Bruce
I'm surprised that you think they exist in layers and that the humanist
has the upper hand.
Don Tuite
Where do Scientology and Scientoligists fit?
Don
htd
On Dec 6, 2:47 pm, Don Tuite <don_tu...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com>
wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2006 11:02:17 -0800, "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 12:52 pm, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
> >> > Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
> >> > been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
> >> > inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
> >> > thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
> >> > denomination really ought to have gotten out more.Yup. Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting to
> >> get out.
>
> >> Bruce
>
> >I'm surprised that you think they exist in layers and that the humanist
> >has the upper hand.Where do Scientology and Scientoligists fit?
>
> Don
There are some people, and I am thoroughly convinced of this, whose
strongest group identification is "Wacktard" - they instantly identify
and commune with other Wacktards in spite of any differences of opinion
amongst themselves, sharing Wacktardian persecution stories and
eye-of-the-beholder beauty tips across schisms. But even the Wacktards
think that Scientologists are from an entirely other planet, and -
here's the real kicker - *the Scientologists agree*.
On that note, I totally dare you to find your nearest scientology house
of pilates and stand opposite it wearing a sandwich board that says
"Got Xenu?" You get 10 points for each pamphlet you're given over the
course of the day. Subtract 10 each time you ask yourself "why the
fuck haven't I written some sci-fi trash novels and started my own
religion? I could totally fucking do this."
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
>
> "Man is the measure of all things" is full-color dogmatism.
> Contrariwise, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is
> good" is a principle at home in Missouri no less than in Tarsus.
You might as well say, "Allah Akbar" is a principle at home
in Tehran no less than in Riyadh.
Kater Moggin
> > "Man is the measure of all things" is full-color dogmatism.
> > Contrariwise, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is
> > good" is a principle at home in Missouri no less than in Tarsus.
Lewis Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net>:
> You might as well say, "Allah Akbar" is a principle at home
> in Tehran no less than in Riyadh.
"Allah Akbar" lines up with measuring everything by man on
the doctrinaire side of things. Dogmatism is at home
everywhere, tho it often has an overpowering need to change the
drapes.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" stands in
opposition to dogmatism. It's a skeptical principle, an
example of empirical thinking. Ditto "By their fruits ye shall
know them."
Not to forget, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits whether they are of God: because many false
prophets are gone out into the world," tho I'm not convinced by
the criterion.
-- Moggin
francis muir
> "Man is the measure of all things" is full-color dogmatism.
> Contrariwise, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is
> good" is a principle at home in Missouri no less than in Tarsus.
As I recall, "Show me" went over like a
lead baloon when uttered by one Thomas.
ffoulkes
smw
The Other wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> writes:
>
>
>>The Other wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sounds pretty off the wall, but not much more so than the creed
>>>you subscribe to, which is sometimes called the Protestant
>>>Deformation. My main complaint about evangelical Christians is
>>>that they're not *enough* off the wall; they embrace too much of
>>>the grotesquerie of normal modern secular life.
>
>
>>>I know it's just a matter of taste, but I like fundamentalist
>>>Christians, based on those I've known.
>>
>>Seeing that you've never given any indication of faith hereabouts,
>>this sounds suspiciously as if you want others to do the dirty work
>>of irrationalism for you.
>
>
> I don't see how that's connected to what I wrote above, unless maybe
> you meant "anti-rationalism" instead of "irrationalism", but in that
> case I don't see it as getting my hands dirty. Any help from the
> faithful is of course appreciated.
"Oh, these fascists look so dashing in their uniforms! Black truly does
go with everything."
Bruce McGuffin
tbsa...@att.net
smw wrote:
** "Oh, these fascists look so dashing in their uniforms! Black truly
does go with everything."
I've always wondered if dandruff/seborrhea lowered one's standing in
black-uniformed military & paramilitary aggregations.. would it be
like "the heartbreak of psoriasis" or impetigo?
T.
ObNowReading: SHALIMAR THE CLOWN.
(Hardly top-of-line Rushdie. Part of it may be Pyncho-lite.)
Kater Moggin
> Any dogma worth anything has its own criteria of proving (testing).
> Your own dogma, which apparently is the one called "anti-dogmatism",
> is no exception. These testing criteria will of course tend to
> confirm the dogma's own tenets and disconfirm those of rival dogmas.
Further undermining the humanism vs. dogmatism dogma I was
objecting to.
> Don't you pomo types read Stanley Fish?
Not when we have a choice. He rots from the head, in case
you didn't know.
-- Moggin
htd
On Dec 7, 11:21 am, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Dec 6, 12:52 pm, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> "htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
> >> > Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
> >> > been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
> >> > inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
> >> > thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
> >> > denomination really ought to have gotten out more.Yup. Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting to
> >> get out.
>
> >> Bruce
>
> > I'm surprised that you think they exist in layers and that the humanist
> > has the upper hand.I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I can't dislike religion - it has inspired too much good art and too
many good episodes of Southpark to be truly objectionable, IMHO. What
I can't stand about the Jesus Camp crowd is their lack of system.
Anyone who simultaneously believes that there is an omnipotent,
righteous God on the one hand, and that the Earth is a battleground in
a fight between the forces of good and the forces of evil on the other,
and that no third element, however rudimentary or farfetched, needs to
be introduced to reconcile those two beliefs really needs to be slapped
until his brains start working again. Droll absurdity is a delight;
adherence to unacknowledgedly contradictory principles is anathema.
Sam Culotta
"htd" <heroth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165521972....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
beliefs. While there are clear thinking "people of faith" there are many who
look no further than the belief system they are taught or indoctrinated
into. Then there are the really insidious bastards who knowingly use faith
as a control mechanism. Those are the ones who deserve to be smacked upside
their heads with a cudgel.
Sam
Paul Ilechko
> I can't dislike religion - it has inspired too much good art a
No it hasn't. Artists create art. There was a point in time where the
only acceptable content for art was religious, so artists naturally
created art with religious content. They had no choice. That is not the
same as saying that religion inspired the art.
htd
On Dec 7, 4:23 pm, Paul Ilechko <pilec...@patmedia.net> wrote:
> htd wrote:
> > I can't dislike religion - it has inspired too much good art aNo it hasn't. Artists create art. There was a point in time where the
> only acceptable content for art was religious, so artists naturally
> created art with religious content. They had no choice. That is not the
> same as saying that religion inspired the art.
Compulsory art? You're seriously going to go for that?
Ob refutation: John Donne, Holy Sonnets; John Milton, Paradise Lost;
Handel's "Messiah"; Christina Rossetti's hymns; basically everything
the Shakers ever did; and if we're broadminded enough around here to
think that "religion" doesn't mean "Western Christianity 41-1517 AD,"
I'll give you
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/venusmelos_6.jpg;
http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/s97/india/vishnu.gif;
http://www.globosapiens.net/data/reportpix/thumb/jalalabad-report-1791-6.jpg;
and http://www.thewildrose.net/images/buddha_statue.jpg.
smw
They don't have "God in his omnipotence chose to give us free will"?
Paul Ilechko
I didn't use the word "compulsory".
smw
Paul Ilechko wrote:
Are you also claiming that architects just wanted to build big stuff and
churches were the only acceptable shape? Or will you give Hattie the
Cathedrals?
Paul Ilechko
My point was that just because artists made "religious" art doesn't
necessarily mean that they were inspired by religion. Maybe they were
inspired by _art_, and got paid more for the religious stuff. Why did
Bach write the Art of Fugue instead of churning out a few more Cantatas?
Which music meant the most to him?
Sure, some artists were inspired by religion, but don't overestimate it.
delc...@mail.ab.edu
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> htd wrote:
>
> > I can't dislike religion - it has inspired too much good art a
>
> No it hasn't. Artists create art. There was a point in time where the
Not really. They could do portraits. Of course, if the patron wanted
his portrait to depict him at the foot of the Cross, well, he was
paying for it.
To claim that religion has not inspired art is simply silly. Liszt's
--Via Crucis--, for example, apparently was a deeply personal response
to the Way of the Cross. Even a reprobate like Eric Gill did brilliant
religious art as much out of faith as out of the desire to create art.
His stations of the cross in London's Westminster Cathedral (not
Westminster Abbey) are very powerful pieces.
J. Del Col
Paul Ilechko
> To claim that religion has not inspired art is simply silly.
Fortunately, no-one has claimed that. Read my clarifying response to
Silke. I do think that the role of religion as influence is grossly
overstated.
michael
> "Allah Akbar" lines up with measuring everything by man on
> the doctrinaire side of things. Dogmatism is at home
> everywhere, tho it often has an overpowering need to change the
> drapes.
the idea seems clear to the point of invisibiity in this formulation...
how exactly does "measuring everything by man" "line up" with "Allah Akbar"?
> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" stands in
> opposition to dogmatism. It's a skeptical principle, an
> example of empirical thinking. Ditto "By their fruits ye shall
> know them."
... and how is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not just an
iteration of "measuring everything by man"? it sounds like an appeal to
some inherent moral (common) sense... both the "ye" measuring and the
"them" being measured are, after all, just some men...
michael
Marko Amnell
Paul Ilechko wrote:
Mr. Ilechko, as usual, makes incisive comments about art.
Compare his views with e.g. the recent revolutionary book
_The Mirror of the Gods: Classical Mythology in Renaissance
Art_ by Malcolm Bull. The Classics themselves are a sort of
religion to smw, so it's not surprising she would exaggerate
the role of religion and myth in art history.
For a quick summary of Bull's fascinating book, read this
excerpt form T.J. Clark's review of it in the LRB. Really
interesting stuff. (A long post, I know, but I really hope
more people will hear of Bull's book).
To caricature Bull's thesis nearly out of recognition, he
argues that art during the Renaissance was not inspired
by any deep knowledge of Classical religion and myth, but
was rather a form of high class soft porn. Nudes and such
for the villas and baths of the rich and powerful. Artists
in general were nearly totally ignorant of the Classical
themes they portrayed in their art.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Bull has written a formidable handbook, for which,
I predict, many scholars and lovers of Renaissance art will
never forgive him. What he has to say in the end about the
revival of the ancient gods in early modern Europe amounts
to a wholesale (Savonarolan) bonfire of most art historians'
assumptions, or wishes, about the leaven of paganism in
the transition to modernity.
[...]
Here are the theses, ripped from their matrix. First, and
pervasively: the return to Greek and Roman mythology
in the visual arts was a marginal phenomenon. Bull means
this fairly matter-of-factly. He makes a comparison between
the new picturing of the ancient deities and the contemporary
vogue for grotesque ornament, freely copied from things
seen in Nero's Domus Aurea and elsewhere:
Grotesques, for all their ubiquity, always remained marginal -
quite literally in the many cases where they constitute the
frame or boundary of the work itself. They tend to fill those
spaces least likely to generate meaning. In this respect, their
distribution parallels that of mythological art itself . . . But while
grotesque decoration remained ornamental and eventually
went out of fashion, mythology gradually migrates from the
margin to the centre: from the frieze to the ceiling, the epigram
to the epic, the intermezzo to the opera, and from small private
spaces to large public ones.
In the beginning especially, mythological imagery was most at
home in gardens or loggias, or on ceilings that could easily be
imagined as opening onto the heavens. The suburban villa was
its ideal site. It did well as temporary festival architecture.
Indoors, it was best suited for private rooms - the study, the
bedroom, the bath. Even the big showstoppers of the early
16th century (and Bull does not minimise the scale and swank
of the great rooms in Mantua or Rome) bear the traces of their
leisure industry origins. The subjects of Raphael's Villa
Farnesina are 'frivolous'. The Sala dei Giganti in the Palazzo Te
is stupendous, but in the way of Las Vegas, not Thebes. 'Never
before had anyone conceived of mythological art as a total,
all-encompassing experience. The inscription (from Statius)
that goes around the room reminds the viewer that if this is what
happened to the Giants, there is not much hope for rebellious
humans. But the room was meant to exhilarate rather than terrify.
It led to the tennis-court, not the dungeon.'
Second, and closely connected: there is no discernible grand,
organic development to the spread of mythological imagery in
the Renaissance, and this is largely because it thrived in
'secondary' media - sometimes spectacular and ostentatious,
often quite local and domestic. Wedding chests, hat badges,
pastiglia boxes, pendants and cameos, painted plates from
Urbino. Classical arches built for the entry of heads of state,
emblems, fountains, small-scale bronzes ('thought a rarity'). '
Taken together,' Bull notes, in a key paragraph,
these two clusters are not exactly central to what we have
come to think of as the history of art, let alone to wider
intellectual history. But it is a useful reminder that the
diffusion of classical mythology came about through an
accumulation of expensive yet seemingly trivial exchanges:
the distribution of pornography and wedding presents, and
the acquisition of things such as picnic dishes and jewellery,
and garden ornaments for people's holiday homes.
And then: 'It may not sound like a cultural revolution, but that
is what it turned out to be.' This occurs on page 85. It will not
be till page 394 that the reader will learn what the unlikely
revolution really was.
Various lesser theses follow in the meantime from these first two.
For instance, the fundamental rootlessness of mythological image-
making in the Renaissance - the fact that it had no place in any
pattern of belief, or even shadow approximation of cult - was
not compensated for by its becoming linked to any genuine,
sustained practice of learning. It had no ties to the emerging
universities: a far from infallible litmus test, obviously, but in
this period indicative. The sources artists and craftsmen used
to elaborate the tales of the gods were few, largely predictable,
occasionally arcane and pretentious (Bull is no enthusiast for
Neo-platonism), but more often driven by the humble needs of
function and occasion. Not Proclus and Pausanias, then, but
a bit of Boccaccio, a pose picked up from an illustrated Ovid,
and a couple of attributes cribbed from the Libellus de
imaginibus deorum. This last little compendium, written
in the late 1300s, was typical. 'Its success was probably
due to its simplicity,' Bull suggests. 'Beginning with the
planetary deities, the Libellus offers a short paragraph on the
appearance of each god, and a brief account of the 12
labours of Hercules. It was all most people needed to know.'
There were more modern mythographies than Boccaccio's
and the Libellus, of course, and one or two of them were
scholarly as opposed to preposterous. Neither the good
nor the bad kind appears to have had much impact on art
practice. Very occasionally, a painter displayed signs of
having studied, or heard about, an allegorical reading of a
myth. Poussin, on whom Bull is an expert, was one such;
he was the exception. Once or twice we have reason to
believe that artists received specific scripts from intellectuals,
got up for a great occasion. No doubt Poliziano guided
Botticelli personally through Lucretius and the Fasti. The
results are marvellous, but wholly unrepresentative.
The Birth of Venus and the Primavera 'had little influence
on the development of later iconography, and they draw
on none of the literary sources that artists customarily used.'
In general, intercourse with humanists was probably sparse,
and largely unhelpful. The demands of actual patrons were
crude, and easily fulfilled without the aid of large books.
smw
Paul Ilechko wrote:
You appear to assume that the category of "art" was meaningful before
the Renaissance (and the idea of art's autonomy before the late 18th).
smw
Marko Amnell wrote:
Huh? I'm a traditional Athens vs. Jerusalem gal.
Paul Ilechko
>> My point was that just because artists made "religious" art doesn't
>> necessarily mean that they were inspired by religion. Maybe they were
>> inspired by _art_, and got paid more for the religious stuff. Why did
>> Bach write the Art of Fugue instead of churning out a few more
>> Cantatas? Which music meant the most to him?
>>
>> Sure, some artists were inspired by religion, but don't overestimate it.
>
> You appear to assume that the category of "art" was meaningful before
> the Renaissance (and the idea of art's autonomy before the late 18th).
>
People created "art", whether they called it such or not. Call it
"craft", whatever. They were paid to do it, it was a job. In fact, the
less you get bogged down in contemporary ideas of "art", the less sense
it makes to talk of "religious inspiration". It wasn't about
inspiration, it was about work.
Kater Moggin
> the idea seems clear to the point of invisibiity in this formulation...
> how exactly does "measuring everything by man" "line up" with "Allah Akbar"?
Instances of dogmatism: humanist and theist, respectively.
> ... and how is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not just an
> iteration of "measuring everything by man"?
That's easy: it doesn't propose measuring anything by man.
> it sounds like an appeal to some inherent moral (common) sense...
It's empiricism: looking at the outcome and then reaching
a relevant conclusion.
-- Moggin
smw
Paul Ilechko wrote:
It was you who claimed that "maybe they were inspired by _art_" -- until
the advent of monism, inspiration is almost by definition divine. But be
that as it may -- it's not as if either of us is in a position to
"prove" who was inspired by what to which degree --, the fact remains
that the works in question were funded by religious institutions.
michael
> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> the idea seems clear to the point of invisibiity in this formulation...
>> how exactly does "measuring everything by man" "line up" with "Allah Akbar"?
> Instances of dogmatism: humanist and theist, respectively.
yes... that was what was clear... the invisibility and my question have
to do with how they can both be considered "instances of dogmatism"
other than by dogmatic assertion that they are such...
>> ... and how is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not just an
>> iteration of "measuring everything by man"?
>
> That's easy: it doesn't propose measuring anything by man.
what measure does it propose then?
>> it sounds like an appeal to some inherent moral (common) sense...
>
> It's empiricism: looking at the outcome and then reaching
> a relevant conclusion.
uh-huh... "looking" by whom using what faculty? "reaching" by whom using
what faculty? "relevant" to whom according to what measure?
ObOver-the-Counter-Drugs:labelling would suggest that paracetamol,
acetaminophen and Tylenol aren't the same thing... they all fruit one
way, however...
michael
*Anarcissie*
It seems to me that in pre-civil days, that is, before the
invention of cities and slavery, art was a shamanistic
practice with about that same purposes as the shaman's
other tricks, like drugs: to get high, see the gods and
spirits, be entertained, get a good kick. When the
priests took over they would want to divert art to new
purposes, like cowing the masses. Reliable techniques
of grandeur and slickness would be evolved, and art
would be categorized by class. At this point you would
have religion here and art there, art on a somewhat
lower step since the religion was the ideology supporting
the power of the ruling class and everything else would
be subordinated to it. It is during that era when you
would have something like what we call art being
supported by (state) religious institutions.
smw
Sure. Not to forget politics. Check out Nietzsche's _Dawn_ on the
subject of divine inspiration in the hypothethical prehistoric -- it's fun.
When the
> priests took over they would want to divert art to new
> purposes, like cowing the masses. Reliable techniques
> of grandeur and slickness would be evolved, and art
> would be categorized by class. At this point you would
> have religion here and art there, art on a somewhat
> lower step since the religion was the ideology supporting
> the power of the ruling class and everything else would
> be subordinated to it. It is during that era when you
> would have something like what we call art being
> supported by (state) religious institutions.
You wouldn't call shamanery a religious institution?
*Anarcissie*
Here I am using "religion" to mean "organized religion",
as when the state has been established and religion is
part of the state, but before the separation of state and
religion (and art) (in liberalism).
Paul Ilechko
> It was you who claimed that "maybe they were inspired by _art_" -- until
> the advent of monism, inspiration is almost by definition divine. But be
> that as it may -- it's not as if either of us is in a position to
> "prove" who was inspired by what to which degree --, the fact remains
> that the works in question were funded by religious institutions.
>
Never denied. But funding and inspiration are not necessarily related,
and whether you call it art or not, the *process* of creating it
requires a level of inspiration.
Kater Moggin
> Kater Moggin:
> > michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
> >> the idea seems clear to the point of invisibiity in this formulation...
> >> how exactly does "measuring everything by man" "line up" with "Allah
> >> Akbar"?
> > Instances of dogmatism: humanist and theist, respectively.
> yes... that was what was clear...
Seemingly not to you, considering your question. But glad
I've helped clear it up for you.
> the invisibility and my question have
> to do with how they can both be considered "instances of dogmatism"
> other than by dogmatic assertion that they are such...
No, your question was about they have in common. My reply
is above.
> >> ... and how is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not just an
> >> iteration of "measuring everything by man"?
> > That's easy: it doesn't propose measuring anything by man.
> what measure does it propose then?
Isn't that pretty obvious? "By their fruits ye shall know
them" them by their fruits.
> >> it sounds like an appeal to some inherent moral (common) sense...
> > It's empiricism: looking at the outcome and then reaching
> > a relevant conclusion.
> uh-huh... "looking" by whom using what faculty? "reaching" by whom using
> what faculty? "relevant" to whom according to what measure?
Who's asking?
-- Moggin
*Anarcissie*
Artistic inspiration is exactly the sort of thing which,
in a shamanistic culture, would be taken to be an
instance of the intervention of gods or spirits in human
life. Later, when totalitarian slave societies had been
perfected, such intrusions would be considered
dangerous and would be placed under the control
of specialists -- priests. Hence the funding, and
savage penalties as well for those who did not toe
the line. That is what I would call religion, but some
people would include invocation of the spirits by a
shaman as religion, using the word more broadly
than I do.
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> smw wrote:
>>
>>> It was you who claimed that "maybe they were inspired by _art_" -- until
>>> the advent of monism, inspiration is almost by definition divine. But be
>>> that as it may -- it's not as if either of us is in a position to
>>> "prove" who was inspired by what to which degree --, the fact remains
>>> that the works in question were funded by religious institutions.
>>>
>> Never denied. But funding and inspiration are not necessarily related,
>> and whether you call it art or not, the *process* of creating it
>> requires a level of inspiration.
>
> Artistic inspiration is exactly the sort of thing which,
> in a shamanistic culture, would be taken to be an
> instance of the intervention of gods or spirits in human
> life.
However, leaving all the bollocks aside, all it really means is that
while creating art you are at least partly working at a subconscious
level. Whether or not you call it "Art", it's pretty much a given that
you work better when you don't think too directly about what you are
doing. Left brain/right brain stuff, y'know.
*Anarcissie*
In short there is the Unknown Thing. The shaman says
it is the manifestation of the spirits; the priest says it is
God, or one of his angels; you say it is the subconscious.
Bollocks all, I suppose. I happen to like the shaman's
view, but to each his own.
Paul Ilechko
Yeah, but you like it aesthetically, right? You don't actually believe
it, just think that the belief is cool.
michael
> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> Kater Moggin:
>>> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>>> the idea seems clear to the point of invisibiity in this formulation...
>>>> how exactly does "measuring everything by man" "line up" with "Allah
>>>> Akbar"?
>
>>> Instances of dogmatism: humanist and theist, respectively.
>
>> yes... that was what was clear...
>
> Seemingly not to you, considering your question. But glad
> I've helped clear it up for you.
as i said, your considering each to be an instance of dogmatism was clear...
>
>> the invisibility and my question have
>> to do with how they can both be considered "instances of dogmatism"
>> other than by dogmatic assertion that they are such...
>
> No, your question was about they have in common. My reply
> is above.
no... my question was about how they can both be considered instances of
dogmatism other than by dogmatic assertion that they are such... it
still stands...
>>>> ... and how is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not just an
>>>> iteration of "measuring everything by man"?
>
>>> That's easy: it doesn't propose measuring anything by man.
>
>> what measure does it propose then?
>
> Isn't that pretty obvious? "By their fruits ye shall know
> them" them by their fruits.
uh-huh... so what measure does it propose then?
>>>> it sounds like an appeal to some inherent moral (common) sense...
>
>>> It's empiricism: looking at the outcome and then reaching
>>> a relevant conclusion.
>
>> uh-huh... "looking" by whom using what faculty? "reaching" by whom using
>> what faculty? "relevant" to whom according to what measure?
>
> Who's asking?
i asked: looking by whom using what faculty? reaching by whom using what
faculty? relevant to whom using what measure?
michael
*Anarcissie*
You mean as to what's really real, that sort of thing? I don't
know what's really real. Anything is possible. What we have
are a lot of fragmentary phenomena which can be ordered in
various ways. For daily life these days I generally go with
shamanism and animism, but if I were trying to do science
with people's reactions to works of art I'd probably go the
subconscious-mind route rather than look around for spirits
to give multiple-choice questionnaires to.
michael
>> Yeah, but you like it aesthetically, right? You don't actually believe
>> it, just think that the belief is cool.
ObBook: Technicians of Ecstasy: Shamanism and The Modern Artist
a fairly interesting way of ordering some fragmentary phenomena that is
much to the point of this discussion...
michael
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
>>smw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It was you who claimed that "maybe they were inspired by _art_" -- until
>>>the advent of monism, inspiration is almost by definition divine. But be
>>>that as it may -- it's not as if either of us is in a position to
>>>"prove" who was inspired by what to which degree --, the fact remains
>>>that the works in question were funded by religious institutions.
>>>
>>
>>Never denied. But funding and inspiration are not necessarily related,
>>and whether you call it art or not, the *process* of creating it
>>requires a level of inspiration.
>
>
> Artistic inspiration is exactly the sort of thing which,
> in a shamanistic culture, would be taken to be an
> instance of the intervention of gods or spirits in human
> life.
Not just in Shamanic culture. Theories of divine inspiration (later:
poetic madness) abound until the 18th century. The late 18th concept of
"genius" is closely related, even though it also marks a point of
departure (as someone said, you can _have_ a genie, but you _are_ a
genius). Someone ought to write a book about it.
> Later, when totalitarian slave societies had been
> perfected, such intrusions would be considered
> dangerous and would be placed under the control
> of specialists -- priests. Hence the funding, and
> savage penalties as well for those who did not toe
> the line. That is what I would call religion, but some
> people would include invocation of the spirits by a
> shaman as religion, using the word more broadly
> than I do.
Well, I'm wondering why you think priests are specialists but shamans
are not.
smw
Paul Ilechko wrote:
That's anything but a "given" -- in fact, I think it's post-romantic
drivel in this apodictic form. Artists come in all intellectual shapes.
ObEssays: Hoelderlin, _Ueber den Wechsel der Toene_.
Hoelderlin or Schelling or Hegel or all of them together: _The Oldest
Systematic Program of Idealism_
*Anarcissie*
Is that by the same person who wrote _Technicians of the Sacred_?
*Anarcissie*
smw wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > Paul Ilechko wrote:
> >
> >>smw wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It was you who claimed that "maybe they were inspired by _art_" -- until
> >>>the advent of monism, inspiration is almost by definition divine. But be
> >>>that as it may -- it's not as if either of us is in a position to
> >>>"prove" who was inspired by what to which degree --, the fact remains
> >>>that the works in question were funded by religious institutions.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Never denied. But funding and inspiration are not necessarily related,
> >>and whether you call it art or not, the *process* of creating it
> >>requires a level of inspiration.
> >
> >
> > Artistic inspiration is exactly the sort of thing which,
> > in a shamanistic culture, would be taken to be an
> > instance of the intervention of gods or spirits in human
> > life.
>
> Not just in Shamanic culture. Theories of divine inspiration (later:
> poetic madness) abound until the 18th century. The late 18th concept of
> "genius" is closely related, even though it also marks a point of
> departure (as someone said, you can _have_ a genie, but you _are_ a
> genius). Someone ought to write a book about it.
In the 18th century we begin to get into liberalism
and its relatives, and the state begins to dispense
with religion, and, in a sense, with art, because now it
has capitalism and industrialism instead. I suppose
we might expect a gradual reversion to the shamanistic
versions of art and -- I won't say religion -- spirituality.
> > Later, when totalitarian slave societies had been
> > perfected, such intrusions would be considered
> > dangerous and would be placed under the control
> > of specialists -- priests. Hence the funding, and
> > savage penalties as well for those who did not toe
> > the line. That is what I would call religion, but some
> > people would include invocation of the spirits by a
> > shaman as religion, using the word more broadly
> > than I do.
>
> Well, I'm wondering why you think priests are specialists but shamans
> are not.
Didn't say they weren't. However, they were not specialists of
the state / empire overseeing the spiritual lives of the slaves,
people, etc., organized into hierarchy (apt word). A special
sort of cops.
michael
suspect not...his name is levy, iirc... art historian somewhere in
california (where else?)... i found the book on a remainders table and
read it expecting to find it contemptuous... i didn't...
michael
michael
err... that should read "contemptible"...
michael
Kater Moggin
> Kater Moggin:
> > michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
> >> Kater Moggin:
> >>> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
> >>>> the idea seems clear to the point of invisibiity in this formulation...
> >>>> how exactly does "measuring everything by man" "line up" with "Allah
> >>>> Akbar"?
> >>> Instances of dogmatism: humanist and theist, respectively.
> >> yes... that was what was clear...
> > Seemingly not to you, considering your question. But glad
> > I've helped clear it up for you.
> as i said, your considering each to be an instance of dogmatism was clear...
As I replied, it didn't seem clear to you, since you asked
how they were aligned.
> >> the invisibility and my question have
> >> to do with how they can both be considered "instances of dogmatism"
> >> other than by dogmatic assertion that they are such...
> > No, your question was about they have in common. My reply
> > is above.
> no... my question was about how they can both be considered instances of
> dogmatism other than by dogmatic assertion that they are such... it
> still stands...
No, your question was about how they line up together, and
I answered it above.
> >>>> ... and how is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not just an
> >>>> iteration of "measuring everything by man"?
> >>> That's easy: it doesn't propose measuring anything by man.
> >> what measure does it propose then?
> > Isn't that pretty obvious? "By their fruits ye shall know
> > them" them by their fruits.
> uh-huh... so what measure does it propose then?
Of course it proposes measuring them by their fruits. You
didn't notice?
> >>>> it sounds like an appeal to some inherent moral (common) sense...
> >>> It's empiricism: looking at the outcome and then reaching
> >>> a relevant conclusion.
> >> uh-huh... "looking" by whom using what faculty? "reaching" by whom using
> >> what faculty? "relevant" to whom according to what measure?
> > Who's asking?
> i asked: looking by whom using what faculty? reaching by whom using what
> faculty? relevant to whom using what measure?
I responded: who's asking?
-- Moggin
michael
you keep missin' em"... which does not win a base on balls, as it were...
michael
*Anarcissie*
I went and looked things up.... The author of ToS is Jerome
Rothenberg, who is the author of quite a few books, but only
one _Technicians_. It came out in the '70s. I thought he had
done a sequel, but if so it is not technicians of anything.
Perhaps the idea of applying the steely-eyed word _technician_
to such as shamanism and magic got people excited, for now
there seems to be a minor religion ("Ordo Templi Orientis
Antiqua", "Monastery of the Seven Rays", etc.) associated with
the phrase. Additionally, we might suppose the author of the
book you mention, Mark Levy, to have lifted the beginning of
the phrase for his title, although maybe indirectly.
I must say the customer reviews on Amazon* were not
encouraging, taken together.
*http://www.amazon.com/Technicians-Ecstasy-Shamanism-Modern-Artist/dp/0962618446
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
>>Not just in Shamanic culture. Theories of divine inspiration (later:
>>poetic madness) abound until the 18th century. The late 18th concept of
>>"genius" is closely related, even though it also marks a point of
>>departure (as someone said, you can _have_ a genie, but you _are_ a
>>genius). Someone ought to write a book about it.
>
>
> In the 18th century we begin to get into liberalism
> and its relatives, and the state begins to dispense
> with religion, and, in a sense, with art, because now it
> has capitalism and industrialism instead. I suppose
> we might expect a gradual reversion to the shamanistic
> versions of art and -- I won't say religion -- spirituality.
What you have at that point is the birth of aesthetic of autonomy -- art
as the only realm of freedom etc. Divine inspiration (and poetic
madness) are systems of unfreedom that aren't compatible with
Autonomieaesthetik. Hoelderlin's letter to Boehlendorff is fantastic in
this respect.
>
>
>>>Later, when totalitarian slave societies had been
>>>perfected, such intrusions would be considered
>>>dangerous and would be placed under the control
>>>of specialists -- priests. Hence the funding, and
>>>savage penalties as well for those who did not toe
>>>the line. That is what I would call religion, but some
>>>people would include invocation of the spirits by a
>>>shaman as religion, using the word more broadly
>>>than I do.
>>
>>Well, I'm wondering why you think priests are specialists but shamans
>>are not.
>
>
> Didn't say they weren't. However, they were not specialists of
> the state / empire overseeing the spiritual lives of the slaves,
> people, etc., organized into hierarchy (apt word). A special
> sort of cops.
Well, I know less about the pre-historic than you appear to, so
possibly. Who knows.
>
Kater Moggin
> ah well...
I see you're erased the whole dialogue, the Usenet version
of knocking over the chessboard.
> as foghorn leghorn was wont to say, "i keep pitchin' em and
> you keep missin' em"... which does not win a base on balls, as it were...
You missed your own pitches and everything else, unable to
see that your question, "how exactly does 'measuring
everything by man' 'line up' with 'Allah Akbar'?" was inquiring
about their alignment -- clearly unclear to you, since you
were asking for an explanation. You didn't manage to grasp "By
their fruits ye shall know them" measures them by their
fruits. And while you demanded to know, "looking by whom using
what faculty? reaching by whom using what faculty? relevant
to whom using what measure?" you were unable to tell me who was
asking, leaving you with three swings and no hits. If you
don't know what the word for that is, then take Casey Stengel's
advice and look it up.
-- Moggin
michael
> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> ah well...
>
> I see you're erased the whole dialogue, the Usenet version
> of knocking over the chessboard.
more like the usenet version of a gigantic yawn, arms overhead at full
stretch...
>> as foghorn leghorn was wont to say, "i keep pitchin' em and
>> you keep missin' em"... which does not win a base on balls, as it were...
>
> You missed your own pitches and everything else, unable to
> see that your question, "how exactly does 'measuring
> everything by man' 'line up' with 'Allah Akbar'?" was inquiring
> about their alignment -- clearly unclear to you, since you
> were asking for an explanation.
actually i was asking for a justification of *your* having lined them up
"on the doctrinaire side of things"... surely you're not suggesting they
line themselves up?
> You didn't manage to grasp "By
> their fruits ye shall know them" measures them by their
> fruits.
one man's fruit is another man's vegetable where i live, so the
crystalline clarity you seem to imagine is an inherent quality of fruits
is indeed beyond my grasp...
> And while you demanded to know, "looking by whom using
> what faculty? reaching by whom using what faculty? relevant
> to whom using what measure?" you were unable to tell me who was
> asking, leaving you with three swings and no hits.
outside of the rather obvious "i asked first" rejoinder, there is the "i
asked:" answer to your query, which was the most direct i had
available... you seem to have missed it...
michael
Lewis Mammel
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> You mean as to what's really real, that sort of thing? I don't
> know what's really real. Anything is possible. What we have
> are a lot of fragmentary phenomena which can be ordered in
> various ways. For daily life these days I generally go with
> shamanism and animism, but if I were trying to do science
> with people's reactions to works of art I'd probably go the
> subconscious-mind route rather than look around for spirits
> to give multiple-choice questionnaires to.
Well, the internet is real, isn't it? Where do you place
yourself vis a vis Intel? Are they gods? You seem to be happy
to imagine yourself like the Iceman ( in the movie, ) running
around poking at the Xerox machines with a sharpened stick.
michael
> Perhaps the idea of applying the steely-eyed word _technician_
> to such as shamanism and magic got people excited, for now
> there seems to be a minor religion ("Ordo Templi Orientis
> Antiqua", "Monastery of the Seven Rays", etc.) associated with
> the phrase. Additionally, we might suppose the author of the
> book you mention, Mark Levy, to have lifted the beginning of
> the phrase for his title, although maybe indirectly.
at the time i picked the book up, i probably would have associated it
with foucault and "technologies of the self", a highly suggestive
phrase, which i now prefer to the mundane and value-laden "consumerism"...
> I must say the customer reviews on Amazon* were not
> encouraging, taken together.
i remember very little about the book... van gogh starving and drinking
and auto-dismembering displaying similarities to shamanistic fasting and
self-medicating in order to peer into the realm of the sacred and come
back with some gift for the community at large... "Sunflowers" as
proleptic Prozac perhaps?
michael
Kater Moggin
> actually i was asking for a justification of *your* having lined them up
> "on the doctrinaire side of things"
No, you have it wrong again. You actually asked about how
the two were aligned: "how exactly does 'measuring
everything by man' 'line up' with 'Allah Akbar'?" I was polite
enough to explain.
> ... surely you're not suggesting they line themselves up?
I'm suggesting that "humanism vs. dogmatism" makes as much
sense as "Catholicism vs. dogmatism."
> one man's fruit is another man's vegetable where i live, so the
> crystalline clarity you seem to imagine is an inherent quality of fruits
> is indeed beyond my grasp...
I've never seen any crystal fruits, possibly some wax ones.
> outside of the rather obvious "i asked first" rejoinder, there is the "i
> asked:" answer to your query, which was the most direct i had
> available... you seem to have missed it...
You're imagining things again. You wanted to know who was
looking, etc., but couldn't say who asked.
-- Moggin
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
> No, you have it wrong again.
Don't you believe in John Lennon? To me you seem the Lord, King
and Emperor of Top Dead Center, from which position no concievable
force can possibly displace you. A real Nowhere Man!
michael
> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> actually i was asking for a justification of *your* having lined them up
>> "on the doctrinaire side of things"
>
> No, you have it wrong again.
uh... no i don't... i realize you have difficulty with this sort of
thing, but my question is my question, and the fact that you can pretend
not to understand it because it's possible to read it in another way
doesn't really change that... so why not just explain how you arrive at
your aligning of "measuring everything by man" and "allah akbar"...
> You actually asked about how
> the two were aligned: "how exactly does 'measuring
> everything by man' 'line up' with 'Allah Akbar'?" I was polite
> enough to explain.
oh yeah... i forgot... you explained that they were both instances of
dogmatism (which unfounded assertion you'd already made)... please,
summoning all that politeness, why not try to explain how you think they
are both instances of dogmatism... so far, all you've given us is a kind
of 'fiat alignimus", which, as far as i know, is a proprietary right of
speedy muffler ltd....
>> ... surely you're not suggesting they line themselves up?
>
> I'm suggesting that "humanism vs. dogmatism" makes as much
> sense as "Catholicism vs. dogmatism."
isn't that interesting, though...i guess this is an indication of the
kind of discussion you'd feel better having... or the first few wisps
toward the building of a straw man?
>> one man's fruit is another man's vegetable where i live, so the
>> crystalline clarity you seem to imagine is an inherent quality of fruits
>> is indeed beyond my grasp...
>
> I've never seen any crystal fruits, possibly some wax ones.
uh-huh... so what measure is proposed in "by their fruits ye shall know
them"...
>
>> outside of the rather obvious "i asked first" rejoinder, there is the "i
>> asked:" answer to your query, which was the most direct i had
>> available... you seem to have missed it...
>
> You're imagining things again. You wanted to know who was
> looking, etc., but couldn't say who asked.
nope...you asked and i answered "i asked:"... now it's your turn...
michael
smw
michael wrote:
> Kater Moggin wrote:
>
>> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>> actually i was asking for a justification of *your* having lined them
>>> up "on the doctrinaire side of things"
>>
>>
>> No, you have it wrong again.
>
>
> uh... no i don't... i realize you have difficulty with this sort of
> thing, but my question is my question, and the fact that you can pretend
> not to understand it because it's possible to read it in another way
> doesn't really change that... so why not just explain how you arrive at
> your aligning of "measuring everything by man" and "allah akbar"...
>
>> You actually asked about how
>> the two were aligned: "how exactly does 'measuring everything by man'
>> 'line up' with 'Allah Akbar'?" I was polite
>> enough to explain.
>
>
> oh yeah... i forgot... you explained that they were both instances of
> dogmatism (which unfounded assertion you'd already made)... please,
> summoning all that politeness, why not try to explain how you think they
> are both instances of dogmatism... so far, all you've given us is a kind
> of 'fiat alignimus", which, as far as i know, is a proprietary right of
> speedy muffler ltd....
What seems to be the problem here? Both postulate an ultimate measure of
things, a priori of the particular to be examined, the fruit, so to
speak, whereas "by your fruit you shall judge them" suggests
particularism. "Who's judging" is a meaningless question in this regard
-- whoever, obviously.
htd
On Dec 7, 5:46 pm, smw <s...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> htd wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 11:21 am, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >>"htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>>On Dec 6, 12:52 pm, Bruce McGuffin <n...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>"htd" <herothatd...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>>>>I chalk it all up to the complete cock-up
> >>>>>Protestantism has turned out to be, and I'm now convinced that it's
> >>>>>been all downhill since we left the middle ages. This is the
> >>>>>inevitable result of the democratization of religion, and whoever
> >>>>>thought it was a good idea to reduce faith to its lowest common
> >>>>>denomination really ought to have gotten out more.Yup. Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting to
>
> >>>>get out.
>
> >>>>Bruce
>
> >>>I'm surprised that you think they exist in layers and that the humanist
> >>>has the upper hand.I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > I can't dislike religion - it has inspired too much good art and too
> > many good episodes of Southpark to be truly objectionable, IMHO. What
> > I can't stand about the Jesus Camp crowd is their lack of system.
> > Anyone who simultaneously believes that there is an omnipotent,
> > righteous God on the one hand, and that the Earth is a battleground in
> > a fight between the forces of good and the forces of evil on the other,
> > and that no third element, however rudimentary or farfetched, needs to
> > be introduced to reconcile those two beliefs really needs to be slapped
> > until his brains start working again. Droll absurdity is a delight;
> > adherence to unacknowledgedly contradictory principles is anathema.They don't have "God in his omnipotence chose to give us free will"?
Possibly the single greatest absurdity of them all, and the only thing
that can cap it is the mega-meta-joke that Newtonian physics plays on
both Christian religion and free will. If existence wanted to be taken
seriously it ought to have done a better job at not being quite so
consistently ridiculous.
htd
On Dec 7, 6:15 pm, Paul Ilechko <pilec...@patmedia.net> wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
> > Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> >> htd wrote:
>
> >>> I can't dislike religion - it has inspired too much good art a
>
> >> No it hasn't. Artists create art. There was a point in time where the
> >> only acceptable content for art was religious, so artists naturally
> >> created art with religious content. They had no choice. That is not
> >> the same as saying that religion inspired the art.
>
> > Are you also claiming that architects just wanted to build big stuff and
> > churches were the only acceptable shape? Or will you give Hattie the
> > Cathedrals?My point was that just because artists made "religious" art doesn't
> necessarily mean that they were inspired by religion. Maybe they were
> inspired by _art_, and got paid more for the religious stuff. Why did
> Bach write the Art of Fugue instead of churning out a few more Cantatas?
> Which music meant the most to him?
>
> Sure, some artists were inspired by religion, but don't overestimate it.
This is why I specifically left out western pre-reformation art from my
list of examples. I was thinking of a wider range of places and
periods, and you had to go all medieval on my ass.
*Anarcissie*
There was something in _Dilbert_ about malevolent
spirits hiding in the Xerox machines. I could believe it.
They have evolved and they are smarter than I am. Or
at least they seem to have more options.
Kater Moggin
> Don't you believe in John Lennon?
I don't believe in John Lennon, but I'm an adherent of his
former religion.
> To me you seem the Lord, King
> and Emperor of Top Dead Center, from which position no concievable
> force can possibly displace you.
You think? I would have said an eccentric orbit somewhere
beyond Pluto, barely touched by the Sun and liable to go
spinning off into outer darkness at any time, never to be heard
or seen again.
> A real Nowhere Man!
That's more like. But then you must be a bit like you and
me.
ObSpiritualized: _Ladies And Gentlemen We Are Floating In
Space_.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Well, the internet is real, isn't it? Where do you place
> yourself vis a vis Intel? Are they gods?
You've heard of calculated illusions. Why not calculating
or calculable ones?
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> uh... no i don't...
Uh... yes, you do. You mistakenly believe, or maybe feign
to believe, that you were asking me to justify the label
"doctrinaire" that I had applied to two doctrines, humanism and
theism.
Actually you asked me how they were aligned, something I'd
already explained, but which I was nice enough to repeat to
you, since you'd missed it the first time. Missing stuff seems
to be your speciality.
> i realize you have difficulty with this sort of
> thing, but my question is my question, and the fact that you can pretend
> not to understand it because it's possible to read it in another way
> doesn't really change that...
If your question is truly your question, then your ability
to pretend you asked something else instead doesn't change
much. "how exactly does 'measuring everything by man' 'line up'
with 'Allah Akbar'?" asks about how those two items are
aligned or related. My answer is that they're both doctrinaire
assertions.
> so why not just explain how you arrive at
> your aligning of "measuring everything by man" and "allah akbar"...
I did several times already. If you have objections, feel
free to offer them.
> oh yeah... i forgot... you explained that they were both instances of
> dogmatism (which unfounded assertion you'd already made)... please,
> summoning all that politeness, why not try to explain how you think they
> are both instances of dogmatism... so far, all you've given us is a kind
> of 'fiat alignimus", which, as far as i know, is a proprietary right of
> speedy muffler ltd....
Sounds as if Speedy would get some resistance from Fiat on
that idea. Plus alignment is front-end work. But I know
Midas has branched out, so it could be Speedy has done the same.
Anyway, if you wanna be polite, then show some discernible
signs of intelligence. Contribute something to the
conversation instead of merely screwing around like you've been
doing.
["humanism vs. dogmatism"]
> isn't that interesting, though...i guess this is an indication of the
> kind of discussion you'd feel better having... or the first few wisps
> toward the building of a straw man?
All the straw is stuffing your head. This discussion goes
back to hattie's wisecrack about Protestantism and the
democratization of religion reducing faith to the lowest common
denomination. That ticked off Bruce McGuffin, who replied
"Beneath that humanist exterior there lurks a dogmatist waiting
to get out" -- as though humanism and dogmatism were
opposites. I pointed out his foolishness. Not much later, you
started offering yours.
> uh-huh... so what measure is proposed in "by their fruits ye shall know
> them"...
Isn't that pretty obvious? "By their fruits ye shall know
them" measures by fruits.
> nope...you asked and i answered "i asked:"...
You're imagining things again. You wanted to know who was
looking, etc., but couldn't say who asked.
-- Moggin
michael
> michael <mjwil...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> uh... no i don't...
>
> Uh... yes, you do.
uh... no i don't...
> You mistakenly believe, or maybe feign
> to believe, that you were asking me to justify the label
> "doctrinaire" that I had applied to two doctrines, humanism and
> theism.
much to your apparent discomfort, i asked you to justify your assertion
that "Allah Akbar" and "measuring things by man" were instances of
dogmatism... i take your inability to do so (no matter how you try to
cloak it) as confirmation of my suspicion that you were simply being
dogmatic yourself...
> Actually you asked me how they were aligned, something I'd
> already explained, but which I was nice enough to repeat to
> you, since you'd missed it the first time. Missing stuff seems
> to be your speciality.
uh-huh...
>
>> i realize you have difficulty with this sort of
>> thing, but my question is my question, and the fact that you can pretend
>> not to understand it because it's possible to read it in another way
>> doesn't really change that...
>
> If your question is truly your question, then your ability
> to pretend you asked something else instead doesn't change
> much. "how exactly does 'measuring everything by man' 'line up'
> with 'Allah Akbar'?" asks about how those two items are
> aligned or related. My answer is that they're both doctrinaire
> assertions.
your answer *was* that they were both instances of dogmatism, which they
aren't... "Allah Akbar" certainly qualifies, and grammatically it would
appear to be an assertion..."measuring everything by man", involving no
invocation of an imaginary being that must be accepted as real for it to
have any meaning at all, relying on no authority, and having no quality
of assertion, grammatical or otherwise, has all the appearance of a
description of method, just as "by their fruits you shall know them"
does ...as to your obvious preference to be discussing humanism and
theism, well, good luck with that...
snip...
>> uh-huh... so what measure is proposed in "by their fruits ye shall know
>> them"...
>
> Isn't that pretty obvious? "By their fruits ye shall know
> them" measures by fruits.
so we're talking greengrocers here...
>> nope...you asked and i answered "i asked:"...
>
> You're imagining things again. You wanted to know who was
> looking, etc., but couldn't say who asked.
i could and did... i said "i asked"...
michael
michael
> What seems to be the problem here? Both postulate an ultimate measure of
> things, a priori of the particular to be examined, the fruit, so to
> speak, whereas "by your fruit you shall judge them" suggests
> particularism. "Who's judging" is a meaningless question in this regard
> -- whoever, obviously.
well, that certainly clears things up... how is "whoever" obviously
different from "man", that ubiquitous measure of all things?
michael
smw
Under the assumption that different people want different things from
fruit. In contrast to the assumption that "what god wants" or "what's
good for the human" ought to be the guiding principle.
Kater Moggin
> ..."measuring everything by man", involving no
> invocation of an imaginary being that must be accepted as real for it to
> have any meaning at all, relying on no authority, and having no quality
> of assertion, grammatical or otherwise, has all the appearance of a
> description of method, just as "by their fruits you shall know them"
> does ..
You've revised the proposition to suit your purposes, such
as they are. I quoted Protogaras' statement "Man is the
measure of all things": a dogmatic assertion claiming that man
is the universal yardstick.
> as to your obvious preference to be discussing humanism and
> theism, well, good luck with that... snip...
You falsely suggested "humanism vs. theism" was a strawman.
I proved you wrong by quoting the comment that I was
responding to -- and now I see you've deleted the quote instead
of admitting your mistake.
-- Moggin
Lewis Mammel
Well, I HADn't heard of calculated illusions. But insofar
as "Google is my friend." It seems that this simply means
an illusion produced by some sort of ( calculated ) artifice,
as a magic trick.
But from this I don't see the generalization to calculating
or calculable illusions, except as the irreducable rejection
of scientific authority.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
> You think? I would have said an eccentric orbit somewhere
> beyond Pluto, barely touched by the Sun and liable to go
> spinning off into outer darkness at any time, never to be heard
> or seen again.
>
> > A real Nowhere Man!
>
> That's more like. But then you must be a bit like you and
> me.
I'm from Andromeda.
michael
> Speaking of grammar, isn't it "allahu akhbar"?
yup...
> How about "Man is the measure of all things", then? This assertion
> represents, like "allahu akhbar", a "body of opinion formulated or
> authoritatively stated; systematized belief; tenets or principles
> collectively; doctrinal system". That's definition 2 of "dogma" in
> the OED.
on one level, "of all things the measure is man, of the things that are,
that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"]
they are not" strikes me as a fairly simple and straightforward
observation, and therefore does not qualify under any of the OED's
suggestions... gods, and the like, obviously fall under the rubric of
"things that are not" and it is hard to deny that man is the measure of
them... ditto for the religious and ethical systems built up around said
gods... admitttedly all the data is not in, and the day that a deity
assumed to have "revealed" its dogma is shown to be anything other than
a construct of man that statement will have to pack its bags and either
move into the house of dogma or find a planet where "revelation" is
still observably an institutionalized form of imagination...
> No supreme being required, and Protagoras was plenty authoritative,
i don't know much about Protagoras, but what i can glean indicates that
he upset "authority" rather than assumed it, and was held to be a
promoter of impiety and immorality, as often happens when a version of
empiricism bumps up against dogma of whatever stripe...
> as are modern priests of Reason.
right on! up against the wall mo-priest! or to put it another way:
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a Gem,
Reflected in the beam divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israel’s paths they shine.
The Atoms of Democritus
And the Newton’s Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.
doncha just love poetry?
michael
Kater Moggin
>
> > > Well, the internet is real, isn't it? Where do you place
> > > yourself vis a vis Intel? Are they gods?
Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
> > You've heard of calculated illusions. Why not calculating
> > or calculable ones?
Lew:
> Well, I HADn't heard of calculated illusions. But insofar
> as "Google is my friend." It seems that this simply means
> an illusion produced by some sort of ( calculated ) artifice,
> as a magic trick.
> But from this I don't see the generalization to calculating
> or calculable illusions, except as the irreducable rejection
> of scientific authority.
I thought the point of science, at least in the ideal, was
that it relied on evidence instead of authority. And
authority of what kind? To assert reality? That's metaphysics.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that illusions and calculability
aren't mutually exclusive. Take Descartes' demon-haunted
world. Or in a different key, Nietzsche's commentary that talk
about "nature's conformity to law" is a bourgeois
interpretation of what could instead be called nature's tyranny.
_Beyond Good & Evil_ 22.
-- Moggin