My initial reaction to his advice, naturally, was acerbic and adversarial.
Mature scholar that he is, my friend was not "driven away" but continued
his charming, gentle admonishments. He knows of my genuine and
continuing interest in Walker Percy and thinks my role in PercyL should be
transformed; that I should become gentle as a dove.
Wise, good old friend, certainly a valued contributor to what Charles
Taylor would call my "web of interlocutors" ("Sources of the self, the
making of the modern identity," Harvard, 1989, page references later, if
requested), this is the closest thing to a good confession I can manage.
In what follows, I shall refer to Jim Woods as Rev. Woods since he recently
mentioned preaching a Pentecostal Sermon (on the language of the TMI
hearings? well, well, well).
My initial encounter with Rev. Woods in this space was his derisive (or
perhaps, dovelike, I should say "negative") response to my suggestion that
a key theme of Thanatos Syndrome was its emphasis the loss of a capacity
for genuine inter-subjectivity in the unwitting victims of Project Blue
Boy. Of course, it's perfectly obvious to any careful reader of the
novel that pronounced incapacity for normal conversation (acerbic,
adversarial, gentle, charming) is the first thing to get the attention of
Dr. Tom More.
Rev. Woods, I assume, was upset because I further asserted one does not
need to read St. Augustine or believe in God, to understand, appreciate,
and champion the importance of normal conversation (acerbic, adversarial,
gentle, charming) for the maturation and shaping of human moral
intelligence. My assertion, pace Jimbo, is completely unproblematic.
Owen Flanagan (Self Expressions, Oxford, 1996) is in complete agreement
with Charles Taylor's emphasis upon the communitarian, interlocutory,
narrative aspects of human moral agency, but in complete DISagreement with
Taylor's further identification of "strong evaluation" rooted in theism as
an equally necessary condition of human moral agency. Flanagan's postion
is coherent and intelligent. If one is genuinely interested in the place
of views such as those of Percy and Taylor in American life, one should
welcome the challenge of developing a Percyean response to Flanagan.
It is not, I hope, the case that membership and participation in PercyL is
conditional on membership in the choir of Rev. Wood's parish.
I assume that Rev. Woods and the members of PercyL are as capable of
discussing issues concerning naturalism, romanticism and theism as calmly
as the sophomores who take my class on Neurobiology and Narrative. I
thought Rev. Woods' response to my queries quite intemperate, and, with no
personal knowledge of the man, responded as if he were a rude colleague
(which I certainly continue to consider him to be). ((I don't consider
Paul Toth rude, albeit he does seem to have a mild attention deficit.))
Please pardon a minute digression on Rev. Woods' phrase "you will find his
(Manier's) membership has SUBORNED your efforts" (addressed to the list
manager as if the list were Donovan Hall's private property). It is a
tiny issue, of no interest to a dove, that acerbic, adversarial behavior
is not an effective strategy for "subornation", an activity requiring
stealth, secrecy and deceit, inducing a target into illegal activity. Were
I not bound by the rules of the new gentility, I would suggest Rev. Woods
should leave more room for dictionaries, and less for the pocket version of
Roget, near his computer.
TO THE POINTS:
1. On the charge of acerbic and adversarial...
Nolo contendere. Guilty as charged.
2. On the charge of "driving away those who do not share his views" ...
NOT GUILTY. ... sounds like academic malpractice imputing
incompetence or
malevolent intent. If the list is, in fact, a tea party, I'll
shut up and watch my
betters cavort in veritatis splendor.
3. On the charge that Manier has displayed "contempt" for Walker Percy and
those who find Percy's work useful in literary, philosophical, or
theological contexts...
The allegation and the prosecutor are, once again, in need of a
lexicon or a
logic text. Contempt implies incompetence or intent. Acerbic,
adversarial behavior is not, of itself, contemptuous. The purpose of
adversarial rhetoric is to emphasize the deficiencies of views one
rejects.
If such emphasis causes negative emotional consequences for a
conversational
partner (e.g., feeling stupid), I plead the principle of double
effect.
NOT GUILTY! In fact, I joined this list because of my profound
admiration for
the relevance of Walker Percy's work to my own efforts to
understand the
complex interaction of neurobiology and narrative, brain and mind,
as well as
naturalism, romanticism and theism in the making of the modern
identity.
CLOSING ARGUMENT(ATIVE CONFESSION).
I am a grumpy old man. I demand careful scholarship of all highschool
graduates who cross my path. I understand that rhetorical emphasis upon
the deficiencies of the views/arguments of others can be
counter-productive. I may well be guilty of imbalance in my execution of
the ancient admonition, "Be ye wise as serpents and gentle as doves."
I will strive for gentility and not mere reciprocity. I will study the
uses of irony and strive to save the distinction of satire and sarcasm.
I am genuinely interested in being a productive member of PercyL. My
monetary contribution to FRIENDS, as well as my criticism of parts of the
subsequent response, were both unconditional efforts on my part to be a
productive member of PercyL.
I am unrepentant on one basic point. I reserve the right to heckle any
sermon preached in my presence.
If that reservation is incompatible with the criteria for membership and
participation in PercyL, please explain that to me in language which does
not presume that this group is a mere thing that can be owned.
If it is just another privately owned club, please tell me, so I can quit.
ez ed