From karey at charter.net Tue Oct 8 20:23:09 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:23:09 -0400 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: <001601c25db1$a53c9240$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D863F41.D70A596E@ttacs.ttu.edu> <001201c25dec$eef47b60$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <00a601c25dee$2e8653b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D875ACE.F98E982D@ttacs.ttu.edu> Message-ID: <005301c26f2a$0bbadb60$0301000a@AFAC955012> I have several questions/thoughts, the first couple not related to Ken's insights below, the next are: (1) Did anyone go to the Percy Symposium? How was it? I couldn't make it, just wondering. Hopefully I'll make it next year... (2) I did make it to Loyola Univ. to take a peek at their Percy archives...just curious. If you note on the Percy Internet Project it has a thoroughly detailed and itemized list of the Chapel Hill collection, and nothing listed for what Loyola has, just that Loyola has something. I realized when I got there that that's because LOYOLA doesn't know what Loyola has. Apparently Patrick Samway gave them a bunch of stuff about four years ago, and it has yet to be (organized? archived? catalogued? not sure of correct term). Arthur the Archivist escorted me through some of it, and there was some interesting stuff in the whole mish-mash of mush...including a signed and dedicated book by Ken Ketner...(!) Lots of newspaper clippings, multiple editions, letters, "ephemera," but all of it closely guarded by our friendly archivist, who is, it turns out, not really the archivist. She (the real Percy archivist) died a month ago, surely a bad (or perhaps blessed) fate for her, but definitely not a good thing for Loyola's Percy archives. Anyway, among all this, there is a wonderful framed picture of Percy in a "morning suit" (isn't that what it's called -- a Southern tuxedo for morning weddings or special dressy occasions or some such) that I thought would be great on the Percy Internet Project site (Henry Mills, are you listening?). However, my guide through the inferno, who was reluctant to even admit me into the inner sanctum, would doubtless not even consider releasing a copy of it to the likes of me...perhaps someone with more clout could make a case for it. (3) Ken, this information (below) has been really helpful, invaluable really, and all that quite apart from its entertainment value. I truly appreciate it. I have a million billion zillion questions to ask about all this stuff, but will restrain myself and not impede on your no doubt busy and important schedule as I imagine most of these questions will be answered in my future readings of Peirce, your book, et al. However, there are some questions that might not be, and I'd be interested in your insights on the following: Percy writes on page 322 of 2000 edition of Message in the Bottle regarding how men's [and women's] minds usually hit on the correct principle after only a few guesses, that "Peirce's own explanation of the extraordinary success...is founded in his own allegiance to philosophical realism, the belief that general principles actually operate in nature apart from men's minds and that men's minds are nevertheless capable of knowing these principles. Peirce hazards the guess that, since 'the reasoning mind is a product of the universe,' it is natural to suppose that the laws and uniformities that prevail throughout the universe should also be 'incorporated in his own being' (Peirce)." Percy responds, "Maybe so. This is only speculation, however interesting, about why abduction works," and he goes on to philosophize about the theory of abduction itself. With that, he dismisses it. However, this seems to me to be a really crucial point, the crux of the whole issue, and a key (or certainly one of the keys) to the nature of man and Percy's "radical anthropology." I'm wondering if Percy dismisses this due to his medical/scientific background (this is too "out there" for Percy, like astrology or some such which he clearly disparages). Or he just overlooks it, for whatever reason. The other thing, and I mention this at risk of revealing my lack of knowledge of Peirce (yet), is that it seems somewhat similar to Jung's synchronicity. This seems to me to be the "third way" ... after mere cause-effect behaviorism, and after Descartes' dualism (both rejected by Percy), then Jung offers a viable alternative. In fact, I had thought Percy mentioned that and went all the way back through Message in the Bottle to find it, and couldn't, and am now wondering if I just imagined that somewhere. Does anyone know if Percy ever refers to Jung? (4) I found the essays you referred to on the Peirce site; would you recommend anything else on the site (the introductions perhaps?) (5) How can one obtain an issue of Doubletake? (6) I'm giving a paper on Percy at the Conference on Christianity and Literature, St. Francis College, Oct. 26, New York....no special insights, just an attempt to summarize for my own purposes, his "semiotic...." Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenneth Ketner To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:39 PM Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing Yes, Percy wrote the essay in DOUBLETAKE MAGAZINE probably about 1960. I lay unpublished, probably because it appeared incomplete. I began studying it and wrapping my brain around it. One day while driving to work (I get some good thoughts that way) it hit me that if one adds the three words now at the end of the essay as published in DOUBLETAKE, it is complete. So I discussed this with Mrs. Percy and after consideration she offered my edition of the piece to Walker's friend, Robert Coles, the main man of DOUBLETAKE, and so it was published. It is significant for Percy scholarship because it shows the early and strong influence of Peirce's Semeiotic (not contemporary semiotics -- there's a vast difference) in Walker's approach. You employ guessing all the time -- each of us does -- so we are all masters of it. To learn more about it, observe yourself when guessing and compare notes with other guessers. Guessing produces hypotheses -- statements of possibility. Just don't fall in love with your hypotheses. They are for torturing, not for loving. Those that survive the torture are the components of objective thought (which some call science). Some survivors get re-tortured as the years go by, after new evidence or new methods appear. Hence a healthy (open-minded and level-headed) guesser is what we call a rational person. In Peirce, guessing is not intuition. For Peirce, 'intuition' has at least two senses, and like 'sign' (which has at least 2 senses), one must be careful which sense is in action at the time. 'Intuition1' isCartesian foundationalism, there are priviledged and certain basic foundations of knowledge. Peirce wrecked Descartes in his series of 3 essays: Questions Concerning Certain faculties Claimed for Man, Some Consequences of Four Incapacities, and Grounds of Validity of the Laws of Logic (these three in effect consititute a 3 chapter book, and they mark a major fault-line in the history of thought, a location where the old ends and something new begins). 'Intuition2' refers to observational method in logic and mathematics; it is a fallible (noncertain) and experimental approach to understanding the methods employed in mathematical and logical research. 'Sign1' is that which represents an object to an interpretant. "His wave was a sign of greeting." The object was an intent to greet, the sign of that intent was the wave, to the interpretant (some other person intended as the recipient of the intent to greet). Sign1 is best dropped and replaced with 'representamen' to avoid confusion. 'Sign2' is an entire triadic sign relation: in the above example of greeting, it is the nonreducible triadic relation among the greeter's intent, the wave, and the recipient. This is the 'sign' of Peirce's Theory of Signs, or Semiotic. (Semeiotic spoken as see-my-OH-tick is terminologically and linguistically correct, and honors prior scientists in the tradition such as Locke or the Greek physicians, whereas semiotics is a mixed bag arbitrarily strung together; compare semeiotic with logic with rhetoric with the german semiotik with the french semiotique, not with the uncontrolled tendency in english to add ics on everything in sight.) Peirce never used a triangle to represent a sign relation (because on his well articulated approach, that would represent a sum of three dyadic relations, which he clearly proved cannot constitute a triadic relation); instead he represented triadic relations as a large dot with three lines emerging from it (see my essay in THIEF OF PEIRCE at page 213). The categories are nothing but types of relational forms: Firstness = all those relations whose external form is that of a monadic relation; Secondness = all those relations whose external form is that of a dyadic relation; Thirdness = all those relations whose external form is that of a dyadic relation. The categories are complete, because the nonreduction theorem that triadic relations cannot be constructed from dyadic relations was established by Peirce and recently re-proven at the highest level of mathematical rigor by Robert Burch (again see my stuff in THIEF); one aspect of the nonreduction theorem is that triadic relations can be used to construct all other relation types. ALL TOGETHER NOW, SAY IT -- See-my-OH-tick is the main part of Prag-MAT-i-siz-em. Once again, where your brain goes your lips will follow, ALL TOGETHER NOW, anda won anda twoa.... > "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > > Ken, > > I, too, appreciated the definition and it makes better sense now. As > I was reading Percy, I was getting the impression that "abduction" was > "intuition" -- how different is that from "guessing?" How would you > differentiate the two, or would you? > > Second question: did PERCY publish in Doubletake in Winter 2002? > (Hmmm...he's been busy in the afterlife, hasn't he?) Or is this a > chapter from his unpublished manuscript "Symbol and Existence"? I saw > that it is at UNC-Chapel Hill and wondered if it was worth the 8 hour > drive to go look at it...has anyone read it/seen it? > > The reason I ask is I think the dissertation is going to be on this > topic after all -- Percy's semiotics, as it relates to Peirce, et > al...really fascinating stuff, don't you think? So I'll be reading > your book(s) (Ken) and may have lots more questions but I'll try to > keep them to a minimum! > > Karey > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: James Piat > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:52 PM > Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing > > Dear Ken, > > I thoroughly enjoyed your brief and CLEAR account of abduction, > deduction > and inference. If you have the time and interest I would also love > for > you to give a brief account of Peirce's categories and indicate how > they tie > in with these forms of reasoning. > > BTW, I read your HIS GLASSY ESSENCE and found it a delight. What I > liked > most about it was that Peirce's ideas (often in his own words) were > selected > and organized in way that assisted me in following their natural > (historical > and logical) development. And you did not preach at me but instead > concentrated on presenting his ideas plainly, carefully and in context > so > that I could begin to understand them and draw my own conclusions as > to > their significance. The love and respect you have for your topic > shines > through and I think your book will be prized most by those share your > affection. A credit to your subject! > > Thanks, > Jim Piat > > -- > An archive of all list discussion is available at > . > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -- > An archive of all list discussion is available at > . > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -- Kenneth L Ketner Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 806 742 3128 Office email: b9oky at ttacs.ttu.edu Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net -- An archive of all list discussion is available at . Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b9oky at TTACS.TTU.EDU Wed Oct 9 12:02:42 2002 From: b9oky at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Kenneth Ketner) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:02:42 -0500 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: <001601c25db1$a53c9240$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D863F41.D70A596E@ttacs.ttu.edu> <001201c25dec$eef47b60$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <00a601c25dee$2e8653b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D875ACE.F98E982D@ttacs.ttu.edu> <005301c26f2a$0bbadb60$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <3DA45322.CFF8D479@ttacs.ttu.edu> Karey, Yes, the reasons why abduction is possible are quite interesting, and a lesser-known but relly important part of Peirce's approach. You or any of the Percy gang that wants to pursue the Peirce connection to Percy should consider coming over the the Institute here. We gottalatta relevant stuff, and some guys who work in it constantly who are willing to yak and assist. My impression is that Percy had a rather tightly bounded set of problems that he was working, and it took him some time to admit a new set of relevant material into that fold. So in regard to the reason abduction is possible, he may have seen the direction that went in Peirce, but resolved for the moment at least that it was not of direct interest to his current research focus. Just a guess. The first abductive fallacy is falling in love with your hypothesis instead of testing it severely. The address I have for Doubletake magazine is 55 Davis Square, Somerville, MA 02144. > "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > > I have several questions/thoughts, the first couple not related > to Ken's insights below, the next are: > > (1) Did anyone go to the Percy Symposium? How was it? I couldn't > make it, just wondering. Hopefully I'll make it next year... > > (2) I did make it to Loyola Univ. to take a peek at their Percy > archives...just curious. If you note on the Percy Internet Project it > has a thoroughly detailed and itemized list of the Chapel Hill > collection, and nothing listed for what Loyola has, just that Loyola > has something. I realized when I got there that that's because LOYOLA > doesn't know what Loyola has. Apparently Patrick Samway gave them a > bunch of stuff about four years ago, and it has yet to be (organized? > archived? catalogued? not sure of correct term). Arthur the > Archivist escorted me through some of it, and there was some > interesting stuff in the whole mish-mash of mush...including a signed > and dedicated book by Ken Ketner...(!) Lots of newspaper clippings, > multiple editions, letters, "ephemera," but all of it closely guarded > by our friendly archivist, who is, it turns out, not really the > archivist. She (the real Percy archivist) died a month ago, surely a > bad (or perhaps blessed) fate for her, but definitely not a good thing > for Loyola's Percy archives. > > Anyway, among all this, there is a wonderful framed picture of Percy > in a "morning suit" (isn't that what it's called -- a Southern tuxedo > for morning weddings or special dressy occasions or some such) that I > thought would be great on the Percy Internet Project site (Henry > Mills, are you listening?). However, my guide through the inferno, > who was reluctant to even admit me into the inner sanctum, would > doubtless not even consider releasing a copy of it to the likes of > me...perhaps someone with more clout could make a case for it. > > (3) Ken, this information (below) has been really helpful, invaluable > really, and all that quite apart from its entertainment value. I > truly appreciate it. I have a million billion zillion questions to > ask about all this stuff, but will restrain myself and not impede on > your no doubt busy and important schedule as I imagine most of these > questions will be answered in my future readings of Peirce, your book, > et al. However, there are some questions that might not be, and I'd > be interested in your insights on the following: > > Percy writes on page 322 of 2000 edition of Message in the Bottle > regarding how men's [and women's] minds usually hit on the correct > principle after only a few guesses, that "Peirce's own explanation of > the extraordinary success...is founded in his own allegiance to > philosophical realism, the belief that general principles actually > operate in nature apart from men's minds and that men's minds are > nevertheless capable of knowing these principles. Peirce hazards the > guess that, since 'the reasoning mind is a product of the universe,' > it is natural to suppose that the laws and uniformities that prevail > throughout the universe should also be 'incorporated in his own being' > (Peirce)." > > Percy responds, "Maybe so. This is only speculation, however > interesting, about why abduction works," and he goes on to > philosophize about the theory of abduction itself. > > With that, he dismisses it. However, this seems to me to be a really > crucial point, the crux of the whole issue, and a key (or certainly > one of the keys) to the nature of man and Percy's "radical > anthropology." I'm wondering if Percy dismisses this due to his > medical/scientific background (this is too "out there" for Percy, like > astrology or some such which he clearly disparages). Or he just > overlooks it, for whatever reason. > > The other thing, and I mention this at risk of revealing my lack of > knowledge of Peirce (yet), is that it seems somewhat similar to Jung's > synchronicity. This seems to me to be the "third way" ... after mere > cause-effect behaviorism, and after Descartes' dualism (both rejected > by Percy), then Jung offers a viable alternative. In fact, I had > thought Percy mentioned that and went all the way back through Message > in the Bottle to find it, and couldn't, and am now wondering if I just > imagined that somewhere. Does anyone know if Percy ever refers to > Jung? > > (4) I found the essays you referred to on the Peirce site; would you > recommend anything else on the site (the introductions perhaps?) > > (5) How can one obtain an issue of Doubletake? > > (6) I'm giving a paper on Percy at the Conference on Christianity and > Literature, St. Francis College, Oct. 26, New York....no special > insights, just an attempt to summarize for my own purposes, his > "semiotic...." > > Karey > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kenneth Ketner > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:39 PM > Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing > > Yes, Percy wrote the essay in DOUBLETAKE MAGAZINE probably about 1960. > I > lay unpublished, probably because it appeared incomplete. I began > studying it and wrapping my brain around it. One day while driving to > work (I get some good thoughts that way) it hit me that if one adds > the > three words now at the end of the essay as published in DOUBLETAKE, it > is complete. So I discussed this with Mrs. Percy and after > consideration > she offered my edition of the piece to Walker's friend, Robert Coles, > the main man of DOUBLETAKE, and so it was published. It is significant > for Percy scholarship because it shows the early and strong influence > of > Peirce's Semeiotic (not contemporary semiotics -- there's a vast > difference) in Walker's approach. > > You employ guessing all the time -- each of us does -- so we are all > masters of it. To learn more about it, observe yourself when guessing > and compare notes with other guessers. Guessing produces hypotheses -- > statements of possibility. Just don't fall in love with your > hypotheses. > They are for torturing, not for loving. Those that survive the torture > are the components of objective thought (which some call science). > Some > survivors get re-tortured as the years go by, after new evidence or > new > methods appear. Hence a healthy (open-minded and level-headed) guesser > is what we call a rational person. > > In Peirce, guessing is not intuition. For Peirce, 'intuition' has at > least two senses, and like 'sign' (which has at least 2 senses), one > must be careful which sense is in action at the time. 'Intuition1' > isCartesian foundationalism, there are priviledged and certain basic > foundations of knowledge. Peirce wrecked Descartes in his series of 3 > essays: Questions Concerning Certain faculties Claimed for Man, Some > Consequences of Four Incapacities, and Grounds of Validity of the Laws > of Logic (these three in effect consititute a 3 chapter book, and they > mark a major fault-line in the history of thought, a location where > the > old ends and something new begins). 'Intuition2' refers to > observational > method in logic and mathematics; it is a fallible (noncertain) and > experimental approach to understanding the methods employed in > mathematical and logical research. > > 'Sign1' is that which represents an object to an interpretant. "His > wave > was a sign of greeting." The object was an intent to greet, the sign > of > that intent was the wave, to the interpretant (some other person > intended as the recipient of the intent to greet). Sign1 is best > dropped > and replaced with 'representamen' to avoid confusion. > > 'Sign2' is an entire triadic sign relation: in the above example of > greeting, it is the nonreducible triadic relation among the greeter's > intent, the wave, and the recipient. This is the 'sign' of Peirce's > Theory of Signs, or Semiotic. (Semeiotic spoken as see-my-OH-tick is > terminologically and linguistically correct, and honors prior > scientists > in the tradition such as Locke or the Greek physicians, whereas > semiotics is a mixed bag arbitrarily strung together; compare > semeiotic > with logic with rhetoric with the german semiotik with the french > semiotique, not with the uncontrolled tendency in english to add ics > on > everything in sight.) Peirce never used a triangle to represent a sign > relation (because on his well articulated approach, that would > represent > a sum of three dyadic relations, which he clearly proved cannot > constitute a triadic relation); instead he represented triadic > relations > as a large dot with three lines emerging from it (see my essay in > THIEF > OF PEIRCE at page 213). The categories are nothing but types of > relational forms: Firstness = all those relations whose external form > is > that of a monadic relation; Secondness = all those relations whose > external form is that of a dyadic relation; Thirdness = all those > relations whose external form is that of a dyadic relation. The > categories are complete, because the nonreduction theorem that triadic > relations cannot be constructed from dyadic relations was established > by > Peirce and recently re-proven at the highest level of mathematical > rigor > by Robert Burch (again see my stuff in THIEF); one aspect of the > nonreduction theorem is that triadic relations can be used to > construct > all other relation types. > > ALL TOGETHER NOW, SAY IT -- See-my-OH-tick is the main part of > Prag-MAT-i-siz-em. > > Once again, where your brain goes your lips will follow, ALL TOGETHER > NOW, anda won anda twoa.... > > > "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > > > > Ken, > > > > I, too, appreciated the definition and it makes better sense now. > As > > I was reading Percy, I was getting the impression that "abduction" > was > > "intuition" -- how different is that from "guessing?" How would you > > differentiate the two, or would you? > > > > Second question: did PERCY publish in Doubletake in Winter 2002? > > (Hmmm...he's been busy in the afterlife, hasn't he?) Or is this a > > chapter from his unpublished manuscript "Symbol and Existence"? I > saw > > that it is at UNC-Chapel Hill and wondered if it was worth the 8 > hour > > drive to go look at it...has anyone read it/seen it? > > > > The reason I ask is I think the dissertation is going to be on this > > topic after all -- Percy's semiotics, as it relates to Peirce, et > > al...really fascinating stuff, don't you think? So I'll be reading > > your book(s) (Ken) and may have lots more questions but I'll try to > > keep them to a minimum! > > > > Karey > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: James Piat > > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:52 PM > > Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing > > > > Dear Ken, > > > > I thoroughly enjoyed your brief and CLEAR account of abduction, > > deduction > > and inference. If you have the time and interest I would also > love > > for > > you to give a brief account of Peirce's categories and indicate how > > they tie > > in with these forms of reasoning. > > > > BTW, I read your HIS GLASSY ESSENCE and found it a delight. What > I > > liked > > most about it was that Peirce's ideas (often in his own words) were > > selected > > and organized in way that assisted me in following their natural > > (historical > > and logical) development. And you did not preach at me but instead > > concentrated on presenting his ideas plainly, carefully and in > context > > so > > that I could begin to understand them and draw my own conclusions as > > to > > their significance. The love and respect you have for your topic > > shines > > through and I think your book will be prized most by those share > your > > affection. A credit to your subject! > > > > Thanks, > > Jim Piat > > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > > . > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > > . > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . > > -- > Kenneth L Ketner > Paul Whitfield Horn Professor > Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism > Texas Tech University > Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 > 806 742 3128 > Office email: b9oky at ttacs.ttu.edu > Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com > Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net > Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net > > -- > An archive of all list discussion is available at > . > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -- > An archive of all list discussion is available at > . > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -- Kenneth L Ketner Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 806 742 3128 Office email: b9oky at ttacs.ttu.edu Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net From dabeck at iupui.edu Wed Oct 9 13:26:11 2002 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:26:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lancelot Message-ID: I don't want to change the thread, but a question came up in class today, and I wanted to hear some other opinions. We are discussing Lancelot. I usually focus on more of the philosophical aspects (i.e. existentialism--Kierkegaard and Marcel) and don't go into much detail about the Dantean and Arthurian aspect. But we were talking about the Arthurian legend today, and one student asked if the number of Fr. John's responses had any significance (yes-12 times; no 1 time). It's been so long since I've read those stories, I couldn't really answer him (I asked to do some exploring as a possible paper topic). He wanted to know how many knights were there. If it is 13, he said, the 12 yes's could represent the "faithful" and the NO could represent Lancelot (who betrayed Arthur). Is there any plausibility here? I know that in my research, I don't remember anything about it. (Of course, I could do some more research myself but thought that some who know more of Arthur than I might have a quick answer.) Thanks. David Beck "Eternity is in the present. Eternity is in the palm of the hand. Eternity is a seed of fire, whose sudden roots break barriers that keep my heart from being an abyss." - Thomas Merton From apridgen at pinehurst.net Wed Oct 9 15:27:16 2002 From: apridgen at pinehurst.net (Allen Pridgen) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:27:16 -0400 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: <001601c25db1$a53c9240$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D863F41.D70A596E@ttacs.ttu.edu> <001201c25dec$eef47b60$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <00a601c25dee$2e8653b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D875ACE.F98E982D@ttacs.ttu.edu> <005301c26f2a$0bbadb60$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <3DA48315.F5E5568F@pinehurst.net> Karey, You can find in my book, Walker Percy's Sacramental Landscapes: The Search in the Desert, information about Percy's knowledge of Jung and what some of the critics have said about the Jungian elements in Percy's work. Of course, see my index and notes. Allen Pridgen "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: 7bit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From BMclaughlin at nazarene.org Wed Oct 9 15:31:40 2002 From: BMclaughlin at nazarene.org (Bryon McLaughlin) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:31:40 -0500 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing Message-ID: Without giving away the book, which I am very interested in and would like to purchase, how extensive and keen was Percy's interest in Jung? Bryon McLaughlin -----Original Message----- From: Allen Pridgen [mailto:apridgen at pinehurst.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:27 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing Karey, You can find in my book, Walker Percy's Sacramental Landscapes: The Search in the Desert, information about Percy's knowledge of Jung and what some of the critics have said about the Jungian elements in Percy's work. Of course, see my index and notes. Allen Pridgen "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) Encoding: 7bit -- An archive of all list discussion is available at . Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sldye at bluegrass.org Wed Oct 9 16:10:40 2002 From: sldye at bluegrass.org (Steve Dye) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:10:40 -0400 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: <001601c25db1$a53c9240$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D863F41.D70A596E@ttacs.ttu.edu> <001201c25dec$eef47b60$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <00a601c25dee$2e8653b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D875ACE.F98E982D@ttacs.ttu.edu> <005301c26f2a$0bbadb60$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3DA48315.F5E5568F@pinehurst.net> Message-ID: <018301c26fcf$f1ac27a0$e512a8c0@d247006> This is a very dumb question, but is there a "definitive" bibliography of books written about or related to Percy somewhere out there? I keep coming across piecemeal these wonderfully titled books like yours that sound fascinating but I didn't know existed...thanks. Steve Dye Lexington KY ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Pridgen To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:27 PM Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing Karey, You can find in my book, Walker Percy's Sacramental Landscapes: The Search in the Desert, information about Percy's knowledge of Jung and what some of the critics have said about the Jungian elements in Percy's work. Of course, see my index and notes. Allen Pridgen "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) Encoding: 7bit -- An archive of all list discussion is available at . Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apridgen at pinehurst.net Wed Oct 9 16:29:24 2002 From: apridgen at pinehurst.net (Allen Pridgen) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:29:24 -0400 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: Message-ID: <3DA491A4.23ECD9D4@pinehurst.net> Percy participated in a Jung discussion group in Covington 1976-79. Significant Jungian elements in the last two novels, The Second Coming and Thanatos Syndrome. Allen Bryon McLaughlin wrote: > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: quoted-printable -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apridgen at pinehurst.net Wed Oct 9 16:34:45 2002 From: apridgen at pinehurst.net (Allen Pridgen) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:34:45 -0400 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: <001601c25db1$a53c9240$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D863F41.D70A596E@ttacs.ttu.edu> <001201c25dec$eef47b60$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <00a601c25dee$2e8653b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D875ACE.F98E982D@ttacs.ttu.edu> <005301c26f2a$0bbadb60$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3DA48315.F5E5568F@pinehurst.net> <018301c26fcf$f1ac27a0$e512a8c0@d247006> Message-ID: <3DA492E6.BC3C80B2@pinehurst.net> A new bibliography is needed. A great project for one of you ambitious young Southern literature scholars out there! Steve Dye wrote: > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: quoted-printable From karey at charter.net Wed Oct 9 17:40:45 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:40:45 -0400 Subject: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing References: <001601c25db1$a53c9240$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D863F41.D70A596E@ttacs.ttu.edu> <001201c25dec$eef47b60$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <00a601c25dee$2e8653b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3D875ACE.F98E982D@ttacs.ttu.edu> <005301c26f2a$0bbadb60$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3DA48315.F5E5568F@pinehurst.net> Message-ID: <001101c26fdc$8667c0f0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Thanks!! I will get that...does it talk about Percy's non-fiction references as well? Either way, the book will help, I'm just wondering if Percy actually mentioned what he thought of Jung and synchronicity. KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Pridgen To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:27 PM Subject: [percy-l] Re: Abduction, not kidnapping but guessing Karey, You can find in my book, Walker Percy's Sacramental Landscapes: The Search in the Desert, information about Percy's knowledge of Jung and what some of the critics have said about the Jungian elements in Percy's work. Of course, see my index and notes. Allen Pridgen "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) Encoding: 7bit -- An archive of all list discussion is available at . Visit the Walker Percy Project at . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgobble at email.unc.edu Wed Oct 9 19:21:57 2002 From: mgobble at email.unc.edu (MaryAnne Gobble) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:21:57 -0400 Subject: Lancelot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I hadn't counted the responses before. Could they also represent the apostles? There were technically 13, since they replaced Judas-- MaryAnne Gobble On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 01:26 PM, David Alan Beck wrote: > > I don't want to change the thread, but a question came up in class > today, > and I wanted to hear some other opinions. We are discussing Lancelot. I > usually focus on more of the philosophical aspects (i.e. > existentialism--Kierkegaard and Marcel) and don't go into much detail > about the Dantean and Arthurian aspect. But we were talking about the > Arthurian legend today, and one student asked if the number of Fr. > John's > responses had any significance (yes-12 times; no 1 time). It's been so > long since I've read those stories, I couldn't really answer him (I > asked > to do some exploring as a possible paper topic). He wanted to know how > many knights were there. If it is 13, he said, the 12 yes's could > represent the "faithful" and the NO could represent Lancelot (who > betrayed > Arthur). > Is there any plausibility here? I know that in my research, I don't > remember anything about it. (Of course, I could do some more research > myself but thought that some who know more of Arthur than I might > have a quick answer.) > Thanks. > > David Beck > > "Eternity is in the present. Eternity is in > the palm of the hand. Eternity is a seed of > fire, whose sudden roots break barriers that > keep my heart from being an abyss." > - Thomas Merton > > > > > -- > An archive of all list discussion is available at > . > Visit the Walker Percy Project at . From wriddick at usa.net Tue Oct 15 16:06:26 2002 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:06:26 -0500 Subject: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Message-ID: It appears my old university address was killed sometime this summer, which is OK because I haven't been in very good shape until recently. I just assumed nobody had anything to say since the list had been dark for a while. I tried checking the hypermail archive to see what I missed but it seems to have a blank spot between Sept '01 and Sept '02. Here's the message I sent last week which clued me into my subscription problem. ____________________________________________________ Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I guess rumors of Sylvester Stallone being cast as Binx in an action-packed adaptation of _The Moviegoer_ set in Kabul under the Taliban haven't piqued any interest. I've been pretty sick lately and continue to suffer the slings and arrows of lipid peroxidization, but I've finally cobbled together a treatment which offers light at the end of this tunnel despite the best efforts of the American Dental Association to wallow in ignorance about TMJ and mercury. As a result, I'm finally organized enough to reply to the last post on the list about cognition and language. The July 6th _Economist_ has a review of a book called _The Man Who Lost His Language_ by Sheila Hale, about the effects of strokes and aphasia on how the brain organizes language. Last week, the NYT had a story on self-esteem and criminal behavior. It appears psychologists are finally getting good evidence for selfishness motivating bad behavior and self-esteem being pretty much useless as an analytic category. Maybe this insight will eventually trickle down to the nation's financial regulators and lawmakers. ("It's OK that the numbers didn't add up for the 3rd quarter - but do you FEEL good about them?") http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/health/psychology/01ESTE.html From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 15 17:38:05 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:38:05 -0400 Subject: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: Message-ID: <002b01c27493$25a8a8e0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> > Last week, the NYT had a story on self-esteem and criminal behavior. It > appears psychologists are finally getting good evidence for selfishness > motivating bad behavior and self-esteem being pretty much useless as an > analytic category. Maybe this insight will eventually trickle down to the > nation's financial regulators and lawmakers. ("It's OK that the numbers > didn't add up for the 3rd quarter - but do you FEEL good about them?") Dear Wade, Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better and hope the upswing continues. I've missed your lively commentaries. So -- "good" evidence about "bad" behavior, eh? That's what I love about political science -- first we gather the evidence -- then we hang em. Jim Piat From wriddick at usa.net Thu Oct 17 00:36:47 2002 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:36:47 -0500 Subject: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <002b01c27493$25a8a8e0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> References: Message-ID: >Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better and hope the upswing continues. >I've missed your lively commentaries. Anh, it'll take more than a few puny chemicals to kill me. Er, looking at the guys Bush has put in at HHS, maybe not. He did appoint one of those PG&E expert witnesses of Erin Brochovich fame. Given my weakened bargaining position, I hearby withdraw any and all remarks which might be construed as unduly harsh toward any component of the periodic table. Wade Riddick Thinking of dropping out of the NJ Senate race myself...